|
By raising the dead to act as his minions, the Necromancer desecrates the bodies of the fallen twice over.
First, by inviting unholy powers inside the body to animate it, the 'temple of the body' is violated against the original owner's will. Even worse, some believe you are forcing the soul back INTO the body to cause it to move, a worse kind of enslavement.
Second, you subject the body to further indignities via combat, inviting others to chop, maim, and deface.
Animating the dead is by its nature a dark and unhallowed pact, and thus evil. No legitimate paladin or cleric of a good deity could forgive this, or allow it to continue in their presence.
PS. unless you home game rule it otherwise :P and I haven't read about the Juju Oracle!
I'm confused as to why its any more evil than say...summoning a celestial template anything and watching it get hacked, chopped maimed and defaced??
Are the Summon:______________ line of spells inherently evil then, as well?
Mindless undead cannot be evil. They don't have minds with which to reason morality.
This is an interesting assertion. It implies that evil can only be done by choice. That would mean that a creature of pure evil, who always does evil because that's what they do, cannot, by definition, be evil, because they have no choice.
The game rules do not cover people behaving irrationally. Villagers can be bigots and that's fine.
The problem, and where the designers erred is the alignment descriptors on the spells and on the mindless undead.
The designers blatantly violated their own rules on what level of intelligence was required to have an alignment other than true neutral and gave the spells alignment descriptors with this blatant violation of the fundamental alignment rules as justification.
Mindless undead cannot be evil. They don't have minds with which to reason morality. The writers screwed up and there is no excuse. By making an exception they have undermined the association between alignment and morality.
I don't think the undead themselves have to be evil, raising the dead to undead is evil... IMHO.
90% of the people who play play with 'undead = evil', 90% of the literature has 'undead = evil', and 90% of the mythology involved has 'undead = evil'.
90% of statistics are made up!
By that reading even if the caster is dead the undead he/she raised still does the last thing that the caster told them to do.
That's how I run it actually, I've always found it more useful for narrative. If your last order was to guard a door they'd guard it forever, and if your last order was to stand still and do nothing they'd do that forever. Was interesting to me to leave them in different actions, sometimes not even hurting adventurers. Like machines!
I don't think the undead themselves have to be evil, raising the dead to undead is evil... IMHO.
In Golarion they're always evil, and if I remember right even if they have a mind they turn evil because author appeal. Its a setting thing I guess. Ideally a creature without any mind of its own can't be evil, because it doesn't actually make decisions or make acts of benevolence or malevolence. To be honest I never understood the idea of mindless outside of constructs, because constructs can't think and act but somehow vampires are immune to mind affecting for the same reasons even though they do think and act. Just seems like it could've been done differently.
Personally I like the explination that Wizards of the Coast gave for a prestige class when it comes to raising dead. It was that evil binder guy from Magic of Incarnum book (I forgot the name of the PrC).
The magic of the Incarnum had the Necrocarnate, an incarnate who gains his power from the torture of good souls. It was pretty evil and in the description it says the necrocarnate inevitably turns evil, even if he was only doing the act out of love. In the adaptation segment of the PrC it mentions the Vivicarnum, who raises the 'reborn' and gains power from the purest of unborn souls.
I loved some of the adaptation sections from the 3.5 books myself, some of them were pretty cool and it felt like it was sharing options for flavor and if you wanted something a little different.
|
I played through Second Darkness with a White Necromancer/Magus. Was a whole bunch of fun. I would frame it as bringing back bodies to either 'right the wrongs they committed in life' or 'call upon the body to fight one more time'. It depends on how you view your zombies and undead. But I highly recommend a flip through the Kobold Quarterly #19 for a look at the White Necromancer.
And ... the White Necromancer from Kobold Quarterly 19 will very soon be released as New Paths 7: The Expanded White Necromancer, complete with new spells, new feats and two white necromancer archetypes - some time in the next few weeks, in fact :) Keep an eye on the main product page here on Paizo.com for the official announcement!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several things to add:
1. the 3.0 Swords and Sorcery supplement Hollowfaust does a great job of describing a city run by fairly Neutral Necromancer overlords and how a culture would grow up around it. Great read for flavor.
2. I get it, RAW Animate Dead is as evil act, but what does that mean for a character? Can a good or neutral character not commit an evil act? I say all that would do flavor wise would mean they they have to use it sparingly, like in Saga Star Wars, it takes awhile before Dark side points wear off. If you are raising skeleton's and therefore putting a stain on your soul, but you use those skeletons to defend a village against rampaging Orcs, well I think you can win its a moral wash kind of situation.
3. When I have dabbled in Necromancy I try to stick with monsters I have killed as corpses, don't go around raising up local graveyards of peoples love ones (or if you must in a pinch use skeletons so they don't know immediately its aunt Irma). I also have very good reasons for explaining why i am not evil (bluff, diplomacy etc) usually i am of a camp that says necromancy in an arcane form is not evil, magic has no alignment (not that effects game terms) but that is how I play my character.
Regarding the assertion that mindless creatures can't be good or evil, I disagree. We certainly don't have examples of it in the real world, but in a fantasy setting where good and evil are Objective concepts with actual agents and deities out there to explicitly define the concepts, things aren't as grey.
Let's take Golarion as an example.
In Golarion, all undead are evil by default. The mindless ones, lacking any controls or commands, will seek out the nearest and largest source of life or goodness and try to destroy it. The undead creature won't know why it does that, but it will.
Where this concept breaks down is why. What is it about the undead that makes them evil? It certainly isn't that they choose to be. They just are. They aren't demons who have a vested interest in the advancement of evil. They aren't necessarily self interested or murderous. They are just, for some reason, inherently amoral.
The best answer to this concept seems to be regarding the natures of Negative and Positive energy. If Negative energy is dangerous, but morally neutral, then there is no reason that Animate Dead should be any more evil than Inflict Moderate Wounds.
If Negative energy *is* evil, then so are undead, and anyone who casts Enervate is a horrible monster.
Both choices make for interesting stories, but they are mutually exclusive. For the cosmology of any game to make sense, the issue has to be addressed.
What is it about the undead that makes them evil?
Is author appeal a viable answer?
As a side note, since we're discussing the moral relevancy of "white" necromancy, it's interesting to posit the flip side.
There isn't really a positive energy analog to the undead, so it's difficult to conceive of an "evil positive energy creature", but I think that whichever moral assumption your game operates under it's worth considering what that means in regard to positive energy.
Negative energy is essentially entropy. Positive energy is genesis. Living creatures have internal sources of both, which is how growth and change occur.
The undead are frightening because a dark power is keeping something alive after it should be dead. Most seek out living creatures to kill for sustenance..
An evil positive energy creature would be one which had no negative energy source to regulate it's growth.
To me that sounds like Cancer, and like many viruses.
Imagine a horribly alive creature that would regenerate quickly and be very hard to kill. This monster would seek out creatures that were dying and feed on them to gain the negative energy they crave. This feeding might save a dying creature, unnaturally extending their life span, but would also pass on the infection.
Flesh and bone would grow without regulation causing massive tumors and deformities. They would live in constant pain, only occasionally able to find respite when they were able to feed on a creature at the moment of death, which would drive many of them to murder wantonly (quickly spreading the affliction)
Pretty scary concept.
What is it about the undead that makes them evil?Is author appeal a viable answer?
Absolutely. Ciretose mentioned a game earlier where the PCs didn't want to deal with the ethical complexities of what they were doing.
Some games are supposed to be simple beat-em-up fun. Others are supposed to explore human nature. Both are enjoyable as long as everyone is on the same page.
It just depends on what a group wants out of a particular game.
The easiest way to solve this would be to divorce raising undead from negative energy.
Undead are created via create undead by tapping into the elemental plane of evil and channeling pure objective Evil into the bodies. There, Undead powered by Evil and are Evil.
Undead are still healed by negative energy because negative energy (which can then be 'neutral' is simply anti-life, being anti-life, it heals undead). Done.
This has a few ramifications, it means you have to divorce positive and negative energy from channeling and alignment (IE: It's as valid for Good cleric to channel negative energy as it is Evil cleric, and vice versa). Individual gods might not grant the ability, but that would be a god portfolio thing.
Undead created via other means would be neutral or even good possibly (Mummies could be good, you could end up with a good lich), it would however negate the concept of a 'neutral' undead, as either the power of Good or the power of Evil would have to do the reanimation. The issue of course, is, that Good is more likely to resurrect. Evil is more likely to make undead.
That might actually be an interesting homebrew, casting Resurrection on an Evil person actually creates a sentient undead because Good won't bring an evil person back to life, but Evil loves reanimating the dead into zombies (low level) or vampires (higher level) or skeletal champions (any level).
I just came upon the following gem in Champions of Purity:
Alignment on Golarion
The Pathfinder RPG assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
|
|
I'm a guardsman that got slaughtered by the BBEG's advance through my town.
Along comes a PC who is an Ancestor Oracle. He uses his Speak With Dead ability to ask me what happened. He asks me if I'd like the chance to fight again, and possibly save my family who was captured by the BBEG.
I say Yes. I become undead.
Is the PC who raised me evil?
You aren't fighting again. That is raise dead.
Not remotely the same thing.
|
|
The reason you are descrating a corpse to make a meat puppet slave doesn't change the fact that you are making someone's child/wife/son/daughter into an undead slave.You know, in DND lots of people stab me and I stab lots of people. Just the way it works. Your not about to go tell every adventurer they're bad guys are you?
If they stab people who are innocent, yes. Yes I am. Because yes they are.
Really? Really this is a question? Really?
I just came upon the following gem in Champions of Purity:
Alignment on Golarion
The Pathfinder RPG assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
Those of you attempting to nail this quote down to Golarion only are ignoring the quote itself which says "The Pathfinder RPG" and lists Pathfinder RPG rules. This isn't saying that spells are good or evil in Golarion, it is saying that spells are good or evil in PATHFINDER.
Because, you know, that's how the game rules are written.
Because, you know, that's how the game rules are written.
Sort of awkward to have a rule written in a setting specific splat book and with a header that says "alignment in <setting>" isn't it? Its also part of the English language that we could just be talking about assumptions in the first and second paragraph, but the bolded parts only apply to Golarion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, you know, that's how the game rules are written.Sort of awkward to have a rule written in a setting specific splat book and with a header that says "alignment in <setting>" isn't it? Its also part of the English language that we could just be talking about assumptions in the first and second paragraph, but the bolded parts only apply to Golarion.
Absolutely MrSin, you can infer whatever you like from the very plainly written English words that say this is how things work in THE PATHFINDER RPG. Words published by the same people who published the RPG in question.
The thing is these words written here refer to explicit rules in the PF core rulebook about spell descriptors. I consider this to be reaffirming what is already written just to be double certain.
Of course it's very easy to read what you want into the rules. ;)
|
|
What is it about the undead that makes them evil?Is author appeal a viable answer?Absolutely. Ciretose mentioned a game earlier where the PCs didn't want to deal with the ethical complexities of what they were doing.
Some games are supposed to be simple beat-em-up fun. Others are supposed to explore human nature. Both are enjoyable as long as everyone is on the same page.
It just depends on what a group wants out of a particular game.
Yes, but the game isn't set up with traveling murder hobo as the default.
If you want to do that in your home game, great. Have fun.
But the company bread and butter is the setting. And the murder hobo setting doesn't take a lot of effort to pull off...
And yet some people on here spend an amazing amount of time and effort explaining to all the rest of us how wrong it is to say any idea is "evil" because they want to be able to do it and not be evil, yet have a game with clear black and white definition that allow them to literally kill strangers because they are "evil".
I certainly don't want that. That sounds frightfully boring and devoid of any interesting conflict. If the entirety of the conflict is "you must kill the evil necromancer Lord Dante the Gray because he raises the dead and is evil and you must kill evil things because they are evil" then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to roleplay a character who isn't a complete caricature. If I try to roleplay any character with a more complex view than "kill all necromancers" it rubs against the setting.
I don't want to play Sir Smiteseverythingwhichregistersondetectevilordoesnotlooklikeahuman the LG paladin with an Int of 4 and a Wis of 3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.
Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?
Clearly something doesn't make sense.
The argument would be that you can do what is included in the spell and not have it be an evil act.
You can put someones soul in a Gem to prevent resurrection an not be committing an evil act.
Making someones dead body your personal slave...not so much.
Making someone's dead body your personal slave = evil.
Making someone's living body your personal slave = not evil.This is the core of the issue.
Is necromantic resurrection evil because it shirks the laws of nature? They why isn't conjuration resurrection also evil, because it also shirks the laws of nature? (Hell, most magic ignores the laws of nature.)
Is necromantic resurrection evil because it uses Negative Energy? Then why aren't all spells that use Negative Energy also tagged as [Evil]?
Why is animating a skeleton evil (Animate Undead) but animating a skeleton is not evil (animate object cast on a skeleton)?
This argument about Evil and Necromancy is not a moral argument, as much as people might want it to be.
It's a logical argument - ie: The rules ignore logic in favor of the Campaign Setting's author's POV.
|
|
If you don't have a clear line marking evil, you then have characters who are killing without trials.
Why do you kill monsters? Because they are monsters. Why are they monsters. Because they are evil. Why are they evil...
I again cite how, from a perspective, Mario Brothers is the story of a man killing off literally of hundreds of revolutionaries who overthrew an unelected monarch.
Or Bowser is evil. Why? Because he is evil.
Why is raising the dead evil? Because it is descration? Why is desecration evil?
Aside from the basic horror is causes to anyone who cared for the person being descrated before they became meat puppets, it also follows the same reason you eventually get to when a two year old asks why over and over again.
Because it is.
Why is it better that Demons not win? Because Demons are evil and we are good. Why? Because our way of life is better than the demons. Why....
Because it is.
But sure, role play the goblin civil rights movement if it makes you happy. Discuss how really, we are creating civilization on Goblin lands and how they are the natives and we are the evil. Have fun with that.
In your home game, at least if you want to be serious about it an derail the game for the rest of us so you can showcase your snowflake...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Like people who raise the dead.
Evil people.
How do we know they are evil?
They raise the dead....
Animate Dead can be used for non-evil purposes. You can use animate dead on an already dead person instead of enslaving the living and actually be doing something undeniably good.
Dominate Person is making someones living child your slave.
Do you really not see the difference?
I turned that around on you. Do you see the objection to your argument now?
|
|
The problem is that Necromantic effects aren't thematically consistent.
Animate Dead is Evil, but Soul Bind isn't?
Clearly something doesn't make sense.
The argument would be that you can do what is included in the spell and not have it be an evil act.
You can put someones soul in a Gem to prevent resurrection an not be committing an evil act.
Making someones dead body your personal slave...not so much.
Making someone's dead body your personal slave = evil.
Making someone's living body your personal slave = not evil.This is the core of the issue.
You are missing a key word.
Inherently evil.
There are a number of times where dominating someone is less evil/more kind that other things you could be doing to them that would also not be evil. If you dominate your enemy rather than killing them, is that not less evil than killing them?
Absolutely.
Now is it more or less evil to animate the body than to do nothing? Is it more or less evil to steal life energy from a dying person than to do nothing, or even mercifully finish them with a coup de grace?
Dominate can be used for evil purpose. So can a sword. You should kill or dominate someone not do it unless you are thwarting some greater evil by doing so.
Animating a corpse in and of itself is evil. You don't have to animate it, it is no threat if you just leave it alone, unlike potentially the creature you dominate or kill.
It is dead. Or in the case of death knell, unconscious. It is no threat, and yet you desecrate it by making it a slave or stealing it's life force.
That is an inherently evil act.
Dominate can be evil. So can killing someone. But when used against evil...well that is the foundation of the game in large part, isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animating a skeleton in the PF RPG is "evil" because the game creators decided to make the spell that animates skeletons "evil" by definition in a world where "evil" and "good" are literal things not things which are ineffable, debatable and morally ambiguous.
We get that some of you don't like that.
That's just the way it is.
Animating a skeleton in the PF RPG is "evil" because the game creators decided to make the spell that animates skeletons "evil" by definition in a world where "evil" and "good" are literal things not things which are ineffable, debatable and morally ambiguous.
We get that some of you don't like that.
That's just the way it is.
Well yeah, that's why the argument has been that one ought houserule away creating undead necessarily being evil. I think everyone recognizes that the Pathfinder rules include this piece of setting-specific morality in the core rulebook. We just think, for various reasons, that it was an inconsistent and outright stupid choice to include on the part of the game designers.
Animating a skeleton in the PF RPG is "evil" because the game creators decided to make the spell that animates skeletons "evil" by definition in a world where "evil" and "good" are literal things not things which are ineffable, debatable and morally ambiguous.
Of course. But that is just further evidence that the alignment system within Pathfinder doesn't actually represent anything nuanced in terms of actual ideas about good and evil. You might as well have the alignment system be arranged around colors. Paladins must be Orange Red and raising undead is a Green act.
|
|
I turned that around on you. Do you see the objection to your argument now?Animate Dead can be used for non-evil purposes. You can use animate dead on an already dead person instead of enslaving them and actually be doing something undeniably good.
Dominate Person is making someones living child your slave.
Do you really not see the difference?
Nope.
Animate dead has only one use. To descrate a body by making them a meat puppet mindless slave.
That is what it does. It can only make an undead being, which is an abomination, in the same way a demon or a devil is an abomination.
Dominate person can be used to make someone evil who was going to do something evil not do those evil things they were, personally going to do.
That dead body. It wasn't going to do anything but be dead. Now you desecrated it and created an abomination.
Evil.
That you can rationalize it makes as much difference as a Demon who believed humanity is evil and oppressing demonkind.
Of course. But that is just further evidence that the alignment system within Pathfinder doesn't actually represent anything nuanced in terms of actual ideas about good and evil. You might as well have the alignment system be arranged around colors. Paladins must be Orange Red and raising undead is a Green act.
You didn't need to keep "nuanced" in there. You're still right if you take it out.
|
|
Well yeah, that's why the argument has been that one ought houserule away creating undead necessarily being evil. I think everyone recognizes that the Pathfinder rules include this piece of setting-specific morality in the core rulebook. We just think, for various reasons, that it was an inconsistent and outright stupid choice to include on the part of the game designers.Animating a skeleton in the PF RPG is "evil" because the game creators decided to make the spell that animates skeletons "evil" by definition in a world where "evil" and "good" are literal things not things which are ineffable, debatable and morally ambiguous.
We get that some of you don't like that.
That's just the way it is.
Or you can run an entire campaign where "Evil" is actually "good". You can be a worshiper of Rovagug or Grotus who believes that bringing on end times is a good thing, and anyone stopping that is "evil".
And that is great. Do that.
But you are still evil. You may not think you are, but you are.
Of course. But that is just further evidence that the alignment system within Pathfinder doesn't actually represent anything nuanced in terms of actual ideas about good and evil. You might as well have the alignment system be arranged around colors. Paladins must be Orange Red and raising undead is a Green act.You didn't need to keep "nuanced" in there. You're still right if you take it out.
Except that "evil" has in game mechanical impacts where orange and green do not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that "evil" has in game mechanical impacts where orange and green do not.
If you are a cleric who worships an orange deity then you may not cast green spells. The spell Protection from Orange wards you against attempts by orange creatures to exercise mental control. If you cast Detect Blue and concentrate for 18 seconds, you can see which creatures in a 60' cone are blue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think you might be confusing players and characters here and calling players evil... Which wouldn't be overly surprising, since you are apparently incapable of dealing with nuance.
Not sure if you're insulting ciretose or me here (perhaps both) but the problem isn't that either one of us is incapable of dealing with nuance, it is that some players want to pretend there is "nuance" where there is, quite literally, none. You cast the spell, you did an evil act. That's the way the game is written. Black. White. Good. Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that "evil" has in game mechanical impacts where orange and green do not.If you are a cleric who worships an orange deity then you may not cast green spells. The spell Protection from Orange wards you against attempts by orange creatures to exercise mental control. If you cast Detect Blue and concentrate for 18 seconds, you can see which creatures in a 60' cone are blue.
It really doesn't matter how far you try to push this analogy Vivianne, it's neither as clever as you think it is, nor as relevant as you seem to wish it was. Sometimes what people consider "nuance" is actually mere "pretentiousness."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...But you are still evil. You may not think you are, but you are.