| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all have. Necromancy and Summoning are a ridiculous amount of paper work and even some math sometimes(which is actually the main reason I don't like it happening at my games nor doing it myself...) Technology helps a lot though. Your able to bring up the stats of a summoned fiendish pony off of your phone the moment you want to summon it for instance. Though usually summoning in my experience involves shouting something like, "Ok guys, I have a great plan to get us out of this mess, but it involves me summoning a pig, a donkey, and a whale..."
Why are you so against it?To be fair, once per day is pretty crappy, and adding the skeletal template is potentially a lot of math if you didn't premake the character sheet for it.You use summoning without doing your homework before game?
That's one of those, "Come back when you shower" things in my opinion, if you are summoning have the states ready already.
If I ever do summon a skeletal tyrannosaurus, I promise to have his stats ready.
I'm sorry, but that image alone is enough to sell me on paying the tax for once per day.
And with the Conjurers' permanent summons, a skeletal, 9th-level monster would be fun.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
To me, this sounds like "I want to play any character I wish and I forbid any GM from preventing me or just having my PC face the logical consequences of his actions in the setting".
But, hey if your GM is okay with a setting where necromancy is an established and respected part of everyday life, why not ?
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."
Actually, you can. But it will have to be more creative than a white or green-washing of the would-be overlord surrounded by his army of mindless slaves.
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
How do you know it ? I guess because it says so in the books. Well, the same books say even more clearly that using negative energy to animate corpses IS evil.
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.
IMO, creating and playing a neutral, or even good, necromancer is far more interesting in a setting where undead are almost always evil.
My mildly heretical Cleric of Pharasma will control undead and use them to further the party's ends. And then she will send them to the restful peace of the grave they deserve.
I tried to play her with the Undead Lord archetype, with her undead companion being the zombie of her dead child. In play, I tried to keep it out of harm (and thus combat) until I could do this no more. Then my fellow players were kind enough to turn a blind eye to my PC's use (and abuse really) of her kid's corpse to help us win battles. Once we met a strange familiar-controlled zombie, I realized how awkward it was to fight evil necromancers while using the exact same kind of powers and actions for my character's selfish benefit.
This had more impact on my next decision than my GM's warning that NPCs would not be so easily fooled/assuaged.
She ended up destroying her zombie child with Cure spells in atonement for her hubris in defying the will of her goddess.
The books say that the magical energies used to create undead are evil. (Just read most spell/effect/creature descriptions.)
The book also says that the magical energy used to create undead is Negative Energy, which the book(s) explicitly says is not evil.
Which is it?
Well, the point about it being transmutation rather than necromancy was more of a side note, the important part is that if skeletons are animated objects then they should follow the rules for animated objects. Since they do not, they are clearly NOT simply animated objects - there's something more to it.The only problem with this approach is that, if it is true, that "something else" has never been defined, ever.
It is left entirely up to the GM and players to decide such things... Except alignment, undead always have to be evil in Golarion. And in Pathfinder apparently, regardless of what world you play in.And that, coupled with the fact that such an argument causes problems with internal consistency, is what the argument is about.
Agreed, to an extent. I think it's implied and hinted at at times but it's not clearly defined. One difference is it's connection to negative energy, of course - constructs don't have that.
But again, my point wasn't "this is why they're evil", it was simply "this argument doesn't really hold water because it assumes things that are evidently wrong".
It was an argument against the argument, not against the stance.
|
|
The books say that the magical energies used to create undead are evil. (Just read most spell/effect/creature descriptions.)
The book also says that the magical energy used to create undead is Negative Energy, which the book(s) explicitly says is not evil.Which is it?
Negative energy is NOT evil per se. Using Negative energy to harm the living or heal the undead is NOT evil per se.
Using magical energy (different from Negative energy) to animate a dead body as if it was just an object is NOT evil per se.
Using Negative energy to create undead with a spell like Animate dead IS evil.
It is not only a matter of which energy you use, but also what you use it for.
The books say that the magical energies used to create undead are evil. (Just read most spell/effect/creature descriptions.)
The book also says that the magical energy used to create undead is Negative Energy, which the book(s) explicitly says is not evil.Which is it?
Negative energy is NOT evil per se. Using Negative energy to harm the living or heal the undead is NOT evil per se.
Using magical energy (different from Negative energy) to animate a dead body as if it was just an object is NOT evil per se.
Using Negative energy to create undead with a spell like Animate dead IS evil.
It is not only a matter of which energy you use, but also what you use it for.
is recycling a corpse to fight evil any more evil than?
poisoning the evil overlord's breakfast?
throwing a fireball at a bunch of Random Highwaymen?
slicing the Orc Chieftan to ribbons with your blade?
using a scroll of slay living to slay the Drow Priestess with merely a single saving throw?
or even
Casting Holy Word in a kindergarten classroom with the intent of murdering all the evil kindergarten population?
if casting Animate Dead is an evil act purely because of it's Descriptor, then by that logic, casting Holy Word to slaughter a bunch of Kindergarteners is a good act purely because of it's descriptor
if casting Animate Dead is an evil act purely because of it's Descriptor, then by that logic, casting Holy Word to slaughter a bunch of Kindergarteners is a good act purely because of it's descriptor
Oh god, this so hard.
No, it doesn't work that way. Animate Dead is an evil act based on it's descriptor. What you do with the effect can also be a good act, and you will be judged on both. If a paladin (somehow where able to and) casts Animate Dead to save the children of a burning orphanage, she falls. If an antipaladin casts animate dead to save those children, she falls.
Casting Holy Word is a good action. Slaughtering children is an evil action. The evil of the slaughtering will overweight the casting of holy word by an enormous margin (unless the GM is just... weird) and so you'll still move towards the lower planes. But still, if an antipaladin somehow could cast Holy Word and did so to slaughter children, she would fall since it commited a good action (casting the holy word).
Likewise, with the animate dead example above, the casting would be evil but the saving would be good. Depending on world, one may outweigh the other (in my world the good would outweigh the evil by _far_, casting evil spells is a pretty minor evil action in my world) but it is still an evil action.
You're paying too close attention to the example of spell use instead of the actual argument being made.
If Animate Dead is always evil, then Holy Word is always good.
If I animate a skeleton to help defend a defenseless town, it's still evil, and if I holy word a room full of drow children, it's still good.
Which is dumb. It means morality goes out the window and keywords replace it. Choice is no longer a part of alignment.
|
|
You're paying too close attention to the example of spell use instead of the actual argument being made.
If Animate Dead is always evil, then Holy Word is always good.
If I animate a skeleton to help defend a defenseless town, it's still evil, and if I holy word a room full of drow children, it's still good.Which is dumb. It means morality goes out the window and keywords replace it. Choice is no longer a part of alignment.
Actually, Ilja catches it exactly.
People use "Animate dead" both as the description of the action (and argue that it is not evil if done for good purpose) and the name of the spell (which does have the Evil descriptor). That is the source of the ambiguity and Ilja's post clarifies it quite well IMO.
|
|
is recycling a corpse to fight evil any more evil than?
Casting Animate Dead results in an evil undead. It is not "recycling a corpse" (which you could do with Animate objects, no Evil descriptor attached). Ii is creating an evil creature.
And doing it to fight evil is wonderful (and good for a lot of drama and fine roleplay). But the problem is what happens after the evil is vanquished. Road to hell and good intentions
poisoning the evil overlord's breakfast?
Poison is not-lawful (not honorable), but not necessarily evil. Though I wonder what would happen if it kills the overlord's child who was sharing his father's breakfast.
I would say that once again the consequences matter and more precisely what your character does about the consequences matter. Not caring that other people get hurt is evil in my book. Doing what is needed so that innocents do not get hurt is what good does.
throwing a fireball at a bunch of Random Highwaymen?
slicing the Orc Chieftan to ribbons with your blade?
using a scroll of slay living to slay the Drow Priestess with merely a single saving throw?
IIRC most of these spells or weapons do not have the Evil descriptor. So what matters are the consequences and how the PC deals with them preemptively.
or even
Casting Holy Word in a kindergarten classroom with the intent of murdering all the evil kindergarten population?
if casting Animate Dead is an evil act purely because of it's Descriptor, then by that logic, casting Holy Word to slaughter a bunch of Kindergarteners is a good act purely because of it's descriptor
See Ilja's post.
We can do this all day. I do not believe our opinions will change ;-)
IIRC most of these spells or weapons do not have the Evil descriptor. So what matters are the consequences and how the PC deals with them preemptively.
Well, that's sort of the disconnect I think. Why doesn't everything follow the idea that its consequences and that you deal with that. Its just weird when healing someone or raising the dead always has to be evil, even when your doing good, but blowing up a fireball or casting a spell that does nothing but kill someone on the spot is innately neutral. The point was they are innately neutral acts that you then deal with the consequences of on your own, we know that.
or even
Casting Holy Word in a kindergarten classroom with the intent of murdering all the evil kindergarten population?
if casting Animate Dead is an evil act purely because of it's Descriptor, then by that logic, casting Holy Word to slaughter a bunch of Kindergarteners is a good act purely because of it's descriptor
See Ilja's post.
We can do this all day. I do not believe our opinions will change ;-)
I think the problem with Animate Dead being an evil act adds up to a question: how easy it is to become evil?
Because, taking the Holy Word example
"I cast Holy Word, an act of good, to do evil" the result of this action shifts me more closely to evil alignment (or i hope so).
"I cast Animate Dead, an act of evil, to do good" the result of this action shifts me more closely to good or to evil?
In the former case i'm perfectly fine with that, in the latter case, my question is: why do you have so many option to shift to evil? Mechanically good and evil are two identical opposite of the alignment chart, you have a lot opposed/specular spells, opposed outsiders, opposed/specular classes and variation, opposed gods... why should one be more "accessible" than the other?
It's not like in christianity, where the point of life is "not being evil so yu go to paradise. In pathfinder evil is not punished in the afterlife by some almighty divine being. You're even given the chance to become an incarnation of evil if you demonstrate you're strong enough to survive the depths of the evil aligned planes. You're not punished in Hell, Abaddon or Abyss; you're given your chance to become stronger in a way that fits what your life used to be. Exactly like if you're good you can become an incarnation of good.
So, is casting an evil spell to do good, a good or an evil act?
Wouldn't holy word only kill the evil children? In that case, it makes sense that it is good.
Wouldn't holy word only kill the evil children? In that case, it makes sense that it is good.
They could be neutral and the spell would still kill them.
In that case I'd blame the parents for not instilling better virtues in their children. :P
In that case I'd blame the parents for not instilling better virtues in their children. :P
My last DM had a rule that children are 'always evil' and your about as likely to find a good child as a good demon. "Little Hellions!" he says...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is casting an evil spell to do good, a good or an evil act?
Champions of Purity states that casting an evil spell is a minor evil act. What is relevant then is how much good you are doing it for.
If you cast animate dead or summon a demon to protect innocents from death, then the good is far greater than the minor evil of casting the spell.
If you do it to help an old lady carry a heavy load, it balances out (and really, you could have helped her yourself).
If you do it to carry your heavy load around, it ends up a minor evil act with no balancing good act.
BTW I find it funny that people will argue at great length that creating a permanent evil creature (an undead) is not evil, while supporting the consensus that temporarily summoning another evil creature (a demon) is evil.
In the end though, the settings require it. If Animate Dead is not an evil act, then almost every city would be full of zombies doing all the hard repetitive work. Most peasants would be unemployed or maybe living lives of luxury. Most graveyards would be empty. Sun deities would be bigoted extremists, what with their special powers to hurt undead. Maybe only the poor would get zombified on death or another rule would be in place, maybe varying from culture to culture. Basically all aspects of society would be completely different from what we know and would need reinventing.
It would make for an interesting setting, but one very far from those we are used to.
BTW I find it funny that people will argue at great length that creating a permanent evil creature (an undead) is not evil, while supporting the consensus that temporarily summoning another evil creature (a demon) is evil.
I made no argument in either direction personally. Personally, As far as I'm concerned what you have control over doesn't really have much of a say in your alignment, but what you do with it does.
What's the basis for that and why does it have a bearing on this anyway? When I see people say infernal healing shouldn't turn you evil they also say summoning in an army of celestial eagles shouldn't go the other way.
It would make for an interesting setting, but one very far from those we are used to.
Speak for yourself, I've already done undead aren't evil in video games and table tops and seen it on the TV, even in my mythology!!
|
|
BTW I find it funny that people will argue at great length that creating a permanent evil creature (an undead) is not evil, while supporting the consensus that temporarily summoning another evil creature (a demon) is evil.I made no argument in either direction personally. Personally, As far as I'm concerned what you have control over doesn't really have much of a say in your alignment, but what you do with it does.
What's the basis for that and why does it have a bearing on this anyway? When I see people say infernal healing shouldn't turn you evil they also say summoning in an army of celestial eagles shouldn't go the other way.
For the record, I am all for summoning celestial eagles being counted as a minor act of good.
It would make for an interesting setting, but one very far from those we are used to.Speak for yourself, I've already done undead aren't evil in video games and table tops and seen it on the TV, even in my mythology!!
On a rare occasion, yes. As a standard condition, why would there be any taboos about animating the dead ?
That's a nice overreaction ya got thar.
If animate dead wasn't evil, it would still violate some customs, so they wouldn't use animate everything.
Why would it violate customs if it were not evil ? Why would people have customs against animating the dead if unintelligent undead were just cheaply-made robots ?
Check Umbriere's posts. They explain clearly how animating dead bodies is just rationally efficient recycling.
On a rare occasion, yes. As a standard condition, why would there be any taboos about animating the dead ?
I think your downplaying it a bit too much. It was my experience, which isn't really something you can say "yeah, that's rare!" because its well... my experience.
Are we off topic yet?
Well, if worshipping another god is always evil then everyone with a deity in pathfinder is evil for worshipping a god that isn't someone else's? I think that was part of the point anyway. If you reread it he did say that it did violate one society's conduct, and it would be a little extreme to apply that to every setting because one society says x is y.
|
|
On a rare occasion, yes. As a standard condition, why would there be any taboos about animating the dead ?I think your downplaying it a bit too much. It was my experience, which isn't really something you can say "yeah, that's rare!" because its well... my experience.
Are we off topic yet?
Actually, we have been off topic for some time already, as the OP's question was about how to make a necromancer palatable to a mostly good party and not about whether it made sense or not that in PFRPG almost all undead are evil and Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor ;-)
It violates the customs of Christianity to worship Zeus. Is worshiping Zeus evil?
The answer is no, in case you couldn't figure that out.
In Golarion, it violates the customs of the Good gods to worship demons. Is worshipping demons evil ?
And why ?
Likewise, just because a society doesn't believe their dead should be enslaved, it doesn't mean that animate dead is inheritantly evil.
Animate Dead (the spell) does have the Evil descriptor.
My point is : why would there by any taboo against a practice if said practice was not at least supposed by most people who hold the taboos to bring about negative results ?
In other words, why would people object to animating the dead as unintelligent undead if there was no discernible negative consequence and only benefits (free workforce) ?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is a bomb that malfunctions, explodes, and kills a child evil?A bomb is an object. Objects are objects. Does a bomb go to hell if it is evil?A bomb is not alive, neither is a skeleton. If the bomb malfunctions, both kill people. Both are mindless.
A skeleton doesn't go to hell because it doesn't have a soul. Neither does a bomb.
Were you TRYING to prove yourself wrong?
If I were to go to a funeral home, with a grill and cook up someones grandmother, then make a nice bookshelf out of their bones, would that also be just using objects?
You can not separate the fact that it was once a sentient being.
Further, in the setting, it could actually be brought back to life again as a sentient being.
And that is all beside the point that this is a world with not only clearly defined rules regarding good and evil, but entire planes dedicated to each of the aspects.
You can literally cast a spell that detects good, evil, chaos, etc...it is not an abstract concept that is debated by philosophy majors who have nothing better to do...it is a measurable, testable thing.
And using grandmas bones to make a slave = evil.
And using grandmas bones to make a slave = evil.
No one stated it had to be grandma or little sally. It could also be warlord Grog who just so happened to have eaten your grandma and his and very likely had no redeeming traits in life or people who cared about him in death(except warlord Grug, his replacement who was pretty happy to hear he died to be perfectly honest). It could also be Jeff the dirtfarmer who sold his corpse for... reasons. I dunno.
|
|
Wouldn't holy word only kill the evil children? In that case, it makes sense that it is good.They could be neutral and the spell would still kill them.
Yes, and if you did this without good cause you would be using a good spell to commit an evil act. Something your deity (or GM) may or may not be kosher with.
Just like if you summon skeletons to save children, you have committed an evil act that happened to have some good consequences.
Now maybe you have evil long term intentions (or good in the case of holy word) but either way the spell is inherently good or evil.
Because on Golarion, those things actually have not only fixed meanings, but entire pantheons of gods who adjudicate entire planes based on them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And using grandmas bones to make a slave = evil.No one stated it had to be grandma or little sally. It could also be warlord Grog who just so happened to have eaten your grandma and his and very likely had no redeeming traits in life or people who cared about him in death(except warlord Grug, his replacement who was pretty happy to hear he died to be perfectly honest). It could also be Jeff the dirtfarmer who sold his corpse for... reasons. I dunno.
So it is ok to descrate and enslave "evil" people...but the definition of "evil" is fluid and subjective to the point that a GM is cruel to accuse your necromancer of it.
Said no rational argument, ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it is ok to descrate and enslave "evil" people...but the definition of "evil" is fluid and subjective to the point that a GM is cruel to accuse your necromancer of it.
Said no rational argument, ever.
Yeah, good thing we aren't using it right? Its usually far more accepted to stab Grog the grandma eater than your actual grandma(Well... I don't know your grandma, but lets suppose she is a good person here, eh?) Likely stabbing grandma would be considered a more evil action than Grog. No one is trying to bend it so grandma is just as acceptable a target as Grog. Edit: nor that your DM is 'cruel' for whatever reason. I don't think anyone's even said anything about the GM being a bad person or good person for accepting you yet.
|
|
You can kill Grog the Gramdma eater and be good for basically one core reason. Grog is evil.
How do we know? He eats grandmas (and whatever other even things he does that we have seen) and we believe that by killing him we prevent him from doing further evil things in the future.
If he wasn't evil, or was not a risk to do these things, hurting Grog in any way would be evil.
You aren't asking to end Grog's reign of terror when you desecrate his body and raise him as an undead. You are making an abomination to serve you. You are desecrating the dead to create a minion, likely a dangerous one.
Which is an evil act.
Which is why anyone who sees you doing it, who kills you, is just as justified as you are for slaying Grog without a fair trial.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And using grandmas bones to make a slave = evil.No one stated it had to be grandma or little sally. It could also be warlord Grog who just so happened to have eaten your grandma and his and very likely had no redeeming traits in life or people who cared about him in death(except warlord Grug, his replacement who was pretty happy to hear he died to be perfectly honest). It could also be Jeff the dirtfarmer who sold his corpse for... reasons. I dunno.So it is ok to descrate and enslave "evil" people...but the definition of "evil" is fluid and subjective to the point that a GM is cruel to accuse your necromancer of it.
Said no rational argument, ever.
You know what's unspeakably horrible and unforgivably evil?
Animating a horse so you can pull your wagon rather than abandoning your livelihood where the goblins killed it.
It's evil.
I'm not sure it is unspeakable or unforgivable.
But it is evil.
Which is why anyone who sees you doing it, who kills you, is just as justified as you are for slaying Grog without a fair trial.
Well, to be honest you kill Grog because eating grandmothers alive(in particular ones who don't really want it to happen in a community that would rather have them alive and well!), is something that creates a problem. Doesn't have to do with Grog being evil. If Grog politely asked you if he could eat your grandmother as it is custom amongst his people, is he evil for wanting to eat your grandma and will you kill him for being a grandma eater? (Actually, lets not answer that because grandma eating is a little silly.) Anyways, you probably won't because he isn't being disruptive. Evil is more like a simple label to put on things for simplicity.
Anyways, good spins on undead. We could try that for a bit. Might be more constructive.
|
|
The act of eating grandmothers is what makes him evil. Otherwise there is no conflict and no one really cares who Grog is.
The act if raising undead is evil. In some areas it may be accepted, but it is still evil in the same way Demons and Devils are evil.
Why? Because that is the foundational conflict of the game that creates rationalizations for good people to kill things.
One of the many things that is considered an evil act is raising undead. If someone is raising undead, they are doing something evil, and probably are evil.
If you have a society that is indifferent to the commission some evil acts (Hi Cheliax!) that is fine. But it is still evil, and having an entire setting that is indifferent to evil and good isn't a very good goal if you actually want motivations to do things.
The act of eating grandmothers is what makes him evil. Otherwise there is no conflict and no one really cares who Grog is.
The act of eating grandmothers could create no conflict, which is why I gave the example of a Grog who ask nicely.
If you have a society that is indifferent to the commission some evil acts (Hi Cheliax!) that is fine. But it is still evil, and having an entire setting that is indifferent to evil and good isn't a very good goal if you actually want motivations to do things.
Cheliax does things that creates conflict, like kidnapping and exsanguinating maidens who aren't willing. The act of exsanguinating volunteers probably isn't something to care about.
Is this really productive?
|
|
The act of eating grandmothers is what makes him evil. Otherwise there is no conflict and no one really cares who Grog is.The act of eating grandmothers could create no conflict, which is why I gave the example of a Grog who ask nicely.
If you have a society that is indifferent to the commission some evil acts (Hi Cheliax!) that is fine. But it is still evil, and having an entire setting that is indifferent to evil and good isn't a very good goal if you actually want motivations to do things.Cheliax does things that creates conflict, like kidnapping and exsanguinating maidens who aren't willing. The act of exsanguinating volunteers probably isn't something to care about.
Is this really productive?
Cheliax is Lawful evil. They are more or less ruled by devils and devil worshipers. That is a conflict with those who think devils are evil and evil must be challenged.
The right or wrong of that belief is up for debate, but that devils are evil isn't.
Any more that taking someones body and turning it into a mindless meatpuppet slave could be anything but an evil act.
How evil, that can depend on circumstance in the same way stealing a loaf of bread is alway unlawful, but not always evil.
Hence the division.
I personally think it is unproductive to waste so much time and energy trying to make someones snowflake not melt by making the setting make no sense...
I personally think it is unproductive to waste so much time and energy trying to make someones snowflake not melt by making the setting make no sense...
Is that what you think this is about? I don't think that this is about destroying a setting to make a special snowflake so much as how a character could fit in a setting.
|
|
The point is that it is stupid that animating dead is evil when other negative energy spells aren't and stupid that mindless undead are evil. The freakin' Tarrasque isn't evil because it only has int 3 and can't make moral decisions and skeletons and zombies are as dumb as a box of rocks.
All this argument about desecration and culture as a half assed justification for undead being evil without introducing contradictions into the game's morality system is so much wasted electrons because the spell is not restricted to intelligent creatures.
Wow, the bold really convinced me. Nothing like putting things in bold to prove something.
OR
Negative energy isn't why raising dead is evil. Descrating bodies to make dangerous undead slaves is why it is evil.
But if you want to make all uses of negative energy evil, you could make an argument for that.
A hell of a lot better one than arguing raising undead is "good"...
|
|
I personally think it is unproductive to waste so much time and energy trying to make someones snowflake not melt by making the setting make no sense...Is that what you think this is about? I don't think that this is about destroying a setting to make a special snowflake so much as how a character could fit in a setting.
You can make a good necromancer now. You can make a non-evil necromancer who raises undead for what they view as ostensibily good purposes. You can even make a character who thinks they are good who raises undead.
But it is still an evil act. Because evil is actually a think that exists in imaginary worlds that use this system.
Otherwise detect evil is going to be pretty lame.