| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the JuJu thread got my grey matter wondering:
Is it really possible to play a (Non bad touch type cleric) necromancer type character without being evil or being VERY LIBERALLY neutral. The JuJu Oracle was the first time paizo gave a way to have a non evil undead, but when they changed it to a Charm mystery, that was a huge blow to non-evil necromancers. So, with so much of the school designed around undead, and Paizo's stubbornness on all undead being evil, is there really a way to play a effective (non-evil) necromancer character without having to resort to Bad Touch Neutral Cleric (and even that is more conjuration than necromancy for some reason).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a subject rather near and dear to my heart! :)
Have you checked out the White Necromancer in the New Paths Compendium?
The class has proven quite popular and was created for folks pretty much exactly like you! :)
You can read a bit about the White Necromancer's creation and design theory HERE.
|
Just because a character controls something evil doesn't mean that they themselves are evil....I'm not sure what the question here is to be honest.
Also alignment is a general guideline. That’s why there are so many alignment arguments on the forums. Also alignment outside of true neutral implies cognition and intent. A zombie or skeleton (both mindless undead) are considered evil but outside of an instinctual urge to kill are not out and about attempting to cause evil.
Hey just because I have an instictual urge to kill doesn't mean ...
sorry couldn't help myself.
I personally like the White Necromancer and think there is a place for non-evil necromancy just like there is a place for non-evil demon binding. The only real difference is that most necromancers actively create undead whereas a demon binder is attempting to control an already existing evil entity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am playing Dr. Stefan von Herzog in a "Carrion Crown" PBP. He is a good-aligned, non-archetyped necromancer. The point of the character was, "How to play a good-aligned necromancer in canon Golarion with non-3PP rules?"
Answer: The character is a wizard who hates and despises the undead. After an undead creature killed the love of his life, a young physician took up the study of necromancy to learn the secrets of unlife-- in order to more effectively destroy it. He channels positive energy to Turn Undead as his school power.
While I plan to have Dr. Von Herzog learn many undead-creation spells (i.e. they will be in his spellbook), I don't plan on ever having him cast one. His interest in these spells is academic, and will inform him on better ways to un-make the undead, placing their un-animated corpses back into the grave where they belong.
|
Neutral Necromancer 5
Command Undead School Power
0- Disrupt Undead, Touch of Fatigue, Light, Detect Magic
1- Cause Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement, Invisibility
2- Blindness/Deafness, Command Undead
3- Halt Undead
You strive to fight against the scourge of undead by controlling them and overwhelming them with your power. You take control of the simpleton creatures and have them kill themselves and each other. With a mere word, you can blind those heathens who try to use the undead for nefarious ends, then turn their own foul creations against them. Fear and power will be your allies, not depraved, flesh eating abominations.
None of the spells above have the [evil] descriptor, and negative energy is unaligned. Combat role is a debuffer, who turns to an undead locker-downer if they should appear. Skeletons and Zombies are pretty much hollow combat rounds, as you force them to suicide stand still, attack their zombie brethren, or jump into the river. You'll need to invest heavily into Charisma, however, since your control DC is CHA based.
Every Pharasmin cleric?
But really, if you accept the base setting of Golarion then the creation of undead is an evil act. There is no way around it. Ask your GM if you can play without that setting piece.
Personally, I prefer it. But there are many who disagree with me.
Meh... Being evil doesn't mean being bad. Don't murderape everyone you meet and it usually doesn't matter what label the stick-in-the-mud paladins put on you.
Being a necromancer (read: one who specializes in necromancy) is very easily doable. Not all necromancy deals with undead. Rather, it deal with the life force both creating and destroying it as well as souls. Healing is therefore thematic necromancy even though the cure spells are conjuration (healing).
|
|
Necromancy, in and of itself, is not evil. Necromancy spells with the [evil] descriptor are evil...at least as far as Golarion cannon is concerned (and I don't have a problem with that concept being cannon).
I created a good necromancer for PFS. His background is similar to Haladir's character in that he's interested in undeath from an academic standpoint with the intention of understanding it to be able to better combat it. There are a lot of really good, juicy necromancy spells that one can cast without ever having to deal with creating undead.
I think the only RAW way is to find an area with undead and use command undead but you can only have at most your level worth of HD. Bones oracle can have up to HD through the feat and another through "raise the dead" SU for a number of rounds per day = to chr modifier...
Pretty crappy overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean 'shambling hordes of undead' kind of necromancer ... well, yeah, of course. If you go by PF's cosmology, sure, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act. You have to remember, though, that you take all of a character's behaviors into account with alignment. If you cast an Evil spell and accomplish something good with it, then you're at worst neutral and probably coming out ahead.
If you use your undead army to protect and defend rather than conquer and kill, then you're doing good with it. You may not be 'as good' as someone else, but it doesn't matter much.
Contrary to popular belief, alignments do not only shift in the direction of chaos and evil (aka 'falling'). You have to take everything into account, not just point at one or two things and draw your entire conclusion of alignment off that. If my guy does two evil acts during his career, with dozens of neutral and good ones, that would in no way result in any kind of alignment shift.
Also, remember that actions determine alignment, not the other way around, and that arcane casters don't have any of that silly 'can't cast opposite alignment spells' nonsense. You don't play an alignment, you play a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to make this seem like a series of plugs but I'm playing an upcoming game and already found uses for New Paths Including white necromancer. The book just fills in a number of gaps in available concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm very happy with the canon that undead are always evil. Other people are entitled to their opinion, but I have yet to see one that really makes a whole lot of sense, at least where the flavor is concerned. Often, it seems that little consideration is given to what actually happens when you cast one of these spells. Casting evil spells isn't some walk in the park, and it isn't without consequences. To illustrate:
You invoke and channel the forces of darkness, the very stuff that evil is made of, using your body as a conduit for malevolent energies. Once the fell words have fallen from your lips like a poisonous curse, you cast it out and into the worldly remains of Farmer Jenkins, put solemnly to rest twelve years past. The creature, this undead abomination fueled by a tortuous hatred of life, now inhabits the rotting skeleton of Farmer Jenkins, called into this world to do your bidding. It digs its way up through the dirt, pale bone clothed in mouldering tatters. The ritual complete, you point your finger toward the lumbering army of orcs and issue your command. "Defend the village." Knowing that what you have done, you have done for the good of others, you still cannot help but feel an inky stain begin to spread across your soul, even as you turn to the next grave, taking a breath to steel yourself before you cast the spell again.
Now, that's all fluff, and fluff conforms to the will of the group. If you want to change it, that's your prerogative. But think about what you're changing. Do you want the [evil] descriptor removed from the spells entirely? Or are you merely advocating that we shouldn't think about the narrative consequences of your character's actions, because you're trying to uphold the integrity of the narra... oh wait.
Alignment has only very sketchy rules to support it, even with the inclusion of Ultimate Campaign. It's not a mechanical construct, it's narrative. As such, there aren't really a whole lot of mechanical implications attached to things like evil acts, unless you're a paladin, and even then, the mechanical consequences are arbitrated by the GM's personal sense of narrative rather than specific rules. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a new topic on fallen paladins every week. Alignment is a narrative concept, and must be dealt with in terms of the narrative. So let's not ignore or trivialize the narrative when dealing with these issues.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
White Necromancer all the way.
It's a prime example of "dark is not evil", and is all about working with and helping the dead rather than enslaving them. Respect for the dead is actually built right into the class.
Evil necromancer raises a bunch of dead soldiers as skeletons to force to do his bidding.
Good necromancer asks a dead general for help putting his men back to rest and goes forth alongside a good-aligned undead champion temporarily risen to right some wrongs.
Evil necromancer uses vile magic to force dead souls into service.
Good necromancer uses gentler magics to help dead souls walk the earth to do what needs doing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you want the [evil] descriptor removed from the spells entirely?
Frankly, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well casting an Evil spell doesn't automatically make you evil. Sure it will move you in that direction presumably, so just make sure you cast Protection from Evil an equal amount of time and you should be good to go for a non-evil necromancer. Personally, my favorite PF necromancer is a Gravewalker Witch since their 8th level ability is just all kinds of powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget that Good Clerics cannot cast Evil spells.
You literally, by the RAW, cannot be a good Necromancer if you go the divine route.
The Devs say that's okay. I say it stifles creativity. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the JuJu thread got my grey matter wondering:
Is it really possible to play a (Non bad touch type cleric) necromancer type character without being evil or being VERY LIBERALLY neutral. The JuJu Oracle was the first time paizo gave a way to have a non evil undead, but when they changed it to a Charm mystery, that was a huge blow to non-evil necromancers. So, with so much of the school designed around undead, and Paizo's stubbornness on all undead being evil, is there really a way to play a effective (non-evil) necromancer character without having to resort to Bad Touch Neutral Cleric (and even that is more conjuration than necromancy for some reason).
Yes there is. Avoiding hurt, oppress, or killing things when possible. Be altruistic, respect the value of life, and have concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Do these things and you are good. End of story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we go by "Actions determine alignment", I'd have to say that using an evil spell to do good averages out to neutral.
Remember reading a play-by-post where a guy rolled a sorcerer that specialized in necromancy, raised bodies from a nearby battlefield, and then directed his minions to rebuild the defenses around a village.
At the end of the campaign, he had the undead build a cemetery and inter themselves, the only time in the history of mass graves where people were killed before they dug their own graves.
Another roleplaying opportunity would be something like out of Garth Nix's Abhorsen series. The good necromancers are the one using necromancy to release the undead and usher them to the hereafter.
Do you want the [evil] descriptor removed from the spells entirely?Frankly, yes.
Good. That's about the only way I can see reconciling the issue, so it seems like a valid houserule. At least we don't disagree that, as written, those spells are soul-tainting and thus probably shouldn't be ignored.
Evil necromancer uses vile magic to force dead souls into service.
Good necromancer uses gentler magics to help dead souls walk the earth to do what needs doing.
That depends on the mechanics of the spell (not game mechanics, narrative mechanics). I've always gotten the impression that the undead in Golarion aren't souls forced back into bodies, but rather are created from negative energy given some form of sentience. As such, there isn't a "nicer" way of creating them. That does, however, open the question about what happens when positive energy is used in such a manner. It seems like there's also some moral baggage pertaining to the whole "animated earthly remains" part, but that's purely conjecture. I would be open to having alternative means to achieve similar ends for Team Good, but I don't see the necromancy spells and corpses as being the way to go about it.
Also, there are spells that can return dead generals to life without having to go the reanimation route. There's always raise dead and resurrection, which explicitly bring a person back to life, rather than merely animating their remains with dark energies.
If we go by "Actions determine alignment", I'd have to say that using an evil spell to do good averages out to neutral.
Remember reading a play-by-post where a guy rolled a sorcerer that specialized in necromancy, raised bodies from a nearby battlefield, and then directed his minions to rebuild the defenses around a village.
At the end of the campaign, he had the undead build a cemetery and inter themselves, the only time in the history of mass graves where people were killed before they dug their own graves.
Your example about the Play-by-Post, while interesting, seems to ignore the part where raising dead is soul-taintingly evil. I agree that casting evil spells shouldn't be automatic damnation for everybody involved, but I feel that most people do evil spells a disservice by trivializing them, making them less evil than they should be.
Raising a skeleton isn't on the order of assassinating a fully grown Hitler to end the war. It's on the order of killing his mother before he's born, removing the appropriate organs and cremating them for good measure. And then hunting down his father to make sure he never procreates, finishing off any progeny he may have already sired. You averted a war and saved millions of lives, but you did some pretty dark things to do it, and even if you can justify it to yourself, you'll probably never sleep quite as well at night.
Look casting Animate Dead makes you as evil as casting Protection from Evil makes you good. So I feel it sort of does a disservice to the magic system to pretend that casting evil spells is really an issue (also it shows how silly the alignment system can be). Really being able to switch your alignment on the fly by casting lots of spells with [X] descriptor seems like it could be really convenient in some situations.
Look casting Animate Dead makes you as evil as casting Protection from Evil makes you good. So I feel it sort of does a disservice to the magic system to pretend that casting evil spells is really an issue (also it shows how silly the alignment system can be). Really being able to switch your alignment on the fly by casting lots of spells with [X] descriptor seems like it could be really convenient in some situations.
Emphasis mine.
Yeah, Protection From Evil's got the [good] descriptor. In that case, the soul-taintingly evil argument falls flat, and I abandon it as far as canon and mechanics are concerned. Now it's just my own unsupported preference.
Honestly, while I don't hate the alignment system, I do think it sometimes leads to very silly things. I am perfectly ok with some spells making you a complete monster just by using them. But I've always dislike the "negative energy equal evil" that 3.5 and by extension PF have going for it, since negative energy is just another aspect of the 3.5/PF cosmos, that is opposed to positive energy. Presumably the cosmos needs both to function, so why is using negative energy to make some bodies without souls in it move around "Evil". Creepy? Sure.
Honestly, while by RAW casting undead-creating spells is an evil action, it doesnt state HOW evil. For some, its evil assaying something mean to a farmer. For others, its nearly irredeemably evil, similar to murdering an angel child. So in some games yes, in some games no.
I honestly wish more spells etc were evil.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very interesting discussion! FYI, the White Necromancer actually addresses many of these issues as part of the class itself, including the 4th level White Necromancy class ability: in a nutshell, when the white necromancer casts a necromancy spell that creates undead, it loses the evil descriptor.
Prior to that, White necromancers, particularly those of good alignment, avoid casting evil necromancy spells whenever possible. They're not forbidden from doing so, however, and may cast such spells if the need is sufficiently great. When a white necromancer casts an evil necromancy spell, he uses up two spell slots of that level.
There is also quite a bit built into the class about interaction with undead. For instance, a white necromancer gains no specific control over undead created using white necromancy, although he can request that the undead provide some service or otherwise assist him. This is handled with a special kind of Diplomacy check, similar to a druid or ranger attempting to interact with, or gain favor from an animal.
There is even an archetype, the Grave-Bound White Necromancer which grants an undead companion which advances much like a druid's animal companion
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another way is to have a cleric / wizard who focuses on divination and communicating with undead. Gail Z. Martin wrote a series about someone like this.
And of course there's Aragorn the Original White Necromancer (tm). But again it was a temporary arrangement, and he didn't really "create" the undead.
But, if we're talking about houserules, creating undead doesn't have to be evil, especially if it is temporary. For instance, I don't think it's evil to "call on the spirits of our ancestors to help defeat this bad guy", and the ancestors climb up out of their graves to help the pc. At the end, the ancestors are destroyed or go back into the ground.
More houserules: You could also say the good necromancer may have a failure rate when "creating" undead. Maybe the evil necromancer forces souls back into their bodies, while the good necromancer asks souls to come back.
Honestly, while I don't hate the alignment system, I do think it sometimes leads to very silly things. I am perfectly ok with some spells making you a complete monster just by using them. But I've always dislike the "negative energy equal evil" that 3.5 and by extension PF have going for it, since negative energy is just another aspect of the 3.5/PF cosmos, that is opposed to positive energy. Presumably the cosmos needs both to function, so why is using negative energy to make some bodies without souls in it move around "Evil". Creepy? Sure.
We have multiple conflicting canonical stories of creation, so it hasn't been specified exactly how all that works. However, the general treatment seems to be that negative energy equals evil because positive energy equals good. It's a moral dichotomy made real. I agree with your assessment that the cosmos (which, in PF, includes separate planes of existence like Heaven, Hell, the elemental planes, the Abyss, and the Planes of Positive and Negative Energy) needs both to exist, it needs them in the exact same way it needs good and evil. But that raises the question about equivalent energies for law and chaos, and the whole system gets pretty wonky.
Honestly, while by RAW casting undead-creating spells is an evil action, it doesnt state HOW evil. For some, its evil assaying something mean to a farmer. For others, its nearly irredeemably evil, similar to murdering an angel child. So in some games yes, in some games no.
The RAW impose the [evil] descriptor, which informs, if not specifies, the degree of evil. Fireball, a spell that is nothing but pure destruction, is not inherently evil, as it lacks that mechanical descriptor. Evil spells are anathema to good creatures. If anything, the campaign would be defined more by the degree of evil in saying mean things to a farmer than in casting an evil spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least we don't disagree that, as written, those spells are soul-tainting and thus probably shouldn't be ignored.
Actually, we do. I don't do metaphysical gibberish like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look casting Animate Dead makes you as evil as casting Protection from Evil makes you good. So I feel it sort of does a disservice to the magic system to pretend that casting evil spells is really an issue (also it shows how silly the alignment system can be). Really being able to switch your alignment on the fly by casting lots of spells with [X] descriptor seems like it could be really convenient in some situations.
And best of all, you can actually detect your alignment! "Oh, dear, now those pesky paladins will be after me again ... best cast some Protection from Evil!"
That's the problem with attempting to put mechanics to a role-playing concern; you can 'game the system', and it's perfectly in-character to do so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that animate dead does not do anything to souls. It creates mindless undead and says nothing about their souls. As a result there is nothing that makes their soul act in any way differently than any other soul that has passed on. You can also make undead out of plant monsters (fast zombie assassin vines, believe it), though that raises the question of where do assassin vines go when they wilt and are they capable of morality (oh wait, no, they're not because the alignment rules say they aren't).
So what we can determine is that animate dead empowers a lifeless corpse with negative energy. This newly animated body is lacking a soul or intelligence that allows it to make decisions. At which point magic must be used to control and command the body with a semblance of intelligence.
There are three things that are funny here.
1. Positive and negative energy are both neutral-aligned. A corpse powered with positive energy it called living, one with negative undead, and if neither, it is dead.
2. This artificial intelligence that is being commanded to do things is most similar to spells such as unseen servant. Nothing exceptionally special going on here.
3. They are basically morally-neutral golems. In this case, the necromancers are using a mindless source of energy to power an object (the corpse) and then using magic to control it. In the case of golems, you are required to enslave a sentient creature (an elemental) and bind it inside the undying golem (effectively solitary confinement for eternity) to power it. Imperfect golems such as the Flesh Golem sometimes go berserk when the tortured elemental manages to gain some semblance of freedom and tries to fight back. There's also no certainty as to what happens to the elemental after the golem is destroyed (so this may mean every time you destroy a golem you are killing an innocent outsider).
The real question here is, why are necromancers getting picked on but the wizard with the stone golem isn't on trial for his/her diabolical crimes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane school profiling. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question here is, why are necromancers getting picked on but the wizard with the stone golem isn't on trial for his/her diabolical crimes?
If I had to guess its because the guy with a stone golem has a big mobile rock. You don't want to mess with that thing!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question here is, why are necromancers getting picked on but the wizard with the stone golem isn't on trial for his/her diabolical crimes?If I had to guess its because the guy with a stone golem has a big mobile rock. You don't want to mess with that thing!
I guess those with the power make the rules. :P
That said, the whole undead = alignment thing is pretty stupid at its core. The alignment rules themselves even attest to this. The alignment rules dictate that creatures without appropriately high intelligence are neutral even if they act in a way that would resemble alignments because they don't have the capacity to comprehend what they are doing.
Further, the alignment of a creature is determined by how they act, making most of these arguments and even the alignment things on templates worthless wastes of space.
For example, let's take the Vampire template.
The vampire template changes your alignment to evil. However, it doesn't do anything beyond this to make you stay evil. This means that if a Paladin was turned into a vampire, they would for a moment become evil and then kick right back to being Lawful Good because...they are lawful good. The alignment rules say your alignment is based on how you act, and if the vampire acts like a Paladin, then by god they are going to end up Lawful Good almost immediately.
On a side note, that's a big reason why turning a paladin would be really dumb on the part of an evil vampire, since if the Paladin ever gets out from under the vampire's control (such as s/he gets to many levels and breaks the HD limit, or the vampire is slain) then s/he just created the worst nightmare for any evil vampires (a vampire paladin vampire slayer; all the vampire slaying power of the paladin combined with immunity to the vampires' worst attacks).
Coming back to the alignment thing, it's the same with mindless undead. Let's say we follow the RAW literally. That means both the RAW for animate dead, the skeleton/zombie templates, and Alignment.
1. We cast animate dead. It shows up as [Evil] on detect evil and similar things. It can't be cast by good clerics (but can be cast by good everything else). Since we need something to animate, we'll assume that we purchased an ox for 15 gp, sacrificed it with death knell, and are going to use the meat from the animal to feed the poor ('cause we're necromancers and we believe in not wasting).
2. We create a skeleton. According to the skeleton template the creature's alignment becomes neutral evil.
3. According to the alignment rules, the skeleton's alignment will become Neutral because it's mindless (and thus incapable of moral action) and its not acting morally will naturally result in its alignment becoming Neutral, because there's nothing in the template that prevents its alignment from following the normal alignment rules after the initial change.
The one thing I have against Ashiel's point, is that, for whatever reason, in PF the spell has the [Evil] descriptor, tainting the undead.
I don't like it, but from what I gather, in PF Core, it seems that in addition to undeath it taps into the essence of evil itself.
But if that one presumption isn't there, I otherwise agree.
EDIT: the one thing I would otherwise compare it to is the lemure devils, the distilled evil spirit of dead mortals
Also, in the Paladin's case - he'd not immediately pop back into good, but he could certainly get there quickly, unless otherwise corrupted.
Ashiel, specific overrudes general. The general rule is that alignment is based on prior actions. The specific rule for skeletons state that they are evil.
The alignment system is wonky no doubt, but your interpretation is akin to instantly negate alter self because if the charsheet says youre a gnome you instantly revert back to one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system is wonky no doubt, but your interpretation is akin to instantly negate alter self because if the charsheet says youre a gnome you instantly revert back to one.
I think the point was that the way you act determines alignment, and since nothing about being turned into a vampire actually makes you evil beyond telling you that you are, you may as well just act the way you were which makes you lawful good. Or something like that anyway.
I think ideally being turned into a vampire makes you act evil, but there isn't much direction there because you don't know how your supposed to be evil. I guess you annoy people a lot with bleh bleh or something like that?
Alignment is really wonky. As far as necromancy goes its best left to a chat with your GM. Everyone runs it differently and has different standards, some laxed, some impossible to live up to.
Ashiel, specific overrudes general. The general rule is that alignment is based on prior actions. The specific rule for skeletons state that they are evil.
The alignment system is wonky no doubt, but your interpretation is akin to instantly negate alter self because if the charsheet says youre a gnome you instantly revert back to one.
Incorrect. Alter self states the changes and states how long you have those changes.
If you want a more accurate analogy, it would be akin to saying that turning a half fiend into a rabbit with baleful polymorph results in a rabbit with 1 bite and 2 claw attacks because the half-fiend template gave those traits to the creature before the new effect occurs.
Which is kind of bogus. The half fiend effects modified something and left no special rule saying that it cannot change, so another effect can change the half-fiend into a form that does not have bite or claw attacks.
Like with the skeleton template, the half-fiend template changes the creature's alignment to evil. It does not, however, add any rule or clause that prevents them from changing alignments later.
Meanwhile...
Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).
Which shows that even creatures with the EVIL subtype, such as fiends can change their alignments (I've been told there's a risen succubus in a recent Paizo publication, but I can't confirm; though there was a succubus Paladin on a WotC web enhancement).
So again, the rules are on my side in this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ilja
The thing is though, even the lore of Pathfinder contradicts itself. Lets look at the Book Undead Revisited. In the Lich section of the book, they state that Lichs tend to continue doing their thing, learning more and more. The problem is, they eventually get bored and start delving deeper into the secrets of the universe itself, and once they get bored with that, they move on to even more and deeper knowledge. The thing is though, once they start getting bored they just kind of... drift out of existance. They just kinda stop interacting with the world and eventually, the multiverse itself. That sounds like the epitome of being neutral to me...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ilja
The thing is though, even the lore of Pathfinder contradicts itself. Lets look at the Book Undead Revisited. In the Lich section of the book, they state that Lichs tend to continue doing their thing, learning more and more. The problem is, they eventually get bored and start delving deeper into the secrets of the universe itself, and once they get bored with that, they move on to even more and deeper knowledge. The thing is though, once they start getting bored they just kind of... drift out of existance. They just kinda stop interacting with the world and eventually, the multiverse itself. That sounds like the epitome of being neutral to me...
I think the takeaway here is that in Pathfinder, the pursuit of knowledge is evil on the alignment scale.
Just don't let the paladins detect evil near the local university...
The one thing I have against Ashiel's point, is that, for whatever reason, in PF the spell has the [Evil] descriptor, tainting the undead.
That might explain why they would initially be evil aligned before the alignment rules changed them back. :P
I don't like it, but from what I gather, in PF Core, it seems that in addition to undeath it taps into the essence of evil itself.
Yeah the undead creature type makes no so such mention of this, nor do they have the Evil subtype.
EDIT: the one thing I would otherwise compare it to is the lemure devils, the distilled evil spirit of dead mortals
Lemure devils should also be Neutral by the alignment rules. However, they still possess the Law and Evil subtypes which means that it's meaningless.
Also, in the Paladin's case - he'd not immediately pop back into good, but he could certainly get there quickly, unless otherwise corrupted.
Pretty much. There's nothing in the rules that says the Paladin loses his memories, experiences, or otherwise stops being who he already is. What does happen is his type changes to undead, his alignment to evil, and he gets some mechanical adjustments. Nothing stops him from acting like a Paladin (though he may hate or despise what he is now), which means that his alignment has been temporarily changed to evil.
But since alignment doesn't dictate actions but actions dictate alignment, he likely won't be evil for very long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undead aren't just evil because they have the Evil subtype, they're evil because they desire the death of the living. Mindless, but not without desire. They aren't morally neutral automatons like golems, when a golem has no orders, it does nothing, when an undead, even a mindless one, has no orders it kills anything nearby. This has been shown numerous times in the published adventures, and other sources. Sure you can change that via houserule if you like, but to me that kinda ruins the flavor of undead, they're no different from animated brooms at that point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Undead aren't just evil because they have the Evil subtype, they're evil because they desire the death of the living. Mindless, but not without desire.
The Tarrasque is picked on because he has a desire to eat everything and remains N. The fast zombie assassin vine just breaks the universes laws.
Another thing is that your crafting excuses to explain what someone already placed in the universe.
when an undead, even a mindless one, has no orders it kills anything nearby.
Erm... If its under someone else's control it doesn't.
but to me that kinda ruins the flavor of undead, they're no different from animated brooms at that point.
Ruins the flavor of your undead maybe, opens up the flavor of 100s more. On the upside, if your flexible, you can have the best of both worlds!
Anyways, those points come up a lot. Asking about alignment feels like it goes in cycles. sometimes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but to me that kinda ruins the flavor of undead, they're no different from animated brooms at that point.Ruins the flavor of your undead maybe, opens up the flavor of 100s more. On the upside, if your flexible, you can have the best of both worlds!
The Jakandor setting is an excellent case in point. If you go there sticking with the 3.x mindset about what undead must be, you're going to wreck the entire point of the setting.
That depends on the mechanics of the spell (not game mechanics, narrative mechanics).Evil necromancer uses vile magic to force dead souls into service.
Good necromancer uses gentler magics to help dead souls walk the earth to do what needs doing.
Such mechanics are cooked right into the White Necromancer class itself.
Also, there are spells that can return dead generals to life without having to go the reanimation route. There's always raise dead and resurrection, which explicitly bring a person back to life, rather than merely animating their remains with dark energies.
Such spells are also often of prohibitively high level or have an expiration date. Such spells also don't support the themes of non-evil undead which other people very much want. And undead allies have advantages that can come in handy to help others that the living do not, such as surviving conditions inimical to living beings or being able to keep guard 24/7 without getting tired.
Hence the White Necro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system is wonky no doubt, but your interpretation is akin to instantly negate alter self because if the charsheet says youre a gnome you instantly revert back to one.I think the point was that the way you act determines alignment, and since nothing about being turned into a vampire actually makes you evil beyond telling you that you are, you may as well just act the way you were which makes you lawful good. Or something like that anyway.
Yeah, at some point you might turn neutral to good again, provided you can find sustenance in a non-evil way. As I understood Ashiels argument was that you'd instantly go back to good because the game constantly "checks" what actions you have performed and this results in becoming good again without making any more good acts.
Especially since the example also included an Ox Skeleton becoming evil, when the general rules are "actions determine alignment" and "nonsentient creatures are neutral" while the specific rule is "skeletons are always evil".
I think ideally being turned into a vampire makes you act evil, but there isn't much direction there because you don't know how your supposed to be evil. I guess you annoy people a lot with bleh bleh or something like that?
As I see it, alignment is what "alignment force" (the same that fuels the outer planes) you're closest connected to. Doing aligned acts puts you closer to that. Becoming undead also puts you closer to that. The behaviour of someone isn't dictated by alignment, alignment is dictated by behaviour (and certain other things, such as sentience, becoming undead, perhaps there's a few spells too).
Becoming a vampire makes you evil because you're infused by evil, or whatever, but you can still act good afterwards, and if you continue to act only good for a certain amount of time (determined by the group or GM) you will turn neutral, and after even more, good. However, many that become vampires might not act that consistently good, and instead tend to do a lot of evil practices out of what they feel is necessity, such as feeding on the living. I imagine after a while, they'll start losing what conscience they had left and so they start conforming to the evil alignment even if they where good during life.
A skeleton ox is stuck at evil though, because the rules state that skeletons are evil, and they also state than nonsentient creatures can't change their alignments. In the case of the skeleton, it's behaviour is also set - it's hell-bent on destruction.
Understanding alignment as an "essence" or "force" or whatever, rather than a set of ideals - even if the force is tied to ideals - explains most alignment issues in the game. How does detect evil work? It checks how strong evil force is within someone. Why are skeletons and vampires evil? Because they're infused with evil magic (that may or may not be overcome). Why is Animate Dead an evil spell? Because it's fueled by the evil force. Why does a paladin fall if committing an evil act, even if it was "the lesser of two evils"? Because it allowed evil force to leak into the paladin, closing the direct channel to good forces that paladins have. Etc.
Of course this is all semi-fluff, semi-extrapolation and not explicit in the RAW, but it seems a very valid interpretation that solves many of the issues with the alignment system.
Alignment is really wonky. As far as necromancy goes its best left to a chat with your GM. Everyone runs it differently and has different standards, some laxed, some impossible to live up to.
Fully agreed.
@ Ilja
The thing is though, even the lore of Pathfinder contradicts itself. Lets look at the Book Undead Revisited. In the Lich section of the book, they state that Lichs tend to continue doing their thing, learning more and more. The problem is, they eventually get bored and start delving deeper into the secrets of the universe itself, and once they get bored with that, they move on to even more and deeper knowledge. The thing is though, once they start getting bored they just kind of... drift out of existance. They just kinda stop interacting with the world and eventually, the multiverse itself. That sounds like the epitome of being neutral to me...
Seeking knowledge and being apathic are unaligned acts. If someone consistently spends their whole life doing unaligned acts, they are neutral. A lich has performed pretty major evil stuffz though, to become a lich - and that sticks. Through the rituals required to become a lich they become majorly evil, and if they then don't interact with the alignment system at all they'll stay evil forever. To become anything neutral they'd have to do pretty major good acts to counteract the evil.
Incorrect. Alter self states the changes and states how long you have those changes.
As does the rules for skeletons. The template states that the creature turns evil, the bestiary rules state that alignments may differ from the listed _except_ if the creature is nonsentient.
So yeah, changes and duration are stated for skeleton. Change: Evil. Duration: Permanent.
Like with the skeleton template, the half-fiend template changes the creature's alignment to evil. It does not, however, add any rule or clause that prevents them from changing alignments later.
No, because that clause is in another place. But you are correct - nothing prevents a half-fiend (or full fiend) from consistently acting good, and then it could potentially become neutral or good.
From general to specific:
General: Alignment is based on actions. If you act good, you become good.
Specific: Some creatures have an aligned heritage, and are that alignment.
Specific: When you become *insert undead template*, you become evil (except ghosts?).
More Specific: Creatures, even those listed as having an alignment, can have that alignment change through actions.
Even more specific: Nonsentient creatures are always their listed alignment.
(not exact quotes, since I can't seem to access the PRD at the moment, but the rules are in the alignment sections