This reminded me of that one goddess from Libris Mortis. Too bad I forgot her name.
Evening Glory, the eternal lover who teaches that love shall never die. I had a character who followed her once.
Alignment is philosophy more than it is game design.
Sort of. Alignment is also a mechanic. If it was divorced from mechanics, like gender/name, then it really wouldn't matter that much.
No they didn't... they can't. Pathfinder is a game built on two components, rules and exceptions. Undead are clearly an exception to the rule you're trying to beat them over the head with.
Which doesn't actually contradict what he says that it violates an already given rule, but through a rule about exceptions>general. Personally I always saw the exception thing as an author's saving throw, and definitely not a bad thing. But it can create awkward moments now and then, such as something without a mind of its own being tied to morality, or a creature who's free willed having one morality option.
Alright, this is probably me being thick, and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but...where does it say that all undead are automatically evil? I get that the spells that create them have that descriptor, but I can't find it in their creature type entry. As I quoted above, not even creatures with the evil subtype HAVE to stay evil forever. They can clearly alter their alignment via free will. Where's it say undead creatures are unalterably constitutionally evil?
Alright, this is probably me being thick, and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but...where does it say that all undead are automatically evil? I get that the spells that create them have that descriptor, but I can't find it in their creature type entry. As I quoted above, not even creatures with the evil subtype HAVE to stay evil forever. They can clearly alter their alignment via free will. Where's it say undead creatures are unalterably constitutionally evil?
Skeletons are created by raise dead, which specifies it, and this is backed up in their bestiary entry.
'Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic.'
Same with zombies.
'Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. '
Vampire template specifically changes the alignment to 'Any Evil'.
Creating a Vampire
“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids, fey, or monstrous humanoids. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.CR: Same as the base creature + 2.
AL: Any evil.
Wraith's it's a bit more tenuous, but...
'Wraiths are undead creatures born of evil and darkness. They hate light and living things, as they have lost much of their connection to their former lives.'
Alright, this is probably me being thick, and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but...where does it say that all undead are automatically evil? I get that the spells that create them have that descriptor, but I can't find it in their creature type entry. As I quoted above, not even creatures with the evil subtype HAVE to stay evil forever. They can clearly alter their alignment via free will. Where's it say undead creatures are unalterably constitutionally evil?
James Jacobs has explicitly stated that (except in the case of a few very rare and unique exceptions) all undead are evil. That's the way Golarion works. It's why there was such a big hubbub against the Juju oracle. The lead designer said the archetype never should have been published because it breaks that cosmological tenant of the setting.
Which is fine for Golarion, but kind of annoying because it breaks the design principle of keeping the mechanics setting-neutral.
The ONLY real reason Paizo developers made undead evil is because they felt that paladins and similar classes should be able to smite them. (They've said as much.)
What they should have done is left undead neutral, but then made them an exception for a paladin's smite ability.
I'm going to echo others who have mentioned talking with your DM first and foremost. In D&D Good and Evil are objective forces. The necromancer's belief is meaningless. If raising the dead is evil in your campaign (as it most surely is in any of mine) then it doesn't matter what spin you put on it.
Now that doesn't mean that some Good characters wouldn't travel with you, though. It's not an evil act to consort with necromancers, just...distasteful, so depending on how persuasive you are and what assurances you might give them that they won't wake up one night to find a zombie chewing on their calf, you might be able to pull it off. :)
are the "Raise Dead," "Ressurection," and "True Ressurection," Spells evil in your campaign world too?
Recycling a deceased body for a chance to live on as an animated hollow husk, may distastefully deface the body
but all sorts of rulers, enforcers, and officers have defaced bodies as punishments, this is no different
what better way to make the Serial Murderer you slew repent for his crimes than make him watch his own former body work as a slave for each of the families he murdered, for 5 years per family per murder?
The ONLY real reason Paizo developers made undead evil is because they felt that paladins and similar classes should be able to smite them.
What they should have done is left undead neutral, but then made them an exception for a paladin's smite ability.
true.
hell, Undead should be neutral period, screw allowing paladins to smite them
an Animated Hollow Husk is no more Evil than a darn Robot
Paladins definitely should be able to smite undead, but not because of the good/evil dichotomy.
Paladins are essentially martial clerics. Clerics get two forms of Channeling. One healing, and one damaging. Instead of channeling paladins get Lay on Hands (healing positive energy) and Smite (damaging positive energy)
A Paladin's smite ability infuses a blow with Positive Energy. Creatures with a Negative charge are damaged by this. (paladins should be able to smite Dhampir with the trait that reverses their "polarity" for the same reasons that Cure spells harm them)
In a game where Positive and Negative energy are Neutral, a paladin's Smite ability should not have anything to do with Alignment.
In fact, the mechanics of a Paladin's smite strongly indicate that Positive energy should be Good aligned and Negative energy should be Evil. Otherwise a special case needs to be made for why Smite works on Demons (since positive energy doesn't normally bother them).
If Positive = Good, then Smite Evil makes perfect sense as written.
Paladins smite with holy power, not positive energy. If their god doesn't like undead, then that power will harm undead regardless of their alignment.
Well, atm paladins hurt evil dragons/demons/undead extra hard and any evil because... paladin. Even if you worship a god that has no opinion at all on dragons you smite them better than human cultist of his worst enemy.
Which is precisely my point. The Smite ability has no real rhyme or reason to why it works the way it does. Lay on Hands is definitely Positive Energy. It stands to reason that Smite would be too.
If Positive equals Good, everything makes sense.
If Positive doesn't equal Good, then things arent very clear at all.
I can't find/think of any reason why positive (or negative, for that matter) should be anything but neutral.
That's sort of the whole point of this thread. Having positive and negative energy be neutral is a perfectly valid choice, but if that is the case then spells and effects that use them should also be neutral (and the morality of the action should be determined on a case by case basis based on how the spell is used, rather than anything inherent in the magic itself)
What I've been arguing is that if Undead are inherently evil, it's because Negative energy is. If Negative energy is neutral, then so should mindless undead be. Intelligent undead, like any other free willed creature, should be free to make up their own minds.
By setting negative and positive energy are both neutral. As such it seems to me that it would be more accurate not to say either is tied to an alignment but that the alignment is tied to the energy.
By setting negative and positive energy are both neutral. As such it seems to me that it would be more accurate not to say either is tied to an alignment but that the alignment is tied to the energy.
Well, its tied to certain places. Spontaneous cure/inflict and channel for instance are based on alignment, but actually casting spells that use either or don't have to be aligned. So why are they aligned in some cases and in others not might be a question. Objective things that don't exist in your own world are weird sometimes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well again that shows more of the rectangle/square thing. Perhaps good is positive energy while positive energy isn't necessarily good.
@Doomed Hero- the whole point of this thread (IT WAS STARTED BY ME) was on how a necromancer can justify his raising of undead to a party of good adventurers so as to make playing one viable.
Everyone has digressed. I don't mind, but that isn't the point of the thread.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that it is the point of what the thread seems to have digressed into.
As to the original question though, why not play a high-charisma Necromancer with Bluff and Disguise, and maybe some illusion magic to back it up.
Then dress your undead up in full length priest cassocs with hoods and funerary masks. Tell everyone they're religious contemplatives or something. Then you don't have to justify anything. You just lie. :)
Well again that shows more of the rectangle/square thing. Perhaps good is positive energy while positive energy isn't necessarily good.
Interesting point. I hadn't considered that. Definitely opens up some interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a note on paladins:
Paladins are not necessarily tied to a god. They may serve gods, but nothing really says their power comes from a god. While clerics may be concept clerics as exceptions, Paladins are basically concept divine classes to begin with; their concept is righteous justice. Like rangers and druids they may be worshipers of a deity, but have other sources of power (unless setting otherwise by setting specifics). As the very most baseline that is, of course you can say that your paladin serves a deity and gets power from it, but it's not really part of the class itself.
Smite is not fueled by positive energy, and neither is it necessarily fueled by a specific god: It's aid granted by unspecified "powers of good"; it could be a deity, it could be outsiders, it could be the very nature of the upper planes leaking into the world, or anything else.
Yes, they have powers from a divine origin, just like druids and rangers. In certain settings (like FR) those too need deities.
|
Also it gives a good reason for the fact that natives of the negative energy planes have a utter hatred of undead.Source, please?
The Great Beyond, page 9, on the Negative Plane and native creatures, concerning the Sceaduinar : "Not existing within any rational ecology, the so-called raptors of the Void specifically target living creatures sustained by positive energy, but at the same time also take perverse glee in tearing undead limb from limb and destroying them utterly."
Also : "The sceaduinar seem to view undead as an insult to their and their plane’s inability to truly create, forced to mimic the Material Plane in the creation of the Shadow Plane, and denied the capacity to form anything resembling souls from the substance of the Negative Energy Plane."
Concerning the Undead (same book, same page) : "But even empowered and sustained by the plane itself, these creatures themselves fall prey to the sceaduinar."
|
|
@Doomed Hero- the whole point of this thread (IT WAS STARTED BY ME) was on how a necromancer can justify his raising of undead to a party of good adventurers so as to make playing one viable.
Everyone has digressed. I don't mind, but that isn't the point of the thread.
To the OP, I would say destroy the undead you created or those you control as soon as there is no immediate need for their presence (ie, no burning orphanage, no evil monsters to defeat).
Doing otherwise is selfish and disrespectful.
I have a gravewalker witch and part of that archetype is the ability to take control of undead.
My good party has already gotten very creeped out by his taking control of a single undead so far, for one combat. If he was raising undead, I am pretty sure he'd be run out of the party.
Just my experience with undead and good parties.
Doing otherwise is selfish and disrespectful.
Raising the dead is expensive though! So that's not the most viable option in the world, unless black onyx comes to you in piles upon conveniently placed piles.
|
|
Doing otherwise is selfish and disrespectful.Raising the dead is expensive though! So that's not the most viable option in the world, unless black onyx comes to you in piles upon conveniently placed piles.
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)
Hey, someone who thinks that corpse should just go to waste isn't thinking green right? Values Dissonance. Unless you think that corpse had an opinion on the way it was being used(with its - intellect...)
|
|
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)Hey, someone who thinks that corpse should just go to waste isn't thinking green right? Values Dissonance. Unless you think that corpse had an opinion on the way it was being used(with its - intellect...)
Actually, its previous inhabitant (aka Soul) usually does. Has do any relatives, friends, or even just strangers who would not like their own corpses used in this way.
Also improper disposal of remains has often been considered a prime way to create vengeful/hateful undead.
Has do any relatives, friends, or even just strangers who would not like their own corpses used in this way.
Well, there's a difference between taking the corpse of Orc Mook #12, and little sally while walking through the village. And usually the dead don't get much of a say in things from wherever they were sent, not that it really affects them anyway, unless they were getting a rez.
Doing otherwise is selfish and disrespectful.Raising the dead is expensive though! So that's not the most viable option in the world, unless black onyx comes to you in piles upon conveniently placed piles.
Blood money?
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)Hey, someone who thinks that corpse should just go to waste isn't thinking green right? Values Dissonance. Unless you think that corpse had an opinion on the way it was being used(with its - intellect...)Actually, its previous inhabitant (aka Soul) usually does. Has do any relatives, friends, or even just strangers who would not like their own corpses used in this way.
Also improper disposal of remains has often been considered a prime way to create vengeful/hateful undead.
So, your argument against raising undead is "the body's original soul doesn't want it"?
Well, I'd love to be an undead creature. Powers, pretty much unlimited life, etc.This means that undead-raising is okay. Because I want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)Hey, someone who thinks that corpse should just go to waste isn't thinking green right? Values Dissonance. Unless you think that corpse had an opinion on the way it was being used(with its - intellect...)Actually, its previous inhabitant (aka Soul) usually does. Has do any relatives, friends, or even just strangers who would not like their own corpses used in this way.
Also improper disposal of remains has often been considered a prime way to create vengeful/hateful undead.
So, your argument against raising undead is "the body's original soul doesn't want it"?
Well, I'd love to be an undead creature. Powers, pretty much unlimited life, etc.This means that undead-raising is okay. Because I want to.
Raise your hand if you would love to be some form of undead! *raises hand*
Anyways, bigrig is right. Your argument makes animate dead and it's ilk (lesser animate dead, undeath, etc) situationally evil. Oh yeah, JUST LIKE DOMINATE PERSON.
i'd love to be a lich, vampire, or ghoul personally
Well, someone who would refuse to let the remains of people return to the peace of the grave just because "onyx does not grow on trees" does not strike me as either selfless, nor respectful ;-)Hey, someone who thinks that corpse should just go to waste isn't thinking green right? Values Dissonance. Unless you think that corpse had an opinion on the way it was being used(with its - intellect...)Actually, its previous inhabitant (aka Soul) usually does. Has do any relatives, friends, or even just strangers who would not like their own corpses used in this way.
Also improper disposal of remains has often been considered a prime way to create vengeful/hateful undead.
So, your argument against raising undead is "the body's original soul doesn't want it"?
Well, I'd love to be an undead creature. Powers, pretty much unlimited life, etc.This means that undead-raising is okay. Because I want to.
Raise your hand if you would love to be some form of undead! *raises hand*
Anyways, bigrig is right. Your argument makes animate dead and it's ilk (lesser animate dead, undeath, etc) situationally evil. Oh yeah, JUST LIKE DOMINATE PERSON.
*Raises both hands, looks over at person not raising hands, cuts theirs off, and raises all FOUR hands* ;D
Seriously. Some scientist figure out how to do this already....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
Or maybe, we'd just like to exercise our right to play the characters we want to play (rules legal, of course) without getting chewed to pieces over our decisions.
Or maybe, we'd just like to exercise our right to play the characters we want to play (rules legal, of course) without getting chewed to pieces over our decisions.And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
i want to be able to play a neutral or even good necromancer one day
but i can't because of the law that "all undead are evil."
recycling a corpse is no more evil than throwing a damned fireball, in fact, i'd rate it less evil than the damned fireball
because negative energy itself, is a perfectly neutral source
in fact, there is no official published rule that necromancers are hated worldwide, just an assumption many of us make based on the steriotypical use of undeath by such characters as the damned lich king, and the like.
if i get a template, i am willing to work for that template. just don't try to hijack my several weeks of hard work by making that character nothing more than an NPC to harm the party with.
Or maybe, we'd just like to exercise our right to play the characters we want to play (rules legal, of course) without getting chewed to pieces over our decisions.And this seals the arguments. :)
I had suspected that most people who were arguing for undead not to be evil just wanted the powers without any downsides.
i want to be able to play a neutral or even good necromancer one day
but i can't because of the law that "all undead are evil."
recycling a corpse is no more evil than throwing a damned fireball, in fact, i'd rate it less evil than the damned fireball
because negative energy itself, is a perfectly neutral source
in fact, there is no official published rule that necromancers are hated worldwide, just an assumption many of us make based on the steriotypical use of undeath by such characters as the damned lich king, and the like.
if i get a template, i am willing to work for that template. just don't try to hijack my several weeks of hard work by making that character nothing more than an NPC to harm the party with.
This goes for a lot of templates: lich, vampire, lycanthrope, etc. In almost every single game I've ever read/heard about, death by one of these (or an attempt to acquire such template) has resulted in an immediate discharge of that character.
Even when acceptable counter-measures (no levels gained, no treasure, etc.) have been proposed.I think a lot of this is pure bias.
Undead=unnatural. Unnatural? Auto-evil.
This needs to change.
In my opinion, of course.
This needs to change.
In my opinion, of course.
Aye, or at least give more cool options all around. One of the best ways to do this would be to give your own suggestion for spins on things, eh?
Aye, or at least give more cool options all around. One of the best ways to do this would be to give your own suggestion for spins on things, eh?This needs to change.
In my opinion, of course.
Remember how in 3.5 (I think...?) some of the more monstrous races had level adjustments?
They should do a list of that for monsters/templates in Pathfinder. Even if it was just a side-note thingie.
Even if they shot up to the +10 ranges, I bet people would still play them.
Even if they shot up to the +10 ranges, I bet people would still play them.
ECL? ECL was a cool idea, but it didn't work perfectly. ECL+1 pretty much killed a race being a caster on the spot, for instance. And the loss of HD wasn't too snazzy either. There was also a variant rule where you could buy your ECL off with xp, so you could better catch up with your group. People still played ECL +8 creatures(Vampires!), but they'd be made into glass cannons if anything and they really didn't do well in a group that wasn't all made of vampires for instance. 8 vampire wizard next to a 16 human wizard really would be hard to balance for. Would need to improve on the existing system. Pathfinder's just avoided using ECL altogether.
I remember I once played a character with a +10ish ECL, he had 5 HD, 15 DR and 15 Fast healing after he was done stacking templates. He also had no Con and a tremendous strength and natural armor. He was impossible to play though because he was hard to hurt, he healed back what you did hit him with, and if you did hurt him enough to actually put him in peril you may have just insta-gibbed him. DM complained it was getting impossible to put anything up against him.