
mdt |

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).
And yet, it was argued, and you agreed, that if Zuko had not left town, it would have been evil for the Earth Benders to attack him to drive him out of town. Not only that, he would not have been a bad guy for burning them to a crisp for being rude enough attack him when he refuses to leave their town.

TarkXT |

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.
Stopped reading right there. We're not talking about someone's birth defect, or gimpy leg, or different race or culture. We're talking about someone who willfully does an act that is known to be incredibly taboo to the point where laws and paladin orders come hunting you, and parading that abomination in front of common citizens and then getting all gripey because "society is persecuting me." That's stupid, among many many other not so nice words I can think of. That's not being reasonable, that's being willfully belligerent to the societal taboos and pet peeves of people around you. That's going to a PETA convention wearing a furcoat made of baby animals and being surprised when you get pepper sprayed by security after screaming "BUT I DIDNT CLUB THE ANIMALS MYSELF!"
There is a point where morticians mark "suicide" on your death certificate as opposed to "murdered by a mob".

thepuregamer |
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
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.
Well, according to you, attacking a person whose existence you do not like is a good act and a person defending themselves against them is an act of evil. Clearly you gave up trying to see this impartially a while ago.
Clearly none of you have ever actually read or thought about ethics and morality.
An act is arguably wrong if it harms another individual. If you manufacture a corpse, then you have not wronged an individual on the creation end of it. If you do not then use the undead to harm other people, how is this act of creating and using undead evil? Give me a why other than because it is RAW? You guys are eventually going to have to DM a game where someone asks this question. If your only answer is, "because by raw, animating dead is evil." you are going to look foolish.

Ashiel |

Ashiel wrote: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).And yet, it was argued, and you agreed, that if Zuko had not left town, it would have been evil for the Earth Benders to attack him to drive him out of town. Not only that, he would not have been a bad guy for burning them to a crisp for being rude enough attack him when he refuses to leave their town.
Actually, no, I didn't agree to that. Zuko left because there was effectively nothing there for him. However, if after he overcame the thugs that he was fighting, the townsfolk attacked him and putting him in danger, defending himself would have been an option. Also, attacking someone is a bit beyond "rude". If you draw arms against someone else with intent to kill, you are effectively declaring that your life is now theirs. He could have indeed refused to leave, and there's probably absolutely nothing any of them could have done about it, given his skills. However, attacking him because of fear does not make attacking him morally good. Attacking out of prejudice does not either.
I'll put it another way. If you attack me, you'd best be prepared to die, because if I feel that my person is being threatened, I will retaliate, without remorse, and I will disable you. Now, if you're sufficiently less skilled, and I can do so without killing you, then I will. However, if you are holding a deadly weapon (such as a sword, axe, hoe, pitchfork, or even a metal bar), then it is much more likely that I will kill you to end the threat. That would not make me a murderer. It was your fault that you initiated aggression, even if I'm wearing something that you find inhumanly offensive (like white after labor day, maybe).
Stopped reading right there. We're not talking about someone's birth defect, or gimpy leg, or different race or culture. We're talking about someone who willfully does an act that is known to be incredibly taboo to the point where laws and paladin orders come hunting you, and parading that abomination in front of common citizens and then getting all gripey because "society is persecuting me." That's stupid, among many many other not so nice words I can think of. That's not being reasonable, that's being willfully belligerent to the societal taboos and pet peeves of people around you. That's going to a PETA convention wearing a furcoat made of baby animals and being surprised when you get pepper sprayed by security after screaming "BUT I DIDNT CLUB THE ANIMALS MYSELF!"
There is a point where morticians mark "suicide" on your death certificate as opposed to "murdered by a mob".
The fact of the matter is, it is the same. Taboos mean nothing to morality. Sorry, but it doesn't. Every day, people are saved with surgeries that are forbidden and taboo in some cultures or subcultures. Doctors had to exhume corpses against what was considered holy, and faced the threat of punishment, so as to learn how to help their living patients because the society encouraged ignorance. This is identical, except on a grander scale. Undead are powered by negative energy. Living creatures (including fiends) are powered by positive energy. It's two sides of the same coin. Likewise, it is possible to have undead that aren't evil (ghosts can be of any alignment, for example).
Regardless, it doesn't really matter. You should probably not stop reading posts because you find something to disagree with. It means you're missing the bigger picture, and thus aren't really qualified to actually discuss it. However, if you come up to me and insult me, my religion, and my moral beliefs, and I kill you out of anger or fear of you, I still have committed murder. Some might say it was justifiable, but it is still murder. Perhaps your insult was an evil act, but it is I that now have committed a evil act, and it is also your right to attempt to keep me from killing you.
Escalating violence is generally perceived as bad.

thepuregamer |
Stopped reading right there. We're not talking about someone's birth defect, or gimpy leg, or different race or culture. We're talking about someone who willfully does an act that is known to be incredibly taboo to the point where laws and paladin orders come hunting you, and parading that abomination in front of common citizens and then getting all gripey because "society is persecuting me." That's stupid, among many many other not so nice words I can think of. That's not being reasonable, that's being willfully belligerent to the societal taboos and pet peeves of people around you. That's going to a PETA convention wearing a furcoat made of baby animals and being surprised when you get pepper sprayed by security after screaming "BUT I DIDNT CLUB THE ANIMALS MYSELF!"There is a point where morticians mark "suicide" on your death certificate as opposed to "murdered by a mob".
how about you examine this from an angle different than race. Take transgender people who are born one gender but change themselves to match their identity. Doing such a thing even 40 years ago was probably taboo. Cross dressers were labeled as sexually deviant people and attacked and marginalized by society.
Just existing is not an act of evil(especially considering existing isn't even an act).

TarkXT |

mdt wrote:seekerofshadowlight wrote:
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.
Well, according to you, attacking a person whose existence you do not like is a good act and a person defending themselves against them is an act of evil. Clearly you gave up trying to see this impartially a while ago.
Clearly none of you have ever actually read or thought about ethics and morality.
An act is arguably wrong if it harms another individual. If you manufacture a corpse, then you have not wronged an individual on the creation end of it. If you do not then use the undead to harm other people, how is this act of creating and using undead evil? Give me a why other than because it is RAW? You guys are eventually going to have to DM a game where someone asks this question. If your only answer is, "because by raw, animating dead is evil." you are going to look foolish.
Alright let's look at how dangerous the ground we're treading is. Let's say the dumb necromancer spends the wasteful money and resources to turn the statue of say, a dragon, to a dragon corpse.
"Ho ho!" The theorhetical necromancer says. "I have bypassed morality! For I have created yon corpse from that shich was not alive! Begone with you paladins!"
Then another dragon, taking pity on his brother scares the necromancer away and True Ressurects the statue/skeletal dragon. Now you have an interesting dillema. You went from something that's alive, to undead, to now alive. If it were not for the wizards actions the statue would never have been a corpse to be ressurected and by all accounts this means that you could have turned the statue into an actual dragon.
With this in mind, the potential for the creation of life is at your fingertips, you can literally transmute inorganic matter into life. Yet, you squander that power to make more death, and even more of that power to create undeath.
So we get a metric ton of philosophical questions. Was it the wizards right to deny that statue life? Was it right to take its corpse and put it what is essentially slavery? Why couldn't he have instead cast one of many many spells to attain those goals? Why didn't he? For that matter knowing the societal trouble he could get into why would he deliberately cause himself so much potential trouble by doing things in this way?
You want to say that no ones thinking about morality and ethics when clearly you haven't thought about them hard enough within their own context. The truth is far far more complicated than either side chooses to believe. In these cases it's far less damaging to the gametable to go to raw rather than waste my fantasy adventuring time debating the morals of turning a boulder into a corpse resembling the paladin's grandmother and using her as a servant dressed in a french maid outfit.

thepuregamer |
So we get a metric ton of philosophical questions. Was it the wizards right to deny that statue life? Was it right to take its corpse and put it what is essentially slavery? Why couldn't he have instead cast one of many many spells to attain those goals? Why didn't he? For that matter knowing the societal trouble he could get into why would he deliberately cause himself so much potential trouble by doing things in this way?You want to say that no ones thinking about morality and ethics when clearly you haven't thought about them hard enough within their own context. The truth is far far more complicated than either side chooses to believe. In these cases it's far less damaging to the gametable to go to raw rather than waste my fantasy adventuring time debating the morals of turning a boulder into a corpse resembling the paladin's grandmother and using her as a servant dressed in a french maid outfit.
Not really. No one is obligated to create life. Unless you are arguing that a person who never makes the effort to have a child is doing an act of evil.
the statue is not a thinking being. Turning a statue into a corpse. Another object is hardly bad. And then turning this object into a mindless undead. From start to finish, we have not hurt any living/thinking creature. This is pretty simple stuff.

Ashiel |

Alright let's look at how dangerous the ground we're treading is. Let's say the dumb necromancer spends the wasteful money and resources to turn the statue of say, a dragon, to a dragon corpse.
"Ho ho!" The theorhetical necromancer says. "I have bypassed morality! For I have created yon corpse from that shich was not alive! Begone with you paladins!"
Then another dragon, taking pity on his brother scares the necromancer away and True Ressurects the statue/skeletal dragon. Now you have an interesting dillema. You went from something that's alive, to undead, to now alive. If it were not for the wizards actions the statue would never have been a corpse to be ressurected and by all accounts this means that you could have turned the statue into an actual dragon.
Can't do it. The statue didn't have a soul. Resurrection, as raise dead requires the soul of the deceased to be willing to return. This body has no soul. You could no more cast resurrection on it than you could a clone or a cardboard box.
With this in mind, the potential for the creation of life is at your fingertips, you can literally transmute inorganic matter into life. Yet, you squander that power to make more death, and even more of that power to create undeath.
Actually, yes, you do indeed have the power to create life. A single wizard can recreate the creation story in Genesis, including creating people out of dirt. However, creating sentient creatures, then enslaving them, and then having them fight evil doers for you sounds way more evil to me than turning a rock into a lump of meat and then animating that lump of meat into a mindless husk of energy (evil or not) and then having that soulless meat fight evil as the expendable sack of monster-meat that it is.
So we get a metric ton of philosophical questions. Was it the wizards right to deny that statue life? Was it right to take its corpse and put it what is essentially slavery? Why couldn't he have instead cast one of many many spells to attain those goals? Why didn't he? For that matter knowing the societal trouble he could get into why would he deliberately cause himself so much potential trouble by doing things in this way?
Logically, if you consider it morally correct to skin an animal and wear it, make jewelry from it and wear it, eat its flesh, or use the dead for anything that isn't wasteful, then yes, I guess it was right, or at least not wrong. Giving life to something that had it is something that would be difficult to gauge the morality of. Arguably life is hard and fraught with peril and pain, but also beauty and wonder, joy and love. So, I'd say giving life is pretty neutral. It's more of something you'd do. However, giving life to something, just to enslave it? Seems more evil to me.
You want to say that no ones thinking about morality and ethics when clearly you haven't thought about them hard enough within their own context. The truth is far far more complicated than either side chooses to believe. In these cases it's far less damaging to the gametable to go to raw rather than waste my fantasy adventuring time debating the morals of turning a boulder into a corpse resembling the paladin's grandmother and using her as a servant dressed in a french maid outfit.
It sounds like you're trying to make excuses, and bend things out of context. Most of what you have posted is clearly wrong (as I've pointed out your mistakes), and the rest actually seems to favor your opponent's argument more than your own, I'm afraid.
EDIT: What ThePureGamer said.

lastblacknight |
thepuregamer wrote: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 evilThey are evil, crafting them is an evil act, if a small one.
Read the quote above, everything else is just opinion.
Ethics and morality will vary with settings but the act of animating a dead body - is [Evil] . That's why the spell has the [Evil] descriptor if your GM wants to change that then that's fine (it's called house-ruling) it won't work in PFS.
Don't expect a Paladin, or any good-aligned character; Ranger, Rogue or Wizard to be happy with you raising the dead.

![]() |

I believe this link is relevant.
I'll say nothing more as this whole thread has begun to infuriate me to no end.

lastblacknight |
mdt wrote:Again, BS strawman. Golems are not, by the rules, evil.And neither is a Rottweiler, but have fun walking into your local daycare centre with one.
Now imagine it is instead some animated monstrosity...
ha ha ha
"..but's it called Fluffy and wouldn't hurt anyone ... honest.... you can trust me.... I am a stranger who has just come into town...riding a horse of rotting flesh..."
All of my games have consquences; the PC's expect them in fact, it makes for the best reaccuring themes in campaigns and it adds realism. e.g. The noble you slighted last time you were at court has grown more influential since your last visit and rents at the local inn are increased etc..

TarkXT |

Can't do it. The statue didn't have a soul. Resurrection, as raise dead requires the soul of the deceased to be willing to return. This body has no soul. You could no more cast resurrection on it than you could a clone or a cardboard box.
But you can turn it into a living thing, which by all rights would have a soul. Heck it takes 20 minutes to make a full grown human from a pebble. That's the power of that spell, are you going to argue that human has no soul as well?
And whose to say that skeleton didnt have a soul waiting for fate to come in and shove it in a new body if strange? That's not for the spell to decide, that's left to the GM who can decide however he likes, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
This is where we start getting into the very ugly debates that mark abortion issues.
You have a chance to make life and instead, make more death. Worse, you flaunt it. You can argue how life is suffering and all that but again that's treading a very slippery issue.
And it's not bending things out of context. Your arguing the morality of gods. Your talking about immense power here to give life and take it away with little more than waggling your fingers and saying funny words. Your arguing that the villagers are evil for persecuting what you choose to do with that power when by all rights you're walking into their innocent town with a loaded weapon and a desire to use it and no respect for their ways. You want to talk about stuff like taxidermy in the context of bypassing the laws of physics, and biology with one fell swoop and pretend that's simple to think about.
At the level of spellcasting we're talking about with Polymorph any object wizards aren't wasting their time making dead bodies jsut to curve around an ethical issue, they're creating golems, they're designing pocket dimensions, they're bypassing leagues upon leagues of travel with a couple of words.
Even if we say you're not that powerful you're still a giant among ment. If you're good you have a responsibility not to let people come to harm of your power even if it's harming themselves because of it. If you're neutral it might just be less trouble not to bother with it. If you're evil, well ants be damned pass me the magnifying glass!
You guys are talking taxidermists, doctors, and transgendered people while I'm talking about Jehova smiting the hell out of Egypt because a king didn't want to cause economic and cultural upheaval by allowing an army of slaves to roam freely out of his country. I'm talking about responsibility for ones actions and how they affect those around us. And the one in question is someone who has a great deal of power. Someone who flaunts that power in such a way is someone to rightly be feared and shunned.

thepuregamer |
Shifty wrote:mdt wrote:Again, BS strawman. Golems are not, by the rules, evil.And neither is a Rottweiler, but have fun walking into your local daycare centre with one.
Now imagine it is instead some animated monstrosity...
ha ha ha
"..but's it called Fluffy and wouldn't hurt anyone ... honest.... you can trust me.... I am a stranger who has just come into town...riding a horse of rotting flesh..."
All of my games have consquences; the PC's expect them in fact, it makes for the best reaccuring themes in campaigns and it adds realism. e.g. The noble you slighted last time you were at court has grown more influential since your last visit and rents at the local inn are increased etc..
To be honest,
People do not want a rottweiler in a daycare center because a dog could easily kill a child if the dog is so inclined. Technically a rottweiler is worse than a controlled undead skeleton because the owner might lose control of it. The dog poses a greater risk to children than a mindless zombie that only does as commanded. A town could treat bringing an undead in like it is dangerous. But in such a game, it will only be consistent if the town is forcing everyone to store all possible weapons outside town. That means, fighters would have to leave their swords outside town, wizards their spell books, etc. Otherwise your dm is being contradictory.

Ashiel |

I believe this link is relevant.
I'll say nothing more as this whole thread has begun to infuriate me to no end.
Hey TriOmegaZero, my buddy, we think so much alike. ^.^
Notice a similarity between your post and this recent post of mine in this same topic? :P

mdt |

To be honest,People do not want possibly want a rottweiler in a daycare center because a dog could easily kill a child if the dog is so inclined. A town could treat bringing an undead in like it is dangerous. But in such a game, it will only be consistent if the town is forcing everyone to store all possible weapons outside town. That means, fighters would have to leave their swords outside town, wizards their spell books, etc. Otherwise your dm is being contradictory.
I can own a baseball bat and walk down the street with it. I can own a knife and do the same. I can even own a pistol or rifle or shotgun and drive around with them in town.
I can't own C4 unless I have a demolitions license. I can't own a fully automatic weapon unless I have a security license. I can't own a radioactive laced bomb.
I can own a rottweiler and walk him down the street on a leash. I can't own a lion or tiger or bear (oh my!) and walk him down the street on a leash.
There is nothing at all contradictory about assigning different levels of threat different restrictions. Humans do it all the time.
There's nothing inherently contradictory about outlawing undead in a city and allowing someone to walk around with a dagger or even a sword. There's nothing contradictory about outlawing spellcasting in town without a license but allowing Paladin's to Lay-on-hands without restrictions.
Any society ranks levels of danger vs levels of usefulness, and then assigns restrictions on what they are comfortable with.

![]() |

Hey TriOmegaZero, my buddy, we think so much alike. ^.^
Notice a similarity between your post and this recent post of mine in this same topic? :P
I was mostly skimming the thread and missed it. I really have nothing else to say here. The biting and snarling is too offputting.

thepuregamer |
I can own a baseball bat and walk down the street with it. I can own a knife and do the same. I can even own a pistol or rifle or shotgun and drive around with them in town.I can't own C4 unless I have a demolitions license. I can't own a fully automatic weapon unless I have a security license. I can't own a radioactive laced bomb.
I can own a rottweiler and walk him down the street on a leash. I can't own a lion or tiger or bear (oh my!) and walk him down the street on a leash.
There is nothing at all contradictory about assigning different levels of threat different restrictions. Humans do it all the time.
There's nothing inherently contradictory about outlawing undead in a city and allowing someone to walk around with a dagger or even a sword. There's nothing contradictory about outlawing spellcasting in town without a license but allowing Paladin's to Lay-on-hands without restrictions.
Any society ranks levels of danger vs levels of usefulness, and then assigns restrictions on what they are comfortable with.
well that is all fair unless you are inconsistent in your ranking of how dangerous things are.
Btw, undead horses would be super useful to a farming society. All their manual labor issues are solved. Much more useful to society than a magical sword that can only kill.
If you rank a undead horse as more dangerous than a magical sword that is like making an automatic gun legal while outlawing kitchen knives. Like I said, an inconsistent DM looks foolish when he does illogical things or acts inconsistently.

Ashiel |

But you can turn it into a living thing, which by all rights would have a soul. Heck it takes 20 minutes to make a full grown human from a pebble. That's the power of that spell, are you going to argue that human has no soul as well?
Nope. But turning a rock into a corpse means you're turning something dead into something dead. You're not ever giving it life. Now if you turned a rock into a living person, then killed that person, that would be stupid, a jerk move, and pretty evil in my opinion (since you essentially just made it to kill it).
And whose to say that skeleton didnt have a soul waiting for fate to come in and shove it in a new body if strange? That's not for the spell to decide, that's left to the GM who can decide however he likes, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
This is where we start getting into the very ugly debates that mark abortion issues.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that there's a soul waiting to jump inside a lump of flesh and bone that you made out of a rock? Or are you suggesting that there's a soul that's waiting for you to turn the rock into a body so it can inhabit it? Or are you suggesting something different...?
You have a chance to make life and instead, make more death. Worse, you flaunt it. You can argue how life is suffering and all that but again that's treading a very slippery issue.
So you're saying that not having babies is evil? If you're not out creating life as soon as much as you can, then it's evil? If you have the power to create life, but you create something that's not alive, it's evil? Your statements seem to have no logic behind them at all.
And it's not bending things out of context. Your arguing the morality of gods. Your talking about immense power here to give life and take it away with little more than waggling your fingers and saying funny words. Your arguing that the villagers are evil for persecuting what you choose to do with that power when by all rights you're walking into their innocent town with a loaded weapon and a desire to use it and no respect for their ways. You want to talk about stuff like taxidermy in the context of bypassing the laws of physics, and biology with one fell swoop and pretend that's simple to think about.
The scale doesn't change the facts, dear Tark. The fact of the matter is, walking into a town with a loaded gun doesn't mean you plan to shoot someone with it. Likewise, creating an undead pack animal to ride or to carry your stuff is a pretty mundane method of creating an easy to handle steed (it doesn't eat, sleep, get tired, get thirsty, get spooked, probably doesn't seem very tasty to potential predators, etc), and not intending to use it to kill some townsfolk is pretty reasonable. Having respect for traditions or "ways" of the people is irrelevant to the morality. It might be considerate, or placating, but if you wanted to argue anything morality based about it, you're arguing law and chaos factors.
It is effectively the same as a 7th level Fighter walking into town. He can, most likely, butcher most of the townsfolk if he wanted to. Hell, he can probably even tear their houses down with his bare hands (I'm not even joking, if he has Power Attack, he could do so, and if he had an adamantine axe, it's over). The fighter is wielding weapons of killing, forged for the purpose of killing, and tempered in the fires and waters for the purpose of killing. Swords were designed as weapons of war. They are first and foremost instruments of killing and slaying. One could say that by forging a sword, you are creating a dead thing to create more death and suffering. However, despite swords being designed to kill, most will agree that you could use a sword to defend yourself, or defend others.
Yes/No? Answer carefully, because this applies to both.
At the level of spellcasting we're talking about with Polymorph any object wizards aren't wasting their time making dead bodies jsut to curve around an ethical issue, they're creating golems, they're designing pocket dimensions, they're bypassing leagues upon leagues of travel with a couple of words.
Your point?
Even if we say you're not that powerful you're still a giant among men. If you're good you have a responsibility not to let people come to harm of your power even if it's harming themselves because of it. If you're neutral it might just be less trouble not to bother with it. If you're evil, well ants be damned pass me the magnifying glass!
So you say. As I noted, you could easily ignore them, or try to convince them otherwise by leading as an example. Killing them in self defense is not evil, but I'm not saying it makes you a better person either. However, suffering the abuse and staying your hand probably would qualify as an act of good.
You guys are talking taxidermists, doctors, and transgendered people while I'm talking about Jehova smiting the hell out of Egypt because a king didn't want to cause economic and cultural upheaval by allowing an army of slaves to roam freely out of his country. I'm talking about responsibility for ones actions and how they affect those around us. And the one in question is someone who has a great deal of power. Someone who flaunts that power in such a way is someone to rightly be feared and shunned.
Doesn't matter the scale, only the principle.

Ashiel |

thepuregamer wrote:
To be honest,People do not want possibly want a rottweiler in a daycare center because a dog could easily kill a child if the dog is so inclined. A town could treat bringing an undead in like it is dangerous. But in such a game, it will only be consistent if the town is forcing everyone to store all possible weapons outside town. That means, fighters would have to leave their swords outside town, wizards their spell books, etc. Otherwise your dm is being contradictory.
I can own a baseball bat and walk down the street with it. I can own a knife and do the same. I can even own a pistol or rifle or shotgun and drive around with them in town.
I can't own C4 unless I have a demolitions license. I can't own a fully automatic weapon unless I have a security license. I can't own a radioactive laced bomb.
I can own a rottweiler and walk him down the street on a leash. I can't own a lion or tiger or bear (oh my!) and walk him down the street on a leash.
There is nothing at all contradictory about assigning different levels of threat different restrictions. Humans do it all the time.
There's nothing inherently contradictory about outlawing undead in a city and allowing someone to walk around with a dagger or even a sword. There's nothing contradictory about outlawing spellcasting in town without a license but allowing Paladin's to Lay-on-hands without restrictions.
Any society ranks levels of danger vs levels of usefulness, and then assigns restrictions on what they are comfortable with.
Agreed to a point. The scale is different, but the principle remains the same. In essence, you're suggesting that they simply don't see most things as a similar threat. However, it would also be likely that magic should be outright illegal. A 5th level wizard can fly over a town and set it aflame before flying off again, before anyone even realized what in the heck happened.
I suppose that, honestly, anything that was strong enough to cast animate dead should likely be banned from entering a town anyway, since a 5th-7th level character is already beyond mortal capabilities.
EDIT:
well that is all fair unless you are inconsistent in your ranking of how dangerous things are.
If you rank a undead horse as more dangerous than a magical sword that is like making an automatic gun legal while outlawing kitchen knives. Like I said, an inconsistent DM looks foolish when he does illogical things or acts inconsistently.
Pretty much this.
I was mostly skimming the thread and missed it. I really have nothing else to say here. The biting and snarling is too offputting.
Yeah I know what you mean. I don't know why, but I always end up drawn to such discussions. I think it's because I like talking philosophy, and like to give a balanced discussion.
EDIT 2:
btw ashiel, I am going to leave the rest to you. I have flash games to play that don't give me a head ache.
Have fun with your game. I'll try to hold down the fort.
*opens a book, grabs a bubble-pipe, and listens to some Skillet by an imaginary fire.*
TarkXT |

N
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that there's a soul waiting to jump inside a lump of flesh and bone that you made out of a rock? Or are you suggesting that there's a soul that's waiting for you to turn the rock into a body so it can inhabit it? Or are you suggesting something different...?
I'm suggesting all of it. If you can turn a rock into a lump of flesh with magic, there can be a soul created by the gods or the universe or whatever to potentially inhabit it purely to keep things tidy.
So you're saying that not having babies is evil? If you're not out creating life as soon as much as you can, then it's evil? If you have the power to create life, but you create something that's not alive, it's evil? Your statements seem to have no logic behind them at all.
I'm saying that you are given a choice. A chance to do nothing. A chance to make life. Or a chance to make death. Or a chance to do something that is none of the above. Babies have nothing to do with it. We're way past babies. You can make dinosaurs now. A good person doesn't squander that power to commit petty evil.
Yes/No? Answer carefully, because this applies to both.
How about maybe. I didn't have to draw upon energy that only exists to kill me to forge the sword nor cast a spell with the evil descriptor. Both can be absolutely benign but only one took an act of evil to create.
Everything else.
You are god. In one hand you have the power to take life. In the other you have the power to give life. More than that you have the power to alter reality as you see fit. You can turn that which never had life into a meat puppet to dance as you see fit.
You can sit here and say the scale doesn't matter all you like but scale is pretty much how we define everything. Manslaughter is heinous but genocide makes you reviled long long after your death.
A loaded pistol in real life can kill maybe 10 people at most assuming perfect accuracy and function of the weapon. Heck under pathfinder's firearms rules it's even less.
A wand of magic missile? Try about 50 commoners. Even if you don't kill them you're guaranteed to wound them.
At level 1 you are capable of mass murder on a grand scale with such immense ease that it would be laughable.
And from there it only gets worse. You've already told me the wizard can subdue a commoner without even casting a spell so already he's leagues above the common man. When added in the fact that he can kill the entire village at will, well my villagers aren't mobbing you the smart ones are running out of town. The really smart ones are placating you out of fear. The dumb ones avoid you at all costs.
This sin't superstition, this is reality. Your capacity for murder and pain is way above someone with a crossbow. So don't feed me crap about swords and guns. Your magic is infallible, you can't miss, and you can escape the law at will. Only someone equal to your power, or knows the weaknesses in it can oppose you.
A necromancer who doesn't understand this is either evil, stupid, or both. It's about responsibility, pure, clean, and easy. You have the knowledge and the power to know what you're capable of and more importantly how others without your power will react when you enable it.
If you want a good ingame context on why people don't go around into common villages riding undead steeds; think long and hard about dragons, what they're capable of and why the good ones remain relatively separate from society while the evil ones take pleasure in just hanging around.

TarkXT |

Rides in Naked on an undead dragon/moose with a zombie Legion and starts building a BBQ pit
"Hello friends no cause for alarm, yes sir none at all, we are just passing though and gonna have ourselves a little BBQ is all"
And then the demon lord of Tribblse thus directed his undead boar zombie ,having marinated itself overnight in his secret recipe for deliciousness to kindly stood in the barbecue pit occasionally turning itself to ensure even cooking before serving itself.
Oddly enough no one showed up to the picnic.

![]() |

Yes, you created the situation and killed, scared, innocent villagers acting out of fear? (And why were they scared? Because you brought the living dead into their midst!)minor evil is what? Like being kinda pregnant? (you either are or aren't).
I posit that defending yourself is not Evil.
I am not advocating that it is Good.
Let us suppose that this lonely (and even perhaps foolish) necromancer was simply riding into town looking to a dry room to spend the night before he moved on to a lecture on 'Spellcasting, Minions, and You" by noted Arcanist Youdienow.
These brutish thugs have just tried to assault him. He may still wind up in trouble with the local law. But to say that he's evil without any knowledge of intent is stupid.
I suppose that a father stealing bread to feed his child is clearly detecting as Evil right?

TarkXT |

I would also like to point out that any point in time in which one PC lies to another, and the player of the other PC knows it's a lie... this is a recipe for a ruined game.
Well this depends on the players in question. Character tension should never translate into player tension. Sadly it all too often does.

![]() |

Undead are safe and reliable and great for the community in providing limitless labour and energy to your farm.
I think we say the same thing about nuclear power.
How many people want to live next to a nuclear plant or have one built in their town?
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.

Ashiel |

Ashiel wrote:I'm suggesting all of it. If you can turn a rock into a lump of flesh with magic, there can be a soul created by the gods or the universe or whatever to potentially inhabit it purely to keep things tidy.N
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that there's a soul waiting to jump inside a lump of flesh and bone that you made out of a rock? Or are you suggesting that there's a soul that's waiting for you to turn the rock into a body so it can inhabit it? Or are you suggesting something different...?
I can't really say. There is nothing that details how the souls are created, or where they come from. It's possible that the wizard creates the soul when it they make a rock into a sentient creature, or maybe it has a soul that a god made sometime before that's sitting in some sort of "que". However, we cannot say as we don't know. What we do know is that anything involving creating or not creating life is directly parallel to having babies. So if not creating life when you have the power is evil, then all adventurers are committing evil by not settling down and become baby factories.
I guess it depends on the setting, but by default, I would definitely, without a doubt, say that avoiding the question entirely is at least the neutral place. Turning a rock into a corpse definitely avoids the creating or not creating life. You're just turning one dead thing into another.
Quote:I'm saying that you are given a choice. A chance to do nothing. A chance to make life. Or a chance to make death. Or a chance to do something that is none of the above. Babies have nothing to do with it. We're way past babies. You can make dinosaurs now. A good person doesn't squander that power to commit petty evil.
So you're saying that not having babies is evil? If you're not out creating life as soon as much as you can, then it's evil? If you have the power to create life, but you create something that's not alive, it's evil? Your statements seem to have no logic behind them at all.
You say squander, but that's entirely your own opinion. Creating or not creating dinosaurs has nothing to do with anything. If the problem with creating undead is that it was a body of a living, sentient creature, then animating a former rock turned into calcium and protein pretty much deals with that. You are basically saying its evil to use this power, merely because you have the power at all. That makes no logical sense. Likewise, you say petty evil, but if I can turn a rock into a corpse and a corpse into a dragon, and that dragon zombie is used to preform some sort of greater purpose (for good or evil). Heck, even if you just used it to haul your luggage, that doesn't make it any more evil than it would be just animating it.
That's like saying because you have money, you're evil because you don't give it to everyone else.
Quote:How about maybe. I didn't have to draw upon energy that only exists to kill me to forge the sword nor cast a spell with the evil descriptor. Both can be absolutely benign but only one took an act of evil to create.
Yes/No? Answer carefully, because this applies to both.
Well, we were discussing results. One is specifically intended for killing, while the other has more beneficial uses (they'd be excellent for agricultural tasks to promote the health and well-being of the world). The sword is typically seen as too large to be an effective skinning or casual work tool, and is ill suited for working tasks such as hacking or chopping wood. Its uses are pretty limited outside of combat.
Quote:Everything else.You are god. In one hand you have the power to take life. In the other you have the power to give life. More than that you have the power to alter reality as you see fit. You can turn that which never had life into a meat puppet to dance as you see fit.
You can sit here and say the scale doesn't matter all you like but scale is pretty much how we define everything. Manslaughter is heinous but genocide makes you reviled long long after your death.
Yep. Murder someone and you're a murderer. Murder a lot of people, and you're a mass murderer. However, murder is murder is murder. If I steal a gumdrop from you or a thousand dollars, I've stolen from you. In either case, I have wronged you. I have committed an act that hurts you, intentionally, and willingly. Depending on the scale, it could be trivial or it could be devastating (stealing a thousand dollars from a multi billionaire would be about the equivalent of stealing a gumdrop from a homeless person with nothing), but the principle is the same.
All comes down to basic principles.
And from there it only gets worse. You've already told me the wizard can subdue a commoner without even casting a spell so already he's leagues above the common man. When added in the fact that he can kill the entire village at will, well my villagers aren't mobbing you the smart ones are running out of town. The really smart ones are placating you out of fear. The dumb ones avoid you at all costs.
That seems fair.
This sin't superstition, this is reality. Your capacity for murder and pain is way above someone with a crossbow. So don't feed me crap about swords and guns. Your magic is infallible, you can't miss, and you can escape the law at will. Only someone equal to your power, or knows the weaknesses in it can oppose you.
Actually, your magic can miss. Notice many spells require attack rolls. Likewise, saving throws are effectively a miss-chance for many spells. However...
A necromancer who doesn't understand this is either evil, stupid, or both. It's about responsibility, pure, clean, and easy. You have the knowledge and the power to know what you're capable of and more importantly how others without your power will react when you enable it.
That doesn't change what is right or wrong. Placating the ignorant is not being good. Likewise, defending yourself is not doing evil. Riding your undead steed into town, and yet not threatening people is not evil in itself. If someone tries to attack you, and you give them a warning, and they persist, they have signed their end of the contract.
If you want a good ingame context on why people don't go around into common villages riding undead steeds; think long and hard about dragons, what they're capable of and why the good ones remain relatively separate from society while the evil ones take pleasure in just hanging around.
Do they take pleasure in just hanging around? You know, there's a gold dragon in Golarion that actually lives in a city that he created to breed perfect humanoids. He's using humanoids as a science project, and won't let them leave once they are there (essentially they become his property). Likewise, I wasn't aware that evil dragons just hung around with peasants and such. My bad dude, my bad. /sarcasm
You're basically saying "You got power, so that means that if you exercise it, you're evil" or "if you're not exercising it the way I think you should exercise it, you're evil". Doesn't float.

Ashiel |

Matthew Trent wrote:There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.
In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P

TarkXT |

TarkXT wrote:Matthew Trent wrote:There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P
Thank you for missing the point entirely. It's about responsibility and recklessness in the face of unimaginable potential to cause harm. The fact that you continually fail to understand this and why people are justifiably afraid of that is frustrating.
That's been my point this entire time. Great power. Great responsibility.
But I'm done here. There's stuff I'm reading here that implies some rather terrifying stuff about people on these boards I'd rather not think about and I'm stepping out before it gets ugly.
Personally I hope no one here ever attains the capacity of physical change in reality as a wizard does in fantasy. No ones mature enough for that kind of power.

thepuregamer |
Ashiel wrote:TarkXT wrote:Matthew Trent wrote:There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P
Thank you for missing the point entirely. It's about responsibility and recklessness in the face of unimaginable potential to cause harm. The fact that you continually fail to understand this and why people are justifiably afraid of that is frustrating.
That's been my point this entire time. Great power. Great responsibility.
But I'm done here. There's stuff I'm reading here that implies some rather terrifying stuff about people on these boards I'd rather not think about and I'm stepping out before it gets ugly.
Personally I hope no one here ever attains the capacity of physical change in reality as a wizard does in fantasy. No ones mature enough for that kind of power.
Well, nuclear power plants are not inherently bad. They are a tool with a variable amount of risk attached to them.
Japanese citizens had been benefiting greatly from having nuclear power plants(61% of the energy generation is through nuclear). their cost of living would be greatly increased if they were to see other power sources.
But... Japan is also a very foolish place to put nuclear reactors. Considering almost 90% of the world's earthquakes happen there, reactors have to consistently withstand strong quakes and the resulting Tsunamis. Also considering Japan is an island, the nuclear plants are not easily isolated from the water.
So for japan, nuclear plants are both useful and dangerous. For areas with minimal risk of natural disasters and that are safely distanced from large population centers, nuclear power great and poses an acceptable and manageable risk.

Ashiel |

Ashiel wrote:TarkXT wrote:Matthew Trent wrote:There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P
Thank you for missing the point entirely. It's about responsibility and recklessness in the face of unimaginable potential to cause harm. The fact that you continually fail to understand this and why people are justifiably afraid of that is frustrating.
That's been my point this entire time. Great power. Great responsibility.
But I'm done here. There's stuff I'm reading here that implies some rather terrifying stuff about people on these boards I'd rather not think about and I'm stepping out before it gets ugly.
Personally I hope no one here ever attains the capacity of physical change in reality as a wizard does in fantasy. No ones mature enough for that kind of power.
Y'know, it's kind of tragic that you guys can poke fun and make jokes all you want, while making one joke on this side apparently means we've missed your entire point, are scary to behold, etc. That's pretty crappy, dude.
But yeah, magic is a lot like nuclear power. It has great potential for harm, and great potential for good. Powering the homes of thousands is a pretty awesome thing. Blowing up a country...well that's pretty awesome, but in a very bad way. I think it's kind of sick that you seem to believe that throwing around fireballs to slaughter goblins, fight giants, and kill dragons seems to be a decent use of your phenomenal cosmic power(TM), but turning a piece of dead flesh into something useful is abusing that power. That is pretty sick, in my opinion, and your inability to look at parallel situations, principles, and fundamentals of the very philosophical context you are debating is something I find very scary (since you wanna talk about scary people).
People should be afraid of wizards, or clerics, or any other spellcaster. They really are as gods in mortal bodies. Virtually everything that you have said applies equally to everything. If you you're able to use godlike power, then of course casting cone of cold must be a terrible misuse of that power. If you cast wall of stone to build a castle, you could be off creating LIFE, so you're abusing your power. If you're fighting goblins, or zombies, or off exploring some ancient dungeon of yore for anything resembling your own interests, you are severely, wholly, and monstrously abusing your power!
Sorry man, but you have to accept that is what you're saying. It might not be what you're trying to say, but that's what you're effectively saying. Effectively, if you are a wizard that is of any real wizardly power, you are effectively going to be evil, because apparently doing anything other than exactly what you think they should do, or doing anything other than not using their power, would be irresponsible and wrong.
Sorry, but I don't know anyone who would agree with that. If that's your view, then you might as well scrap the alignment system, and likely the game itself, because everyone is a superhuman past 5th level. Heck, a 5th level wizard could probably whip spiderman in a fair fight.

Rocketmail1 |

Ashiel wrote:TarkXT wrote:Matthew Trent wrote:There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P
Thank you for missing the point entirely. It's about responsibility and recklessness in the face of unimaginable potential to cause harm. The fact that you continually fail to understand this and why people are justifiably afraid of that is frustrating.
That's been my point this entire time. Great power. Great responsibility.
But I'm done here. There's stuff I'm reading here that implies some rather terrifying stuff about people on these boards I'd rather not think about and I'm stepping out before it gets ugly.
Personally I hope no one here ever attains the capacity of physical change in reality as a wizard does in fantasy. No ones mature enough for that kind of power.
Oh, okay. Wizards are evil because they are powerful. Nuclear power and it's advocates are evil because 9.0 earthquakes might happen.
Good to know.

Ashiel |

Well, nuclear power plants are not inherently bad. They are a tool with a variable amount of risk attached to them.
Japanese citizens had been benefiting greatly from having nuclear power plants(61% of the energy generation is through nuclear). their cost of living would be greatly increased if they were to see other power sources.
But... Japan is also a very foolish place to put nuclear reactors. Considering almost 90% of the world's earthquakes happen there, reactors have to consistently withstand strong quakes and the resulting Tsunamis. Also considering Japan is an island, the nuclear plants are not easily isolated from the water.
So for japan, nuclear plants are both useful and dangerous. For areas with minimal risk of natural disasters and that are safely distanced from large population centers, nuclear power great and poses an acceptable and manageable risk.
Exactly. How can magic be put to use for the betterment of the world? Well, fireball probably can't do a whole lot for the betterment of the world. It seems primarily about destroying things. It's not sustained power, and it's not easily harnessed. Shocking grasp or lightning bolt on the other hand, if combined with the trap rules, could power a city as super reactor that literally harness lightning to power things.
Likewise, animate dead can fill the bulk of armies, protecting living lives. They can be used to preform grunt work that great civilizations of history relied on slave castes to preform. They are in expensive, and can work all day, and all night, do not eat, and do not sleep, do not get sick. A government that uses undead for such things could then focus on the betterment of their people. Open colleges to have people become adepts, clerics, and wizards, experts, and artisans. Taxes remain low because the overall costs to produce and maintain the population would be lower. Bodies would be gathered from those who die of old age or natural causes, and executed criminals would be re-added to the workforce so that their bodies would serve society. In time, their economy would become very strong, and their people who were more readily educated would advance in culture, putting them ahead of their neighbors who rely on aching backs, sweat, and blood to dig ditches, build roads, mine ore, or plow fields.
Animate dead has the most potential for good of any spell in the entire D&D book. Ever.
EDIT: While casting the spell would arguably be an evil act (something that isn't RAW), the benefits would greatly outweigh it on the side of good, if used for good intentions.

Rocketmail1 |

thepuregamer wrote:Well, nuclear power plants are not inherently bad. They are a tool with a variable amount of risk attached to them.
Japanese citizens had been benefiting greatly from having nuclear power plants(61% of the energy generation is through nuclear). their cost of living would be greatly increased if they were to see other power sources.
But... Japan is also a very foolish place to put nuclear reactors. Considering almost 90% of the world's earthquakes happen there, reactors have to consistently withstand strong quakes and the resulting Tsunamis. Also considering Japan is an island, the nuclear plants are not easily isolated from the water.
So for japan, nuclear plants are both useful and dangerous. For areas with minimal risk of natural disasters and that are safely distanced from large population centers, nuclear power great and poses an acceptable and manageable risk.
Exactly. How can magic be put to use for the betterment of the world? Well, fireball probably can't do a whole lot for the betterment of the world. It seems primarily about destroying things. It's not sustained power, and it's not easily harnessed. Shocking grasp or lightning bolt on the other hand, if combined with the trap rules, could power a city as super reactor that literally harness lightning to power things.
Likewise, animate dead can fill the bulk of armies, protecting living lives. They can be used to preform grunt work that great civilizations of history relied on slave castes to preform. They are in expensive, and can work all day, and all night, do not eat, and do not sleep, do not get sick. A government that uses undead for such things could then focus on the betterment of their people. Open colleges to have people become adepts, clerics, and wizards, experts, and artisans. Taxes remain low because the overall costs to produce and maintain the population would be lower. Bodies would be gathered from those who die of old age or natural causes, and executed criminals...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say. But at least it's paved.
I wonder what the road to heaven is paved with. Bad intentions?

Ashiel |

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say. But at least it's paved.
I wonder what the road to heaven is paved with. Bad intentions?
Well if you have the Book of Exalted Deeds, probably most of the stuff in that book. A huge majority of that book actually commits every act that the book itself and the core rules would define as evil, including torturing someone until they change alignment to match your own, inflicting heinous pain and agony when alternatives are available, casting spells with evil descriptors (no joke, check the holy prestige classes), etc, etc.
One of the most disgusting, very child-unfriendly games I ever ran was one where a well-meaning cleric in a town decided to use some of the stuff from the Book of Exalted Deeds, ended up sowing chaos, suffering, and tragedy in the town as a result, and was surprised when the Paladin's smite evil whacked him like the proverbial ton of bricks (since hey, he was doing so much raw evil with all this apparently holy stuff that can be used for no good ends) that he of course turned evil.
So...wait...I guess we're back to the road to hell.
Well, it seems that most of the folks in the alignment thread, concerning [Evil] spells have concluded that RAW evil spells don't affect alignment by default, only determine how they function mechanically, and that doing more good than evil will net you a Good alignment.
Ergo, I guess heaven would be on the other end of the necromacy (as in necro-government), and the zealous guys doing all the evil with the holy stuff would be taking an alignment shift pretty darn quickly in the evil-direction.
However, this is just my curious musings, and I'm not arguing this concepts at all. Just musing for entertainment purposes.

phantom1592 |

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.
I understand the concept of 'Anti-hero'... but I don't see anyone making a good case for that here.
Dexter and Punisher KNOW their place is in the shadows. At no time do they ever walk into the middle of town, perform their evil rituals, and then look around shocked that the world doesn't accept them.
They KNOW what they are doing is wrong... (at least Dexter does,) but they still feel compelled to do it. Then they flee from the law-abiding citizens.
As for the whole 'why would they hate necromancers...' bit. Why WOULDN"T they??
These are people who desecrate corpses. Simple as that.
Yes, the soul is gone.. yes, the meat suit was empty and is under control...
But y'know what... that 'meat suit' you dug up and animated to draw you a bath and paint the house... THAT WAS MY MOM!!! Or my dead son!!!
When "I" die, are you going to do the SAME THING TO ME?!?!
GET OUT OF OUR TOWN MONSTER!!!!
Yes, magic is very powerful, and you can kill dozens with a good fireball... but the general populace accepts that wizards WON'T do that unless provocted.
Necromancers have already shown the desire to dig up the raw materials they need... just for a walking corpse to take an arrow for them.
GOSH... why are the people upset by this?
There is a difference between 'socially unacceptable' and 'Evil'
It MAY not be evil to ride a dead horse, (making it was a little evil...)
There isn't any evil about the hopeful mage riding it into town hoping that THIS place accepts his art...
There isn't even any evil in defending yourself when you get attacked.
But you shouldn't be surprised when you ARE attacked. Your taking peoples worst fears and parading it around in front of them. Reactions will range from horrified, to morally offended. but really that's the best you can hope for.

Jon Kines |

So you'd rather play a psychotic half-elf murderer
The aforementioned is not the only way you can RP an evil character. Converesely, is every good aligned character a LG Paladin? Approaching the game from this perspective allows for greater character depth and more interesting roleplay.

Ashiel |

I understand the concept of 'Anti-hero'... but I don't see anyone making a good case for that here.
Dexter and Punisher KNOW their place is in the shadows. At no time do they ever walk into the middle of town, perform their evil rituals, and then look around shocked that the world doesn't accept them.
They KNOW what they are doing is wrong... (at least Dexter does,) but they still feel compelled to do it. Then they flee from the law-abiding citizens.
Please keep in mind that the necromancer wandering into town is a hypothetical morality question that someone posed. It was basically, if he was attacked, and defended himself, does that make him evil? No, it doesn't.
I, nor anyone else, ever suggested that it was a good idea, or wouldn't be met with extreme resistance, or even suggested that they would be willing to hear him out. Only that if they attacked without provocation, then retaliation was not evil. Escalating violence and all that. Trust me when I say that in my own games, they would actually have just as much trouble.
Heck, the main country of my campaign setting will brand you for practicing "dark magic".
As for the whole 'why would they hate necromancers...' bit. Why WOULDN"T they??
These are people who desecrate corpses. Simple as that.
Yes, the soul is gone.. yes, the meat suit was empty and is under control...
But y'know what... that 'meat suit' you dug up and animated to draw you a bath and paint the house... THAT WAS MY MOM!!! Or my dead son!!!
I never suggested that people wouldn't hate necromancers. I actually noted that most commoners wouldn't know the difference between a zombie, ghoul, or wight. Nor would they know the difference between casting animate dead or animate objects on a corpse.
However, desecrating corpses is entirely cultural. Again, as I noted earlier, autopsies were expressly forbidden in the western world in the past, because it was seen as desecrating the corpse, sacrilege, etc. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, they're eating people as part of funeral rites because it's considered the respectful and loving thing to do. No joke.
Cultural taboo does not mean evil.
When "I" die, are you going to do the SAME THING TO ME?!?!
GET OUT OF OUR TOWN MONSTER!!!!
This comes down to situation, again. If you have permission to animate someone's corpse, it should be A-Ok. Likewise, animating an animal's carcass to make it labor would be the same as using an animal's body for furs to keep warm. In one society, it would be seen as vile and desecration, in another society, more like organ donation.
Yes, magic is very powerful, and you can kill dozens with a good fireball... but the general populace accepts that wizards WON'T do that unless provocted.
Necromancers have already shown the desire to dig up the raw materials they need... just for a walking corpse to take an arrow for them.
GOSH... why are the people upset by this?
You do know that digging up corpses instead of making new ones is probably actually a point in the necromancer's favor on the moral alignment scale, right? That being said, there's no reason you have to dig them up. Honestly, animals are generally more readily available and easier to manage than humanoids are. Most humanoids you will animate would probably be those who attacked you (orcs attack you, you slay orcs, and then make use of their bodies). If you just want meat-shields for combat, it'd be better to buy oxen or even cows (15 gp for oxen, 5 gp for cows) and turn them into undead. They're large, have trample, and are excellent as both pack animals as well as combat animals (a skeletal auroch can carry a huge amount, and also has a very powerful 2d6+9 trample attack).
There is a difference between 'socially unacceptable' and 'Evil'
It MAY not be evil to ride a dead horse, (making it was a little evil...)
There isn't any evil about the hopeful mage riding it into town hoping that THIS place accepts his art...
There isn't even any evil in defending yourself when you get attacked.
But you shouldn't be surprised when you ARE attacked. Your taking peoples worst fears and parading it around in front of them. Reactions will range from horrified, to morally offended. but really that's the best you can hope for.
Oh, definitely. I agree with pretty much all of it, 100%. Well actually, 98% maybe. RAW, casting [EVIL] spells isn't actually a specified evil act. In fact, the magic section was quoted as describing it as merely relating to how it reacts with certain game-effects. There's a pretty good discussion about it in the Rules section, right now.
Otherwise, yes, I agree. You shouldn't be surprised when everyone gets upset. However, given time, you should be able to change their minds. People have been able to change their minds about a lot of things over the years, and if you can improve their lives, they will learn to love it, and you, for it.
Cheliax from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a great example of this. I mean, their nation is pretty much built on the hellish castes, and their patron god is Asmodeus. I'm pretty sure if outright devil worship is something that people can learn to love, then accepting neutral objects filled with neutral energy that ping slightly evil on the evil-dar should be pretty mild in comparison.

Ashiel |

Who dies first? A Paladin in Cheliax, or a Necromancer riding an undead horse into a village. . .
Humorously, Paladins are actually a recommended entry point for the Hellknight prestige class. A Paladin could function in Cheliax. It's just a matter of not being stupid about it. Of course, I'd also say the same for the necromancer in their situation.

Jon Kines |

Jon Kines wrote:Humorously, Paladins are actually a recommended entry point for the Hellknight prestige class. A Paladin could function in Cheliax. It's just a matter of not being stupid about it. Of course, I'd also say the same for the necromancer in their situation.
Who dies first? A Paladin in Cheliax, or a Necromancer riding an undead horse into a village. . .
It was tongue-in-cheek, but yes he could function in Cheliax. Geb on the other hand. . .He'd be toast. On an utterly unrelated note, I think Antipaladin Corrupting Touch should be a drain as opposed to an inflict.

![]() |

An act is arguably wrong if it harms another individual. If you manufacture a corpse, then you have not wronged an individual on the creation end of it. If you do not then use the undead to harm other people, how is this act of creating and using undead evil? Give me a why other than because it is RAW? You guys are eventually going to have to DM a game where someone asks this question. If your only answer is, "because by raw, animating dead is evil." you are going to look foolish.
I might have an answer for him....back when animate dead was only a clerical spell..:
The first edition (circa 1978): "The act of animating dead is not basically a good one, and must be used with careful consideration and good reason by clerics of good alignment." From the description of the third level cleric spell.
The second edition (circa 1989) is even more harsh (and still only a third level cleric spell): "Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priest use it frequently."
Third Edition (circa 2000): gained the evil descriptor, now cleric 3 death domain 3 and sorcerer/wizard 5. No descriptor text about evilness just a subtype.
3.5 Edition (circa 2003): has the evil descriptor, cleric 3 death domain 3, changed to sorcerer/wizard 4. ditto
Pathfinder Core Rules (third printing 2010): has the evil descriptor, cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4. ditto.
Simply stated it is and has always been the rules as written AND he/she has at least 33 years of rules to back him/her up. Or if you would like me to rephrase the answer...33 years of Gaming History to back up that the creation of undead is inherently "not" a good act.
Make careful considerations (1st edition) when using this spell by a good cleric and then 11 years later after some gaming went by...they made it usable by only evil priests. Third edition let the wizards in on the fun but made it unequivocally evil with the subtype [evil]. Something that Pathfinder has continued in their traditions (otherwise known as rules).
Rules are how we play or guide our games.. we have run the RAW in Pathfinder Society Games, you can do whatever you like in a homebrew...but in a Pathfinder core rules (Society in particular) "discussion" about animate dead, it is by definition an [evil] subtype act. I hope I don't look silly using 30+ years of just rules/history as the basis for a judge decision. Just by claiming something has always been that way, it should still be that way. That would suck.
Now to put all these books back....sheesh.

![]() |

Make careful considerations (1st edition) when using this spell by a good cleric and then 11 years later after some gaming went by...they made it usable by only non-good priests. Third edition let the wizards in on the fun but made it unequivocally evil with the subtype [evil]. Something that Pathfinder has continued in their traditions (otherwise known as rules).
Minor correction.