By RAW can an undead of whatever species ever be something besides evil? I know there are hide alignment tricks, but I'm referring to its intrinsic alignment.
If casting spells can change your alignment. Then a lich who cast protection from evil enough times will become good.
|
The undead type doesn't say that undead have to be evil. Most undead don't have the evil subtype.
According to the Bestiary "The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable."
I don't think that RAW specifies that all undead are evil - just that the normal examples (the ones found in the Bestiary) are evil. I suppose that's not the case for specific undead - such as skeletons - who due to their lack of intelligence would fall under the "relatively unchangeable" category.
Ghosts are intelligent incorporeal undead, and they are not necessarily evil (admittedly, most are CE, but that is usually due to the kinds of people that would stick around, or at least how much dying and being a ghost sucks can make them a weeeee bit crazy). There are examples of specific named characters that were nonevil (tended to be chaotic though)
So no, being evil is not a prerequisite...but it has a very strong correlation and causation, one way or the other. So it mostly depends on what kind of undead it is, and whether the factors that into making it either require some fairly strong evil or make them evil.
|
The trick with undead is that A) many undead are unintelligent and therefore cannot stray from their standard alignment, and B) the process of creating an intelligent undead (lich, ghost, vampire, penanggalen, etc.) almost invariably requires that the transformed creature must either already be evil, or become evil in the process. As everyone else has said, individual exceptions exist, but they are extremely rare.
From a certain point of view, a lich might be the least likely undead to end up good.
I mean, even if the spell itself was "sugar, spice, and everything nice", I certainly would not use the kinds of magics that go into lichdom without being certain I had the skills to use them. Unfortunately, the only way to get those skills is through....practice. There is a limit to how many labrats you can turn into skeletons before you exhaust your research options, so I would imagine that would inevitably involve turning intelligent creatures into undead. Which of course is a road that we all know about...
I will say though: even if there is the whole 'evil descriptor', I would personally not view using undead creating spells on unintelligent creatures. While the druids might end up offended by it, I am kind of unfazed by the hairs split between carving up an owlbear in order to stretch out and wear its skin versus turning its bones into your minion. At least, if you don't have to trap its tortured soul in a gem or something. That is not cool. But research can help to alleviate that problem
|
|
Source: every undead-creating spell has the Evil descriptor.
Huh? Do you have a source for that? I am not aware of anything in RAW that specifies anything evil about the process for creating intelligent undead.
Additional source: Every undead template that has the requirement of Alignment: Any Evil. Also, descriptions of the processes required to become a lich or penanggalen (or ghost, or morgh, or, or, or...)
There is a NPC in 'The Godsmouth Ossuary' module that is undead and non-evil. So there is some canon justification to say that in Golarion, there are intelligent undead who are not evil. It's still an exception to the rule.
File under: Non-Evil Undead
Also, the Ectoplasmic template for undead is only "usually" chaotic evil.
:shrug:
By RAW can an undead of whatever species ever be something besides evil?
Are there RAW undead that are not evil? Yes. Does that mean that every (or any randomly chosen) type of undead could be non-evil under RAW? Only under Rule Zero.
Is Rule Zero RAW?
/tailchasing
That kind of plays out along the same theme as Oracle with the Ancestors Mystery, who calls upon their dead ancestors for aid, protection and knowledge. Clear non-evil use of what are essentially ghosts.
|
A good aligned White Necromancer isn't about creating hordes of shambling undead.
You say this every time someone mentions using the White Necromancer as intended, yet they never claim that they're using it to create hordes of undead. Especially when the whole theme of the WN is to do it out of need, not want.
The White Necromancer isn't Pathfinder RAW which is what the OP was asking about... it's a class from a third party product, so not relevant to the discussion.
It is however relevant to the OP's interests if it's a theme he'd like to pursue.
Anyone who's going to shoot down my argument for not being 100 percent RAW is practicing double standards if they agree with this.
Who is arguing that?
Like I said as well as the OP, you're talking about INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES. He's looking for a species of good aligned undead, and that's not happening in the Pathfinder material.
He asked for non-evil. Unless this example isn't a species, (or this is an error) then...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed I'm looking for a RAW citation that says undead themselves have to be evil. I looked before I posted this thread and could find nothing definitive.
Thanks for the responses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Helm of Opposite Alignment says yes.
The real answer is- In Golarion Canon, barring very rare exceptions, undead are always evil and casting Animate Dead is an Evil act. The Pathfinder rules are built with this as the default assumption.
(personally, I think this is a little silly and arbitrary)
In your home game setting, things could be quite a bit different. You could even house rule your Golarion to be different.
I recommend looking up the Tome of Necromancy web supplement. It has a fantastic breakdown of the morality of necromancy and it's effect on game mechanics.
|
|
You say this every time someone mentions using the White Necromancer as intended, yet they never claim that they're using it to create hordes of undead. Especially when the whole theme of the WN is to do it out of need, not want.That's because in most of the threads you're referring to, were started by players who DID want to create a steady group of undead servants and wanted social acceptance of the practise. Whether it was the so-called White Necromancer or the JuJu Oracle, they weren't talking about reluctant raisers and you very well know that.
1. We must be looking at very different threads, but then again since I most vividly remember you threadcrapping productive threads on the subject because you have this particular axe to grind...
2. I'll thank you not to presume my thoughts.
Thank you.
Speaking of the Juju Oracle: OP, there's also the original version of the Juju Oracle, whidh had a neat explanation for its non-evil undead. This got cut in the later revision of the Oracle due to Always Evil absolutism and made fans of the original sad, but there ya go.
|
|
RAW, there isn't a rule that says undead have to be evil. There is the extremely strong tendency toward that alignment, especially among intelligent undead. Among unintelligent undead, there is a slight conflict of RAW. First, this statement from the Bestiary, emphasis mine:
The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
By RAW, this mean it is against the RAW guideline to make skeletons, zombies, and other unintelligent undead evil. If you go back into the roots of the game, up until 3rd edition, unintelligent undead were Neutral in alignment, but that's a separate issue.
Unfortunately, I can't find any RAW support for this statement:
The trick with undead is that A) many undead are unintelligent and therefore cannot stray from their standard alignment,
So, according to Golarion campaign setting unwritten rules, the answer to your question is NO. According to the RAW, the answer is MAYBE, depending on how you interpret the slight RAW conflict.
...
The real answer is- In Golarion Canon, barring very rare exceptions, undead are always evil and casting Animate Dead is an Evil act. The Pathfinder rules are built with this as the default ...
You might be on to something. If it is an assumption then we'll never find a RAW reference.
[edit to add:] If they assumed that about undead, that was a very sloppy assumption.
You might be on to something. If it is an assumption then we'll never find a RAW reference....
The real answer is- In Golarion Canon, barring very rare exceptions, undead are always evil and casting Animate Dead is an Evil act. The Pathfinder rules are built with this as the default ...
It is. James Jacobs has stated as much. It's his world, and in it undead are pretty much uniformly evil.
Unfortunately, the game/setting doesn't really address the consequences of what that assumption means.
The issue is that there have been many designers over many editions and none of them have ever agreed on how Necromancy works. More than any other school of magic, Necromancy causes problems because of the inherent consequences of how it interacts with the setting.
Again, Read This. The morality discussion is the important part. You'll see why.
The question of the morality of Necromancy needs to be addressed in every game. Both options are fine, but a lot of things in the setting get wonky if the question isn't addressed.
|
|
Like I said as well as the OP, you're talking about INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES. He's looking for a species of good aligned undead, and that's not happening in the Pathfinder material.
I don't think he's asking for whole species. He said "an undead of whatever species." Not "a species of undead."
There are undead of whatever species who are something besides evil, so RAW tacitly allows undead to be things other than evil, even if there is never a line in any rulebook that explicitly says "undead can be other than evil."
"There are undead of whatever species who are something besides evil..."
The examples cited (libris Mortis and White Necromancer)are not Pathfinder. However, if ghosts can be non-evil then that would be an implicit no- undead do not have be evil.
|
|
FuriousPhil mentioned one from The Godsmouth Ossuary - that's Pathfinder. Even if it was published back under 3.5, it's still a Pathfinder adventure.
The recent LN mummy is definitely Pathfinder.
We've also got mentions of non-evil vampires here and there, mostly in Blood of the Night IIRC.
Good thing too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I prefer my own setting's undead. Being a good undead is possible but very hard. Though, it may be moot. I don't use alignment at all.
I suppose under my rules, it's easy for an undead to be good so long as they don't plan on being immortal. Also, cultures in which cannibalism is not taboo might allow ghouls to sustain themselves without the need for murder.
Becoming undead usually turns you evil. Unless you're non-sentient, you can still move away from that alignment. However, how much work it takes is entirely up to the GM - it may be so much that even a relatively eternal lifetime isn't enough.
He may only be neutral, and an old character from 3.0... but I give you Lichie Lich.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cc/20020401a
Like I said as well as the OP, you're talking about INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES. He's looking for a species of good aligned undead, and that's not happening in the Pathfinder material.He asked for non-evil. Unless this example isn't a species, (or this is an error) then...
Deathweb is a different sort of thing. The actual thing that makes it move are a horde of living spiders that are using an undead frame. While the exoskeleton is undead, the spiders are not. And because it's technically neutral, it's still inherently dangerous to anything living that it's path crosses.
And of course the description does note that it is created from "the vilest necromancy". Not exactly something a White Necromancer would have truck with.
So... this neutral undead isn't an example of a non-evil undead because...
LazarX hath spoken that it be forbidden?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's safe to say that you're never going to find a RAW statement saying that all undead all uniformly evil (or that all undead can become good, for that matter), because it's a setting-specific question rather than a rules-specific one. We've given you pretty much all the RAW there is on undead alignments, and the Golarion ruling on it as well (non-evil undead are about as rare as succubi paladins). Everything from there is up to you.
.
RAW has no rule saying all undead are evil. Ghost can be neutral. Even in Golarion a ghost can be neutral since they are normally not just monsters, but vehicles for a story. A certain AP has a non-evil ghost.. :)
They are also specifically allowed to not be evil, even though most typically are even if they don't become evil until after being undead for a long time<---RAW
With that said even the book saying a monster has an alignment of _____ is not hard and fast rule..
RAW-->"The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters...."
It never says all of those monsters are evil.
Even in 3.5 which I think had the term "always ___" it really only meant "most of them".
There is a NPC in 'The Godsmouth Ossuary' module that is undead and non-evil. So there is some canon justification to say that in Golarion, there are intelligent undead who are not evil. It's still an exception to the rule.Oh yeah, forgot about her. So far the common thread for non-evil undead has been "didn't actually want to be undead." Now granted, I'm sure that 99.5% of the poor saps who get eaten by ghouls or sucked dry by vampires aren't thrilled about their impending transformation, but still it's a start.
I think the atonement spell can do it.
Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
By RAW, yes, as the alignment section in the Bestiary specifies that there can be exceptions, even to 'always' alignments.
And any free-willed undead can, of course, choose its own path in ... unlife.
I think the atonement spell can do it...
This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
I'd have no problem at all with that as GM, but RAW IF undead are intrinsically incapable of changing their alignment then it would not apply. So Atonement doesn't really help our RAW problem.