Again, RAW, not house rule. RAW says they are evil, not neutral automatons. You can do whatever you want in homebrew. I am asking about RAW, as in Rules As Written. Not Rules As Wished.Except, animated skeletons like golems are mindless automatons. This is just another off shoot of the evil tag rule. How can a thing without a mind be good or evil? This is similar to the nuclear power plants being evil thing. Only creatures with minds can be good or evil.
If you give them orders, they fulfill them. A controlled skeleton can be used to perform acts of good.
You need to at least be honest. They are mindless automations, which is what he said. However, they are evil so that they can be treated as evil for spells and effects. They lack the capacity to be evil intentionally, and Pathfinder went with the clunky 3.5 method rather than just giving them the Evil subtype as they likely should have.
However, mindless automatons and neutral automatons are two different things. If you want to call thepuregamer out on his statement, at least have the decency to quote him correctly.
I said as much. I also said why they were that way. The 3E optional splatbook "Book of Vile Darkness" said they were because it tried to paint Negative Energy as Evil, and then in 3.5 designers ran with that so Paladins could smite them, but left negative and positive energy as completely neutral aligned forces.However, in Pathfinder, their default assumption is that they are evil. I agree that this is true (regardless to my belief on how right it is).
Ok, good. Not everyone in this thread is willing to admit that. It's hard to talk to people who put their fingers in their ears and scream 'THAT BLUE SIGN IS NOT BLUE IT'S RED!'.
The skeleton's entry says its "evil cunning" allows it to wield weapons and armor. Nothing else. Likewise, the zombies are specifically incapable of doing anything other than following orders, and that most commonly they are told to kill living things before being released from control. That's also RAW, and I just discussed this in the aligned spells thread (where it has more or less been determined by everyone speaking there that the [EVIL] tag has no inherent effect on alignment).
Actually, that's not quite correct.
[prd=Zombies]
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims. Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.
The first paragraph says they are unthinking. Technically, so are vermin. They have no int score, and are called mindless. This doesn't negate their ability to attack living things. Same with skeletons, they have no mind and are unthinking. This does not mean they don't have instincts to work off of. That is how I've always seen this as working. Just like the vermin, the negative energy that powers them naturally seeks to kill anything with positive energy in it (IE: Living things). I never have them attack golems or unliving creatures (even the Eberron living constructs get a 50/50 flip of the coin when an undead comes into contact with one).
I submit that the core zombies and skeletons are unthinking automatons, but unthinking automatons with instinctive reactions to living things. This explains the skeletons abilities to use weapons and armor, to be cunning (my cat can't do my taxes, but he can be damn cunning when hunting mice).
I further submit that my interpretation of this is as equally valid as yours, and also fits the core rules as stated.
So I submit to you, my good man, that creating an evil thing that does no evil things is likely mildly questionable at best. I would argue that putting a helm of opposite alignment on a solar or Paladin would be more reckless than animating undead that must follow orders to do anything at all. If it is evil, it would be the faintest of evils.
Only if you neuter the description of them as killing if left unattended. If you are creating things that have an instinctual need to kill living creatures, that puts a much more sinister spin on it, yes?
Likewise, creating evil and doing evil are two vastly different things. You create evil in the world when cast Summon Monster I-IX and summon a
Nope. You don't create evil or good, you summon it from one place to another. It exists somewhere else. With an undead, you are creating an evil that didn't exist before.
Ues they are mindless, who will mindlessly kill any and every living being it finds without orders or if/when the caster loses control.
They are evil, they stand there because they are under control, left to themselves they would mindlessly wonder about killing anything they find.
They are not neutral, they are NE, they have hate and a wish to harm and destroy, even if they do not have a mind, they have a compulsion to destroy and defile.
You guys are acting like they are golems or constructs with no driving compulsion, this is simply not the case by RAW.
Again, RAW, not house rule. RAW says they are evil, not neutral automatons. You can do whatever you want in homebrew. I am asking about RAW, as in Rules As Written. Not Rules As Wished.Except, animated skeletons like golems are mindless automatons. This is just another off shoot of the evil tag rule. How can a thing without a mind be good or evil? This is similar to the nuclear power plants being evil thing. Only creatures with minds can be good or evil.
If you give them orders, they fulfill them. A controlled skeleton can be used to perform acts of good.
You need to at least be honest. They are mindless automations, which is what he said. However, they are evil so that they can be treated as evil for spells and effects. They lack the capacity to be evil intentionally, and Pathfinder went with the clunky 3.5 method rather than just giving them the Evil subtype as they likely should have.
However, mindless automatons and neutral automatons are two different things. If you want to call thepuregamer out on his statement, at least have the decency to quote him correctly.
Just because they are mindless, does not mean they cannot be driven by evil to kill. As I said earlier, vermin are mindless too. Nobody says they can't operate on their own without orders. The negative energy in them is driven to kill positive energy.
And again, you are going with homebrew stuff when you say 'Why are they evil'. I am talking about the RAW. I've repeatedly specified you can do wahtever you want in homebrew. Make them neutral and not driven to kill living in your homebrew, I'm fine with that. We're discussing RAW at the moment.
|
Except, animated skeletons like golems are mindless automatons. This is just another off shoot of the evil tag rule. How can a thing without a mind be good or evil? This is similar to the nuclear power plants being evil thing. Only creatures with minds can be good or evil.
Golems are created from enslaved elemental spirits, and are prone to go on insane murderous rampages. They can even be made out of piles of dead bodies you've cut up and sewed together.
Skeletons are created from mindless non-evil energy and *don't* go on insane murderous rampages. You can make them out of horses, oxen, hydras, etc. none of which carry the overwrought histrionic false drama of 'digging up grandma.' We make stuff out of animal bones all the time (and even have buildings decorated with *human* bones), and it's not terribly controversial.
Yet they are mindless, so I need to see the explanation of how a thing without a mind can be evil or more importantly perform evil and be responsible for its actions.
Vermin are mindless also. Yes, I know, Vermin are Neutral. Vermin don't have negative energy driving them to kill all living things. A drive to murder is, I believe, why they are inherently evil.
All of that is besides the point. You are arguing your preference for changing RAW. I will repeat it slowly again, please read it this time.
You
May
Do
Any
Thing
You
Wish
In
Homebrew.
I
Am
Not
Arguing
That.
I am stating that by RAW, they are evil mindless things driven to kill living things wherever they find them. And that given that basis in RAW, then creating them is, by RAW, an evil act.
Golems are created from enslaved elemental spirits, and are prone to go on insane murderous rampages. They can even be made out of piles of dead bodies you've cut up and sewed together.
Skeletons are created from mindless non-evil energy and *don't* go on insane murderous rampages. You can make them out of horses, oxen, hydras, etc. none of which carry the overwrought histrionic false drama of 'digging up grandma.' We make stuff out of animal bones all the time (and even have buildings decorated with *human* bones), and it's not terribly controversial.
1) Not all Golems can go insane. Only certain ones can. And there's nothing in the rules about why, it could be just as likely that it's an issue with that body structure not being compatible with spirits (like flesh vs earth elemental).
2) Nothing in the rules say that the elementals are enslaved. That is up to the GM and builder. A good character may negotiate with an elemental to take up residence in the golem (part of the cost being the bribe). An evil character may enslave them (part of the cost being the binding spells to keep it in against it's will). The former would be a good act, the latter an evil act.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders.
Here we see that zombies are capable of very little other than simply following orders.
When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Here is the crux of your argument. Uncontrolled zombies are commonly found looking for living creatures to kill.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims.
The very next line explains the why. While capable of following orders, most zombies that are uncontrolled have been given commands that they are still following, and those commands are frequently to kill living creatures.
Nothing in the rules say that the elementals are enslaved. That is up to the GM and builder. A good character may negotiate with an elemental to take up residence in the golem (part of the cost being the bribe). An evil character may enslave them (part of the cost being the binding spells to keep it in against it's will). The former would be a good act, the latter an evil act.
Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.
sub·ju·gate
/ˈsʌbdʒəˌgeɪt/ Show Spelled[suhb-juh-geyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
Berserk (Ex) When a clay golem enters combat, there is a cumulative 1% chance each round that its elemental spirit breaks free and the golem goes berserk. This chance resets to 0% after one minute of inactivity. A berserk golem attacks the nearest living creature or smashes some object smaller than itself if no creature is within reach. Once it goes berserk, no known method can reestablish control.
Berserk (Ex) When a flesh golem enters combat, there is a cumulative 1% chance each round that its elemental spirit breaks free and the golem goes berserk. The uncontrolled golem goes on a rampage, attacking the nearest living creature or smashing some object smaller than itself if no creature is within reach, then moving on to spread more destruction. The golem's creator, if within 60 feet, can try to regain control by speaking firmly and persuasively to the golem, which requires a DC 19 Charisma check. It takes 1 minute of inactivity by the golem to reset the golem's berserk chance to 0%.
EDIT: Also, it does give a reason. It says the elemental spirit breaks free.
Those two sentences you are linking are intentionally broken into two different paragraphs, indicating they are not related. One describes the zombies. The other describes common uses. They are not explaining the milling about looking for victims. They are just giving common uses for them.
As to the elemental, binding is a specific term in the game.
Let's look at the fluff for it.
Clerics and Oracles
Clerics and oracles find the job of summoning and binding outsiders much easier than arcane spellcasters do. A cleric calls upon her deity to send a like-minded creature by way of one of the planar ally spells. That outsider is in the service of the god, and its desires almost always align with the cleric’s goals, or at least run in parallel with them.
The cleric must with the deity’s servant for a payment agreed upon before the outsider will perform the task: gold, magic items, gifts, sacrif ices, or promises by the cleric to achieve certain goals particular to the conjured ally. The greater the task, the greater the payment required, with a minimum of 100 gp worth of goods or services, sometimes extending into the thousands—and sometimes the ally simply refuses the cleric’s binding if the job is too dangerous or beneath its dignity.Smart arcane binders often make deals with the creatures they call. Like clerics using planar ally, they bargain and shower the outsider with gifts in exchange for their services. While it is always good for an arcane spellcaster to make these deals from a position of strength, it is much better to get the outsider to come to mutually agreed upon terms for the service, rather than forcing it to commit actions against its nature or desires.
This thread has blown up so I skipped the last 80 or so posts of back and forth. Here's my thoughts on the subject.
First, unless house ruled, raising undead and undead themselves are evil according to the rules of Pathfinder. That's just a fact and I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Second, unless fighting a greater evil a Paladin is not able to associate with an evil creature or character.
The original dilemma, which seems to have been sidetracked by the "undead, evil or not?" talk, was how the Necromancer could get around the paladin's code and still get to raise his undead. While I don't agree with the idea of picking a concept that would ruin your friend's concept, either on the paladin or the necromancer's part depending on who had the concept detailed first, there are a few ways you, the paladin, and the DM could work together to come to a middle ground.
First, house rule skeletons and maybe zombies to be mindless and non-evil. It's not a hard fix if you've played earlier editions of the game, and could set up interesting alignment/perception conflicts. Sure, your necromancer riding that bone horse with a group of zombie retainers is neutral in the eyes of the paladin, but people everywhere, especially those who hold dead bodies to be taboo or honor their dead greatly will see differently. This potentially could cause conflicts and hardships for the necromancer's party that requires them to balance their actions against the society around them, which could be an interesting role play experience as the "hero" necromancer still finds themselves outcast by public perception.
Second, leave undead as evil but put a greater evil into the story so that the paladin and necromancer are required to band together despite their differences. If the paladin and necromancer are friendly outside of the game this could even manifest with in game arguments and resentment, such as with Sturm and Raistlin, or with in game attempts by the paladin to show the necromancer the "right path". Either way it would deepen the relationship, antagonistic or friendly, between the characters in game and possibly lead to great "turning point" moments for one or the other.
Third, play the necromancer in such a way that the character himself is good, despite the evil of the undead he creates or controls. Maybe the necromancer is from a place where raising the deceased as undead is acceptable, like that country in Eberron, and sees it just like any other tool. Or maybe he's a "fight evil with evil" minded person, who doesn't believe that using evil's methods against evil will have any effect on him. This could be especially interesting if your necromancer wants to have a "falling from grace" character moment as he advances, perhaps becoming more and more like the evil he faces as he goes along until he and the paladin do come into conflict.
Or maybe the paladin could be interested or even behind the necromancer's ideas. Maybe the paladin believes that the good necromancer can turn evil against itself and that the mindless beings the wizard raises, while foul, are controlled by good and thus serving good. Or maybe the necromancer is neutral and the paladin believes that with him around the necromancer will have a good example to keep him from falling into evil, and while he speaks out against raising undead he doesn't tear himself from the necromancer to leave him without any good examples.
Or, if the rest of the party has anti-hero tendencies, maybe the paladin's tolerance starts him on the slide towards falling. If the paladin's player doesn't mind perhaps his association with the necromancer eventually leads to him rationalizing more and more evil actions. Many tales are about the fall of someone good who doesn't even realize how twisted they've become until far too late. If the paladin is ok with it, perhaps through association with the necromancer the paladin could fall gradually, having his powers work less or not at all, then eventually become an anti-paladin.
Anyways, all those examples really boil down to this: play with friends, or friendly acquaintances, be willing to compromise a bit, and don't be a jerk. Everything else will fall into place if you follow those three rules.
.
..
...
....
.....
Why would an evil character animate dead when he has a party of little-goody-two-shoes to call his own?
Unless they dumped Charisma and Wisdom?
Good-aligned characters make *THE* best body gaurds - free willed (read: deluded), self-healing, self-maintaining meat shields!
Claim the moral high ground! Claim your evil-side is the legacy of your dark and depressing childhood and you realllly want to be good but ya know, it's hard!
Be the victim!
Be misunderstood!
Lament over societies intolerance and praise those who take the time and practice the patience to help misfortunates such as you self!
Just give me one more chance to redeem myself! *-*
Aaaah go on!
::
OT: TRY TO BE GOOD BUT DON'T BE VERY SUCCESSFUL.
Who can blame you for trying? Huh! :)
Scrap the dead-heads - too pricey, too obvious, too much hassle.
There are "descriptors" for spells. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves,but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment,and so on. pg 212 Core rulebook.The descriptors listed in the Core book: acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-effecting, sonic, and water. (also pg212)
I don't see anything about spells being unaligned, the alignments spells have available to them are chaotic, good ,evil or lawful. Neutrality is not mentioned, I guess they sat out at the magic fest.
The point remains that if we accept the fact that spells inherently have an alignment, we are opening up a veritable chasm of gray area. If spells do have alignments then why some and not others? If animate dead is an "evil spell" then why, pray tell, is not "dominate person"? Furthermore, if we are going to categorize spells with alignment indicators it makes even less sense to exclude neutral from the equation.
The argument essentially goes something like this: spells do have alignment indicators but not all spells, in fact only spells arbitrarily designated as good or evil spells have alignment indicators, whereas spells not arbitrarily designated as such have no alignment at all. Furthermore, spells that by the postulations of the aforementioned, should carry a good or evil tag such as "dominate", don't and no they aren't even neutral they're just unaligned. . .
Pardon me, but that is a veritable maelstrom of non sequiturs, RAW or not.
Anyways, all those examples really boil down to this: play with friends, or friendly acquaintances, be willing to compromise a bit, and don't be a jerk. Everything else will fall into place if you follow those three rules.
I believe that's the point many of us are trying to make. However, the rules lawyers seem to consider it blasphemy. . .
Pardon me, but that is a veritable maelstrom of non sequiturs, RAW or not.
You're new to D&D aren't you? :)
Nobody seems to actually read my freaking posts, they just spout back about how I'm trying to force someone's alignment to change based on the [Evil] descriptor on the spell and how I am full of fail for it. Sheesh.
For the record I've meant to insinuate you are "full of it", I just think the kitty and the skellie make for some amusing banter. :P
You're new to D&D aren't you? :)
Pardon me, but that is a veritable maelstrom of non sequiturs, RAW or not.
:P
Started in 1980, and I've played every edition at some point or another, with the exception of 4E which I take serious issue with in terms of philosophy and design but that is a subject for another thread. I do realize such logical fallacies have always existed, and thats why I'm a staunch advocate of the notion that RAW should be a baseline from which every gaming table tailors to suit what constitutes a fun rpg for them.
A lot of older players tend to approach the game this way, whereas the younger generation tends to approach RAW as an absolute that can never be deviated from. Again I realize this is not always the case (and furthermore I am not categorizing you this way at all), but it is a trend I've noticed on these forums and elsewhere. I guess you could say what I'm really trying to say is don't be afraid to adjust the game to suit the table. Even if you are running an AP, the composition of the players, the group, and the collective ethos, playstyle, and understanding of what constitutes an RPG means that what is expected, anticipated, and enjoyed will vary greatly from table to table. Rather than trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, shape the peg to actually fit the hole.
Those two sentences you are linking are intentionally broken into two different paragraphs, indicating they are not related. One describes the zombies. The other describes common uses. They are not explaining the milling about looking for victims. They are just giving common uses for them.
As to the elemental, binding is a specific term in the game.
Let's look at the fluff for it.
Hahahaha. Man, that is a complete joke. It doesn't say planar binding, though it does say bind, and it does say subjugate, which does mean to enslave, and it does apparently tick off the elemental since apparently it can go super-berserk and wreak angry havoc on everything around it, ESPECIALLY if you're using a clay golem (probably because it's earthy).
That's a great one man, really. "Hey earth elemental, lemme totally shower you with treasures, and then stuff you inside the contraption for eternity while you function as a battery. Welcome to my Matrix, biatch!"
*falls over laughing*
======
Meanwhile, still no one has proven that EVIL subtype spells make you evil as written. Just that they are treated as evil regardless of their caster's alignment, and that affects how they interact with other spells (like protection from good, detect evil, etc). Since mdt hadn't a leg to stand on in this case ('cause I quoted the actual text concerning spell subtypes), he fell back onto trying to say that because undead are evil-aligned, then bringing them into the world must therefor be an evil act.
Then I debunked that.
Started in 1980, and I've played every edition at some point or another, with the exception of 4E which I take serious issue with in terms of philosophy and design but that is a subject for another thread.
Welcome to the club. Late 80's for me, but similar experience, including the revulsion of looking at an orc warrior with 1 hit point.
I do realize such logical fallacies have always existed, and thats why I'm a staunch advocate of the notion that RAW should be a baseline from which every gaming table tailors to suit what constitutes a fun rpg for them.A lot of older players tend to approach the game this way, whereas the younger generation tends to approach RAW as an absolute that can never be deviated from.
Yep, I house rule all over the place (although I've had to do less House Ruling with PF so far than 3.5). But I get annoyed with people who spout positions and say it's RAW when it's not, like saying undead aren't evil. I'm all for houserules, as long as people are aware that's what they are.
Again I realize this is not always the case (and furthermore I am not categorizing you this way at all), but it is a trend I've noticed on these forums and elsewhere. I guess you could say what I'm really trying to say is don't be afraid to adjust the game to suit the table. Even if you are running an AP, the composition of the players, the group, and the collective ethos, playstyle, and understanding of what constitutes an RPG means that what is expected, anticipated, and enjoyed will vary greatly from table to table. Rather than trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, shape the peg to actually fit the hole.
I can agree with that. :)
Hahahaha. Man, that is a complete joke.
In other words, you don't care what's written, it's just what you believe. Then this is as useless as the discussion with you where you ascribe diplomacy to be the replacement for everything charisma related and RP related. *shrug*
Then I debunked that.
No you didn't. You just spouted personal opinion and insulted anyone who didn't agree with you. What a complete joke.
You're new to D&D aren't you? :)
Pardon me, but that is a veritable maelstrom of non sequiturs, RAW or not.:P
Started in 1980, and I've played every edition at some point or another, with the exception of 4E which I take serious issue with in terms of philosophy and design but that is a subject for another thread. I do realize such logical fallacies have always existed, and thats why I'm a staunch advocate of the notion that RAW should be a baseline from which every gaming table tailors to suit what constitutes a fun rpg for them.
A lot of older players tend to approach the game this way, whereas the younger generation tends to approach RAW as an absolute that can never be deviated from. Again I realize this is not always the case (and furthermore I am not categorizing you this way at all), but it is a trend I've noticed on these forums and elsewhere. I guess you could say what I'm really trying to say is don't be afraid to adjust the game to suit the table. Even if you are running an AP, the composition of the players, the group, and the collective ethos, playstyle, and understanding of what constitutes an RPG means that what is expected, anticipated, and enjoyed will vary greatly from table to table. Rather than trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, shape the peg to actually fit the hole.
As one of the younger whippersnappers (though that title is sadly fading with each year), lemme applaud you. ^-^
My biggest beef with it is from a philosophical and logical standpoint. Frankly, 1E-3E just made more sense in that regard. Once Hasbro got a hold on WotC, stuff started to change drastically, and moral philosophy quickly go squashed in favor of "it's gross, kill it" and dumbing down the roleplaying aspects in general. A great example is how they changed alignment in 4E to only have Lawful Good, Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Unaligned, and said that by default you're only allowed good or unaligned characters.
Likewise, being one of the young whippersnappers who puts a lot of emphasis on the mechanical / rule aspects of it, I like stuff to be internally consistent. Pumping neutral objects full of neutral energy and then branding it evil makes 0% sense. Also, for a fun laugh, read the creation of the mummy. They're bodies are filled with herbs and flowers, anointed with sacred oils, and wrapped in blessed linens, then BAM, evil undead monstrosity!
In other words, you don't care what's written, it's just what you believe. Then this is as useless as the discussion with you where you ascribe diplomacy to be the replacement for everything charisma related and RP related. *shrug*
Hahahaha. Man, that is a complete joke.
What's written is that the creature is subjugated, and bound to the golem's shell. It doesn't mention planar binding, and is using bind in the actual term of the word, to bind something to. Learn to read.
As to the Charisma thing, lying is generally frowned upon. If you want to start a fight about that, you should at least get your facts strait, and your words true. Anyone that goes and reads those threads can see that I never suggest Diplomacy takes the place of Charisma, nor do I suggest that it is the only skill used for social interaction. Please stop lying.
No you didn't. You just spouted personal opinion and insulted anyone who didn't agree with you. What a complete joke.
Then I debunked that.
Actually, I did. Or at least shot some holes in that theory. You said that bringing something evil into being must of course be an evil act, but there's nothing that says so in the rules. If you're bringing evil into the world to cause evil, then your motivations would be evil, of course. However, I gave an example of why a spellcaster would summon a fiend to fight evil, because it would bypass the circle of protection from good effect on it. The summoned fiend is evil, the summoning itself doesn't affect the caster's alignment (RAW), the caster's motivations aren't evil, the action has no been evil.
It just reacts as evil to other game effects (see the aforementioned protection from evil, detect evil, etc). So unless you have something to refute this with, yes, I'm pretty sure I debunked it.
Best wishes.
Hahahaha. Man, that is a complete joke.
In other words, you don't care what's written, it's just what you believe. Then this is as useless as the discussion with you where you ascribe diplomacy to be the replacement for everything charisma related and RP related. *shrug*
MDT, I thought that was agreed a few pages back? They know what it says, they do not like it is all.
MDT, I thought that was agreed a few pages back? They know what it says, they do not like it is all.
Hahahaha. Man, that is a complete joke.
In other words, you don't care what's written, it's just what you believe. Then this is as useless as the discussion with you where you ascribe diplomacy to be the replacement for everything charisma related and RP related. *shrug*
I know, but willful ignorance just drives me bats***.
I know, but willful ignorance just drives me bats***.
I agree, but its not ignorance as much as it is loophole hunting and blatant rules twisting.
I agree, but its not ignorance as much as it is loophole hunting and blatant rules twisting.
I know, but willful ignorance just drives me bats***.
Thank you seeker. While I don't think it's loophole hunting and blatant rule twisting, but I won't complain. Mdt wanted to discuss RAW, so we did. I do appreciate your support, even though we've mostly been on opposite sides of the debate.
I really do appreciate your courtesy. Please accept some internet pizza. ^.^
Thank you seeker. While I don't think it's loophole hunting and blatant rule twisting, but I won't complain. Mdt wanted to discuss RAW, so we did. I do appreciate your support, even though we've mostly been on opposite sides of the debate.
I really do appreciate your courtesy. Please accept some internet pizza. ^.^
Well thank ya have some rum Hands out rum I may have been over harsh saying that, but many of these threads are fueled by it. While I disagree with alot of what you guys think, I always do enjoy reading what others do think.
RAW is a funny thing as 5 people can read the very same thing and often get 5 very different ideas on just what it said.
And you can always find something interesting to think on in these threads when you work on homebrews. Food for thought,even if ya do not fully agree with it.
Thank you seeker. While I don't think it's loophole hunting and blatant rule twisting, but I won't complain. Mdt wanted to discuss RAW, so we did. I do appreciate your support, even though we've mostly been on opposite sides of the debate.
I really do appreciate your courtesy. Please accept some internet pizza. ^.^
Well thank ya have some rum Hands out rum I may have been over harsh saying that, but many of these threads are fueled by it. While I disagree with alot of what you guys think, I always do enjoy reading what others do think.
RAW is a funny thing as 5 people can read the very same thing and often get 5 very different ideas on just what it said.
And you can always find something interesting to think on in these threads when you work on homebrews. Food for thought,even if ya do not fully agree with it.
Agreed. I also agree on the RAW thing. It's one of the reasons I try to be very precise when I'm writing stuff myself (to avoid confusion). It definitely gets pretty sticky in a lot of these debates. :O
Also, thanks for the rum. ^.^
This should cover issues on the flesh golem
"Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor."
So an evil act. Is it a "crossover" act - I don't know and that would be up to a GM to decide, but it's still an evil one.
Also, for a fun laugh, read the creation of the mummy. They're bodies are filled with herbs and flowers, anointed with sacred oils, and wrapped in blessed linens, then BAM, evil undead monstrosity!
That's because the AD&D/PF mummy and most all undead were based off of the original Karloff mummy (1932), or going back further to pulp sources (ex: Entombed with the Pharaohs by HPL - 1924) and not as much on the burial procedure which was used by Egyptians, South Americans, etc.
In those stories and movies the mummies were depicted as monsters, just as animated skeletons were the tools of evil wizards and priests - Jason and the Argonauts/7th Voyage of Sinbad.I can't remember where I read it regarding vodou or some other aspect of animation of the dead/zombification - in any case they described the body as being controlled by the soul, but also having a corporeal animus lesser spirit, making a souless body similar to a PC without a hard drive or a stripped down car.
So when the soul departs, the body retains this lesser animating force/aspect - the part that controlled the movement, etc, when controlled by the soul but inert without one.
I would guess (and there is some evidence to support this) that D&D takes some of this into consideration with regard to the dead/animated dead. For example, the case of Speak with Dead - you are not talking to the actual soul on its new plane of residence, you are talking to an old imprint - rewinding a tape of what it saw and maybe even what it thought while it had a soul housed in the body.
I would think that animating undead would be disruptive on many levels, namely funerary rites, interring the dead, death riuals and the afterlife, desecration of the dead, etc.
Anyway, thats just my input on the issue.
|
|
So when the soul departs, the body retains this lesser animating force/aspect - the part that controlled the movement, etc, when controlled by the soul but inert without one.
I would guess (and there is some evidence to support this) that D&D takes some of this into consideration with regard to the dead/animated dead. For example, the case of Speak with Dead - you are not talking to the actual soul on its new plane of residence, you are talking to an old imprint - rewinding a tape of what it saw and maybe even what it thought while it had a soul housed in the body.
In absence of any rules stating that evil spirits are called from the negative plane to run the undead, or that souls of the original owners are torn out of heaven/hell to run the undead (and yet, inexplicably, remain mindless and have their original alignment replaced by evil), I'd go with that assumption, that whatever 'drives' a skeleton or zombie is some sort of 'echo' or 'shadow' of the soul, like an Egyptian ka or khaibit, using the speak with dead spell as the precedent for that idea.
One fun bit about animating mindless dead is that they are proficient with whatever they are holding. If I cast animate dead on a commoner, and his soul was ripped out of paradise to run the zombie, the zombie should only have whatever weapon and armor proficiency that commoner had (and perhaps some useful profession (farming) skill or something?).
But instead, the zombie has proficiency in all simple weapons, and if the necromancer thought ahead and put a spiked chain in one rotting hand and a longbow in the other, and dressed it in banded armor, before casting the spell, he's created a zombie with proficiency in all of those things.
Whacky.
"Okay, these skeletons go in the front, so give them spiked tower shields and banded armor and order them to total defend. Rank two will have dwarven dorn-dergers and shoanti bolas, and a bag of caltrops. Rank three will have scorpion whips and yet more shoanti bolas, and a bag of caltrops. Ranks four through infinity will have longbows, orcish shotputs or repeating crossbows, and yet more caltrops (smeared with dung, to spread filth fever among those who step on them and aren't blessed with DR 5/bludgeoning and disease immunity)..."
Rules legal, but, kinda silly. Using a 'shadow of the soul' notion, the undead would instead be limited to whatever skills it's former inhabitant knew, which, in the case of commoners, would be junk.
I may have been over harsh saying that, but many of these threads are fueled by it. While I disagree with alot of what you guys think, I always do enjoy reading what others do think.
RAW is a funny thing as 5 people can read the very same thing and often get 5 very different ideas on just what it said.
Agreed. I also agree on the RAW thing. It's one of the reasons I try to be very precise when I'm writing stuff myself (to avoid confusion). It definitely gets pretty sticky in a lot of these debates. :O
Continuing further on the subject of the RAW and its intricacies, I thought I'd say a few words (or a lot) on my take on the subject.
I think that 1E-3E made the most sense, and were the least offensive on causing problems with this subject. When the creators got together to make 3E, they looked at things with a logical, rational, unbiased view on what they were doing. They laid down some very simple, very precise, and very reasonable ground rules which considered morality very plainly. The designers designated that creatures with Intelligence less than 3, including mindless creatures, were always Neutral, because they lacked the reasoning ability to decide between right and wrong. 3 or higher was sentient and capable of making moral choices.
Thus, mindless undead and other creatures (like lemures) were Neutral. However, the designers added subtypes to the game, which allowed you to place the taint of an alignment on a creature specifically. Thus, Lemures were Mindless, Neutral, with the Lawful and Evil subtypes ('cause they're mindless devils made of evil). It made sense, and it was mechanically and rationally genius.
Likewise, they made subtypes for spells that determined how they reacted and interacted with effects in game. It prevented clerics tossing around spells that were opposed to their ethos, or determined how a spell reacted to other spells, or other mechanical aspects (for example, spells with the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor were useless on creatures immune (Mindless creatures, primarily).
During this time, there were practically no arguments over the morality of such things. It was as it would naturally be, subjective to the circumstances. I spent a lot of my time browsing the WotC boards, as well as a few other RPG boards back when 3E was the thing, and you didn't see arguments like these on them...until 3.5 came out.
This was just after the Hasbro merger, and now WotC was a subsidiary of Hasbro. At about this point, a lot of stuff shifted focus at WotC, it seems. When 3.5 launched, there were a lot of exceptions, small changes, and much more confusion. The material that WotC published changed focus heavily. Suddenly, mindless creatures were almost always neutral, except for undead. However, it didn't say why. They didn't even change positive and negative energy to be aligned, they just changed the skeletons/zombie moral alignments to Always Evil and left it at that (from a design standpoint, this was likely the worst way they could have changed such a thing).
After the company was absorbed by Hasbro, a lot of stuff changed. As the game went on, stuff was made more and more black and white, and emphasis on the gamist element emerged more and more. Books emerged that were more and more dedicated to new prestige classes, and more ways to do the same things with more classes, feats, spells, and so forth. For example, the 3E Sword and Fist: Guidebook to Fighters and Monks had more for warrior types than the entire Complete Warrior, and it was half the size (ok, it was actually 98 pages front to back, and the complete warrior is 162 front to back, though the complete warrior also consisted of a lot of Sword & Fist + Web Enhancement stuff reprinted). When was the last time you played a Hulking Hurler because it totally fit your character concept?
Meanwhile, arguments starting popping up on message boards (their own and elsewhere) about why undead and such were now evil. This beget people trying to come up with reasons, because WotC didn't. So some people started suggesting that the undead must go on a bloody rampage if they were left unattended, but there was nothing suggesting that was true. Others said negative energy must be evil, or that using animate dead must trap the soul, but both of these were easy to disprove with the rest of the rules.
No longer did we have objective morality. No longer did we have alignments based on rationality. It was a shift towards "it's evil because it's evil, so just kill it already", and in turn, we lost more and more ground from an ideal system for telling fantasy stories, and closer to a little wargame of cops & robbers. Meanwhile, they still weren't being completely on the level with it, because they still continued to publish stuff like the archlich (good), and the skeletal and zombie dragons (see draconomicon, which are NEUTRAL), so...it's a mess.
3E had a very objective view on things. It was simple, it was elegant. It allowed you to change stuff as you needed. For example, the Ravenloft campaign setting changed a huge amount of the game to be "evil" (everything from mindless undead to the barbarians you get with the bard horns) and explained why. Meanwhile, the Forgotten Realms said you gotta have a deity to have divine powers.
Honestly, if a young teenager reading 3E could understand the morality behind it, and be able to answer most alignment based questions based on the guidelines the 3E books gave, then it seems like it wasn't broken. Now, we sit here as adults, and cannot come to a consensus.
How very sad we are.
EDIT: In short, I like my core rules to be internally consistent (none of this neutral energy into neutral object = evil mindless thing), and I like them to be as objective and rational as they can, as they are essentially the starting point for various campaign settings.
In addition, I forgot to mention that the common excuses (such as desecrating corpses) doesn't hold weight because that's a cultural thing. Some cultures burned their dead, others buried them, others sunk them, others ate them (I'm not joking) out of respect, and to do otherwise was considered a desecration of the body. Plus there's the whole animating non-sentient creatures like animals, which no one argues that using their dead remains in a productive way is desecration.
Humorously, there's a Paizo publication (I think AP #38, but don't quote me on that) that has some stuff allowing you to make undead that are your alignment (Juju zombies, I think they were called), so if you're lawful good and what-not, you get lawful good undead.
I heard about it being discussed in another thread recently. Unfortunately, I'm having a difficult time finding the reference.
while that is neat, I would not expect most folks to care really :) They wouldn't care that your LN zombie was not evil, the villagers would still fear it all the same.
That has been the biggest issue, even a bone golem is gonna get that reaction from most folks. If it looks undead, most people act like its undead.
The Juju oracle can be found Here
The power is here
Spirit Vessels (Su): You can channel wendo spirits into lifeless bodies, reanimating them to aid you. Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment. When using the animate dead spell, you can control 6 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level rather than 4 HD. In addition, any zombies or juju zombies you create using animate dead, create undead, or similar spells possess maximum hit points.
This might be a fine alt ability for a white necromancer. Many ways to spin this for a home game.
The Juju oracle can be found Here
The power is here
Spirit Vessels (Su): You can channel wendo spirits into lifeless bodies, reanimating them to aid you. Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment. When using the animate dead spell, you can control 6 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level rather than 4 HD. In addition, any zombies or juju zombies you create using animate dead, create undead, or similar spells possess maximum hit points.
This might be a fine alt ability for a white necromancer. Many ways to spin this for a home game.
Hey thanks Seeker. Much appreciated.
|
|
I think that 1E-3E made the most sense, and were the least offensive on causing problems with this subject.
I like consistency.
I've got no problem at all with a game setting where negative energy is evil, and positive energy is good. Go ahead and make the inflict spells [evil] (for bringing evil negative energy into the world) and the cure spells [good] (for bringing good positive energy into the world), *or* make them all transmutation spells that have nothing to do with positive or negative energy. Some major rules changes will be needed, but in service to a compelling setting (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Midnight, etc.) tweaked assumptions are *cool.*
Or you could step into crazyland;
Since all living creatures are filled with good positive energy, have everything in the world that *isn't* undead inclined towards good. Orcs? Mostly good. Trees? Good. Wyverns and aboleths and trolls and demons and devils? Seething with good positive energy, and, therefore, automatically good, just as something seething with negative energy is automatically evil, even if it's mindless and never does anything evil.
But since negative energy isn't, and never has been, evil, and positive energy isn't, and never has been, good, there's no need for that. Just hack the 'evil' alignment off off the mindless skeletons and zombies, and it all makes sense again. Minimal effort, and you could probably accomplish the majority of the fix in a couple of seconds, by removing a pair of words from the Bestiary.
.
On the other hand, to Pathfinder's total credit, is the removal of the sacred and profane bonus types from 3.X. Someone decided that sacred = good and profane = evil, which is not the accurate use of those words. A shrine to Nerull or Bane or Zon-Kuthon is sacred, whether you like that god or his teachings or not. Defiling that shrine, is to profane it. So, bad choice of words, since it did not mean what someone thought it did.
Worse, it's a mechanical rules mess, because by making sacred and profane bonuses separate bonuses, a neutral cleric could wear a ring that gives him a sacred bonus to something on one hand, and a ring that gives him a profane bonus to that same trait on the other hand, *and they would stack.* If both of them were sacred bonuses, they would not stack, even if made by the same cleric of the same diety of the same alignment. But, because they are two different bonus types, they can stack, and beg the question of what a LN divine item of that sort of produce for a bonus. Would it be sacred? Wouuld it be profane? Would there need to be two or three *more* bonus types invented, one for 'lawful divine', one for 'chaotic divine' and maybe one for 'neutral divine?' Would a cleric of Obad-Hai be able to wear a sacred item that gives +1 AC, a profane item that gives +1 AC, a lawful holy item that gives +1 AC, a chaotic holy item that gives +1 AC, and a neutral holy item that gives +1 AC, since his diety allows clergy of NG, NE, LN, CN and N alignments?
Indeed, the Scarred Lands setting *did* create a third option, the 'primal' bonus type for druids, who didn't necessarily make sense to have sacred or profane bonuses. Thank heavens PF abandoned that concept, rather than doubling down and coming up with lawful divine and chaotic divine bonus types!
Hey thanks Seeker. Much appreciated.
Your welcome, I went kinda like that for my home brews white necromancers. Those who fail the tests of the magistrorum are doomed to life as a homunculus, one of the undead really. They work just like normal undead a kind of zombie, mostly like PF fast zombies, but do not look undead and are LN. They are used as troops and servants for the Magistorum. The price is high in the knownlands for those who fail to become wizards.
Kinda gets around the scaring the common folks when your undead do not look like undead, even if they infact are.
Hey thanks Seeker. Much appreciated.
Your welcome, I went kinda like that for my home brews white necromancers. Those who fail the tests of the magistrorum are doomed to life as a homunculus, one of the undead really. They work just like normal undead a kind of zombie, mostly like PF fast zombies, but do not look undead and are LN. They are used as troops and servants for the Magistorum. The price is high in the knownlands for those who fail to become wizards.
Kinda gets around the scaring the common folks when your undead do not look like undead, even if they infact are.
Pretty cool, pretty cool. :)
|
On-Topic: There's no reason the Paladin and Necromancer can't get along. There are examples of paladins being put into situations where tolerating an evil ally is acceptable. The only reason the two couldn't find a way to work things out it because the players are being jerks to one another.
Evil or not, you can make it work.
Wow this quickly got sidetracked...
I hope the OP didn't get lost in all this.
|
1. Uncontrolled undead try to kill living creatures.
So unleashing uncontrolled undead is evil. Using controlled undead does not have this ramification.
Mindless undead are not active players. IE they are not responsible for their actions since they do not choose them. They are tools like a sword. So responsibility for their actions falls to their creator.
Swords can really only be used to kill. They are not proper tools for any other purpose. Undead are tools for all sorts of things(killing included).
So With all the good a necromancer could achieve, a necromancer does not have to be of the evil alignment.
RAW, a DM has to weigh your actions into your alignment. Even if casting animate dead had a negative impact, doing good things with those undead could easily out weigh any of that.
You guys are acting like there are very strict rules about alignment change in pathfinder. There really is no such thing as homebrew in pathfinder when it comes to alignment.
There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment...
If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM,
think doesn’t fit his alignment, let him know that he’s
acting out of alignment and tell him why
You guys spout raw this or raw that but the rules are silent on how spells tagged evil influence alignment. Meaning it does come down to a ethical discussion of how your actions impact others and if this matches your alignment.
So I am perfectly fine with paladins or other members of society disliking my activity. But if I use my undead to help others and do not hurt others in obtaining my undead, his smite better not have an impact on me.
As said before, it's up to the GM. I would allow smite to work on you if you played a necromancer which animated undead, for whatever purpose.
Animate dead has the [Evil] subtype. Thus, casting it is an evil act. Undead are evil creatures, because they seek to snuff out life. Ad by RAW, they are evil, nobody cares about homebrew or the illogic of things. The point is they are, unless you change it in YOUR game, evil. And most probably will stay such in later editions. Negative energy is inherently neutral, but undead animated by it seek to destroy creatures powered by positive energy, because positive and negative energy are opposites. And since the majority of the universe is powered by positive energy (even devils and demons and daemons oh my!), they are tagged as evil. You may not like it, you may not think that it is the right way, but try to complain on PFS about that and see how much sympathy you get.
|
Animate dead has the [Evil] subtype. Thus, casting it is an evil act.No, it is an Evil act because undead are always Evil. Nothing in the rules says casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act. That is your own ruling.
Or is casting 3.5 Deathwatch an Evil act?
*slaps TOZ with a dead trout* Cease your shenanigans and tell me how many Summon Monster III more I have to cast before I shift to NG!
