Remember, necromancers don't kill people. Their undead slaves do.
@Mr. Sin - So your answer is nothing. You literally can't list anything that is evil, in a game with detect evil as a spell.
Enough said.
None that will make you happy, no. Large difference. Besides, actions don't show up on detect evil.
|
As I understand it, undead are Evil because they hunger for the life of the living. A skeleton left alone will seek out the nearest sentient creature and destroy it. They are evil because they actively seek to extinguish all life. You know what else actively tries to extinguish all life? Daemons.That description applies to Zombies, but Skeletons have no such rules attached to them.
And, for what it's worth, Zombies feed on the living. Mindlessly. They don't seek out and extinguish life just for the sake of doing so (which would be evil).
it's right under the CR table.
Edit. -- also Ghouls feed on the living not zombies.Neu-Evil
committing evil for its own sake
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
it's right under the CR table.As I understand it, undead are Evil because they hunger for the life of the living. A skeleton left alone will seek out the nearest sentient creature and destroy it. They are evil because they actively seek to extinguish all life. You know what else actively tries to extinguish all life? Daemons.That description applies to Zombies, but Skeletons have no such rules attached to them.
And, for what it's worth, Zombies feed on the living. Mindlessly. They don't seek out and extinguish life just for the sake of doing so (which would be evil).
It says "Always neutral evil." It doesn't say anything about them searching out living things to mindlessly kill when uncontrolled.
For what it's worth, Detect Evil is a pretty weak strawman argument as well. It doesn't just detect evil anywhere - it detects evil auras.
For example, if Hitler was a level 1 Fighter, he wouldn't "ping" on a Detect Evil spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery is evil, but creating an undead slave is not evil...
Since you are fixating on the slavery aspect, consider that it is possible to create intelligent undead and not attempt to compell them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal feeling :
Dominate person to force a serial killer stand still... not evil. No different than having 10 people hold him down.
Dominate person to force an evil opponent to attack his allies... evil. You're forcing someone to betray their own morals.
Dominate person to force a good opponent to attack his allies... evil. You're forcing someone to betray their own morals.
Dominate person to force a good opponent to stand still while you attack his allies... not evil. No different than having 10 people hold him down.
Dominate person to force an evil opponent to stand still while you kill his family... evil. You're intentionally inflicting harm.
Dominate person to force a good opponent to stand still while you kill his family... evil. You're intentionally inflicting harm.
Raise Dead :
Raise dead to create 5 or 6 undead to fight off an orc horde who's attacking your village... Evil and Neutral. Defending yourself when attacked is not good, it's not evil either. Overall then, the action has more evil than good in it.
Raise dead to create 5 or 6 undead to work in your factory to make you money... Evil and Neutral. Making money is not good nor evil, but creating undead is Evil per the rules, so it's an evil act overall.
Raise dead to create 5 or 6 undead to attack a daemon who's eating people... Evil and Good. Destroying evil is Good (unless you're just infighting and trying to take their power), but raising dead is Evil, so a Neutral action at best.
Just because you're doing something 'good' doesn't mean you can't use an evil act to do it. Feeding starving orphans is 'good', but killing their teacher to make her into stew is 'evil' and doesn't turn the evil act into a good act. Evil tends to be a bit like black mould or asbestos, it doesn't take much of it to ruin everything around it. On the other hand, good isn't as contagious as evil, just because you 'love' someone so much that you kill them and stuff them and mount them so you can be with them forever, that 'good' inherent in love doesn't make the rest of it good.
Evil tends to be a bit like black mould or asbestos, it doesn't take much of it to ruin everything around it. On the other hand, good isn't as contagious as evil
Can't say I entirely agree with that. The idea that having a bit of evil or pragmatism in your characterization taints him over all is pretty damning, and creating a double standard where good is the hard to be and never pays off alignment has always been a bleh thing to me. Makes the case of a good necromancer pretty near impossible outside of being someone who speaks to spirits, and makes those that choose otherwise look like they're diving off a slippery slope that's only manifest in an individuals head.
Moving back, that's why its a lot about what your group or DM see things as. If raising undead has to be evil, then there's a huge difference in being told you've scarred and tainted your soul for eternity and being told you can go ahead and do it as long as you don't go overboard. Sometimes you end up with that one guy that hates you forever over an inch of pragmatic behavior and all it really takes is a disapproving GM to shut you down from the start. Communication is pretty key in the situation to understand feelings, and not everyone's forthcoming about 'what if' scenarios and their own feelings about things which makes it all the more confusing and rough to deal with at moments.
The semantic arguments in this thread are killing me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil tends to be a bit like black mould or asbestos, it doesn't take much of it to ruin everything around it. On the other hand, good isn't as contagious as evilCan't say I entirely agree with that. The idea that having a bit of evil or pragmatism in your characterization taints him over all is pretty damning, and creating a double standard where good is the hard to be and never pays off alignment has always been a bleh thing to me. Makes the case of a good necromancer pretty near impossible outside of being someone who speaks to spirits, and makes those that choose otherwise look like they're diving off a slippery slope that's only manifest in an individuals head.
Good is harder, because it has all those darn rules about not hurting others, and thinking about the ramification of your actions affecting others. If you think Good and Evil should be the same difficulty, you are playing the wrong game (and living in the wrong reality I think). Being good is never easy. It's a lot easier to be a complete dick to everyone and do what's best for me and mine, but that isn't good. That may or not be evil, depending on how far I go, but it sure isn't good.
Same applies in your above statement about pragmatism. Pragmatism is the essence of Neutrality. It's the 'Hey, I'm about what is doing the best for me and mine, without actually being evil about it'. Good doesn't usually go in for pragmatism.
Moving back, that's why its a lot about what your group or DM see things as. If raising undead has to be evil, then there's a huge difference in being told you've scarred and tainted your soul for eternity and being told you can go ahead and do it as long as you don't go overboard. Sometimes you end up with that one guy that hates you forever over an inch of pragmatic behavior and all it really takes is a disapproving GM to shut you down from the start. Communication is pretty key in the situation to understand feelings, and not everyone's forthcoming about 'what if' scenarios and their own feelings about things which makes it all the more confusing and rough to deal with at moments.
As I said earlier, this is not an all or nothing. You can absolutely do good and evil simultaneously. But it isn't good. Under the base rules, you're not going to have a 'white necromancer' that raises dead. You might get a gray one that only does it when he can identify a greater good, but you're going to be walking a thin edge where you are imperiling your soul. Personally, I think that's a much more interesting setup than the idea that you can raise dead without problems. Honestly, if it's so much a non-issue as proponents of 'white undead' claim, why can't they just use animated objects? Wooden carvings with animate object? Or even just animated skeletons, which thematically is what they are saying white undead are?
Personally, I think it's because that's not as powerful. It's harder, it's not as flexible, and it's not as easy to do. Which brings us back to the whole 'I want to have the power and flexibility that evil has without the baggage'.
The game is built on the foundation that good is harder to do than evil, if you remove that foundation, 'evil good' wins, because it doesn't have the restrictions on it that evil has (which is the house divided trope).
The semantic arguments in this thread are killing me.
"Ok Minion, go attack everyone else in the thread other than me."
The semantic arguments in this thread are killing me.
"Ok Minion, go attack everyone else in the thread other than me."
Unless everyone else in the thread is Evil. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless everyone else in the thread is Evil. :)The semantic arguments in this thread are killing me.
"Ok Minion, go attack everyone else in the thread other than me."
Nope, I'm doing it for my personal pleasure, that means there's no good act involved in destroying the evil horde. No different than Daemons killing Devils. They don't turn good, they're eliminating competition. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is harder
Fallacy. Both good and evil can think before they act, and act irrationally. They both can work for what they attain, and both may suffer a long the way. Evil isn't innately quicker or safer, and good isn't innately the slow and steady but correct way. Don't know why you think it is, but its just not. Doing actions that harm others can impeded you in the long run, and doing actions that are good can pay off pretty well, and sometimes even immediately!
Being good can be pretty easy and rewarding. Sometimes being evil is the harder path. Saying good is always harder is a fallacy, and all arguments based upon that idea are going to carry that same fallacy. At its root its incorrect to think that way because its a generalization, and it needs to be true all the time in order for the theory to work, which it doesn't. Its just a pretend idea.
The semantic arguments in this thread are killing me.
Erm... Raise dead doesn't actually let you control people like a minion. If it was your party cleric would be a friggin' overlord.
Which brings us back to the whole 'I want to have the power and flexibility that evil has without the baggage'.
Not really, but I don't think I can sway you from thinking badly of others. You've got to push those feelings aside for a bit and think more about how everyone is here to have fun rather than attain ultimate power. Its also about how you handle the baggage, which is what I was posting about. Nothing about eschewing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is harderFallacy. Both good and evil can think before they act, and act irrationally. They both can work for what they attain, and both may suffer a long the way. Evil isn't innately quicker or safer, and good isn't innately the slow and steady but correct way. Don't know why you think it is, but its just not. Doing actions that harm others can impeded you in the long run, and doing actions that are good can pay off pretty well, and sometimes even immediately!
Being good can be pretty easy and rewarding. Sometimes being evil is the harder path. Saying good is always harder is a fallacy, and all arguments based upon that idea are going to carry that same fallacy. At its root its incorrect to think that way because its a generalization, and it needs to be true all the time in order for the theory to work, which it doesn't. Its just a pretend idea.
No, actually it's not. Some people may find Good easier than Evil, but that's due to their innate personality.
Objectively, Good is Harder than Evil. Evil has less restrictions on it's actions. Any time you have more options, things are easier.
A good person and an evil person are trying to forge a new trade agreement. There is a functionary demanding a bribe to see the king. The good person either has to pay the bribe (which is not a good act), or they have to report the person (which can make things harder in the future as other functionaries retaliate possibly). An evil character has a wider range of options. He can pay the bribe, he can have the functionary killed (especially if he get's the next guy in line involved and have an ally going forward), he can give the guy fake gold, or he can steal it from the guy's room and bribe him with his own gold. Good can't do any of those evil acts.
Lawful evil has more restrictions on him than neutral evil, but even he has more freedom of choice than LG. CG and LE might be a half-way equivalent comparison, as the Lawful limits the Evil guy as much as Good limits the Chaos. But overall, neutral good is harder than neutral evil.
Dominate person to force a serial killer stand still... not evil. No different than having 10 people hold him down.
Dominate person to force an evil opponent to attack his allies... evil. You're forcing someone to betray their own morals.
Dominate person to force a good opponent to attack his allies... evil. You're forcing someone to betray their own morals.
Dominate person to force a good opponent to stand still while you attack his allies... not evil. No different than having 10 people hold him down.
How is one "forcing someone to betray their own morals" and the other isn't? This smacks of a double-standard based on personal morality.
Raise dead to create 5 or 6 undead to fight off an orc horde who's attacking your village... Evil and Neutral. Defending yourself when attacked is not good, it's not evil either. Overall then, the action has more evil than good in it.
The semantics here can be taken even further though: Did you defend yourself with lethal force when you didn't have to? Then it was more evil than neutral because you lacked the respect for life that good requires. So it's not only more evil than good, it's also more evil than neutral.
Raise dead to create 5 or 6 undead to attack a daemon who's eating people... Evil and Good. Destroying evil is Good (unless you're just infighting and trying to take their power), but raising dead is Evil, so a Neutral action at best.
Again, it can be taken further.
Killing the living is evil, even if what you're killing is evil. Evil/1, Good/0.Defeating evil is good. Good/1, Evil/1.
Raising undead is evil. Good/1, Evil/2.
So even this example can be seen as evil. You defeated a daemon who was eating people, and it was overall evil of you.
Objectively, Good is Harder than Evil. Evil has less restrictions on it's actions. Any time you have more options, things are easier.
No, that's your opinion, its not objective and true, and there isn't some restriction on actions you can perform as an alignment. There is a way of going about things maybe, but neither is really restricted. The restrictions are ones you've created in your head and are enforcing on others, and worse stating is an objective truth for reality.
But feeding on the living mindlessly, that is cool...As I understand it, undead are Evil because they hunger for the life of the living. A skeleton left alone will seek out the nearest sentient creature and destroy it. They are evil because they actively seek to extinguish all life. You know what else actively tries to extinguish all life? Daemons.That description applies to Zombies, but Skeletons have no such rules attached to them.
And, for what it's worth, Zombies feed on the living. Mindlessly. They don't seek out and extinguish life just for the sake of doing so (which would be evil).
what else Feeds on the living?
Tigers
Wolves
Sharks
T-Rexes
Crocodiles
Snakes
other Carnivores
they are all neutral, and feed on the living, and the once living
|
|
Actually, what they have in common is being animals, hence Neutral.
If they were undead, then they would be Evil ;-)
Note also that I believe that all animals being Neutral is a gross oversimplification directly linked to the concept that Nature is Neutral, that any natural creature thus should be Neutral and that most sentient beings are divorced from Nature (and thus not necessarily Neutral). This reflects a typically western mindset that opposes Mankind and Nature, the world of ideas and the world of matter, in a very Platonic way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, what they have in common is being animals, hence Neutral.
If they were undead, then they would be Evil ;-)
Note also that I believe that all animals being Neutral is a gross oversimplification directly linked to the concept that Nature is Neutral, that any natural creature thus should be Neutral and that most sentient beings are divorced from Nature (and thus not necessarily Neutral). This reflects a typically western mindset that opposes Mankind and Nature, the world of ideas and the world of matter, in a very Platonic way.
but if Animals can feed on the living and be neutral, so can a mindless Zombie incapable or moral choice.
the only reason mindless undead are even evil, is so a Paladin can smite them.
if any use of Animate Dead is evil, no matter how good the intent by sheer means of the evil descriptor
then by that same logic
any use of Holy Word is good by it's sheer descriptor, even slaughtering groups of small children.
but if it is about intent, and using a good spell to kill children becomes evil, then using a spell to animate corpses to punish evil, should logically be good by intent.
i cannot stand this double standard.
why is it? that one creature type incapable of moral decisions? is evil and the rest neutral? Zombies and Skeletons, being incapable of alignment, should be just as neutral as animals and constructs.
there is a lot of fictional and mythological precedent, for non-evil undead. the egyptian mummies who guard the tombs, the various vampires in a variety of romance novels whom fall in love with mortals, and even, a recent movie about a zombie who finds love and is reborn.
I think the problem with Animate Dead being an evil act adds up to a question: how easy it is to become evil?It's a standard fantasy ( and real life) trope that it's far easier to become evil than good. Good requires active effort. Evil simply requires non-action.
if Animate Dead is somehow always magically an evil act. no matter how you use it
then by that same logic
Holy Word is somehow always logically a good act, no matter how you use it
meaning you have a spell that can be used by good characters to slaughter small children without registering as evil or even worrying about evil alignments.
I think if the dead wished to become undead willingly to revenge themselves and the necromancer only did so to fulfil their last wish, then it's justify. So here is what I think is a justified necromancer.
1. The right cause: The cause of casting necromancy spell must be just.
2. Willing dead: The dead must be willing to be the subject of the spell before they died or as any afterlife beings, and the subject must not be tricked into doing so.
3. The right action: The action must be done to protect the innocents.
4. Rest in peace: The necromancer must allow his subject to be in peace after the right action completed. (Unless that undead is you lover and her true peace is to be by your side.)
Without meeting any of those above will result an unjustified use of necromancy. Even so, in role-play point of view, caster with use necromancy spells will be treat as evil to most people regardless their use of necromancy were justified or not. That is simply because people are terrified by magic that bring dead back to haunt the livings.
Another way to justified necromancy.
1. The reasonable cause: People are being killed one by one and you need to fight back for self defence.
2. Pre dead: Using dead body that is already dead.
3. Reasonable action: the action must not be done to harm the innocents.
4. Release: After using the tools, return them. Stealing on selfishness is evil.
When all above has met, the use of necromancy should classified as neutral. And that's what I think personally.
If you accept that using the spell animate dead is inherently evil, then there must be things about the use of the spell that we are not being told above and beyond the basic description of the spell. At present we have basically reached the point in the discussion where if the spell's [evil] descriptor were removed then it would no longer be evil. Essentially it's as if the people who put the [evil] tag on the spell know something about it that we don't.
People have argued that if uncontrolled skeletons and zombies will go on a rampage, but I can find no canon resource that says this (if there is somebody please cite it!). As far I can tell they will simply stand there and do nothing unless they still have instructions. Even if this were true, animating such creatures would not be evil; it would merely be reckless.
Other people have argued that animate dead is an evil act because one must desecrate a corpse. However, desecrating a corpse is not an evil act. It harms no one. It is against the taboos of most societies, which means for a member of such a society or for a person aware of the taboos of the society that surrounds him it would certainly be a chaotic act, but not evil. Desecration of a corpse would only be an evil act if it somehow hurt the spirit of the person whom it once belonged to. And it is certainly possible that in the context of a fantasy universe that it could; but it is never said or even implied in game material that it does.
I think it all has to depend on the metaphysical ramifications of using negative energy.
According to the definitions of negative energy, it should not be an evil act simply to use it. If you accept that drawing on negative energy is an evil act then this implies certain things about negative energy.
It is noteworthy to mention that clerics of good deities cannot access negative energy, and clerics of evil deities cannot access positive energy. This implies that there is some sort of alignment attunement of the energy planes beyond the base description.
There is a chicken/egg problem there since we can ask: "Is the use of negative energy evil because evil gods are connected to it, or are evil gods connected to it because it is evil?" I don't have an answer. Both answers are interesting.
One acceptable theory would be to say that using negative energy "pollutes" the prime material plane in a way that is not noticeable on a small scale but over time presents a problem for living things. This would be the equivalent of allowing poisons to escape into the air. Since negative energy is inherently destructive to living things such pollution could have wide-ranging effects if it reached a certain level.
This pollution might be the force that allows uncontrolled undead to come into being. Imagine a world where, if no magician had ever called on negative energy, there would be no uncontrolled undead, because the negative energy needs a "way" to get into the prime plane. This may in fact be the case.
It is possible to come up with reasons as to why negative energy might be neutral on its own but when interacting with the prime material plane basically becomes evil. These reasons are not canon but need not conflict with anything in canon and can be invoked to explain these things.
Peet
|
Meh. I'll just stick to PFS where casting Animate Dead as my neutral godless wizard is not in and of itself an evil act as per the PFS FAQ.
Meh. I'll just stick to PFS where casting Animate Dead as my neutral godless wizard is not in and of itself an evil act as per the PFS FAQ.
In PFS can you keep a skeleton you have animated around between sessions?
Meh. I'll just stick to PFS where casting Animate Dead as my neutral godless wizard is not in and of itself an evil act as per the PFS FAQ.In PFS can you keep a skeleton you have animated around between sessions?
you can have one permanent effect at a time that carries over between sessions.
so you can have one skeleton, but doing so denies you access to permanency
|
|
That's a rather weak strawman, unless you are in favor of the idea that using horses to pull wagons is slavery and therefore evil. (In which case it's still a weak argument, but at least it wouldn't be a strawman anymore.)Slavery is evil, but creating an undead slave is not evil...If animating a corpse is not evil, what is?Slavery, torture, rape, murder...
Why does animating a corpse count as evil? What does the original soul care? They're in their afterlife, not caring about the living anymore.
Is it unpleasant? Sure.
Is it upsetting? To most, sure.
But is it evil? Only because a keyword says so. And the placement of that keyword has no actual RAW support other than, "cuz we said so, so deal with it." Which is not an argument.
A horse can decide not to pull. An undead can't. It is a mindless slave.
By your logic I can't enslave an enemy and remain good, but I can kill them and raise their bodies.
It isn't just that you are desecrating the body, but that is part.
It isn't just that you are creating an undead abomination, but that is part.
It isn't just that I'm taking the mortal vessel from the creature and turning it into my slave, therefore making it harder for the creature to return to life, but that is part of it.
It isn't just that the soul that left the mortal vessel still exist and therefore your using it's body, but that is part of it.
It isn't just that all of the good gods have declared it is evil, although that is a damn big part of it...
It isn't just that the spell is powered by negative energy and that they are aided by profane bonuses and is more powerful in desecrated area, but that is a pretty good red flag.
Etc, etc...
The ends do not make the act not evil. Using the examples of evil you provided If I enslave an army to fight demons in the woundworld, is that not still evil?
If torture is evil, if I torture the above slaves to get them to comply...etc...etc....
But at least one of you can give an example of evil.
Some are arguing the actions of fire have some kind of moral good and evil equivalency...
If we are discussing a world where evil is a firmly testable thing, which by the way we are, some things have to be evil.
Most of the people on the other side of the argument seem to be struggling mightily to evil name anything as evil, and the things they have names are, to me, less evil than what they are claiming is "stupid" to call evil.
|
|
None that will make you happy, no. Large difference. Besides, actions don't show up on detect evil.@Mr. Sin - So your answer is nothing. You literally can't list anything that is evil, in a game with detect evil as a spell.
Enough said.
The goal isn't to make me happy. The goal is to make your case.
You can't list anything that is evil.
That is very telling. Thank you for helping my argument that you simply want nothing to be designated as evil.
|
|
For what it's worth, Detect Evil is a pretty weak strawman argument as well. It doesn't just detect evil anywhere - it detects evil auras.
For example, if Hitler was a level 1 Fighter, he wouldn't "ping" on a Detect Evil spell.
Oddly it would detect the undead you created, and you when you were casting the spell...
Wait, that isn't odd at all. That is because doing it is evil.
|
|
And that the same person (ciretose) who thinks creating a free-willed, sentient ghoul and not enslaving it is evil is totally fine with enslaving a (formerly) free-willed, sentient being with Dominate Person.Slavery is evil, but creating an undead slave is not evil...Since you are fixating on the slavery aspect, consider that it is possible to create intelligent undead and not attempt to compell them.
What is it ghouls hunger for? I forget...
And once again, Dominate person can be used for evil. It just isn't inherently evil. If I Dominate someone to take them in for trial rather than killing them, not evil.
If I do it to make them shine my shoes, kind of evil.
But I know nuance is hard.
|
|
But feeding on the living mindlessly, that is cool...As I understand it, undead are Evil because they hunger for the life of the living. A skeleton left alone will seek out the nearest sentient creature and destroy it. They are evil because they actively seek to extinguish all life. You know what else actively tries to extinguish all life? Daemons.That description applies to Zombies, but Skeletons have no such rules attached to them.
And, for what it's worth, Zombies feed on the living. Mindlessly. They don't seek out and extinguish life just for the sake of doing so (which would be evil).what else Feeds on the living?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Animals are mindless? I didn't know that...
Oh wait, that isn't true.
You even linked to the context...
|
|
I think the problem with Animate Dead being an evil act adds up to a question: how easy it is to become evil?It's a standard fantasy ( and real life) trope that it's far easier to become evil than good. Good requires active effort. Evil simply requires non-action.if Animate Dead is somehow always magically an evil act. no matter how you use it
then by that same logic
Holy Word is somehow always logically a good act, no matter how you use it
meaning you have a spell that can be used by good characters to slaughter small children without registering as evil or even worrying about evil alignments.
Small neutral or evil children, if the god permits.
One would think this
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."
Would come into play if a good cleric used Holy Word for evil...
|
|
People have argued that if uncontrolled skeletons and zombies will go on a rampage, but I can find no canon resource that says this
80% of the adventures that involve undead aren't canon?
How about the bestiary
"Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.
"Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."
You were saying?
|
|
And that the same person (ciretose) who thinks creating a free-willed, sentient ghoul and not enslaving it is evil is totally fine with enslaving a (formerly) free-willed, sentient being with Dominate Person.Slavery is evil, but creating an undead slave is not evil...Since you are fixating on the slavery aspect, consider that it is possible to create intelligent undead and not attempt to compell them.What is it ghouls hunger for? I forget...
Ghouls are free-willed sentient beings.
And once again, Dominate person can be used for evil. It just isn't inherently evil. If I Dominate someone to take them in for trial rather than killing them, not evil.
If I do it to make them shine my shoes, kind of evil.
But I know nuance is hard.
"Ghouls are undead that haunt graveyards and eat corpses. Legends hold that the first ghouls were either cannibalistic humans whose unnatural hunger dragged them back from death or humans who in life fed on the rotting remains of their kin and died (and were reborn) from the foul disease—the true source of these undead scavengers is unclear.
Ghouls lurk on the edges of civilization (in or near cemeteries or in city sewers) where they can find ample supplies of their favorite food. Though they prefer rotting bodies and often bury their victims for a while to improve their taste, they eat fresh kills if they are hungry enough. Though most surface ghouls live primitively, rumors speak of ghoul cities deep underground led by priests who worship ancient cruel gods or strange demon lords of hunger. These “civilized” ghouls are no less horrific in their eating habits, and in fact the concept of a well-laid ghoul banquet table is perhaps even more horrifying than the concept of taking a meal fresh from the coffin."
What part of "Unnatural hunger" is unclear? And how is creating a sentient being with an "Unnatural Hunger" to eat human flesh not evil?
Oh wait, that is right, literally nothing seems to be evil.
Oh, except racism. We have to check out why the sentient ghouls are chewing on those people before we act, let we be racists...
|
|
It would if you actually read the part it referred to...So you admit that casting a spell with an alignment descriptor isn't necessarily an action of that alignment? 'cause otherwise what you just said makes no sense....Would come into play if a good cleric used Holy Word for evil...
No, it wouldn't.
Besides, you never actually answered the question: is casting Holy Word to kill a bunch of innocent children a Good act?
Since you didn't read it, I'll post it again.
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."
A cleric of a good god who attempted to use Holy Word for evil would presumably fail.
It can't be used for evil by a good cleric...At worst it can only be used on a neutral enemy.
I supposed they could re-write the spell so that it can only be used on evil, and then you all would be howling about that...
|
|
Oddly it would detect the undead you created, and you when you were casting the spell...
Wait, that isn't odd at all. That is because doing it is evil.
Huh, detect evil detects undead? Sorta makes Detect Undead useless...
oh, wait, it doesn't. It only detects Evil creatures.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety."But the entry for skeletons does not say that.
80% of the adventures that involve undead aren't canon?For what it's worth, James Jacobs has explicitly said that Adventure Paths are not cannon in Golarion.
Actually he said the outcomes aren't canon.
Which makes sense, since he can't include what happened in each of our games in the history of the game, and he can't know what outcome occurred.
The entry for skeletons says the things I linked to and bolded that you omitted.
Your selective reading and quoting speaks volumes. Thank you for helping!
|
|
1. I find it odd that you chose to bold "haunt" and "unnatural hunger", since neither of those are in any way evil.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow...yeah...dictionary.com is your friend.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Wow...yeah...dictionary.com is your friend.
Have we reached the part where you have no argument so you just repeat what I said back to you. Are we going to say "I know you are but what am I over and over?" "I'm rubber your glue?" perhaps.
Please keep posting these things, you are making my argument better than I ever could.