|
What about a paladin of a LN deity who believes in using the bodies of the dead to redeem the souls of the wicked in the afterlife?
Animate dead doesn't touch the souls in the afterlife (wicked or otherwise). It just makes corpses get up and haul luggage.
It'a a neat concept, but this isn't the spell for it.
In Dark Ages of Camelot, I played a Norse character whose father and brother had died when their home collapsed during a blizzard. By Norse standards, this was a 'straw death,' since they died to a freak accident and not 'like men,' on the battlefield, and so she learned the ways of the Spiritmaster, a class that served Hel (goddess of the dishonored dead) and pulled spirits out of Nifleheim to fight the enemies of Midgard. Her 'hook' was that she was seeking to find and call only the spirits of her family, to give them a second chance at dying in battle, and earning the right to go to Valhalla. [Since the game randomly produced spirits when you summoned, a kobold, dwarf, norseman or troll, I would cast over and over again until I got a norseman, just for the flavor of the character.]
It's a neat concept, but not one that D&D / PF currently accomodates.
Dead bodies are icky and souls that aren't in bodies are evil (or become so quickly), so the concept of communing with good spirits, or redeeming people, or having ancestors that wish you well from the beyond and don't want to eat your face, just doesn't really work in this setting.
This might be a bit far fetched but if your PC's are supposed to the protagonists of the campaign then how about you (as the GM) encouraging them to act like the "HEROES THEIR SUPPOSED TO BE" instead of make believe mass murderer/rapists. Just food for thought.
|
That sounds like a wonderful compromise. You get your undead bodyguard, don't cast evil, and he can't attack you for it (since your Eidolon is your alignment - not evil).
To be fair the Paladin doesn't get to just know that a spell is evil unless he's detecting at you while you cast it (and that's a bit iffy). Most paladins have a very low int to cmplement the fact that they infrequently get ranks in spellcraft.
I recall one time I was playing a CG cleric (Tritherion in Grehawk IIRC) and me and a paladin buddy were working to oust a kobald infestation of the sewers. We were in somewhat dire straights with the dice turning against us and I used my domain spell to cast Protection from Law on him. Just keep telling him that your casting defensive wards and he's good.
Also as a paladin I sometimes find it helpful to not gain ranks in spellcraft. An similarly when we arrive back in town I head off to the temple to pray and give the more chaotically minded players time to scheme their next heist that they cheerfully keep me unaware of. Its great fun.
"Just what hair brained scheme has made the Count de'Oley so angry that his clockwork guards are tearing the town apart looking for you"
"Did you know that he's a vile man who murders children and uses their souls to fuel his clockworks?"
"Fine. Lets put the monster down, but then you and I will have to chat."
To be fair the Paladin doesn't get to just know that a spell is evil unless he's detecting at you while you cast it (and that's a bit iffy). Most paladins have a very low int to cmplement the fact that they infrequently get ranks in spellcraft.
That sounds like a wonderful compromise. You get your undead bodyguard, don't cast evil, and he can't attack you for it (since your Eidolon is your alignment - not evil).
While this is true, you have a walking undead minion. Even if the spell or the minion was not evil {they are} they are always thought of as evil.
Not just by the paladin but by most people.
Think for a moment the reaction you have riding into town on a dead horse... creepy
It's only creepy if he starts beating it.
To be fair the Paladin doesn't get to just know that a spell is evil unless he's detecting at you while you cast it (and that's a bit iffy). Most paladins have a very low int to cmplement the fact that they infrequently get ranks in spellcraft.
That sounds like a wonderful compromise. You get your undead bodyguard, don't cast evil, and he can't attack you for it (since your Eidolon is your alignment - not evil).While this is true, you have a walking undead minion. Even if the spell or the minion was not evil {they are} they are always thought of as evil.
Not just by the paladin but by most people.
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
This might be a bit far fetched but if your PC's are supposed to the protagonists of the campaign then how about you (as the GM) encouraging them to act like the "HEROES THEIR SUPPOSED TO BE" instead of make believe mass murderer/rapists. Just food for thought.
Protagonist does not mean good person.
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
Most people are the ones who send word to the guard, the spell casters, the temples, the common folk and adventures that you are walking around with an undead minion.
Which also makes it hard to rent a room, buy supplies, get healing or many other items a town brings. So you eather 1: kill them all like bandits and take the stuff: 2: use fear and intimation to take their stuff
Which again brings us to the Guard, spellcaster, holy orders and adventures wanting to bring down an evil threat to the good people.
To be fair I don't think we've heard anything about the party make-up, so either one could be odd man out. Also evil campaigns and characters can be quite fun. One of my favorite characters is my LE halfling poisonmaster.
One day I'll get to have Papa Midnight and Mistress Luna's Circus of Horror and Fantasy...
/looks at thread for the 5th time....
/debates jumping into ANOTHER one...
What the heck...
1) Evil campaigns MAY be fun. Myself, I have 'little' interest in one... I prefer to be the hero of the stories. (though I am looking forward to playing a creepy/scary Jekyll/Hyde alchemist in the future...
HOWEVER... If your playing an Evil campaign, do NOT let a Paladin in.
2) if the Campaign is not designated as 'evil'...
STOP
BEING
EVIL!!!!
If you can't get along with a Paladin in the group, because he's 'stopping all the fun'... You must have a twisted version of FUN.
If the Paladin is absolutely against something... ALL the 'Good' characters... and about HALF the Neutral characters should be against it TOO!
Either the Paladin is playing his character too well... or the OTHER 'good' characters are NOT...
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
That's probably what Dr. Frankenstein thought until they burned down his castle...
|
|
Yes, undead minions are clearly going to be a problem. Whether or not they should be evil is a good topic (personally I say not evil to mindless undead), but the base rules are very clear on it. OTOH, you can still do some unkind things without the group paladin being aware of it. Things like Infernal Healing, Symbol of Pain, Contagion, and Protection from Good.
Just because there's a paladin about doesn't mean you can't get your bad boy on. Ya just gota be a bit subtle (not a lot, just a bit).
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
Most people are the ones who send word to the guard, the spell casters, the temples, the common folk and adventures that you are walking around with an undead minion.
Which also makes it hard to rent a room, buy supplies, get healing or many other items a town brings. So you eather 1: kill them all like bandits and take the stuff: 2: use fear and intimation to take their stuff
Which again brings us to the Guard, spellcaster, holy orders and adventures wanting to bring down an evil threat to the good people.
Okay, then they can take down the Horror of Nighthall by themselves too. Oh wait.
Think for a moment the reaction you have riding into town on a dead horse... creepy
It's only creepy if he starts beating it.
The horse, or to the horse?
Nausea bags are in the seat pocket in front of you.
That's probably what Dr. Frankenstein thought until they burned down his castle...
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
Dr. Frankenstein didn't have Fireball.
It does not matter if ya can cast fireball, you are not all powerful. A mob will tear you apart given time, you have no where to sleep, nothing to eat..Good luck with that 8 hours of rest thing or components for those spells you have not rest enough to cast.
You tick off enough people you got a few options
1: Take over and be dictator
2: Kill them all
3: move on
4: die.
Okay, then they can take down the Horror of Nighthall by themselves too. Oh wait.
You are the one being evil, do not be shocked when the good folks come after you. Mr.Horror of the night and your undead evil minions.
Yes, undead minions are clearly going to be a problem. Whether or not they should be evil is a good topic (personally I say not evil to mindless undead), but the base rules are very clear on it.
Just out of curiosity, (i.e. not trying to stir up a different debate...) but what exactly is 'mindless undead'?
Skeletons... zombies... things like that, STILL try to actively kill all living things around them when left unattended right? Isn't that half of what you find in random dungeon crawls?
Just because they are overpowered by powerful priests and wizards and forced to do their biding... doesn't necessarly make them 'neutral'
undead are generally fueld by hatred for the living... and killing for hatred should still be evil.
Dr. Frankenstein didn't have Fireball.That's probably what Dr. Frankenstein thought until they burned down his castle...
Just to clarify, are "most people" armed to the teeth and saving the world? Otherwise, they can go take their bunched-up panties elsewhere.
Yeah. And those peasants didn't have longbows, crossbows and halbards. Just pitchforks and torches. They didn't have any military training and just a couple of cops (watch I'd call them). And no spellcasting village Clerics / Adepts. Maybe more help on tap. Don't put down the capability of a lot of low level people. Armies are made up of them, not high level types. You might kill a lot of them of course. That's when the higher level types swing by and fulfill their obligations. Being the BBEG of the adventure without proper preparation (and a lot of levels under the belt) usually ends badly.
It does not matter if ya can cast fireball, you are not all powerful. A mob will tear you apart given time, you have no where to sleep, nothing to eat..Good luck with that 8 hours of rest thing or components for those spells you have not rest enough to cast.
You tick off enough people you got a few options
1: Take over and be dictator
2: Kill them all
3: move on
4: die.You are the one being evil, do not be shocked when the good folks come after you. Mr.Horror of the night and your undead evil minions.
Okay, then they can take down the Horror of Nighthall by themselves too. Oh wait.
Well, if it comes to that, id have to wonder where all these other adventurers were when I was off killing dragons. And then id leave the prejudiced townsfolk to fend for themselves. You want to be saved? Guess what, beggars can't be choosers.
Eh ya want to play the evil guy, then you take the endless hoards of goodly folks trying to put you down.
|
|
Just out of curiosity, (i.e. not trying to stir up a different debate...) but what exactly is 'mindless undead'?
Skeletons... zombies... things like that, STILL try to actively kill all living things around them when left unattended right? Isn't that half of what you find in random dungeon crawls?
According to the rules from earlier editions of D&D, skeletons and zombies did nothing they were not commanded to do, lacking volition or initiative. In the span of the game, fairly recently (the 3.5 update), mindless undead were ruled to be evil, and it was said by the designer who made this change that this rule was done 'so that Paladins could smite skeletons and zombies.'
As of Pathfinder, zombies are now stated to wander around looking for living things to kill, if left to their own devices, but skeletons are still not said to run around making value judgements and doing stuff their makers have told them not to do.
So, in Pathfinder, for the first time in the life of this game, zombies act like George Romero zombies, and, while listed as mindless, are clearly capable of acting with malice and volition.
Skeletons seem to mostly live up to their 'mindless' tag.
Note that zombies, whether malevolent or not, still have no Int score, nor do they have any special senses that allow them to tell if something is alive or dead, so lying down on the ground, or pulling a sheet over your head and being very quiet, is adequate protection, since the zombie isn't smart enough to make a Heal or Sense Motive check on someone pretending to be dead, or lift up sheets to see if something is alive under them. In the absence of a necromancer or evil cleric to say, "Yo, rot-for-brains, the kid is hiding under the bed!" the zombie may have some inexplicable craving to kill people, but it's not exactly a cunning predator, and may waste a certain amount of time attacking lifelike statues or manniquins, or slashing up portraits...
It's also not clear exactly what sort of life provokes them. Do zombies in a swamp spend hours chasing after mosquitos and fish, tearing up lily pads and jumping at spanish moss, attempting to rip it down? Do zombies in a forest uproot vegetation, or slam their rotting fists at trees, outraged by this dozen hit die sixty foot tall pillar of life, mocking them with it's aliveness? Again, the zombie rampage loses some of it's terror when the average farming community has more dogs, cats, rats, chickens, cows, sheep, goats, horses, etc. than people, and the zombies will waste countless actions shuffling after animals (that can easily avoid them, thanks to their crappy movement rates) futilely attempting to 'destroy all life.'
"G'wan Jed, shoot it with the crossbow agin, while it's tryin' to git th' chicken."
"This is takin' forever. The arras ain't gettin' er dun. Lasso it, then we'll cut it up with the axes!"
Note that the Bestiary also mentions that unattended zombies often are left with standing orders to run around and kill stuff, which allows one to have even mindless zombies running around and killing stuff, whether or not they are capable of *wanting* to run around and kill stuff. Similarly, in most game encounters, they are found locked into crypts or whatever, with standing orders to attack anyone who enters the room, and this remains viable whether or not they are mindless constructs following orders, or intelligent psychopaths animated from the souls of the wicked and seeking the destruction of all life.
killing for hatred should still be evil.
You'd think that. But it only seems to work in the one direction. Things with a 'G' on their sheet get to kill out of hatred all the time, and as long as the target has an 'E' on it's sheet, they can call it 'good.'
Change the rules to make it work for everyone. Either give the Paladin wiggle room, make animate dead not an evil spell, or, better, both.
Use the issue as an opportunity for roleplaying, not an impediment to it. Let the characters hash out the argument, but make sure you set limits. Having a necromancer walking the razor edge while a paladin chastises him and tries to convince him to come to the light could be annoying...or it could be the foundational relationship of your entire group if it's played right. Make the characters have a reason to be invested in each other. Make them siblings. Have the necromancer have saved the paladin's life. Use your imagination.
IT'S A GAME. The rules are only useful as long as they make the game fun. If someone you play with consistently doesn't get this and ruins the game for everyone, or even just you, then talk to them about it and maturely tell them you have a problem and would like to work it out. If they continue being a prick, don't play with them.
The following only for people who sigh every time they see a paladin rant (ie, not trying to peeve anyone here, just blowing steam):
Eh ya want to play the evil guy, then you take the endless hoards of goodly folks trying to put you down.
From WHERE? Seriously, where the f@@$ are these people coming from? Why am I bothering to adventure in the first place? Reanimating a dead horse is as immoral as reanimating a dead person?
And, by the way, it's "hordes" not "hoards".
Anyway, my personal opinion is that Paladins mess up parties by their very nature way more than necromancers. A necromancer is not obligated to cause or prevent things. A Paladin must intervene in all sorts of gray areas. A necromancer can bring militias and clerics down on the party but only if he is making an effort to get noticed. Most smart players who do necromancers make efforts to conceal their undead forces. And to be honest tricking regular people should be child's play for any caster. No one is going to sell me stuff? well I come into town under the effect of disguise self and then do my trading.
Players deciding to play Paladins have messed up many of my chances of ever getting to play a necromancer. Because often people expect the necro to back down. I did finally get to play one in a recent campaign though. And when I finally got to animate a huge white dragon, it was sweet. I did not take the dragon into town. People are scared of huge creatures. Also, why would I want people to know of my trump card...
Problem is that messing with undead is intrinsically evil by the RAW, and many games have a spoken or unspoken credo of 'no evil' so the party can function. The paladin in a non-evil party doesn't disrupt much at all if he isn't played as the Lawful Stupid Smite-O-Matic (TM) paladin archetype most people rail against. The necro has to back down in these circumstances because he is often (but not always) trying to get around the credo of 'no evil'. That said, I've played a non-evil necromancer in a non-evil party before now - he was a student of thanatology, and he studied dead things much as a pathologist or a CSI would do. The party paladin loved this guy who could tell him who had been killed how, why and by what. On the other hand, he didn't cast Evil spells unless his back was to the wall, and rarely if ever raised undead. I'm also playing a paladin in a game right now who considers it her duty to redeem evil, not just slay it. Killing is a last resort to her, not a first recourse. Until someone gets hurt, all you'd get off her is a really long lecture on how your creating undead is a violation of the natural order imperilling your soul and endangering others.
Paladins can be a lot of different things, depending on their archetype and concept, and so can necromancers.
Yes, undead minions are clearly going to be a problem. Whether or not they should be evil is a good topic (personally I say not evil to mindless undead), but the base rules are very clear on it.Just out of curiosity, (i.e. not trying to stir up a different debate...) but what exactly is 'mindless undead'?
Skeletons... zombies... things like that, STILL try to actively kill all living things around them when left unattended right? Isn't that half of what you find in random dungeon crawls?
Just because they are overpowered by powerful priests and wizards and forced to do their biding... doesn't necessarly make them 'neutral'
undead are generally fueld by hatred for the living... and killing for hatred should still be evil.
NOTICE: The following has nothing to do with debating the rules. It is only for entertainment purposes, and to recall the "ye good ol' days".
Back in previous editions - specifically, everything prior to 3.5, including 3rd Edition - mindless undead were in fact mindless. They were Neutral, and when left unattended they followed the last orders they were given until destroyed or the orders were achieved, or impossible to complete, and then they defaulted to doing nothing.
Now, the reason they were commonly found as wandering monsters was quite simple. They followed the last orders that they were given. Thus, lining dungeons with skeletal or zombie sentries was a very effective way to make sure they were guarded for eternity. "Kill any intruders that enter this place, unless they bear this seal" would be an order that you would give to undead you want to guard your place.
Likewise, undead were easy to use for nefarious purposes. You didn't need to worry about things like loyalty or moral conscience getting in your way. The undead couldn't be questioned if they failed, and you could generally make them a nuisance for your enemies. If you wanted to spread fear and destruction, you would command them to "Walk, and kill every living thing you come across as you travel", or "march together towards that town, and kill anything that lives there", then release them.
In 1E and 2E, anyone of any alignment could cast animate dead. Even Lawful Good clerics could cast it. The only stipulation was that good clerics did so for good reasons, and not for personal gain. In 3E, the Evil descriptor prevented Good clerics from casting spells like animate dead, but it didn't actually count as an aligned act. Thus a wizard could cast protection from good all he wanted and not change alignment, but a good cleric could not.
Now, in the later periods of the 3E run, just shy of 3.5 being released, they released the Book of Vile Darkness, and then the Book of Exalted Deeds. The Book of Vile Darkness offered a lot of optional rules, such as making negative energy evil, making all undead evil, and adding the Evil descriptor to spells like Deahtwatch. It also added rules that made the subtype of the alignment spells count as Lawful, Evil, Good, or Chaotic acts as according. This was never part of the core rules, however - nor was it part of the 3.5 run.
Fun Fact: If you want an idea of just how mixed up they were at WotC on this, at least one of the spells they said you should add the Evil descriptor to actually appears on the spell list of one of the Book of Exalted Deeds' holy prestige classes.
On a side note, the Book of Vile Darkness and (even more so) the Book of Exalted Deeds, have both been criticized heavily for their content. Much of it is poorly written, and badly designed, and instead of offering decent guidelines for handling alignment in your games, only confounded the problems. The book of vile darkness was mostly focused around various things that were just offensive, or were "card carrying villain" archtypes. However, the Book of Exalted Deeds received the harshest criticism. It has often been criticized for its extreme levels of hypocrisy, especially when it comes to breaking its own rules. It has spells that focus on causing creatures and souls to suffer, denying free will, introduces poisons which are considered holy but are infinitely more heinous than mundane poisons, diseases, and holy assassins. In short, these books are cracked.
When 3.5 launched, they had changed skeletons to Evil to allow Paladins to smite them. This also repeated, sparsely with a few other creatures (most which it didn't matter, such a lemure devils). From a design standpoint, this was really dumb. They made them "Always Evil" as their moral alignment, but then stated in the MM that "Always Evil" means there are exceptions, it's just that they're very commonly evil. Ironically, the fluff for the skeletons and such didn't change, and so there was no obvious reason as to why they are evil.
This sparked a lot of internet debates which rage even today. People started trying to come up with reasons why a neutral object (a corpse), pumped full of neutral energy (negative energy was still plainly neutral), would then suddenly become "Evil" when it cannot think for itself (which was required for an alignment). This resulted in people thinking that they must go on some sort of evil rampage when they were not being controlled, or doing anything you said in the most evil way possible. In essence, the players and GMs were trying to find reasons to justify this bizarre change.
Now a common one was that desecrating the dead must have been evil. This however fell apart since acquiring permission from previous owners would be evil, and likewise this theory is based on a cultural taboo instead of actual philosophy. In essence, necromancy was evil for the same reason we have advanced medicine today - because you're not supposed to play with bodies.
Now, mechanically, they could have easily made Paladins capable of smiting neutral undead. The first method would to have just made that a feature of the paladin's smite. They can already channel positive energy via Lay on Hands, so noting that they can use the same power to smite undead as though they were evil would have worked 100% well, and would have fixed the problem.
Meanwhile, if they actually wanted them to be evil, adding the Evil subtype would have gotten the job done quickly and easily, and a little bit of fluff stating that it was a mixture of negative and profane energies would have explained it. This is less setting neutral than the other route, however. At least it would have explained why pumping a neutral object full of neutral energy and magically controlling it was evil, rather than a cultural taboo.
As someone who has been playing the game since 3E launched, I have to say that I serious miss the original way that Monte Cook and the gang designed. It seemed to give a serious thought to how alignment worked, and it based alignment more heavily on intent, rather than "what alignment is this action". In short, I felt like the game was more intelligent, and more put together than it is in the 3.5 and current state that it is. It's no surprise that I house rule it back to the 3E standard as a GM, rather than deal with the black and white morality that lessens roleplaying.
And it does lessen roleplaying opportunities. I mean, look at this thread. It's basically either A or C, no where in between. There is no theological debate. There is no moral shade of gray. It's comical, and it grows very boring quickly among anyone who actually wants to play something that doesn't involve comic book superheroes versus comic book villains. Heck, most comic books have more depth than that. Stan Lee of Marvel fame actually noted in an interview that one of the things that made the X-Men so compelling was the fact it wasn't obvious who was "right". He said many readers just as easily identify with Magneto as Prof. Xavier. He said that even the X-Men wondered if they were doing the right thing. It was dramatic, it was thought provoking, and it was good.
We have some very good ground rules for alignment. At their roots, they look something like this.
Good is altruistic, merciful, and kind.
Evil is selfish, brutal, and cruel.
Law is just, orderly, and logical.
Chaos is free, changing, and emotional.
In previous editions, your alignment was based almost entirely on the actions of your character and how they related to the basic principles of the alignment guidelines. It was not that you used a sword, but how and why. If your Paladin typically engages in selfishness, cruelty, and so forth, he is slipping to evil. If a Necromancer is embodying the concepts of good, then he will become good.
It was not merely a matter of casting X spell repeatedly. That dumbs it down pretty harshly, it does. Worst yet, it still doesn't stop the arguing. Look at how many people are saying Evil spells make you evil, but then suggesting that Good spells don't make you good. It's because on some level, they can't accept what the logical conclusion to this thinking entails. The fact is, if casting X spell makes you evil, then casting Y spell makes you good.
So for most spellcasters, you could toss out some "hail Mary's" and all's good. Summoned a demon to wreak vengeance on a rival? Well, summon enough celestial monkies and you'll feel better about it in the morning. That magic can purify your soul, and bring you more in line with the righteousness of good, right?
Hypocrisy, and poor for roleplaying.
I find as a DM the best way to deal with two player that are both set on playing characters that would otherwise not get along is to put them into a problem that makes them put there moral differences on the back burner. With Paladin this can be iffy but under dire enough circumstances allowances can be made.
|
|
In Dark Ages of Camelot, I played a Norse character whose father and brother had died when their home collapsed during a blizzard. By Norse standards, this was a 'straw death,' since they died to a freak accident and not 'like men,' on the battlefield, and so she learned the ways of the Spiritmaster, a class that served Hel (goddess of the dishonored dead) and pulled spirits out of Nifleheim to fight the enemies of Midgard. Her 'hook' was that she was seeking to find and call only the spirits of her family, to give them a second chance at dying in battle, and earning the right to go to Valhalla. [Since the game randomly produced spirits when you summoned, a kobold, dwarf, norseman or troll, I would cast over and over again until I got a norseman, just for the flavor of the character.]
I like this concept; and would like to see something that addresses it.
Maybe not all those 'horns of Valhalla' are quite what they seem?Did it take just the one battle to redeem them, or would they have to fight until they met a 'worthy' opponent?
I can imagine using them to clear traps wouldn't count, nor would setting them against a tribe of kobolds.
Like Gotrek Gurnisson (the Warhammer Troll Slayer) they could get irate if they believed they were never going to meet their end.
Maybe they could become truculent with their summoner, and go off to find/cause trouble, if they deemed him a coward?
See also Corum's Eye, that saw into the world of the dead, and his Hand, that called the last victims of the previous summoned troops.
If you 'waste' your troops fighting opponents below their station, you have to make do with rubbish troops in the next battle!
Clearly you are an example of a DM who would be aggressive against any necromancer regardless of how it was handled.An undead horse is hardly any more threatening than any other caster. If you go just by capability, then your townsfolk and guards should be reacting equally or even more harshly toward any guy with a pointy hat or wand that walks into town. He could be a caster and then can drop fireballs.
Sorry, BS.
Name one mythology where undead are neutral or good from the real world? There might be one or two, but I don't know of them. The vast majority consider undead to be Evil (capital E), be it skeletons, zombies, or vampires.
Human beings are a cowardly superstitious lot, especially 100 years ago or more. But even today, if you rode a rotting horse into the middle of New York's Times Square, everyone there would think it was a movie trick. Once someone realized it wasn't, there'd be a panic, and shortly thereafter you'd have SWAT teams surrounding you.
A hundred years ago, you'd have everyone in the city shooting you with pistols, and then burning you and the horse.
300 years ago, everyone would be throwing flaming brands at you and calling for the city guard, the militia, the army. You wouldn't get to the center of town. Nobody in their right mind is not going to be running from someone riding on a dead horse, and if you've got 4 or 5 undead zombies or skeletons following along after you, that's just making it worse.
My god, how many movies/tales/books/modules/APs start out describing to the heroes about someone raising undead? It's a freaking staple of the genre that people who monkey around with undead are evil.
|
Clearly you are an example of a DM who would be aggressive against any necromancer regardless of how it was handled.An undead horse is hardly any more threatening than any other caster. If you go just by capability, then your townsfolk and guards should be reacting equally or even more harshly toward any guy with a pointy hat or wand that walks into town. He could be a caster and then can drop fireballs.
Sorry, BS.
Name one mythology where undead are neutral or good from the real world? There might be one or two, but I don't know of them. The vast majority consider undead to be Evil (capital E), be it skeletons, zombies, or vampires.
Human beings are a cowardly superstitious lot, especially 100 years ago or more. But even today, if you rode a rotting horse into the middle of New York's Times Square, everyone there would think it was a movie trick. Once someone realized it wasn't, there'd be a panic, and shortly thereafter you'd have SWAT teams surrounding you.
A hundred years ago, you'd have everyone in the city shooting you with pistols, and then burning you and the horse.
300 years ago, everyone would be throwing flaming brands at you and calling for the city guard, the militia, the army. You wouldn't get to the center of town. Nobody in their right mind is not going to be running from someone riding on a dead horse, and if you've got 4 or 5 undead zombies or skeletons following along after you, that's just making it worse.
My god, how many movies/tales/books/modules/APs start out describing to the heroes about someone raising undead? It's a freaking staple of the genre that people who monkey around with undead are evil.
Norse Mythology. The Einherjar were totally dead dudes preparing for Ragnarok, they were there to aid the living against the horrible monsters trying to kill everyone. Draug, of the same mythology, are neutral, they protect their stuff... that's it.
Some ghosts bear messages to the living, trying to protect them.
Death is only evil in some cultures, the god of death in Egyptian mythology, is actually pretty cool dude, eh kills demons, protects soles, and doesn't afraad of anytiing. The god of death in greek mythology is only evil in non-classical stories, in the classical stories, he was actually pretty calm, in relation to the other gods.
Bhoots are a type of ghost that... well they are neutral, they are mostly just angry spirits, they don't really do much, if you placate them they go away. The worst they do is possess people, to what ends depends on the bhoot. Otherwise, they seem to just hang around and talk to people in a nasal voice.
West African Vodun Zombies are weird, you can make good uses out of them, they don't appear to be infectious, and they go away after awhile.
Because there are a bunch of cultures there are a bunch of different takes on the undead, some good, some bad, most of them friggin' creepy.
|
|
Sorry, BS.Name one mythology where undead are neutral or good from the real world? There might be one or two, but I don't know of them. The vast majority consider undead to be Evil (capital E), be it skeletons, zombies, or vampires.
"According to the tenets of Vodou, a dead person can be revived by a bokor, or sorcerer. Zombies remain under the control of the bokor since they have no will of their own."
"Ghosts appeared in Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, in which they were described as vanishing "as a vapor, gibbering and whining into the earth." Homer’s ghosts had little interaction with the world of the living. Periodically they were called upon to provide advice or prophecy, but they do not appear to be particularly feared."
|
|
Seltyiel is Emo Evil because of his two father issues, not the chaotic evil necromancer who violates graveyards and raises undead "because it's a cool thing to do". Also remember that he won't register to a Paladin's Detect because he's not the kind of character that has an evil aura.Yeah, what OTHER option would there be for a Paladin and an Evil Character? I mean, they basically have to kill each other, right? It's the only option. It's not like they can work together despite their differences, right?
OH SNAP.
Seltyiel and Seelah in Council of Thieves
Yeah, if you guys can't reconcile the idea of good and evil joining forces for the common good, just don't try Paladin. But don't whine about how it's impossible and pretend that the drama is necessary.
Don't buy it. You can talk all you want about the nature of evil, but a person that does no evil (or does little evil) isn't really evil. If Seltyiel is evil, he must do evil things. That's just the nature of the beast.
Even taking that argument aside, what we're talking about is an Evil character and a Good character getting along, even in a long term, but "temporary" fashion, in order to succeed at the greater good.
Heck, Seelah's passion as a Paladin is to "Lead by Example," which is quite possibly the most accurate and reasonable ideology I've ever seen for a Paladin.
@Kais86
In Norse mythology, the einherjar (Old Norse "lone fighters") are those that have died in battle and are brought to Valhalla by valkyries. In Valhalla, the einherjar eat their fill of the nightly-resurrecting beast Sæhrímnir, and are brought their fill of mead (from the udder of the goat Heiðrún) by valkyries. The einherjar prepare daily for the events of Ragnarök, when they will advance for an immense battle at the field of Vígríðr.
Above from Wiki, since it is correct in this case and people like Wiki. :)
This is not undead, this is fallen warriors in Valhalla training for Ragnarok. This is the proper place for a fallen warrior to go after death, he's in the equivalent of heaven. You can't compare that to undead. It's like saying that the Elysian Fields are full of undead.
@ToZ
Bokor zombies are probably not a very good argument. They were either living people who's will had been taken away from them, or they were bodies animated by the spirit of their former owner. In general, they were used to maintain power by the bokor. As in, pay me respect or I kill you and make you a zombie.
For the living zombies with their will taken away, I will posit that is an evil act. Turning a sentient creature into an automaton is pretty much the definition of evil. For the second type, while it may be possible to keep them neutral, you will still find that the culture found them scary. People didn't want to become zombies, didn't want their loved ones to become zombies.
And as I said, there may be one or two of them that don't hold undeath to be wholly evil, but as demonstrated, it's not something people like either even in Voudoun.
@Both
Ghosts may have to bring back messages, but if you look at that, it's mostly a curse for people who are paying for sins they committed in life. Usually warning those who are on the same path as them.
The other alternative is a loved one returning to impart a warning. Either way though, the ghost is still considered a bad omen and tends to scare everyone around them. In both cases, we're talking about how people react to the undead, and in both cases, the vast majority react in a very negative fashion to undead, be they zombies or ghosts.
So, if you are running a homebrew game that uses Voudoun, then maybe undead wouldn't cause as much of an issue. But in any western setting, which most fantasy settings are, undead are reacted to extremely negatively.
I missed where you were talking about people perceiving them as good or neutral. I think it's pretty obvious that vodou zombies are neutral.
Where is it that they dig up their dead once a year to have dinner with them as a celebration?
Not sure what you're talking about there. Hispanic cultures have a Day of the Dead, but they don't dig people up. They often put up symbolic skeletons and face paint.
As to vodou zombies, yeah, I didn't argue they wouldn't be neutral (although it also depends, remember, there are evil sides to Loa, and if you're a hongoun of an evil version of the Loa, your zombies are likely powered by malevolent spirits), but people aren't generally going to bother figuring that out, especially if there are tons of other evil zombies out there, as there are in PF/D&D.
As I said above, unless you're explicitly playing in a world where you've crafted it to be non-evil with undead, then any western based setting (again, 90% of all fantasy that isn't Eastern motifed) has undead being evil.
What about those guys in Lord of the Rings?
They were cursed oath breakers and the locals were terrified of them. Definitely not perceived as good, nor even neutral. Probably most perceived as malevolent but finally bound to do what they were supposed to have done in the first place before Isildur had to curse them.
What about those guys in Lord of the Rings?
Barrow-wights: Evil spirits, sometimes animating skeletons.
Ghosts- The largest concentration were the dead warriors of Rohan who betrayed Isildur and were cursed, haunting the mountain until Aragorn persuaded them to fight for him. Their faces often shift from skeletal frames to pasty shadows of themselves. Another great concentration was the Dead Marshes. Again, back to the cursed for sins they did in life. And everyone perceived them as evil (arguably, they were, but repented after paying their debt with their curse).
Nazgul or Ring-Wraiths: Pure evil.
Wraiths: Those cursed by the one-ring or stabbed by a nazgul. Since they are invisible and immortal... yeah, nobody can perceive them at all so they aren't scary. :)
That table refers to creatures that would actually give an aura such as the specific class features such as Cleric which would give an aura of alignment and Paladin which would give an aura of Good (or Evil) as appropriate, or outsiders which radiate an aura as per their subtype. Most characters however outside of these classes do not radiate an alignment aura unless they've done something especially aggregious recently enough. Seltyiel would not show up on a cleric or paladin's "Detect Evil" radar.Also remember that he won't register to a Paladin's Detect because he's not the kind of character that has an evil aura.Wrong...depending on the hit dice that he has, he will register with a differing aura.
Wrong.
A cleric has a specific entry on the table, it's the third line down. Cleric or paladin of an aligned deity (class levels).
An outsider also has it's own line. It's the third one on the list. Aligned outsider (HD)
Undead have their own line. The second one.
Everything else that is aligned (has a non-neutral alignment) uses the first row. So, a 5th level CE necromancer has no aura. When he levels to 6th level, he gains a faint evil and faint chaotic aura. Note it uses Hit Die, so a 3rd level Lizardfolk Necromancer has no aura, but gains a faint one when he get's 4th level.
A black dragon with 17 HD has a moderate evil aura to detect evil.
Clerics/paladins with aura features have an aura from 1st level on, unlike other people who have to be 6th level or higher to gain an aura.
|
This Spam Detect Evil idea is one which I think is morally flawed for a Paladin. As a Paladin use of the DE ability is an infringement upon the rights of most people. It would be the same thing as walking into someone's home and hooking them up to a polygraph device without asking them permission and then proceeding to question them about there whereabouts. A Paladin who follows a code of Chivalry and Honor would use it only when he has obtained proper consent to do so.
In addition most societies have high ranking evil members of their governing bodies. I am sure that they would have laws in place restricting the extreme use of DE.
You're kidding right? You might as well say that any Detect spell is an infringment and grounds to attack on the basis of self defense. Rangers dont ask if its okay to track. Rogues dont ask if its okay to use trap sense to avoid the thing thats OBVIOUSLY trying to keep them out. Casters dont ask for permisson to use Detect/Read Magic/Identitfy. With that line of thinking everyone is auto evil just for attacking everything and anything. There is leeway in the codes for people to work with. But there's leeway and then there's just ignore the your moral core. And yeah, there are evil guys in charge. But here's the thing: They are there legally. And a Paladin is Lawful. You want the Evil guy out of office, get the NG and CG guy to do it. LG guy might do, but he's going to do it legit. It's why Dr Doom and Magneto had/have thier own nation. Superman could have fried Lex Luthor a 100 times over? He doesnt, why? Because he's LG and has a code. People shouldnt worry about Paladins anymore, they're predictable. You really should be worried about Inquisitors.
|
|
Also why is it that Paladin's always get special treatment when it comes to character idea conflicts? If the player with the Necromancer came up his character first, then the Paladin should be the one to change. If it happened at the same time then it should have been resolved then.I recommand that before character creation everyone give a brief overview of their character concepts as a way to avoid conflicts.
Because Paladins are usually the only class that gets hosed over by the GM for not acting in alignment/code. How often do we see a Druid get penalized for wearing mithral plate? You dont. Why? Because they dont want to. If the GM allowed the Pally, he either intends for a good aligned campaign or he loves the drama. The players should have discussed however before the character sheet should have even been written on.
How often do we see a Druid get penalized for wearing mithral plate?
Every time. I've never actually had it come up, to be honest. I would absolutely slam any druid that wore metal armor. I don't even allow studded leather.