As a side line to this, can i cast animate object on a corpse?
School transmutation; Level bard 6, cleric/oracle 6, witch 6; Domain chaos 6
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
EFFECT
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets one Small object per caster level; see text
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
DESCRIPTION
You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate.
An animated object can be of any non-magical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or a corresponding number of larger objects as follows: A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as 16, and a Colossal object as 32. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell.
This spell cannot affect objects carried or worn by a creature.
Animated objects can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Look, its negative energy. Doesn't matter WHAT you do with it, its evil. Its got the big old evil descriptor written right there in brackets.Negative energy is not evil, last I heard.
So good clerics channel positive energy and evil clerics channel negative energy because...?
Animate Dead- uses negative energy-Evil
Create undead: A much more potent spell than animate dead, this evil spell allows you to infuse a dead body with negative energy to create more powerful sorts of undead.
Curse water This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water.
Desecrate This spell imbues an area with negative energy
Unhallow: attunes an area to negative energy
There are very few things you can do with negative energy that aren't evil, like enervation. Raising unholy mockeries of life is not one of them.
|
So good clerics channel positive energy and evil clerics channel negative energy because...?
Their gods force them to. The very fact that they can cast Cure/Inflict spells without restriction ruins your theory.
The Great Beyond specifically states that negative energy is not evil, under the Negative Energy Plane entry (pg9). If you have a quote from a more recent book that corrects this, please produce it.
So good clerics channel positive energy and evil clerics channel negative energy because...?
Their gods force them to. The very fact that they can cast Cure/Inflict spells without restriction ruins your theory.
The Great Beyond specifically states that negative energy is not evil, under the Negative Energy Plane entry (pg9). If you have a quote from a more recent book that corrects this, please produce it.
I agree that negative energy by itself is not evil. But to me, animating undead is evil. Some say it is just unsavory, but I think it is unsavory to the point of being evil. You don't think using someone's corpse as a tool is evil?
Their gods force them to.
Incorrect. A Good cleric of a neutral god channels positive energy. An evil cleric of a neutral god channels negative energy.
A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy.
The very fact that they can cast Cure/Inflict spells without restriction ruins your theory.
Not even close.
The Great Beyond specifically states that negative energy is not evil, under the Negative Energy Plane entry (pg9). If you have a quote from a more recent book that corrects this, please produce it.
Riiiiight. Its not evil, its just that 9 out of 10 uses for it involve the [evil] descriptor, unholy effects, or disease.
That poor, soul consuming blackness isn't evil, its just misunderstood.
Mayby it just needs a hug.
Is it possible that Necromancy is a subschool of Transmutation!?
I mean look at it's points:
D: What else does modification and animation? Transmuation...
|
|
I agree that negative energy by itself is not evil. But to me, animating undead is evil. Some say it is just unsavory, but I think it is unsavory to the point of being evil. You don't think using someone's corpse as a tool is evil?
...did you miss my whole argument last page that the spell itself is evil?
...did you miss my whole argument last page that the spell itself is evil?
I agree that negative energy by itself is not evil. But to me, animating undead is evil. Some say it is just unsavory, but I think it is unsavory to the point of being evil. You don't think using someone's corpse as a tool is evil?
I thought you meant that it has the evil descriptor. I was not clear that it was your opinion as well.
|
|
Okay, I stand corrected on the gods issue.
Riiiiight. Its not evil, its just that 9 out of 10 uses for it involve the [evil] descriptor, unholy effects, or disease.
That poor, soul consuming blackness isn't evil, its just misunderstood.
Mayby it just needs a hug.
I'm guessing from this post you have no actual quotes to back yourself up from.
Known simply as the Void, the Negative Energy Plane empowers undead just as positive energy is the driving force behind all living things, but contrary to some religious dogma, neither it nor its destructive energies are evil.
Unless you have some other proof from Paizo, negative energy is NOT evil. You may feel it should be, and I may even agree with you, but you are wrong when you say it IS so.
I'm guessing from this post you have no actual quotes to back yourself up from.
I gave the quotes in my first post to you. If you don't like the argument from there take it as you will.
If you were relying on anything other than the books this argument is a non starter. The spells that raise undead have the [evil] descriptor, black and white, clear as crystal. Its not a gray area its evil. You can't simultaneously argue that some source book says the entire plane isn't evil, and that somehow overrides the big honking [evil] in the spells' description.
|
|
If you were relying on anything other than the books this argument is a non starter. The spells that raise undead have the [evil] descriptor, black and white, clear as crystal. Its not a gray area its evil. You can't simultaneously argue that some source book says the entire plane isn't evil, and that somehow overrides the big honking [evil] in the spells' description.
The spell is Evil. The energy used is not.
Is nuclear power evil just because of the atomic bomb?
Is nuclear power evil just because of the atomic bomb?
Well yes.
But.
Unlike nuclear arms you can hug with undead. :)
Free hugs!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side line to this, can i cast animate object on a corpse?
Sure. Every bit as tacky and socially inappropriate as using negative energy to haul those old bones around, but no [evil] descriptor.
I agree that negative energy by itself is not evil. But to me, animating undead is evil. Some say it is just unsavory, but I think it is unsavory to the point of being evil. You don't think using someone's corpse as a tool is evil?
Medical schools and forensics trainers use cadavers all the time, as tools, for the instruction of new doctors and investigators. My own organs may well go to other people when I'm done with them (not any time soon, I hope!). I eat meat, and wear a leather jacket.
I'm soaking in death, and the products of death (literally, in the case of some soaps!). They sustain my life (and, in the case of bacon, make me a happy death-monger). Only the constant destruction of other living things keep us alive. Even the black sludge that powers my car is made from dead things.
Still, we live in a world that considers human life sacred from conception to birth (and then regards the person as inconvenient, a parasite, disposable and probably a bad person for it's entire time above ground), and then graciously considers that person 'sacred' or 'worthy of respect' again the moment they go into the earth. Heck, watch any CSI or cop show. The cops and medical examiners show exagerrated respect for the bodies of the dead, while screaming at, accusing (usually falsely, at least twice an episode) and expressing contempt for living people. Same with medical shows. Living patients are stubborn, the cause of their own problems, and / or hiding something sinister. Dead ones are ready for beatification.
Speaking ill of the dead is taboo in our culture, as we shove dead animals down our gullets and try to avoid eye contact with homeless people or those young men at the VA hospital with missing limbs, and a long life of societal neglect in a rolly-chair ahead of them.
Maybe dead people do deserve some respect. They've finally escaped the whiplash cognitive dissonance that is our so-called 'values system.' :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible that Necromancy is a subschool of Transmutation!?
I mean look at it's points:
Modifying the body
Animating objects D: What else does modification and animation? Transmuation...
So, so true. And don't forget the other stuff!
It also has fear effects (which should be enchantment) and conjures negative energy (which should be conjuration).
Necromancy and Illusion suffer from being 'theme schools,' sitting alongside 'schools of effect.'
Want to make someone happy? Enchantment. Want to make someone angry? Enchantment. Want to make someone sad? Enchantment. Want to make someone friendly? Enchantment. Want to make someone confused? Enchantment. Want to make someone scared? Enchant...omancy?
Want to create light? Evocation. Want to create sound? Evocation. Want to create darkness? Evocation. Want to create *colored* light? Evo...lusion! Want to create a sound that actually sounds like a sound and doesn't just break stuff? Also, illusion.
Conjure neutral mindless positive energy? Conjuration. Conjure neutral mindless negative energy? Necromancy. Conjure neutral mindless energy from the Plane of Shadow? Illusion.
Go figure.
Necromancy (and Illusion) shouldn't be schools, they should be specialties, drawing from multiple schools, like being a Pyromancer or a Weather Witch/Sea Mage, as their individual spells are pillaged from enchantment (fear and hypnotism), evocation & conjuration (destructive negative or shadow energies), transmutation (animation of flesh, sculpting of light and sound), etc.
1e got around this by making some spells occupy multiple schools. Some 3.X PrCs or whatever got around it by allowing certain specialists to dabble in out-of-school knowledge or to add certain spells to their school, for their own personal use.
A corpse is not simply a tool. That meat used to be a living thing before you decided to use it as a guard, beast of burden, or whatever. There seems to be something inherently evil about using someone's (or something's) corpse for your own ends.
If using a corpse for your own ends was evil, wouldn't it also be evil to use parts of the corpse for your own ends? E.g., build stuff out of its skin or bones, eating its meat...?
If using parts of a corpse is not evil, is it evil if you take each bone from another corpse, put them together to form a marionette and empower that thing with animate dead or animate object?
And why is it not evil to use the corpse for your own ends while the soul is still inside it?
And why is it not evil to enslave a soul (without a corpse)?
The best solution? I think we should just drop the evil discriptor of the animate dead spell...
I understand and support the existence of the descriptor for spells that allow the creation of sentient evil beings (create undead) or potentially set free sentient evil beings onto the material plane (gate), but a spell that uses a soulless pile of bones...? C'mon.
With negative energy being defined as NOT evil, and numerous applications of negative energy being defined as NOT evil, and numerous effects that are morally and ethically similar to or even worse than animate dead being defined as NOT evil, and no reasoning or justification given for why this spell would be different, the evil descriptor of animate dead just makes no sense at all.
Either drop it, or add evil descriptors to every mind control effect, to the definition of and every effect powered by negative energy, and while we're at it, also to any effect that could be used for equally morally questionable means as or is working similar to animate dead.
(Examples for the latter include the creation of golems and means of detering a soul from transcending to heaven, like Soul Bind.)
I'd really give much for an "Enforce Logical Consistency" spell.
Indeed! I'm really happy with the class and I'm REALLY stoked to see what folks think of it once the new issue come out!I think it's going to be greatly appreciated by a number of folks on the boards.
Someone called Ashiel yet? ;)
I'm SO looking forward to reading especially her reaction and to the rekindled "society based on undead work force" discussion. :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best solution? I think we should just drop the evil discriptor of the animate dead spell...
The alternate fix would be to make the flavor and the mechanics consistent in the other direction.
Make the negative energy plane evil. Make skeletons/zombies Int 1-3 and quite capable of malevolence.
Make the positive energy plane good. Make cure spells either transmutation spells and utterly alignment-adjacent (usable by evil or good clerics) *or* keep them as positive energy based conjurations, give them (and resurrection, etc.) the [good] descriptor and create some vampiric healing or sacrificial resurrection type options for the evil clerics to use (that require stealing hit points from other beings to cure wounds, or killing a creature to raise another from the dead).
Come up with actual in-game reasons why creating undead is evil. Make them antithetical to life, and leave behind deserts in their wake, killing wildlife, wilting crops, spoiling milk, etc.
Come up with in-game reasons why summoning a dretch to save Timmy what fell down the well is not just [evil], but actually evil, such as by having the conjuring of fiends onto the material plane cause outbreaks of Devil Chills or Demon Fever (perhaps spread by fiendish fleas that drop off of them during their brief visits to the material plane). Come up with in-game reasons why summoning a Hound Archon is good. Perhaps the summoning of an angel/archon/azata has some beneficial effect on local communities or the environment or something, even if the summoner told the angel to eat a baby.
One way or the other, consistency is my bugbear.
If it's evil, *make it evil.*
If it's not, don't cheapen the word 'evil' (or good, for that matter) by applying it to moral non-events.
If using a corpse for your own ends was evil, wouldn't it also be evil to use parts of the corpse for your own ends? E.g., build stuff out of its skin or bones, eating its meat...?
If using parts of a corpse is not evil, is it evil if you take each bone from another corpse, put them together to form a marionette and empower that thing with animate dead or animate object?
And why is it not evil to use the corpse for your own ends while the soul is still inside it?
And why is it not evil to enslave a soul (without a corpse)?
The best solution? ...
I am certainly not smart enough to debate all of the possible uses of a corpse. But I think I know evil when I see it.
Zombie butlers and skeletal janitors seem evil to me. Maybe not paladins breaking down your door evil, but definitely on the evil side of creepy.
I am certainly not smart enough to debate all of the possible uses of a corpse. But I think I know evil when I see it.Zombie butlers and skeletal janitors seem evil to me. Maybe not paladins breaking down your door evil, but definitely on the evil side of creepy.
You know what that's called right? Subjectivity. And one of the things I've learned roaming these boards is that subjective good and evil has no place in world where good and evil is objective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question has again reared its ugly head: Is Animate dead Evil? Should Skeletons and Zombies be evil?
I have tried to dig through my D&D books, and this is what I have found Concerning the Animate Dead spell, the alignment of Skeletons and Zombies over the editions, and finally the Negative energy plane over the editions.
Animate dead has been with us for a while. I have a 1st edition player’s handbook- (6th printing 1980)
1st edition player’s handbook
The text there reads as follows:
3rd level cleric spell (I was directed here from the 5th level wizard spell description P. 47
“ Explanation/ Description: This spell creates the lowest of the undead monsters, skeletons or zombies, from the bones or bodies of dead humans. The effect is to cause these remains to become animated and obey the commands of the Cleric casting the spell. The skeletons or zombies will follow, remain in an area and attack and attack any creature (or just a specific type of creature), entering the place, etc. The spell will animate the monsters until they are destroyed or until the magic is dispelled. (See dispel magic spell). The cleric is able to animate 1 skeleton or 1 zombie for each level of experience he or she has attained. Thus a 2nd level cleric can animate 2 of these monsters, a 3rd level 3 etc. The act of animating dead is not basically a good one, and it must be used with careful consideration and good reason by clerics of good alignment. It requires a drop of blood, a piece of human flesh, and a pinch of bone powder or a bone shard to complete this spell. “
Ah the days of brief spell descriptions.
The 2nd edition description is a little longer
I have the 11 printing 1994.
“This spell creates the lowest of the undead monsters- skeletons or zombies- usually from the bones or bodies of dead humans, demihumans, or humanoids. The spell causes existing remains to become animated and obey the simple verbal commands of the caster. The skeletons or zombies can follow the caster, remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific type of creature) entering the place, etc. the undead remain animated until they are destroyed in combat or are turned; the magic cannot be dispelled. The following types of dead creatures can be animated: A) Humans, Demihumand, and Humanoids with 1 hit die. The wizard can animate one skeleton for each experience level he has attained, or one zombie for every tow levels. The experience levels, if any of the slain are ignored; the body of a newly dead 9 level fighter is animated as a zombie with 2 hit dice, without special class or racial abilities.
B) Creatures with more than 1 hit die. The number of undead animated is determined by the monster hit dice (the total hit dice cannot exceed the wizard’s level). Skeletal forms have the hit dice of the original creature, while zombie forms have one more hit die. Thus a 12 level wizard could animate four zombie gnolls (4x[2+1 hit dice]=12), or s single fire giant skeleton. Such undead have none of the special abilities they had in life.
C) Creatures with less than 1 hit die. The caster can animate two skeletons per level or one zombie per level. The creatures have their normal hit dice as skeletons and an additional hit die as zombies. Clerics receive a +1 bonus when trying to turn these. This spell assumes that the bodies or bones are available and are reasonably intact (those of skeletons and zombies destroyed in combat wont be)
It requires a drop of blood and a pinch of bone powder or a bone shard to complete the spell. The casting of this spell is not a good act and only evil wizards use it frequently.”
The Complete Necromancer’s handbook on page 46 and 47
Interestingly Animate dead is placed in Grey necromancy.
“ Take Animate dead for instance, raising up a zombie to carry one’s luggage is not an evil act but animating the dead for the purpose of attacking a merchant caravan is another matter entirely”
3.5 D&D
3.5 Animate Dead spell.
“Necromancy [evil]
This spell turns the bones or bodes of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again).
Regardless of the kind of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit. See page 128)
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released). If you are a cleric, any undead you command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.
Skeletons: a skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones, co creating a skeleton from a purple worm, for example, is not possible. If a skeleton is made from a corps its flesh falls off the bones.
Zombies: a zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy, so a dead gelatinous cube, for example cannot be animated as a zombie.
Materiel components: you must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per hit die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless burned out shells. “
P198 player’s handbook
comments in other sources about necromancy and undead
Page 174 of the player’s handbook
“ Necromancy- Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife and the life force. Spells involving undead creatures make up a large part of this school. Representative spells include, cause fear, and animate dead and finger of death. “
Page 317 of the monster manual
On page 7 of Liber Mortis it states,
Animate dead Pathfinder SRD
The alignments of Skeletons and Zombies over the editions
Monster Manuel (3rd printing 1978)
Page 88 Skeleton alignment: Neutral
Page 103 Zombie Alignment: Neutral
Advanced D&D 2nd 2ddition Monstrous Compendium
Binder (yes I still have my binder, it looks like I have sat on it, and as if my dog has chewed on it, but it is still in one piece)
The loose-leaf pages are not numbered.
Skeleton Entry: Alignment Neutral
Zombie Entry: Alignment Neutral
P226, and Page 266 of the 3.5 Monster Manuel states that the “ alignment is always Neutral Evil” in both the Skeleton and the Zombie entries
SkeletonPathfinder SRD
Zombie Pathfinder SRD
Now I am going to see what I can dig up about the Negative energy plane.
1st edition player’s handbook 6th printing 1980
Appendix IV- Page 120
“The Negative Materiel plane is a place of anti matter, and negative force, the source and power for undead, and the energy area from which evil grows. “
Manuel of the planes, Page 54
“ Negative materiel plane sucks in all mater and energy. The negative materiel plane is eternally dark, its structures and towers made of solid blackness.”
“The negative materiel plane, the plane of death, has the opposite effect. An unprotected traveler suffers the loss of 2d6 hit points, and the loss of one level or hit die per round spent there. When the character’s hit points or levels reach 0 the character shrivels and dies”
DMG 2nd edition
I wasn’t able to find very much from my library of RPG books on the Negative Materiel plane, on page 132 of the DMG it mentions the Negative Materiel plane as the source of Entropy. I assume these things were described in greater detail elsewhere.
D&D 3.5 DMG (first printing July 2003)
Page 157
“The Negative Energy Plane is a barren empty place, a void with out end and a place of empty, endless night. Worse, it is a needy greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything that is vulnerable. Heat fire and life itself are all drawn into the maw of this plane, which always hungers for more”
The Manuel of the planes 3.0 Page 80
Adds to the previous description
“It is the blackest night, it is the heart of darkness, it is the hunger that devours souls”.
Negative Energy Plane Pathfinder SRD
" "To an observer, there's little to see on the Negative Energy Plane. It is a dark, empty place, an eternal pit where a traveler can fall until the plane itself steals away all light and life. The Negative Energy Plane is the most hostile of the Inner Planes, the most uncaring and intolerant of life. Only creatures immune to its life-draining energies can survive there."
So what do we get from all of this?
Concerning the animate dead spell: “The act of animating dead is not basically a good one, and it must be used with careful consideration and good reason by clerics of good alignment” from the first edition spell description.
“The casting of this spell is not a good act and only evil wizards use it frequently” From the 2nd edition spell description.
The complete necromancer’s handbook however contradicts this and classifies Animate Dead as “Grey Necromancy”
“ Take Animate dead for instance, raising up a zombie to carry one’s luggage is not an evil act but animating the dead for the purpose of attacking a merchant caravan is another matter entirely”
The 3.5 D&D animate dead spell, and the Pathfinder Animate dead are classified as Evil Spells.
Over the editions, with the exception of the complete necromancer’s handbook, the spell animate dead, we can say the casting of the spell is described as an evil act in the spell description or it has been classified as an evil spell.
The Alignment of zombies and skeletons, who are created by the animate dead spell, has shifted over editions. 1st and 2nd edition has their alignments as neutral, and 3.0,3.5 editions and Pathfinder has their alignments as Neutral Evil.
The negative energy plane has over the editions never been classified as evil. It has been described as “source of power of undead, and the energy from which evil grows” in the first edition," the source of entropy" in second edition, and in third edition, “heat, fire and life itself are drawn into the maw of this plane” The pathfinder SRD describes the negative energy plane thus: "It is a dark, empty place, an eternal pit where a traveler can fall until the plane itself steals away all light and life"
So while the negative energy plane has never been classified as being evil, it has been described as the never ending hunger that devours light heat and life itself. Now that certainly sounds to me like some Undead I can think of.
I guess one of the inconsistencies people see is that you have the negative energy plane, which isn't classified as evil, the animate dead spell which is classified as evil, and skeletons and zombies which are evil.
In my home campaigns I simply align the positive energy plane as goodly aligned and the negative energy plane as evilly aligned and that takes care of the inconsistency.
But I suppose at the end of the day, its up to the GM running the game, and how he prefers to run the game.
Don't let yourselves be fooled by the spell header, like i've said before, fireball doesn't have an evil or good header, yet can be used for "good" or "evil" purposes, the same way, animate dead can be used for good or bad purposes, actions are what determine wheter something is "good" or "evil".
Eberron had alot of great arguments for undead. The nation of Karrnath used undead to keep their army strong the the nation was Lawful they had Lawful Good/Neurtal and Evil people within the society. The people saw Undead as neccesarry for the nation to survive the wars.
What people? The common people did not like the idea all that much. It was the rulers(people high in gov't) that wanted to keep them, IIRC.
The best solution? I think we should just drop the evil discriptor of the animate dead spell...The alternate fix would be to make the flavor and the mechanics consistent in the other direction.
Yes, of course, your alternative would be another viable solution. But I dare to think that it's not the best one because it is inherently and considerably more complicated.
As you have exposed, you'd have to change numerous things, even rather huge aspects of the campaign world itself, but if some wants to make all these changes to restore consistency and likes the "animating dead is evil while enslaving living beings is not" flavor better... *shrug* He/she has my blessing, for what it's worth. ;)
[As you have exposed, you'd have to change numerous things, even rather huge aspects of the campaign world itself, but if some wants to make all these changes to restore consistency and likes the "animating dead is evil while enslaving living beings is not" flavor better... *shrug* He/she has my blessing, for what it's worth. ;)
I know I may regret asking this but... exactly what kind of enslavement of living beings are you referring to?
You are not talking about riding horses or owning pets - are you?
I know I may regret asking this but... exactly what kind of enslavement of living beings are you referring to?
You are not talking about riding horses or owning pets - are you?
No, I'm not one of... those people.
You know, you can exaggerate everything.Erm, to clarify that: what I was talking about is the stuff I mentioned in the post before that... stuff like mind control and golem creation.
(Actually, I could've written "sentient" instead of "living".)
March the horses in two by two, knock 'em on the head and reanimate 'em "so they never have to eat or sleep"? Yikes.
No one talked about that. Well... at least I didn't.
The way I'd do it is only reanimating the corpses of animals that have died for whatever "natural" (read: normal) reasons - like cattle that got killed to transform it into tasty steaks.
You only need those that produce food, since you get the menial working animals "for free", so you need less resources to care for your livestock.
And they can live in relative peace, being at least somewhat less exploited than before.
YMMV, but if we lived in Golarion, I don't think I'd have any major problems if society could and did use the dead remains of people and animals as workforce.
People could live happy lives with having to do close to no menial labor, and when they die, their souls transcend to heaven and their bodies are assimilated into the workforce.
It would take some time to let people get used to it, but if it's just the mandotary way things run in your society, after some generations, they could live with it.
Of course I would only use skeletons, for numerous reasons - from the smell of rotting zombie flesh and the danger of diseases they might carry to making it easier for people, as skeletons are rather anonymous and they don't actually have to look at their dead loved ones all the time.
Maybe I'd differentiate... if you are proven guilty of a major crime (something that will actually be more failsafe than in our real world), you get killed, reanimated as a zombie, treated with means to conserve your flesh for some while, and get stamped on your forehead so that people know what you did.
And then your corpse has to work off your debt.
After that, the flesh can be scraped off to reinclude you into the anonymous workforce.
No, I'm not one of... those people.
You know, you can exaggerate everything.Erm, to clarify that: what I was talking about is the stuff I mentioned in the post before that... stuff like mind control and golem creation.
(Actually, I could've written "sentient" instead of "living".)
** spoiler omitted **...
Well mind control used in an evil way, would be evil. Controlling someone to make them stop trying to kill you - not evil. Controlling someone to have them kill their own family - very evil.
But back to the undead. Actually the use of undead animals and the undead workforce society you describe - I agree, not evil. Very, very creepy, but not evil. I stand convinced.
Said good stuff.
This has all been covered before, at length. Nothing new to see here, except for the people who haven't done their research.
It's left ambiguous on purpose in some areas, and because of designers approaching things from different directions in others.
Man In Black paraphrased some of the concepts put down in the Tome of Necromancy, which IMO is the best dissertation on necromancy themes and rules out there.
What you need to do is decide for your game which "version" of necromancy you want to use.
For Golarion, there is no official answer so until we get one the best bet is to assume that it's both depending on the circumstances and move on.
Wanted to jump into this thread yesterday, but was afraid to. I have an opinion, and I will try my hardest to keep it mostly to myself (what comes next will betray this endeavor immediately), but I am curious about something. I would like to describe two types of "necromancer" and you all tell me what would stop both from being viable (aside from a lack of support in game material).
1) Male human wizard, so old that he appears undead himself. Calls up skeletons and corpses from grave yards to follow him from place to place, uses them to kill better specimens for [re]animation or to excavate larger bodies. His goal is immortality through lichdom and mastery of his dark craft, and more long-term, he plans to devise a way to literally destroy the world of the afterlife and its masters.
2) Male dwarf cleric, worships the All-Father and his ancestors devoutly, with unshakable faith, and leads his clanhold with near-perfect moral clarity. He frequently communes with the spirits of his predecessors and when called to arms, may conjure up the spirits of his fallen forefathers to fight in battle alongside him. He does so with reverence and humility, and never exerts his will over the unwilling.
I love these discussions...in theory.
Elves in my game world cannot be used with negative energy, rather they use positive energy. Part of the Elvish cities' defensive systems are the numerous 'deathless' (to use the Eberron term) troops.
I just had a nasty idea. What if you animate the dead flesh of the cow sitting in your enemy's digestive tract?
Short excerpt from the description of the spell
Range touch
[...]
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.
Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a physical anatomy.
That said... If your enemy swallows a whole dead whatever, AND you manage to touch that whatever while it is inside your enemy*, then... yeah... you have an undead insider under your control.
* Even if you'd change the reach category, you'd still need line of sight / line of effect.
------>and the energy area from which evil grows.
The negative energy plane has over the editions never been classified as evil.
So its the source of evil, but not evil. How does that work exactly?
Napalm is just an inanimate jelly - it may be hard to find an innocent use for napalm, but that doesn't make it an evil jelly.
Lighting backfires, clearing brush, clearing snow, termite mound control, home defense, and baking irrigation channels in clay soil.
See, if the descriptions for zombies and skeletons included evil default behavior, the whole problem would be solved.
Look at insects/vermin. They're mindless and they have behavior - ants build nests and grow their colony, bees and wasps the same, spiders build webs and/or hunt, etc.
So how about having zombies do what zombies are prone to doing: wandering around, seeking to devour the living?
Howabout skeletons? Wander, laugh, and kill?
Then, suddenly, undead can be evil yet mindless, and thus the spell is evil?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at insects/vermin. They're mindless and they have behavior - ants build nests and grow their colony, bees and wasps the same, spiders build webs and/or hunt, etc.
Ooh, that's another pet peeve of mine. Insects can be trained. Insects can learn. Insects can be scared. Insects *can have craft skills.*
Making them mindless was a silly choice, IMO.
Heck, making golems (which are powered by elemental spirits!) mindless, and yet, inexplicably, able of understanding the spoken commands of their creators, is similarly silly.
Mindless, and yet capable of language? Immune to mind-affecting effects, and yet capable of being controlled (or even 'talked down' when they go berserk?).
Rubbish!
So, if animate dead is evil, then it needs to be evil. It needs to curse the land upon which its cast. No matter how good your intent is, that curse needs to overshadow everything.
Only that it doesn't.
It is nowhere mentioned in the rules (or the campaign setting, for that matter) that having some normal animated undead* wander around has any effect on your land or your agriculture, aside from initially scaring some of your animals.Animated undead don't poison your soil or spread the blight.
You're right, however, if you say that the alignment system assumes an essential obectivity in good and evil that they never had or will have.
* That is: skeletons and zombies - I'm not talking about some uber-dragon-lich-things here, which might very well have any kind of crazy aura effect like that.
Napalm is just an inanimate jelly - it may be hard to find an innocent use for napalm, but that doesn't make it an evil jelly.Lighting backfires, clearing brush, clearing snow, termite mound control, home defense, and baking irrigation channels in clay soil.
Hilarious.
So, why can't it be the same for negative energy?
See, if the descriptions for zombies and skeletons included evil default behavior, the whole problem would be solved.
Look at insects/vermin. They're mindless and they have behavior - ants build nests and grow their colony, bees and wasps the same, spiders build webs and/or hunt, etc.So how about having zombies do what zombies are prone to doing: wandering around, seeking to devour the living?
Howabout skeletons? Wander, laugh, and kill?
Then, suddenly, undead can be evil yet mindless, and thus the spell is evil?
Yeah, that was one of the necessary changes I meant.
And it still doesn't circumvent the cliffs of "why is that evil while other things are not".
But really, mindless things shouldn't act just "on their own".
That is to say, vermin shouldn't be mindless.
With undead, it's a flavor choice: either they're mindless, then they are neutral, and don't do anything on their own, apart from the occasional misunderstanding of incorrectly worded commands - or, if you want them to be evil and act on their own, based on whatever feed/kill instincts, they can't be mindless. Deranged, sick, crazy, yes... but not mindless, since most animals also just follow their instincts.
Also, I've often considered dropping the relationship between undead and evil. I ponder such concepts as "allowing fallen heroes to rise up and defend the faith" or similar things. Why can't you have a good priest at the battlefront, animating his fallen comrades so they can perform one last stand against the forces of evil, before finally finding rest? Why can't you animate a murder victim, so he can go confess his sins or tell his family he loves them before departing? Howabout a paladin who swears that, even beyond death, he will protect his church, and is animated for the task?
Look at insects/vermin. They're mindless and they have behavior - ants build nests and grow their colony, bees and wasps the same, spiders build webs and/or hunt, etc.Ooh, that's another pet peeve of mine. Insects can be trained. Insects can learn. Insects can be scared. Insects *can have craft skills.*
Making them mindless was a silly choice, IMO.
Heck, making golems (which are powered by elemental spirits!) mindless, and yet, inexplicably, able of understanding the spoken commands of their creators, is similarly silly.
Mindless, and yet capable of language? Immune to mind-affecting effects, and yet capable of being controlled (or even 'talked down' when they go berserk?).
Rubbish!
Oh so true!
I like you, Set.
Shall we found some... Secret Order of Logical Consistency, spread and enforce it with fire and sword?
Shall we? Shall we? Shall we? *hops around exitedly*
Erm, back to topic:
They should've made vermin a subtype of the animal type, really, and drop that "mindless" attribute.
(I could understand an increase of any DC to influence them to represent their "differentness".)
Regarding golems, I just found something that makes things even more awkward...
A wax golem that is shaped to look like a humanoid has a 5% chance each week to become sentient.
A sentient wax golem ventures into the world and tries to live a life similar to that of the person (or type of person) it resembles.
Wait, what?
So you take an elemental spirit out of its natural elemental "hull", place it in some other hull and it somehow loses sentience and may never get it back.
But if you happen to place it in a hull made of wax, that probably still looks and feels nothing like its natural one, but looks like whatever humanoid that spirit otherwise has no kind of connection to, it may become sentient out of thin air and believe it would be that kind of humanoid?
Yeah, right.
Even better: "The only way for a sentient wax golem to lose its sentience is either to take an amount of fire damage equal to half its hit points (which melts its features away) or to be destroyed."
So, apparently, you can tell that waxanoid that it is no humanoid as much as you want, you can even cut a piece of its wax out of it to prove it, it doesn't matter.
But if you happen to melt its features down far enough, the sentience vanishes again...
Questions:
- Why can't that spirit gain sentience in a hull that is not made of wax, but similarly shaped to look like some other being?
- Why can't it gain sentience in a non-humanoid hull? If it can start believing to be "human farmer John", why can't it start believing to be "Gaylord, the centaur", "Crunchy, the swamp crocodile" or whatever it happens to look like, for example, "Shale, the golem"?
- A mixture of the two above, why can't the spirit of an earth elemental gain sentience in the hull of a rock golem, which is far more similar to what it was before?
- What happens if you melt the features down so that the sentience vanishes and then repair/reshape the golem, and it gains sentience again? Is that the same sentience again? Does it remember what has happened?
- What happens if you reshape the features of a sentient wax golem (say, it gained sentience while looking like a dwarven miner, and now you reshape him to look like an elvish bard)?
Really, what the hell...
Just drop that "mindless" attribute of golems...
My ideas would be to just let them follow the rules for "handle animals", and/or say that they always have the "helpful" NPC attitude towards their controller, and give them a +whatever on will saves against anyone who's not their controller.
And flavorwise, in my version I'd state that an elemental spirit is bound to the golem hull only for a limited amount of time, like 500 years or so.
That way, it explains why they are sentient but don't run amok... they have accepted that the golem creator is stronger than they are, so they serve for a limited (and, for an immortal elemental spirit probably rather short and acceptable) time before they are set free and return to their home plane.
Of course, that means you'd have to bind another spirit to the golem hull each 500 years, but that shouldn't be a problem.
It could also mean that, IF you treat your golem like a piece of crap every single day, and you're still alive when it is set free, it could decide to pay you a last visit before going home... And I definitely like that idea.
Why can't you animate a murder victim, so he can go confess his sins or tell his family he loves them before departing ?
Because the animated dead has no memory. It is not the person killed, except physically. You could use the speak with dead spell for the murder victim, provided the body is intact, but nothing says the victim recognized or even saw the killer.
|
|
Also, I've often considered dropping the relationship between undead and evil. I ponder such concepts as "allowing fallen heroes to rise up and defend the faith" or similar things.
Dwarves of Golarion has a spell that calls up ancestral dwarven spirits to protect the living, so, at least *one* writer for the game doesn't believe that people's souls automatically turn evil after they die.
Seems perfectly appropriate. Most cultures in this world don't consider the spirits of their ancestors inherently evil, after all, and many cultures even actively honor them and invoke them (burning spirit money to them, or praying to them for advice or approval or whatever).
And, as I said upthread, it's not *evil* to 'defy the natural order' or 'flout Pharasma's law.' It's *chaotic.*