What are the neutral deities opionions on the "evil" aspects of Necromancy, like animating the dead? The only two I'm certian of are Pharasma (big NO) and Gorum (he is ok with), but I wonder if there is any source on the others.
I'm especially interested in Abadar, because I'm thinking about playing an LE cleric of him in our upcoming Kingmaker campaign, and I'd like to raise the enemies of civilization (trolls, giants, monsters) as undead servants to serve our cause.
According to the rules, they apparently fork over animate dead spells to their followers, who include Good, Neutral, and Evil clerics. Ironically, they can't fork over the spells to their good followers, but can to their Neutral and Evil followers; and while they can't give spells to their good wizard or sorcerer followers, they likely don't mind them using those spells either.
Being able to use shady methods for good is classic neutral, right? Unless you're in that camp that assumes Neutral characters are apathetic and don't do anything. :P
Being able to use shady methods for good is classic neutral, right? Unless you're in that camp that assumes Neutral characters are apathetic and don't do anything. :P
Actually, (imo) classic neutral means using shady (or whatever) methods for one's own goals, not really worrying about the moral issue, since good and evil both have their place in the multiverse.
:P
But, yeah, use of... 'questionable...' methods like animate dead in pursuit of a 'good' goal is perfectly within neutral parameters.
Granted it may well be an evil ACT to animate dead; if so, REPEATED uses of the spell may lead to a shift in alignment. But as a one-off, you can be reasonably-secure in your neutrality. Imo.
Not just your game... neutral is difficult to pull off, generally.
Btw, where can I get immigration papers for Chelliax?
:)
To be fair, D&D/Pathfinder alignment really doesn't shift after one action; or isn't intended to. It shifts based on the overall theme of the character. Even if the GM decides animating undead is an "Evil Act", if you're overall character is solidly Good, then you are still going to be good, or at least neutral.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. 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—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
That will of course, depend on the setting. In Arcanis, animating undead is unquestionably evil, no bones about it. In Golarion it's a highly questionable act because the undead you create are always evil. In Eberron, it will vary by circumstance.
Being able to use shady methods for good is classic neutral, right? Unless you're in that camp that assumes Neutral characters are apathetic and don't do anything. :P
Actually, (imo) classic neutral means using shady (or whatever) methods for one's own goals, not really worrying about the moral issue, since good and evil both have their place in the multiverse.
:P
But, yeah, use of... 'questionable...' methods like animate dead in pursuit of a 'good' goal is perfectly within neutral parameters.
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.That will of course, depend on the setting. In Arcanis, animating undead is unquestionably evil, no bones about it. In Golarion it's a highly questionable act because the undead you create are always evil. In Eberron, it will vary by circumstance.
Being able to use shady methods for good is classic neutral, right? Unless you're in that camp that assumes Neutral characters are apathetic and don't do anything. :P
Actually, (imo) classic neutral means using shady (or whatever) methods for one's own goals, not really worrying about the moral issue, since good and evil both have their place in the multiverse.
:P
But, yeah, use of... 'questionable...' methods like animate dead in pursuit of a 'good' goal is perfectly within neutral parameters.
There's also ghosts who can be good. Also, virtually all sentient undead do not possess the Evil subtype, which means there is literally nothing stopping them from changing their alignment by choice just like every other sentient creature (technically even with aligned subtypes your actual alignment can change by choice, but you are still treated as the subtyped alignment - in addition to your real alignment - for effects).
There is literally nothing stopping a ghoul, for example, from deciding that even though people are really tasty he would rather have a diet of chicken 'cause he's not really into eating people who he can have a conversation with.
In fact, atonement works on undead as well. While it pisses some people off, there's nothing in the world stopping you from having an undead Paladin who's lawful good.
|
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.
You might also want to check out the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19. A very great take on the idea of non-evil undead. Has a very refreshing take on how good PCs can work with the dead/undead as well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that this is a drum you keep on beating... to the point where you seem to ignore those aspects of undeath in the Bestiary which don't fit in with you picture of Undead as happy shining beings.
I never said they were. Why do you keep tryin' to start a fight with this? I never said undead were "happy shiny things" anymore than I ever said living creatures were. They're not by the way. Statistically, living creatures are heinously evil, as living creatures also include a crapton of always-evil enemies like orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, dark creepers, most monstrous humanoids, most subterranian creatures, all evil outsiders, etc. Neutral and Good living creatures are, by bestiary standards, not the norm.
I'm not ignoring any aspect in the Bestiary. In fact, I generally acknowledge that evil undead are the most common. Then again, evil everything is generally the most common thing you find in these Monster-Manual type books.
You seem to forget what makes a ghost and we're keeping things in the view of Pathfinder and Golarion where specific. The creation of a ghost is defined by trauma... trauma so horrific it bends the mind of even the most good-hearted to rage and despair. Add to that unending centuries and you've got something that most sane people would want to stay away from.
And the fluff is great but sometimes contradicts the rules, and it definitely contradicts the story narrative. A Paladin who dies brutally at the hands of the big bad, who has unfinished business and so he travels to the PCs and requests their aid? Yeah not evil.
Even the Paizo writers ignore the fluff when they just don't care (kind of like me). In one of the adventure paths, there is an amazingly benevolent ghost who sticks around with the party after helping them with some stuff, and even happily answers questions and such when she can.
There's plenty of cultural reasons that most undeath tropes are evil.
Whose culture? Culture does not define good and evil. If that were the case, many things that are seen as heinously evil in D&D would be considered good acts, because culture can be pretty screwed up sometimes. Are you aware that it was seen as culturally encouraged and good to marry your rape victim? Or to kill the rape victim if they didn't scream out for help (say under threat of death, but only if they were married or engaged were they to be killed, if they were single, see previous cultural morality).
Arguing good and evil based on culture opens up a can of worms that will never be resolved. Most cultures consider cannibalism to be inhuman and definitely evil. Meanwhile, other cultures who really aren't in to killing and being bad or anything consider cannibalism of loved ones a sacred funeral rite to carry them on with you; in a sentiment that is amazingly beautiful and noble in concept when you think about it.
So what we have, for determining alignment in D&D/Pathfinder usually comes down to altruism (for others) vs hedonism (for self) vs sadism (against others). Just by looking at the core rules we can see things like killing, hurting, and oppressing are considered evil. The opposite tends to be good. Neutral tends to be rather indifferent. We also see that evil can be used for good without qualifying as Evil, as we have Paladins who are not only fine with murdering evil-doers, but are expected to do so as a class that is essentially a holy crusader with full weapon and armor proficiencies and abilities designed specifically to slaughter evil creatures.
I imagine this is one of the reason previous editions of D&D said that Good clerics didn't cast animate dead without a Good Reason, while Evil clerics happily did so if it was merely convenient. Also, mindless undead like skeletons and zombies were neutral in 1E, 2E, and 3E, but changed to evil in 3.5/Pathfinder.
However, Pathfinder also contradicts itself, because the Core Alignment Rules say that creatures incapable of making moral choices (such as animals or mindless creatures) are Neutral; which means that the correct alignment for Skeletons and Zombies as well as Lemure Devils is Neutral. Lemure Devils, however, have the Evil subtype because they are composed of evil, and thus they are always treated as Evil Outsiders even though their moral alignment is Neutral.
Hell, the fluff for skeletons and zombies contradicts itself at every turn. The only thing that is included in the skeleton entry that tries to justify it being evil is a mention of it possessing an "evil cunning that allows it to use weapons" (I guess you have to have evil cunning to use weapons? σ_σ), and the zombie entry says they can do little else except follow orders (a literary phrase meaning essentially nothing else), and yet then tries to make them out to be Dawn of the Dead zombies wandering around looking to eat flesh and kill the living, despite the fact it cannot choose to do a damn thing except follow orders and zombies don't eat.
Now if you want to populate your worlds full of happy saintly zombies... go for it. Neither I, not James Jacobs, or any of the Paizo staff will go beat down your doors. But at best, your model is an extremely niche one compared to the planet's various cultural histories on what most of the gaming and literary tropes are drawn from.
Hyperbole or strawman, which is it?
My arguing that good undead are possible has nothing to do with wanting saintly zombies. In fact, barring the Juju Oracle, the rules deem that zombies and skeletons are supposed to be Neutral because they are mindless and incapable of making moral decisions. Even if they were required to wander around killing stuff, they are still neutral because they would be doing so because of their nature and not because of their choice. If you have a flesh golem that runs around slaughtering everything that moves, it's still Neutral by the core alignment rules because it lacks the cognitive function to choose.
Want a surprising fact? I use a lot of evil undead in my games. Many of my nastiest most terrible villains are undead. Many of the bad guys use undead because undead are pretty freakin' convenient for badguys to use, because let's face it: mindless undead aren't going to talk back, don't eat, don't sleep, don't have moral qualms about burning villages or killing innocents, or going on suicide missions with bombs strapped to their appendages so they explode in a fiery conflagration of smoke and bone when they meet the good guys; and honestly, the harvesting of humanoid remains tends to be less than a concern for a lot of bad guys.
However, in my game there is also a nation loosely based on Egyptians who are actually very well off, and embrace undeath. They got mindless undead toiling their fields, their people are trained in magic from an early age, and they are ruled by a lich queen and her undead underlings, who helps guide their progress through their vast intelligence and wisdom. They are culturally very different from most of their surrounding neighbors, who often find their reverence and acceptance of death unusual; and at least one of their neighbors abhors undead due to religious reasons, and is regularly at conflict with them.
So like I said. The Paizo staff doesn't even follow their own fluff when they don't want to (as noted with their good ghost), the rules don't prevent good undead, and the core rules say that mindless undead should be Neutral, despite it listing them as NE in their statblocks in the Bestiary. The undead type has nothing about being evil. Detect Evil doesn't even detect undead by default anymore (which caused confusion when you used detect evil and detect good on a Paladin ghost in 3.5).
So step off Lazar, I've no patience for dealing with you today. ಠ_ಠ
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something may be mindless and have no choice in it's matters doesn't mean it has to be Neutral.
Can something be mindless and have no choice be Good, then?
If the neutral mindless 'anti-life' of negative energy turns something evil, then does the neutral mindless 'life' of positive energy turns things good? Because it is empowered and enlivened by positive energy, is ebola good? Are demons, daemons, devils and qlippoth good, because negative energy is antithetical to their 'life?' Is the Queen of Cheliax good, because her body is empowered by mindless positive energy?
And if life and death, not choice in life, not malevolence or wicked deeds, not a life full of kindness and good works, are the deciding factors of whether one is good or evil, when *exactly* does a paladin turn evil. The exact second his heart stops beating and he becomes a bodiless spirit, or does it take a little bit before he becomes irrevocably evil, because he's all dead and gross?
Hey, that sounds like a funky game world, in which all living things are automatically good, even orcs and demons, and all dead things turn evil, including blink dog puppies and paladins.
It must be terribly unpleasant for all those clerics of evil gods by your logic, forced by their state of life to be 'good,' unable to be evil, no matter how many vile and unconscionable things they do, since alignment is not determined by the choices you make, until the moment of their death, when they are finally able to be evil.
And that is your argument. Choices don't matter. Your beliefs and actions and desires don't matter. Even if you are utterly mindless and incapable of volition, *all* that matters if whether you have AC or DC running your battery. Save the world, make it a better place, turn deserts into gardens, run a combination homeless shelter / soup kitchen / animal rescue clinic, *none of that matters* if your crank runs on negative energy, you are evil, full stop. Eat succulent babies, torture people for the lulz, kick puppies, start message board threads with the words 'alignment,' 'paladin' or 'katana' in the title, it doesn't matter, as long as fluffy positive energy empowers your body, you can not be other than good.
Nothing you do matters. Whether you are good or evil was decided before you made your first choice.
It's hard to picture a bleaker world-view.
|
|
<good stuff cut for space>
Set--
Excellent post...I do believe I have a solution to the problem of mindless undead and being evil or not, that handles what I think is the game-mechanics concern of making them evil--
Undead (pretty much all undead that are animated by negative energy) should have the sub-type 'evil'. However, they should only carry the alignment 'evil' if they are sentient and actively evil (mindless undead are neutral, some undead may even be 'good' depending on what they were in life).
The problem that I believe Paizo is trying to solve with making them 'evil' is the issue of making aligned weapons and spells (e.g. holy swords, holy smite, spear of purity, and the like) have a full effect on undead (under the assertion that the energy causing them to exist-- negative force-- is inherently unholy). Giving the 'evil' subtype as a part of being undead, gives them the vulnerability to specifically good effects, without making the wrongful insistence that the creature's alignment is evil without ever having active evil intentions. Creatures having an aligned subtype and therefore being vulnerable to opposite-alignment effects, without actually being of that alignment has certainly happened before, more than a few times-- even though it's not the normal flow of things. As I think someone mentioned on this thread, it was explicitly done for the Lemure Devils in a past edition. And the subtype makes sense if the spells and effects that create undead are presumed to be evil, and/or the traditional idea that 'Good' effects hurt undead are to be retained in the game.
All this is IMO and YMMV, of course.
|
You might also want to check out the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19. A very great take on the idea of non-evil undead. Has a very refreshing take on how good PCs can work with the dead/undead as well!
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.
Thanks for the White Necromancer shout out! I'm pleased and humbled to say the class has proven to be quite popular!
<good stuff cut for space>Set--
Excellent post...I do believe I have a solution to the problem of mindless undead and being evil or not, that handles what I think is the game-mechanics concern of making them evil--
Undead (pretty much all undead that are animated by negative energy) should have the sub-type 'evil'. However, they should only carry the alignment 'evil' if they are sentient and actively evil (mindless undead are neutral, some undead may even be 'good' depending on what they were in life).
The problem that I believe Paizo is trying to solve with making them 'evil' is the issue of making aligned weapons and spells (e.g. holy swords, holy smite, spear of purity, and the like) have a full effect on undead (under the assertion that the energy causing them to exist-- negative force-- is inherently unholy). Giving the 'evil' subtype as a part of being undead, gives them the vulnerability to specifically good effects, without making the wrongful insistence that the creature's alignment is evil without ever having active evil intentions. Creatures having an aligned subtype and therefore being vulnerable to opposite-alignment effects, without actually being of that alignment has certainly happened before, more than a few times-- even though it's not the normal flow of things. As I think someone mentioned on this thread, it was explicitly done for the Lemure Devils in a past edition. And the subtype makes sense if the spells and effects that create undead are presumed to be evil, and/or the traditional idea that 'Good' effects hurt undead are to be retained in the game.
All this is IMO and YMMV, of course.
The only issue I have with that is negative energy isn't evil, and positive energy isn't good. They are by planar standards similar to fire and cold. They have their own elemental planes, which are not aligned. We can look in the system and see countless examples of spells that even go so far as to kill people with negative energy which lack even the slightest hint at being less morally upright than using fireball or cone of cold.
However, I DO think that certain undead - and other creatures - that are innately connected to the power of evil should indeed have the evil subtype. Not only would it make them perfect targets for general goodly smackdown, but it also makes their attacks evil, and thus a more appropriate weapon of evil as well.
I just prefer things be logical, is all; and frankly, there is nothing logical about 3.5 and Pathfinder's undead=evil at all. That illogic shows in inconsistencies and contradictions, and in these arguments.
When 3E was out, we didn't have these kinds of arguments on the WotC message boards, until Hasbro bought WotC, and then everything that was ugly, especially undead, got slapped with a big ol' Evil alignment at every turn; and we get stupidity like this and Deathwatch having an Evil subtype; none of which is internally consistent.
In other (perhaps old) news, Set, I <3 all your posts. ^-^
Positive, negative, good or evil isn't the issue here, not exactly.
The issue is we've wandered into an alignment debate.
And we all know how well those tend to end :D
I have something in my setting that guarantees that all undead are evil, no questions asked.
Each of the gods has a mortal avatar, usually a powerful monster. For example, the god of savagery has the Tarrasque as its avatar and the god of invention has a sentient class-leveled adamantine golem.
The god of undeath's avatar is every single undead on the planet (barring a few special exceptions). They act as they would normally, but he can see through their eyes and if he chooses, pour his power into any one of those undead to become a CR 25 representation of all the powers of undeath.
The animating force of undead is intelligent and evil but very distracted. Every undead animated adds to his dark power.
I have something in my setting that guarantees that all undead are evil, no questions asked.
Each of the gods has a mortal avatar, usually a powerful monster. For example, the god of savagery has the Tarrasque as its avatar and the god of invention has a sentient class-leveled adamantine golem.
The god of undeath's avatar is every single undead on the planet (barring a few special exceptions). They act as they would normally, but he can see through their eyes and if he chooses, pour his power into any one of those undead to become a CR 25 representation of all the powers of undeath.
The animating force of undead is intelligent and evil but very distracted. Every undead animated adds to his dark power.
That's... really cool.
I may very well steal this to use later.
|
|
I think it's a misrepresentation to present the White Necromancer has someone who animates undead with the "good" label. A white Necromancer isn't going to hang around with undead servitors serving him tequila. A white necromancer may make use of undead with the proviso that he gives them release when they are no longer needed. Otherwise he's nothing more than another Dark Necromancer.Thanks for the White Necromancer shout out! I'm pleased and humbled to say the class has proven to be quite popular!You might also want to check out the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19. A very great take on the idea of non-evil undead. Has a very refreshing take on how good PCs can work with the dead/undead as well!
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.
Huh.
1. It's a good thing no one suggested that misrepresentation then! (I say, this exact exchange has happened before...)
2. White Necromancers can be more than the specific thing you seem to want them to be.
3. Why are you lecturing the creator of the White Necromancer?
3a. No Marc, thank you for that class! :D Still want to play that scythe-weildin' grim-reaper-lookin' paladin/whitenecro someday.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Don't abuse the quote function.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Don't abuse the quote function.
Abuse? O.o
That's the first time I have ever heard of it as an abuse. People do it all the time, and I've never seen it called abuse. Why is it an abuse, Ross, given that each instance where something was changed it was noted as being changed?
I have something in my setting that guarantees that all undead are evil, no questions asked.
Each of the gods has a mortal avatar, usually a powerful monster. For example, the god of savagery has the Tarrasque as its avatar and the god of invention has a sentient class-leveled adamantine golem.
The god of undeath's avatar is every single undead on the planet (barring a few special exceptions). They act as they would normally, but he can see through their eyes and if he chooses, pour his power into any one of those undead to become a CR 25 representation of all the powers of undeath.
The animating force of undead is intelligent and evil but very distracted. Every undead animated adds to his dark power.
That is really awesome Umbral. O.o
Nightmare Bat
Positive, negative, good or evil isn't the issue here, not exactly.
The issue is we've wandered into an alignment debate.
I'd rather avoid an alignment debate. I was pointing out that nothing about being undead forces an alignment, the core rules note incapable of choice means incapable of alignment, and that positive and negative energies are not good and evil. We actually have Sacred and Profane for good and evil energies respectively.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Don't abuse the quote function.Abuse? O.o
That's the first time I have ever heard of it as an abuse. People do it all the time, and I've never seen it called abuse. Why is it an abuse, Ross, given that each instance where something was changed it was noted as being changed?
Because LazarX did not say those things. Someone reading your post has to scroll back and forth and play 'spot the differences'. At best, it's an exceedingly snarky way to say you disagree.
If you want to debate with someone, please do, but do not put words in their mouth.
I think it's a misrepresentation to present the White Necromancer has someone who animates undead with the "good" label. A white Necromancer isn't going to hang around with undead servitors serving him tequila. A white necromancer may make use of undead with the proviso that he gives them release when they are no longer needed. Otherwise he's nothing more than another Dark Necromancer.Thanks for the White Necromancer shout out! I'm pleased and humbled to say the class has proven to be quite popular!You might also want to check out the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly #19. A very great take on the idea of non-evil undead. Has a very refreshing take on how good PCs can work with the dead/undead as well!
Undead are not ALWAYS evil, there is at least one exception. Juju. A Juju oracle can create neutral or even good aligned undead, depending on their own alignment.
There is nothing to give "release" to. It's a freakin' corpse that is sustained by negative energy and controlled through magic. The soul has departed. It's gone. Off to another plane, to sit basking in the radiance or terror of whatever god it worshiped.
Animate dead does not suck souls out of the planes and trap babies inside bodies. It never has, it never should. Animate dead is not powerful enough to enslave souls. It's a 3rd level spell. I wouldn't even buy house-rule fluff about it doing that, since it's a 3rd level spell, and that would imply that a 5th level cleric could steal souls from the gods and force them into objects, before they could even raise a willing soul from the dead. That's just stupid.
Want to know what undead DO have minds? Oh yeah, stuff made by create undead and create greater undead. Humorously, neither of those spells actually give you control over the undead you have created.
Which means a any necromancer, be they white, gray, black, pink, some weird polkadotted robed caster, or whatever can lounge about while Bonehilda pours the tea and sweeps the floor, no problem.
|
|
The only issue I have with that is negative energy isn't evil, and positive energy isn't good. They are by planar standards similar to fire and cold. They have their own elemental planes, which are not aligned. We can look in the system and see countless examples of spells that even go so far as to kill people with...
There used to be, in older editions of the game, the concept that negative energy was evil and positive energy was good. There was, and still is, even separate from the negative energy/positive energy issue, the idea that animating the dead is inherently evil, and the idea that undead should be vulnerable to holy/good effects, no matter what.
And you're right, if negative energy is not evil and animating the dead is not inherently evil, none of these things should apply. I do think that the above things I've mentioned are the reasons why the alignment on mindless undead keeps getting played with (because some folks writing up the monsters believe these theories)-- and why I came up with the suggestion I did to handle it (if someone were to want to explain these things better in their game).
:)
|
|
I have something in my setting that guarantees that all undead are evil, no questions asked.
Each of the gods has a mortal avatar, usually a powerful monster. For example, the god of savagery has the Tarrasque as its avatar and the god of invention has a sentient class-leveled adamantine golem.
The god of undeath's avatar is every single undead on the planet (barring a few special exceptions). They act as they would normally, but he can see through their eyes and if he chooses, pour his power into any one of those undead to become a CR 25 representation of all the powers of undeath.
The animating force of undead is intelligent and evil but very distracted. Every undead animated adds to his dark power.
That's... really cool.
I may very well steal this to use later.
I second what Alitan said. Wonderful idea, UR-- I may borrow it myself sometime, if you don't mind.
I'd rather avoid an alignment debate. I was pointing out that nothing about being undead forces an alignment, the core rules note incapable of choice means incapable of alignment, and that positive and negative energies are not good and evil. We actually have Sacred and Profane for good and evil energies respectively.One could say that nothing says that torture or brainwashing "forces" people to do anything either. But such a statement would be less than accurate. One thing you seem to forget is about the origin of undead, what makes something that doesn't pass into eternal rest after death. The ghost template for example reads as thus...
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
Being an undead creature isn't a pleasant experience... even more so if you're not mindless.
Um, you are aware that this template quote includes the 'ghosts can be any alignment' phrase? Yes, the majority are C/E. But this isn't a really good quote with which to support your assertions regarding the undead. Q.E.D.
I'd rather avoid an alignment debate. I was pointing out that nothing about being undead forces an alignment, the core rules note incapable of choice means incapable of alignment, and that positive and negative energies are not good and evil. We actually have Sacred and Profane for good and evil energies respectively.One could say that nothing says that torture or brainwashing "forces" people to do anything either. But such a statement would be less than accurate. One thing you seem to forget is about the origin of undead, what makes something that doesn't pass into eternal rest after death. The ghost template for example reads as thus...
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
Being an undead creature isn't a pleasant experience... even more so if you're not mindless.
Yeah. Fun fact. That ghost from the AP I mentioned? Yeah, pretty much that. Without spoiling what AP or what it's about, the ghost fits all the criteria. Killed violently in a way that was extremely unjust, unable to set things right, etc. But you see, here's a funny thing.
"ghosts can be of any alignment" and "can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife." Why is it becoming hateful and cruel? Nothing about becoming undead makes it cruel, read the description again...
"the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil". They're angry, hurt, and most are vengeful, and they are typically incapable of righting the wrong that resulted in their inability to rest. This goes back to that whole being tortured makes you evil trope that gets played out a lot.
Check this one out too. "Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right." Eternal anguish, because their unfinished business goes on unfinished. Of course, in that AP, you help the ghost set right the wrongs, and the ghost comes with you.
There was a ghost in Icewind Dale II (which is a 3rd Edition D&D game) haunting an inn in Targos, who wept each night because she died waiting for her husband to return to her, and was still waiting, and didn't pass over. When you bring her proof that her husband died, she passes over to find him.
So your argument that ghosts are evil because they're undead is an extremely flimsy one. It says nothing of the sort, and basically says most are really pissed, and that that can turn them chaotic evil; because apparently whoever wrote the fluff decided that good people cannot stew on a desire for revenge against the folks who ever left them with their unfinished business.
On a side note, it just comes down to a matter of logic for me. Logic is extremely important to me. Also, I like consistency with that logic. We've always been able to look through the core rulebook and determine that negative energy is not evil, simply because there is so much in the core rulebook that uses it that no one ever questions. In fact, around 90% of the necromancy school involves direct application of negative energy and often in harmful ways, and yet it's seen as no more evil than acid arrow.
As presented in the standard cosmology and explanations, positive and negative energy are both two neutral types of energy, and are simply antithetical to one-another. If you apply negative energy to the living they are prone to catching a chronic case of death. Positive energy makes the same true for undead. Whereas each energy heals their respective counterparts. Humorously negative energy is actually a bit more gentle, since negative energy never outright kills undead, since they can basically vacation on the negative energy plane and be super energized, while the positive plane will consume living creatures.
So where does the evil come in, exactly? It can't be because the majority of sentient undead are evil, because humorously the majority of sentient living creatures are undead; and despite the entry in the statblock of skeleton and zombie in the Bestiary, the core alignment rules say they should be neutral (and I'll stick with those alignment rules for matters of alignment thanks), so that means undead have their neutrals along with their majority evils and some good.
Well most try to argue that animating the dead is a desecration of the body. That argument doesn't hold up because it's entirely a cultural subjective. One culture may see cadavers or embalming a horrible desecration, others would like to see their dead burned, others still turn their dead into mummies and such so they live on forever (honestly the implication that egyptians are evil is pretty disgusting). Most arguments against animation of mindless undead revolve around the idea of forcefully taking the now empty bodies of once-sentient creatures and putting them to use, with the idea that the once-living creature still owns that body or is in some way more entitled to the empty husk than those still living on that plane of existence.
Which, barring the fact that is complete crap since the body would only waste away unless unnaturally preserved, there's also the fact that has nothing to do with the actual animation process. If someone volunteered their body to be animated, such as to aid society, for science, or just because you purchased their remains ("Hey, I'll give you three months worth of living expenses if I can have your bones when you die, for my magical works" is legit), you can also use non-sentient animals. For war, turning bison, oxen, and similar beasts of burden into undead is way more effective than humanoids. For work, they can carry a lot more too.
Basically, these anti-undead arguments with you never actually have any grounds in logic, or any basis for reasonable understanding. In fact, your entire argument could be summed up as "because". The argument that most undead are evil and thus they all are evil is hardcore flawed reasoning. That's like saying elephants are gray so everything gray must be an elephant, or suggesting that because you have a destructive sub-group in a religion (even if that sub-group is the majority group) that everyone in that religion is bad.
It just doesn't work.
Now, I myself am all for undead being horribly super duper mega ultra evil in some campaign settings; but dag on it, it needs to stop in the core rules which are setting neutral. Umbral Reaver above gave a great example as to why they would be evil in his/her campaign setting. If they're evil in Golarion for their own associated fluff, that's great. Each campaign setting can determine the logistics behind their being evil, good, lawful, or chaotic as deemed fit; just like how Arcane magic is generally seen as bad juju in Dark Sun, or how undeath relates to stuff in a campaign where everyone are ghosts (such as in Sean K. Reynolds' Ghostwalk campaign guidebook). The 3E release of the Ravenloft setting does this with a LOT of stuff. Pretty much everything is evil in 3E Ravenloft, even the barbarians you get from tooting the Horn of Valhalla or whatever it's called, and it has its own reasoning for these changes.
However, in the core rules, none of that junk applies. We have the rules, we have logical reasoning, and if you do not answer the hows and whys in these questions in the setting then my sense of verisimilitude shatters and shatters hard, due to lack of consistency and logic.
I'm glad you guys like the idea. Steal if you like. It's a fairly broad, vague concept that could be adapted in a great many ways.
I'm glad you guys like the idea. Steal if you like. It's a fairly broad, vague concept that could be adapted in a great many ways.
Thanks Umbral. While godly avatars don't fit in my campaign world very well (since the gods themselves are in a strange place when it comes to influence over the world), I might use this with a subgroup of creatures, along with some demon lords. Again, thank you for the really cool idea.
Another idea: Unintelligent undead are all part of a global hive mind that communicates through the plane of negative energy. It thinks and acts on a scale so slow as to be almost imperceptible, but is definitely evil.
Or: Animating a mindless undead creature traps a piece of the original creature's soul, causing tortuous pain to it no matter where it dwells in the afterlife.
Another idea: Unintelligent undead are all part of a global hive mind that communicates through the plane of negative energy. It thinks and acts on a scale so slow as to be almost imperceptible, but is definitely evil.
Or: Animating a mindless undead creature traps a piece of the original creature's soul, causing tortuous pain to it no matter where it dwells in the afterlife.
Also nice. :O
Speaking of the soul trapping thing, my game does have something called "damned" which is essentially a template that is applied more or less directly to turn a living creature into an undead creature. It basically involves casting a bestow curse on the target while they are dying (or immediately after gaining the dead condition) to prevent their soul from breaking away immediately, and then within 1 minute of their death casting animate dead, which causes their body to become undead while their soul is still trapped within it; effectively resurrecting them as an undead creature.
While not necessarily a bad thing (it could be used as some sort of half-assed raise dead) it is typically done to enslave the mortal. For example, an evil cleric manages to best someone who was particularly powerful, they pull this crap and bring them back to unlife and use command undead or something on them to force them into their service, literally turning the poor sod into an unliving (and unwilling) slave.
The concept was inspired by traditional tribal zombies, as well as Warcraft 3, where Sylvannas the elven ranger - after days of resistance during his attack on the elven kingdoms - is finally overrun and requests a quick death at the least. Impressed with her battle prowess and ability to slow him with such meager forces, and also pissed because of the thorn she was in his side, he killed her and forced her into his service as an unwilling undead who he made one of his generals. When his power waned during the events of the Frozen Throne, he lost his hold over her an she broke free of his command, taking many other sentient undead and some non-sentient undead that were in her service with her, and organized a resistance.
|
|
I'd rather avoid an alignment debate. I was pointing out that nothing about being undead forces an alignment, the core rules note incapable of choice means incapable of alignment, and that positive and negative energies are not good and evil. We actually have Sacred and Profane for good and evil energies respectively.One could say that nothing says that torture or brainwashing "forces" people to do anything either. But such a statement would be less than accurate. One thing you seem to forget is about the origin of undead, what makes something that doesn't pass into eternal rest after death. The ghost template for example reads as thus...
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
Being an undead creature isn't a pleasant experience... even more so if you're not mindless.
That is far from the only possible origin for undead. You can have undead born from people that just kept working on some important so diligently that they didn't even notice when they died. You can have noble champions of good willingly allowing themselves to be turned into undead guardians to watch over a sacred necropolis. You can have undead born from a single powerful regret that that soul now has one last chance to make amends for.
In all of those, those aren't cases of souls tormented by being denied access to their proper afterlife. Those are souls, knowingly or not, putting off their just rewards for the sake of others. Those are souls that have earned their peace but are still trucking in the name of good, souls for whom Heaven can wait.
These narrow definitions and themes you're applying to undead really don't apply to many of our settings and games. Many of us prefer a wider range of possibilities. There's nothing wrong with you liking what you like alone, but when you get all authoritative about it being the One True Way, that starts to honk people off.