I am going to counter call bs.
Feel free, I'll counter your counter with another BS call.
Forget undead, if you walked into town wearing what could be construed as a pointy hat and occult garb, you could just as easily expect to be burned or drowned(ask some girls from Salem). If you walk into town with a huge golem made of metal walking beside you, the villagers would probably consider you evil as well.
Strawman. A golem is not an undead. The core rules have certain truths built into the system. One of those is that animating inanimate objects is not evil (nor good). However, all undead are evil without GM fiat. That means that the world considers them to be evil (short of GM fiat).
Dnd campaign settings have magic in them. Magic is common enough that when you walk into town with a golem beside you, they ask you your intent before they arm a mob to kill you. In a world where magic is common, animating dead can be evil but it does not have to be.
Are we discussing homebrew, or core rules? I was under the impression this was a rules forum, not homebrew. If it's homebrew, then I agree. If we're discussing core rules, you're wrong, animating dead is evil by the core rules.
Especially if those undead are controlled, mindless, and possibly not made from real bodies. Then just like the guy who walked into town with a golem, they will definitely want to know your intent. But then again any small town that sees an adventuring group enter is likely going to consider them a possible threat. I mean, a sorcerer can just as easily start lobbing around fireballs as command his undead to harvest the town.
Again, BS strawman. Golems are not, by the rules, evil. They are neutral. And yes, the sorcerer could just as easily lob fireballs, or he could end up casting mud to stone to help build the main street. However, when he shows up with undead to do the work, nobody's going to listen if the city is good.
Now, if it's evil, that's different. Or if the culture doesn't consider undead evil. But again, that's a homebrew bit (I have good undead in my own homebrew, but it's homebrew, not core rules).
If we look at pop culture, at least half of the world can apparently become comfortable with undead. Hell some of these ladies even end up dating the poor misunderstood vampires(aka angel and that other one where the dude wears all that makeup). Take the comic book character spawn. Dies, goes to hell, gets resurrected with "hellish" powers and fights for good.
If your best argument for Pathfinder core rules holding that undead are not evil is Buffy the Vampire Slayer... I really don't need to respond to any further posts. You've blown the biggest hole in the argument, way more effective than anything I could ever say. :)
So yeah, name a culture that actually had more than fairy tale personal experience with undead creatures and then you might have a good example.
If you want real world magic, then no. But in that case, we go to fantasy realms. If we are going to do that, I feel very very very safe in stating that the vast majority of fiction holds undead to be evil, and for any book or myth you can name where they are not, I can go find 10 or 20 more where they are either evil or perceived as too dangerous to be allowed to exist.
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...
+1
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.
Many towns and cities already have things to deal with(thieves guilds, murderers, war with other nations, etc)....
People who act evil are considered evil. The only thing townsfolk and villagers fear worse evil necromancers is plague. Ask any of the plague victims and lepers the townsfolk have run out of town.
If you show up riding a horse that has dead eyes and skin peeling off it... it would NOT be allowed to be housed in the common stables. If the town is brave it will try to run you and your plague horse off... if not, they'll board themselves into the houses and hope you leave without killing them all.
Average people would never accept 'undead is ok.' You may be able to work some interesting philosophical discussions with other wizards, priests and adventurers... but the ordinary townfolk will fear and shun you.
Casting Animate Dead doesn't make you evil automatically. So, if you ping as good or neutral, the Paladin can't just kill you outright. Casting it on a horse or cow is even less morally reprehensible...since people kill eat and wear dead cows all the time.
I am going to counter call bs.
Feel free, I'll counter your counter with another BS call.
Forget undead, if you walked into town wearing what could be construed as a pointy hat and occult garb, you could just as easily expect to be burned or drowned(ask some girls from Salem). If you walk into town with a huge golem made of metal walking beside you, the villagers would probably consider you evil as well.
Strawman. A golem is not an undead. The core rules have certain truths built into the system. One of those is that animating inanimate objects is not evil (nor good). However, all undead are evil without GM fiat. That means that the world considers them to be evil (short of GM fiat).
Dnd campaign settings have magic in them. Magic is common enough that when you walk into town with a golem beside you, they ask you your intent before they arm a mob to kill you. In a world where magic is common, animating dead can be evil but it does not have to be.
Are we discussing homebrew, or core rules? I was under the impression this was a rules forum, not homebrew. If it's homebrew, then I agree. If we're discussing core rules, you're wrong, animating dead is evil by the core rules.
Again, BS strawman. Golems are not, by the rules, evil. They are neutral. And yes, the sorcerer could just as easily lob fireballs, or he could end up casting mud to stone to help build the main street. However, when he shows up with undead to do the...
Especially if those undead are controlled, mindless, and possibly not made from real bodies. Then just like the guy who walked into town with a golem, they will definitely want to know your intent. But then again any small town that sees an adventuring group enter is likely going to consider them a possible threat. I mean, a sorcerer can just as easily start lobbing around fireballs as command his undead to harvest the town.
I think you're missing his point, mdt. He's saying that in a world with magic, people would be less superstitious. It's all fine and dandy to say "well three hundred years ago" while you're talking about your favorite fantasy RPG, but if you want to be honest, you need to be more like "Well three hundred years ago, if we had dragons and magical beasts, and magical potions traded in the market square, and flaming swords, and people that threw fireballs around, and enslaved elemental spirits to create golems, then..."
The fact is, if you go back into our history, virtually anything of supernatural levels would have been reacted to as either wholly evil, or some sort of divine power, depending on the culture. As he points out, his golem would likely have been seen as evil.
Likewise, golems actually are created by being evil. Undead are evil "cause they say so". Golems are evil because of their creation, or at least, their casters are evil.
Comparing animate dead to golem creation is a quick and easy way for virtually everyone with an ounce of reasoning to realize that the logic behind it is completely cracked. Allow me to explain further.
Animate dead pumps neutral things full of neutral energy and then magically compels them to automate. They are mindless, and follow the orders of their master to the best of their ability. The game tells us that this, and they, are evil.
Creating a golem requires you to enslave an elemental spirit, a sentient creature, binding it to the body of your golem to power the creation, which you then subjugate to your will and give it orders. It is mindless. The game says this, and they are neutral.
Meanwhile, the whole desecrating the body thing, likewise, holds no weight. A flesh golem is Neutral. The creation of one is still neutral. Though it seems that flesh golems are imperfect, because the elemental spirit enslaved can breach through their prison and go berserk. Regardless, the fake-undead that is the flesh golem is Neutral.
Comparing animate dead to golem creation is a quick and easy way for virtually everyone with an ounce of reasoning to realize that the logic behind it is completely cracked. Allow me to explain further.
Animate dead pumps neutral things full of neutral energy and then magically compels them to automate. They are mindless, and follow the orders of their master to the best of their ability. The game tells us that this, and they, are evil.
*sigh*
I wish people would read what I posted. I said that is perfectly fine as a houserule in your homebrew campaign world. I even said I have in my own homebrew some good undead, some neutral, and mostly evil.
However, if we are talking about the core system, and not our preferences or our homebrew worlds then you are not pumping a corpse full of neutral energy. You are calling on negative energy to create an evil construct from the corpse of a once living being. It isn't a neutral golem, and it will not ping as neutral to a detect evil spell. It will ping as evil. If left unattended, it will likely kill whatever living things get near it.
Let me repeat this again.
Arguing that the default rule set will have peasants in a good or neutral but good leaning country ignoring walking undead and the necromancer who raised them is not conducive with the default rule that they are all Evil, and creating them is an Evil act is just not going to fly.
You can argue all day and long that there are logical ways it would be acceptable and I'll agree that there are. But only in a homebrew, houseruled. By default, it's not acceptable, per the core rules, since it's Evil and Good don't truck with that.
Comparing animate dead to golem creation is a quick and easy way for virtually everyone with an ounce of reasoning to realize that the logic behind it is completely cracked. Allow me to explain further.
Animate dead pumps neutral things full of neutral energy and then magically compels them to automate. They are mindless, and follow the orders of their master to the best of their ability. The game tells us that this, and they, are evil.
*sigh*
I wish people would read what I posted. I said that is perfectly fine as a houserule in your homebrew campaign world. I even said I have in my own homebrew some good undead, some neutral, and mostly evil.
However, if we are talking about the core system, and not our preferences or our homebrew worlds then you are not pumping a corpse full of neutral energy. You are calling on negative energy to create an evil construct from the corpse of a once living being. It isn't a neutral golem, and it will not ping as neutral to a detect evil spell. It will ping as evil. If left unattended, it will likely kill whatever living things get near it.
Let me repeat this again.
Arguing that the default rule set will have peasants in a good or neutral but good leaning country ignoring walking undead and the necromancer who raised them is not conducive with the default rule that they are all Evil, and creating them is an Evil act is just not going to fly.
You can argue all day and long that...
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?
Yup.
More likely though they'll run away screaming.
The only thing townsfolk and villagers fear worse evil necromancers is plague.
A paladin. played to the extreme, can be just as dreadful as a necromancer. The Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades all would be fine sources of inspiration for such.
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?Yup.
More likely though they'll run away screaming.
A wise conjuror doesn't summon outsiders in town, a wise blasters doesn't randomly launch fireballs in town, likewise it would behoove a necromancer not to animate the dead in the middle of town. . .
A wise conjuror doesn't summon outsiders in town, a wise blasters doesn't randomly launch fireballs in town, likewise it would behoove a necromancer not to animate the dead in the middle of town. . .So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?Yup.
More likely though they'll run away screaming.
Haha. Behoove.
It should be noted that setting has a lot to do with the acceptance or otherwise of a necromancer or otherwise.
In golarion alone there's places where clerics are an abomination good or evil.
In eberron theres an entire nation that uses the undead as work force and military while enslaving the race of constructs built to fight them.
In forgotten realms its pretty safe to say undead are universally reviled.
Point being that any arguments about "necromancer doing X" are somewhat pointless without a world and location to set the context.
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?Yes.
So killing someone in self-defense is evil?
Even if the Paladin disapproves of the caster casting evil spells. He doesn’t have to take militant action against the spell. He may insist on destroying any undead after the battle, and refuse to benefit from the spell after combat. As long as the caster avoids becoming evil you can keep things going along ok.
So killing someone in self-defense is evil?So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?Yes.
If you have the power and intelligence to resurrect the dead to do your bidding you likely have the power to escape an angry mob unscathed without killing anyone. You also likely have the intelligence to know that doing what you did would provoke the villagers into a frenzy and what you were doing was taboo so you would at least leave your mount outside of town or disguise it.
This is common sense.
So killing someone in self-defense is evil?So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?Yes.
Self-defense is not a legal defense in cases where you provoked the initial action that created the need for 'self defense'. "Legal" is not the same as "good" of course, but the concepts are comparable. If you provoke a bar fight, and someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you stick your sword through their innards, then you are the reason for the dead person. In a court of law this would probably be "manslaughter" but you'd still be prosecuted for it. From a moral perspective your initial provocations were clearly not "good" and the potential for this sort of result is a major reason why they are not "good."
So there are plenty of cases where "self-defense" is no argument that your actions were not evil. How many westerns have you seen where the bad guy attempts to avoid prosecution by provoking a farm boy to go for his gun, an act that is pure suicide against the skilled gunslinger? The "self defense" argument in that case is clearly a joke. So the real question you are asking is "is it evil to ride an undead horse into town and provoke the townsfolk into violence?" I would say "yeppers! Sure is."
|
Here is some inspirational fluff:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -Edmund Burke
Now here is the stone that hath been etched:
paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline...
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents....
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
|
Realistically this is only a problem if the players make it a problem. Historically and in literature there are many examples of opposing view points working together, especially for a greater purpose. Dragonlance is a great example of this the old Raistlin and Sturm in same group or Tanis in love with Kitiara. There are other forces besides alignment in the world such as love, duty, honor & necessity. These can bind a group together at least for short periods of time and that is all a campaign is.
Says the King or leader of his order:
"Sir Paladin, I command you to work with this wizard to stop the comming apocalypse! Nothing is more important."
Even Bush and Clinton now work together for stuff like aid to Haiti and if they can work together anyone can in the right circumstances.
Should the Paladin do his best to convert the necromancer. Yes. Should he constantly be talking about how necromancy is unatural and evil. Yes. Can he put up with it to obey the king or save the world, or because he must restore his honor and this is the only way. Yes. There is always forgiveness if necessary. I believe there is a spell for it.
It is the DM's job to create a situation where these characters will have to coexist, not the players jobs to create characters that always get along.
|
|
I remember handling this problem in a campaign growing up, the evil cleric and the upright cavalier. We had them be best friends since youth before such big issues of good and evil developed. They were now opposed alignments but also best friends and they found a way to work together. Did they always like each other, no, but it worked when the adventuring needed to be done and the world needed to be saved because they had the skills that were needed and there was no one else to do the job.
More recently I ran a Second Darkness Campaign. We had a goody nature cleric, several very sketchy characters and a monk who eventually went evil after being bitten by a wererat. They worked together, not because they loved it, but because everyone has a vested interest in the world not being blown up.
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?
Nope. I don't believe so. You were attacked, they never asked your motivations for riding the horse. It's not much more 'Evil' then if you were attacked by bandits.
However, I still think you'd be punished for it. Just because your alignment didn't shift, doesn't mean you won't hang ;) If your trying to convice a judge and/or jury that you were completely harmless riding your dead and decaying horse into town... and that all their friends and neighbors overreacted.. It'll be an uphill battle.
Most of the authority figures are going to be of the mind 'Heck, if "I" had been there, I'd have attacked you too!"
If you want to do evil things, people will react like your evil. Seriously... Horses aren't that expensive.. BUY a horse ;)
Actually Paladins like that slip into Lawful Evil without knowing it.The only thing townsfolk and villagers fear worse evil necromancers is plague.A paladin. played to the extreme, can be just as dreadful as a necromancer. The Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades all would be fine sources of inspiration for such.
Which doesn't make the prospects for the aforementioned any less terrifying, and doesn't nullify the fact that those who fancy themselves champions of good can become every bit the villain that a champion of evil is. Fanaticism cuts both ways.
It should be noted that setting has a lot to do with the acceptance or otherwise of a necromancer or otherwise.
In golarion alone there's places where clerics are an abomination good or evil.
In eberron theres an entire nation that uses the undead as work force and military while enslaving the race of constructs built to fight them.
In forgotten realms its pretty safe to say undead are universally reviled.
Point being that any arguments about "necromancer doing X" are somewhat pointless without a world and location to set the context.
Agreed, but my point was that, generally speaking, subtlety and discretion will serve in such circumstances.
|
|
In Dark Ages of Camelot, I played a Norse character whose father and brother had died when their home collapsed during a blizzard.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 left it unclear, and, even unclear if she was even right in this assumption, that she could 'save her family from Hel' by calling them up to engage in the glorious battles they'd missed in life.
I liked the idea that she could be dead-wrong about this.
Ooh, the Eye and Hand from the Corum saga were indeed interesting. That would make a neat 4e style necromancer ability, since it's pretty much a 'per encounter' power that changes depending on how you used it in the *last* encounter.
If you want to do evil things, people will react like your evil. Seriously... Horses aren't that expensive.. BUY a horse ;)
The weird thing is that living creatures are animated by positive energy *and* have to destroy / devour other living creatures to survive. The living horse is no less 'unnatural' than the undead horse, since it's still animated by energy from another dimension that isn't 'natural' to the material plane (but pours in from enormous gates called stars).
Further, the living horse has to destroy living creatures (vegetation, in this case) to fuel it's unnatural existence, while the skeletal horse does not, since it's existence is stable and self-maintaining, without need for fuel or food or killing, almost as if it was *more natural* than the unstable killing-dependent living horse.
The assumptions about positive and negative energy are arse-backwards to their mechanics, and maintaining a stable of living horses is far more 'life-hating' and life-destroying than keeping some skeletal ones around.
Skeletons and zombies lack the unnatural weakness that any human or housecat or grizzly bear has, the *need* to kill and devour other living things to maintain its existence, an existence absolutely dependent on destroying life.
I don't think that negative energy is 'more natural' than positive energy, or that the fact that creatures enlivening by positive energy are inherently more destructive to other living creatures than many undead makes positive energy = evil, but the game mechanics have never done a stellar job of following the flavor text, in this case.
I'd actually prefer if animate dead didn't last forever, and that all undead required *something* to keep them functioning, whether it be stolen life-energy (either directly taken, via the touch of a wight, wraith or shadow, or absorbed through devouring the living, like a ghoul or vampire or 'hungry zombie'), or some sort of perpetual source of magical power (such as a lich's phylactery or a mummy's canopic jars). Instead of negative energy being a perpetual motion machine, it would be just as destructive to life to keep a skeletal mount as it would to keep a living mount (or, perhaps, more so, since the long-term skeletal steed would need flesh and blood, not grass and grains).
Self-defense is not a legal defense in cases where you provoked the initial action that created the need for 'self defense'. "Legal" is not the same as "good" of course, but the concepts are comparable. If you provoke a bar fight, and someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you stick your sword through their innards, then you are the reason for the dead person. In a court of law this would probably be "manslaughter" but you'd still be prosecuted for it. From a moral perspective your initial provocations were clearly not "good" and the potential for this sort of result is a major reason why they are not "good."
This is dangerously similar to arguments of "well they were asking for it". If I see someone with a sword - a killing instrument - it is not my place to attack the person, unless the person is actively threatening me, I would go to jail for attacking without provocation. Saying "well he was riding on a dead horse" is effectually the same as saying "well she was asking for it, look at her clothes" or "just look at his skin color, he must have been up to no good in that neighborhood". Such things might have flown in certain scenarios, but it's fundamentally flawed.
Please note, however, that I'm not suggesting that walking into a town of people who would be afraid of undead would be a good idea, or should not be met with resistance, but if the rider tries to make good with the people, and they attack him and/or his property, then defending himself and his property is not evil. It is, in fact, self defense. People get caught up in the metagame, of it. Yeah, you might be a wizard that could melt the town with your eyeballs, but if someone strikes at you with a hoe and you put their lights out with your staff, then you've done nothing wrong.
Likewise, trying to approach situations from archaic understandings of morality is no more useful than writing your character sheet on sheep skins and rolling carved stones or bones as opposed to plastic. Removing the intellectual aspect of understanding morality reduces it to absurdity. People continue to say "you can't look at it from modern moral understanding", but why not? It doesn't matter what the common belief of a real-life time period of our own history was, because it does not define morality. Many people believed the world was flat, but is Golarion flat?
From My Own Eyes
Since I seem to be drawn to this sorts of threads, and tend to speak at lengths on the nature of morality and how undead in D&D have been handled, let me shed a little light on my own games, because I get the feeling that people seem to expect undead to be prancing around my world giving flowers to everyone they meet.
The fact is, in my own campaign setting, most of the world fears undead or sees them as dark magic. The largest country in the world, and a core part of my campaign setting, outright hunts necromancers, demonologists, and diabolists because the major religion of their country essentially condemns such powers. However, small cults continue to pop up in the region based on outside influence, and esoteric texts that are related to the main religion but considered unofficial. Those found practicing forbidden forms of necromancy, or summoning evil or consorting with evil outsiders are thrown in prison and branded with a mark on their arm or face which shows their crime.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the world only knows undead as monsters. Most common folk don't understand much of a difference between zombies, ghouls, and wights, for example. Many of the cultures, particularly the wilder or less advanced cultures, see necromancy is a dark magic, or find consorting with fiends distasteful, but they wouldn't turn on the necromancer who saved their town from rampaging orcs or plowed their fields when their farmers were sick from plague. Most would be distrustful however, at least until they had been shown that the practitioner had no ill motives.
In direct contrast, there is at least one region in the world that fully embraces everything that necromancy has to offer society, and entrenched in magical knowledge, and while small, are quite powerful because of their economic strengths and education. Their lands are ruled by a powerful undead matriarch who has no interest in conquering the world, but instead focuses on Diplomacy. Due to the nature of their goals, a colony has formed from their kingdom in the land near the anti-dark magic country, and has begun conducting trade and cultural exchange with its neighbors (imagine the anger).
So my world definitely doesn't have an overwhelming amount of undead running around, and few people are pro-undead or undead-friendly. Undead aren't terribly common on the core continent, except as tools used by those with dark intentions, and such taboos are heavily cultural and religious in origin. A self-fulfilling cycle. If you have the majority of the world believing that undead are evil and forbidden, then only those who don't care about the religion or have different ideas will make use of it. Meanwhile, those who just believe the teachings are wrong would still face persecution or trouble, so they mostly ignore it. So you end up with criminals who don't give a crap animating undead because they're damn convenient and don't talk back.
The pro-undead people are very much a minority, even in my campaign world.
So killing someone in self-defense is evil?
Self-defense is not a legal defense in cases where you provoked the initial action that created the need for 'self defense'. "Legal" is not the same as "good" of course, but the concepts are comparable. If you provoke a bar fight, and someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you stick your sword through their innards, then you are the reason for the dead person. In a court of law this would probably be "manslaughter" but you'd still be prosecuted for it. From a moral perspective your initial provocations were clearly not "good" and the potential for this sort of result is a major reason why they are not "good."
So there are plenty of cases where "self-defense" is no argument that your actions were not evil. How many westerns have you seen where the bad guy attempts to avoid prosecution by provoking a farm boy to go for his gun, an act that is pure suicide against the skilled gunslinger? The "self defense" argument in that case is clearly a joke. So the real question you are asking is "is it evil to ride an undead horse into town and provoke the townsfolk into violence?" I would say "yeppers! Sure is."
Hey, Binky (the undead horse) wasn't hurting anyone!
You can't seriously be justifying that provoking someone in a a way that causes them no harm is evil. Is a cleric in Rhaduom evil when the villagers try to kill him because he has faith?
|
On the other hand, it is clearly evil to go into a town on an undead horse with the intent of provoking people to attacking you just so you can feel justified about killing them. So while intent might not matter much to the law, it does matter a lot to morality.
In Pathfinder, undead are evil by default. Is it possible that the DM can cook up a way to make undead that are not evil? Yes. But unless there's a good reason to make them good or neutral, undead are evil. Does it make sense? Yes and no. But it's what we have to work with.
If you have a paladin in your party, and you're a neutral necromancer, I recommend talking to the player of the paladin OOC and to the paladin IC to iron out any problems before they arise in-game.
Please note, however, that I'm not suggesting that walking into a town of people who would be afraid of undead would be a good idea, or should not be met with resistance, but if the rider tries to make good with the people, and they attack him and/or his property, then defending himself and his property is not evil. It is, in fact, self defense. People get caught up in the metagame, of it. Yeah, you might be a wizard that could melt the town with your eyeballs, but if someone strikes at you with a hoe and you put their lights out with your staff, then you've done nothing wrong.
How many times does a citizen of the town have to yell at him to leave before he turns from stupid necromancer (for getting into this situation in the first place) to invading necromancer? The citizens of the town have a right to kick him out of town for riding an evil undead horse into their town. If he refuses to leave, he's no longer just stupid, he's an invading necromancer who needs to be dealt with.
I still think they would be within their rights to attack him on sight (especially if, like many good aligned towns should, they have laws against undead that specifies they are to be destroyed on sight), but let's assume they just try to tell him to leave. He starts trying to diplomacy his way out of it, but they won't listen because he's riding a freaking undead rotting horse and they don't like that in their town? How many times do they have to tell him he's not welcome there? Do they have to stand around waiting for him to do something evil to attack him? Or do they just have to tell him to get out, and when he refuses, then take him down?
For that matter, if there is a law that says undead are evil and forbidden, and the necromancer knows it, is he still not 'Evil' for riding his rotting mount into town, flouting the laws, knowing the town destroys undead on sight? Then he unleashes fell spells on the attacking town citizens, but still isn't evil because 'they attacked first!'?
Ignoring the law would be a chaotic act at best. If you don't have a problem with it, and you are hurting no one else, then it's not evil to merely ride in on an undead horse. If townsfolk hate you, and you try to explain you're not here to hurt them, you won't do any harm to them, and they attack you out of fear, it's no different than attacking someone based on fear of their skin color.
This might be a good example of that sort of thing.
I would imagine a neutral to good necromancer would probably simply comply with their wishes and leave, or disable anyone who decided to attack them (I already noted that a 7th level wizard can defeat a commoner unarmed), but if they actually did defend themselves, it is not an evil act because ultimately it is self defense.
This has broken into the standard two groups of thought.
Group 1: I am the player and the Gm shoudl let me do whatever I want or he is ruining my fun!
Group 2: Well the world is not just your character playgroup but a living world with concessions for actions people take, player character or NPC alike.
Group 1 thinks the NPC's should love them and treat them like big damned heroes no matter how they act or what they do. It doesn't matter they have evil undead minions, rob graveyard or kill who ever they like. They think they should be treated like the shinning knights because they are the PC's, no matter what they do.
The fact is undead are evil and unless your GM changes things will always be evil and always though of with fear and horror.
My opinion is that the act of animating dead can be evil. If by using it you hurt innocent people.
That is your opinion but not the rules of the game.
Fact: Animating undead uses an evil spell
Fact: Using that spell is evil
Fact: undead are evil
They are evil, crafting them is an evil act, if a small one.
Protagonist does not mean good person.
So you'd rather play a psychotic half-elf murderer, a dwarf monster who kidnaps and tortures children to death, or even a gnome who goes around raping steetwalkers then forcing them via magic to commit suicide than a hero? Says alot about you as a person. You do KNOW there are people in real life who have suffered at the hands of a REAL LIFE EVIL PERSON (such as a criminal, rapist, kidnaper, or drug dealer)? Why on earth would you want to emulate and imagine being such bottom feeding scum of the Earth?
Group 1: I am the player and the Gm shoudl let me do whatever I want or he is ruining my fun!
Oh, he's baiting again!
Quick, Flag me for pointing out your trolling.
Why would I flag you? You didn't call me names, or anything
I am not trolling but pointing out the arguments over the last 2 pages.
Both sides know that by the rules undead are evil as is the spell that crafts them. Group 1 however things it should be ok to make them just because they are pc's.
There are easier ways to get minions. Most do not involve upsetting the townsfolk.
Why would I flag you? You didn't call me names, or anythingI am not trolling but pointing out the arguments over the last 2 pages.
Both sides know that by the rules undead are evil as is the spell that crafts them. Group 1 however things it should be ok to make them just because they are pc's.
There are easier ways to get minions. Most do not involve upsetting the townsfolk.
I gave up when the argument that a town has no right to kick a necromancer out and attack him if he refuses to leave. Not only do they not have the right to forbid necromancers and undead, but they, not the necromancer that refuses to leave, is riding an undead horse, and has undead in tow are the evil ones.
That anyone can even possibly think that way just blows me away, and renders this entire conversation useless. You can't argue with people who think alienthink.
yeah raw they are "evil". But how does that factor into an actual game world where things need to make some semblance of sense. When the crazy townsfolk attempt to attack you and call you evil monster. After you subdue them, what is their answer to the question of why you are evil?(hint give one that makes sense.)
The fact is undead are evil and unless your GM changes things will always be evil and always though of with fear and horror.
No, they are not "kinda evil" they are EVIL. Why would town folks chase you? I mean all you have ever done was desecrated a corpse, used foul black magic to reanimate it with an evil spirit and used this evil abomination as a minion.
Totally harmless.
How does it make sense for most folks not to treat you like a black magic using monster you are acting like? Why should they treat you any different then any such spell caster?
Your answer "I am the pc, so I am the "good" guy"
Fact: You did use an evil spell, the foulest set of magic. You did bring an evil abomination , a mockery of life into being.
I gave up when the argument that a town has no right to kick a necromancer out and attack him if he refuses to leave. Not only do they not have the right to forbid necromancers and undead, but they, not the necromancer that refuses to leave, is riding an undead horse, and has undead in tow are the evil ones.
That anyone can even possibly think that way just blows me away, and renders this entire conversation useless. You can't argue with people who think alienthink.
Yeah glad I was not the only one who saw that. The player entitlement folks often think very alien to me . Go fig.
Protagonist does not mean good person.So you'd rather play a psychotic half-elf murderer, a dwarf monster who kidnaps and tortures children to death, or even a gnome who goes around raping steetwalkers then forcing them via magic to commit suicide than a hero? Says alot about you as a person. You do KNOW there are people in real life who have suffered at the hands of a REAL LIFE EVIL PERSON (such as a criminal, rapist, kidnaper, or drug dealer)? Why on earth would you want to emulate and imagine being such bottom feeding scum of the Earth?
I'm thinking that he means more along the lines of characters like The Punisher or Dexter who both use methods that are generally regarded as less kosher than the traditional good guys. These types of characters are generally known as an Anti-hero, and is a perfectly good archtype to base a character around.
A character who fights fire with fire, for example. These could be brooding characters, or those who legitimately believe what they are doing is legit, or believe the world just doesn't understand the big picture. Regardless, a necromancer that holds back a hobgoblin army by raising up the dead to save a village, ripping the souls from the hobgoblins and sending them to the afterlife, scattering them in a panic, and draining the life from waves upon waves of charging marauders until they route, not to save his own skin, but to protect the life of the innocent is an archtypal anti-hero. He or she is using the weapons of "the enemy" against them.
From what I've read, it seems to have very, very little to do with some sort of "us vs the GM" mindset that some are trying to argue, but more to do with the roleplaying aspects. Likewise, you could insert pretty much any forbidden or scary power and end up with the exact same social stigmas. Reference, perhaps, the reaction that Zuko received in Avatar: The Last Airbender, season 2, "Zuko Alone" where Zuko uses his firebending forms against a group of thugs. Seeing as the Fire Nation is effectively the big bad evil guys of the setting, and have killed or captured thousands of people in the land he is in, the reception of the townsfolk is less than ideal (they don't actually attack him, however, and he leaves town).
Honestly, it's not like a commoner is going to be able to tell the difference between animate undead cast on a corpse and animate objects cast on a corpse.
EDIT: Hopefully this will help with some of the "alienthink" problems that some posters complain about.