| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mindless undead being Evil is NOT an erroneous monster entry. It is the RAW. It has been confirmed as such on the boards (I do not remember the specific thread though).
I can prove it's not, with the core rules.
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.
Mindless undead are neutral. They lack a special quality calling them out as exceptions to the normal rules, thus their statblock is in error.
Creating undead is not Evil because it uses Negative Energy (Inflict Wounds does it also), nor because it involves desecrating corpses (Creating a Flesh Golem does it also). My hypothesis is that using Negative Energy to give a semblance of life to a dead body is Evil. Maybe because it is a corruption of Negative Energy, which is the energy of destroying things, not of creating things.
Corpse desecration has nothing to do with anything. Corpses are objects. In D&D terms, there is nothing good, nor evil, about doing anything to them. Again, I can prove this using the same alignment rules mentioned here. The problem, as before, is that alignment is pretty simple in D&D and people try to complicate it with their own ideas.
Undead weren't evil prior to 3.5, and even in 3.5 there were quite a few mindless undead printed in official sourcebooks (like the Draconomicon) which were Neutral. The reason is because they're Neutral. Even in Pathfinder they are Neutral - by requirement of the alignment rules.
EDIT (4 hours, 20 min after original post): I'd like to go on to say that there is no theory. Corruption of energy is something you add to the game and applying a brand of morality to that is not supported by the rules (as already quoted in the rules). Errors occur in the game. It happens.
Ogres aren't proficient with their weapons. A similar error.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most likely the evil orcs have stolen all the items they have, yet I never see good players attempt to return those +1 longswords to their proper owners(unless thats the explicit purpose of the quest).
I have. The key here is if the +1 longsword is labeled as being owned by someone. Logically, they can't return the item to its rightful owner unless they know who it belongs to.
If they manage to figure it out and return it, most DM's will end up granting extra XP for the deed. That's supported by a lot of published adventures since D&D began. But most such objects are not labeled or otherwise claimed.
More than that, the right of booty after having done justice in wartime is actually very medieval. Way back when, soldiers weren't paid, or even given food, arms etc. They got their profit by conquest, swiping whatever wasn't nailed down once they wiped out their sworn enemies.
Because of that, you'll find a lot of cultural artifacts owned by nations that are not their origin, like Britain owning uncounted thousands of Middle Eastern, Greek etc art objects, arms, armor, etc.
Salvage rights are also quite established. I found it lost and abandoned, or in the hands of the heathen enemy blah blah blah it's mine, is a recognized/authorized thing since it became 'a thing'.
There has been some international lawsuits over property found on sunked ships, but I cant find a single case where the representatives of the original owners won. Hence, salvage rights prevail as lawful
murder : you mean what PCs do everyday to monsters and enemies ?
Ok, lets focus on this one, always near and dear to my heart as a soldier.
There's killing and murder, not the same thing. Most monsters are threats to communities. Go to the orc stronghold, whose orcs have been raiding, killing, raping and plundering the countryside and killing the warriors is not murder.
On this specific point of PCs and murder (which was a real question of mine BTW, though it could read like irony), I would like to quote the enlightened words of the Great (and Terrible) Erik Mona who stated "when you think about it, a DnD adventurer is at heart a murderous tomb-robber" (in Kobold Quarterly n°1)
** spoiler omitted **
Who am I to question the wisdom of one so High and Mighty ?
Adventurers certainly commit homicide (if you expand that to include intelligent non humans). They may, or may not, commit murder. Murder is a crime. Homicide is the act of killing (presumably an intelligent being in this case) for any reason. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proper course of action would be to turn in anything you found on the orcs to the state, who should return these goods to their rightful owners. Or to attempt to find the rightful owners(or their heirs). Magic items and are expensive and there should be a receipt verifying their ownership.
Depending on the local law, after a reasonable period of time(a few months typically) with nobody attempting to claim the goods would you be considered the rightful owner. Although its just as likely the good would be seized by the state due to them being illegal.
This made me laugh. You're still talking about Pathfinder, right?
murder : you mean what PCs do everyday to monsters and enemies ?
Ok, lets focus on this one, always near and dear to my heart as a soldier.
There's killing and murder, not the same thing. Most monsters are threats to communities. Go to the orc stronghold, whose orcs have been raiding, killing, raping and plundering the countryside and killing the warriors is not murder.
Which, of course, means killing the warriors/fighters/party who attack the Orc Warriors - is not an evil act from the perspective of the Orcs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adventurers certainly commit homicide (if you expand that to include intelligent non humans). They may, or may not, commit murder. Murder is a crime. Homicide is the act of killing (presumably an intelligent being in this case) for any reason. :)
Which presumably makes Murder a chaotic act rather than a specifically evil act?
Sapicide for the killing of intelligent creatures? Well actually, intelligent anything. Sapicide is doubly appropriate for the killing of intelligent plants :)
Stuff about undead not being evil
Have a look at the spell description for Detect Evil. It specifically indicated that all undead creatures detect as evil, to some extent or another. That is regardless of their sapience.
On top of that- Both Animate Dead and Create Dead are listed as Necromancy(evil) spells regardless of the type of undead created.
So I guess that mindless undead are evil - because of the way that they are created, if for no other reason :)
For what is any kind of aligned act, I use the guidelines in the rulebook, and anything in a grey area is up to the GM.
Most alignment arguments tend to come from people defining alignment by their OWN real life ethics and morality (which tend to be far more complex than the 9 alignments in a pretendy game), rather than using the rules' descriptions and trusting the GM's call. There's also an oldskool perception, I've noticed, where Lawful Good is seen as the "Best" alignment (either because paladins or because "Lawful" used to be the "good" alignment before good, evil, neutral were entered into the equation, so lawful+good must equal extra good), and then people will fit Lawful Good in particular to whatever their personal beliefs are.
So: rulebook, GM.
And then if you're still fighting about it, then boot the arguer, boot the GM, or house-rule out the system. Let pallies operate by their code (not code+alignment), and the splats have enough divine spells now that if you remove the aligned spells from the game they still have plenty of other stuff to cast. (Also, I actually like the alignment system as a roleplaying tool, but really wish its mechanical-related elements were removed, especially the cleric spells designed around them.)
Also a big issue is understanding that ONE aligned act does not equal alignment shift. A good man who, upon finding his family dead, goes berserk and kills everything in sight until he comes to his sense has done an evil act. But if he aims to atone for his sins and works actively toward that, he probably never was evil. Just a good man who did a bad thing, because of a bad situation. (Stuff like that happens all the time.) Likewise an evil lich who decides to save a puppy from a fire where all his owners/family were killed and raise the puppy as his own and is kind and wonderful to it does not become a good lich. Especially because the lich set the fire to begin with. ;) So the given goodness or evilness or neutrality of one act is often for the time being irrelevant.
It's when one person does repeated out-of-alignment acts do you consider alignment shift and its possible repercussions. If the good man in the above example then turned to constantly murdering anyone just for simply getting in his way, then he would become evil over time. He might have become evil because of being triggered by a tragic incident, but he's still evil in that case.
Even a paladin who does one evil act does not lose his alignment. He may fall and have to atone because of the paladin's code, but he remains Lawful Good until the evil behavior he took on becomes a habit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about undead not being evilHave a look at the spell description for Detect Evil. It specifically indicated that all undead creatures detect as evil, to some extent or another. That is regardless of their sapience.
On top of that- Both Animate Dead and Create Dead are listed as Necromancy(evil) spells regardless of the type of undead created.
So I guess that mindless undead are evil - because of the way that they are created, if for no other reason :)
Actually, only aligned undead detect as evil. Ghosts of good alignment are just as unnatural, but have not the slightest blip of an evil aura. It's the same with outsiders. [EVIL] type outsiders don't detect unless their alignment is actually CE, NE, or LE.
I think the devs overlooked this distinction when giving mindless undead evil alignments. A creature can be [EVIL] by nature without behaving as per the CE, NE, or LE alignments. [EVIL] type outsiders and magic exist independent of the alignment spectrum.
Alignment does not represent the nature of a creature, it represents the behavior of a creature. Mindless undead, just like mindless everything else, behave as True Neutral.
Reread the evil subtype. They are treated as evil regardless of actual alignment.
My bad. I misspoke about non-evil [EVIL] outsiders and Detect Evil. As JL-9x points out, [EVIL] outsiders count as both evil and their alignment if non-evil.
However, everything else I said holds true, especially about undead.
Salvage rights are also quite established. I found it lost and abandoned, or in the hands of the heathen enemy blah blah blah it's mine, is a recognized/authorized thing since it became 'a thing'.
There has been some international lawsuits over property found on sunked ships, but I cant find a single case where the representatives of the original owners won. Hence, salvage rights prevail as lawful
The items weren't lost or abandoned. They were stolen. The PC then killed the thieves and took the stolen items. Murdering bandits doesn't give you legal rights to their stuff, especially if the bandits didn't legally own that stuff in the first place.
The proper course of action would be to turn in anything you found on the orcs to the state, who should return these goods to their rightful owners. Or to attempt to find the rightful owners(or their heirs). Magic items and are expensive and there should be a receipt verifying their ownership.
Depending on the local law, after a reasonable period of time(a few months typically) with nobody attempting to claim the goods would you be considered the rightful owner. Although its just as likely the good would be seized by the state due to them being illegal.
You're trying to metagame in modern day chain of custody. Orcs. the orcs have stuff, how do we know who the orcs took the stuff from? Which authority do we turn it into?
If we wander into an orc lair and get killed, the orcs take our stuff, then another adventuring party comes in and wins, who do they return the stuff too? How do they know the original owners are dead or just robbed? Perhaps the orcs bought the stuff to equip their people for war?
IF the party is hired to clear orcs from the hills plaguing the town, often the described reward is "we dont have much to pay you but you can keep what ever you find"
This is premise for nearly every adventurer in the past 40 years of table top.
"whats my motivation"...."Treasure"
It's not stealing, it;s recovery, hence the salvage rights.
there could be cases where the PCs recognize an item, or it was described, and it's return requested.
But for the 30 years ive been playing this type of game,,, "you can keep what you find" was 75% of the mentioned plot hook to begin with.
Individuals don't have the right to declare ownership of someone else's property.
They do in the River Kingdoms. And the Hold of Belkzen. And there are a lot of places where there's no State to speak of on Golarion.
I imagine that D&D settings have rather loose laws compared to Earth, because earth doesn't need adventurers. If a kingdom in Golarion declared that adventurers had to turn in all their phat lootz, then they would be overrun by monsters within a month.
Lawyers are going to argue over the contents of a chest in the orc lair?
Ok let's assume the orcs raided your town, they took your wife's brooch and your oldest daughter for unspeakable acts...
This behavior has been continuing for sometime.
The town elders requisition my adventuring band with "please help us, we are victims of the orc warlord gorbash and his marauding miscreants, daily his power grows, even humans are banding together under his banner, he must be stopped."
Our Party consists of a Paladin, a Cleric, A Monk and a Wizard. All Lawful good.
We will need supplies, healing, and possibly food depending on how long this campaign will take.
The town elder says "we have very little to finance you, as the orc raiders have taken everything we have of value, but we can offer you food and lodging, at least as much as we have, you can also keep anything you find in their possession, if this helps"
The adventure hook involves investment and risk. Spells cast have a legitimate price, services of men at arms do as well.
If there were lawyers, police and legitimate authorities, the adventurers would not be needed... they'd get the sheriff to russel up a posse and go take care of this.
If the party is staying at your house, the night before embarking to the hills to engage to orcs, one might say "please good sirs, the orcs have taken a family heirloom, if you find it, may i request it's return?"
The lawful good character does not HAVE to agree to this, just because he is lawful good. IF he DOES agree, he would carry out his word.
So where do the lawyers come in?
The party is owed a payment for services, the promised payment was food and lodging plus 100% of the take of loot. The townsfolk want their stuff back.
What about the people in the neighboring town to the south the orcs also raid, who have no such contract or agreement, but their stuff might be in the loot as well?
Does the party return all the stuff to the one town they know of? but they were promised this stuff as payment. so in effect, the former belongings are no longer their belongings, they are payment for services rendered. IT cost the family brooch, but you no longer get raided by orcs and your young daughters life is avenged.
IF that's not a good deal, you are free to move away from there, but the lawfully in charge town elders have bargained this, and the PCs are bound to get it back for you, and it's already gone....
Do you have another way of hiring the party? Or do you prefer to remain under tyranny?
Sure the Town are technically innocent, and a paladin will want to protect/defend the innocent.
He can elect to stay in town, and protect them when the enemy comes. This doesn't get your brooch back.
If the government were to order an incursion into the hills, to rid the people of this town of the raiders, that would also cost money (or last I checked police/soldiers dont get salaries, eat food and require medical attention?)
A service is requested,a transaction is required. The party cannot keep doing the services for free, because they have resources that will get depleted. Broken armor, damaged weapons, potions, scrolls and wands used up.
The paladin isn't going to till your fields and sow your crops because it would be the right thing to do either.
For every lawyer, there is a counter who will argue the opposite.
For the most case, the adventurers are left up to their own terms in the principalities they operate, because they are performing a lawful service. The kingdom cannot finance the de-monsterization and law through it's entire land solely with it's army and the royal coffers.
The Party represents sub contractors under this crown and are free to negotiate their terms of service and payment.
I have rarely seen parties haggle to get more (sometimes) but usually the plot hook is "you can have stuff"
IF the kingdom did not approve, adventuring, and looting lairs would be illegal or subject to taxes and levies and such law would be openly decreed.
The Pally and his group COULD agree to a lesser sum, they might decide to use some of their new found riches to help rebuild the community and return prosperous conditions to the land.
But it is not an unlawful or ungood act to accept payment for services.
Bear in mind that in medieval times, there were no standing armies, no professional soldiers in the modern sense.
That means adventurer types (mercenaries, if that term makes you feel better) are needed for disasters. You could just as easily take out the fantastic elements and convert all the bandits, orcs, goblins etc into humans.
No change in how it's handled socially/legally speaking. That whole concept of a chain of ownership implies a very developed society and legal system, something medieval, Renaissance, and Enlightenment times simply didn't have. Plus, you'd have to enforce it.
Seriously, if you want to know just how lawless medieval times really were, and thus how Pathfinder is, try reading "The Medieval Underground" by Andrew McCall. Pretty shocking stuff to modern sensibilities in there.
You don't need a complex legal system to move past "If you killed someone, you now own their stuff." Medieval society had laws regarding what to do with someone's property when they died. It went to paying the person's debts(which would include compensating people you have wronged) and the rest went to your heir.
Nope, sorry. Not in wartime, and these mercs aka PC group definitely qualify for "wartime". It was basically whatever you could get away with. Seriously man, read the book I mentioned. It will blow your mind. And I have read enough in other books to corroborate this. Medieval law was REALLY murky on a lot of subjects. I even have a book on how women were treated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we care about medieval laws again? What part of D&D resembles medieval times except superficially? These are fantasy settings. In Hyrule you can just break everyone's pots and steal their bombs and rupees and they won't even think twice because you have a green hat or some s%!@. In Eberron magic is used to fulfill all the needs that we use technology for in modern society. The laws there are going to look very much like modern laws. And in the Final Empire its totally okay to hit the low born skaa skum because they aren't people. Go ahead and kill them and take their s%%~. No body cares. The point is that in fantasy settings the laws match the setting. Not medieval society. And most of the medieval elements in D&D settings are superficial resemblances in worlds that have uber dragons and wizards in pointy hats.
High five for the Mistborn reference.
Anything you think of that you have to ask "Is this evil?" is evil.
Simple. Justify it as neutral afterwards with table discussion if you need to.
Anything you think of that you have to ask "Is this evil?" is evil.
Simple. Justify it as neutral afterwards with table discussion if you need to.
Yeah! Kill 'em all! (laughing)
Salvage rights are also quite established. I found it lost and abandoned, or in the hands of the heathen enemy blah blah blah it's mine, is a recognized/authorized thing since it became 'a thing'.
There has been some international lawsuits over property found on sunked ships, but I cant find a single case where the representatives of the original owners won. Hence, salvage rights prevail as lawful
Bear in mind that in medieval times, there were no standing armies, no professional soldiers in the modern sense.
That means adventurer types (mercenaries, if that term makes you feel better) are needed for disasters. You could just as easily take out the fantastic elements and convert all the bandits, orcs, goblins etc into humans.
That would make those acts lawful but not good by Pathfinder definitions of law and evil.
Let's suppose salvage right is legal in medieval ages. So what? Slavery was legal in medieval ages too. But it's an evil act in Pathfinder. Just breaking or abiding the law is not being evil or good in pathfinder. Robin Hood breaks the law, yet he is good, and cheliax slavers and hellknight armigers follow the law, yet they are evil.
So the fact that adventurer types have legal right to keep their treasures don't mean it can't be evil to do so.
hellknight armigers follow the law, yet they are evil.
Huh? Since when are Armigers automatically evil?
hellknight armigers follow the law, yet they are evil.Huh? Since when are Armigers automatically evil?
Fair point, not all of them are.Let's change that to "that do not preclude them to be evil".
Point is, you have to consider what you base your games on: Modern ethics and morality, or medieval ethics and morality? Or a peculiar mix of the two? You ask this of yourself as DM because frequently players start doing things you had never even imagined as you were creating the game world. Note that players have a reputation for shooting DM plans all to heck on a regular basis. This kind of natural chaos will eventually get you to ethical/moral quandaries, where it's best that you have a heuristic to go on (rule of thumb).
Otherwise the game grinds to a halt whilst God cudgels his noggin as to what to do. Worse, I have permanently lost players when they start getting uncomfortable.
Me, I go by medieval ethics, since that's what the game is based on, but there's a few modern bits like being anti slavery as well (although slavery didn't mean back then what it came to mean later on in the New World).
Ultimately, it might be wise to have chats with your players, finding out what they are comfortable with every now and then. Sex is another example. It's typically never addressed in the books, but it's a core facet of human existence and society. Is it okay to proposition some head cleric when you show up to their temple, like the Bard did in Dorkness Rising? What if the Bard wanted to know if he made the NPC Cleric happy? It's not like rules like that have ever been addressed outside the 3.0 book of Erotic Fantasy (which is oop).
Point is, this kind of ethical or moral quandary really needs to be openly addressed in a long running game. I have a friend of mine who continually bemoans how hard it is to run a storyline that could contain sex, for example, in a romantic big robot stomping SF setting. Logically that's one of the likely possibilities of a romance, yet most players tend to have trouble with it.
Same goes with torture, or other questionable moral acts. Just gotta discuss it with your gaming group.