Since any free-willed sapient creature can change its alignment naturally, that line means precisely squat.
One's alignment subtype and one's behavioral alignment do not need to match.
|
There is a non-Evil mummy in a Paizo module. (Not that it being non-Evil does anything special. It might as well be Evil really considering what it does in the Module).
There is a redeemed demon in a Paizo AP. If a demon can end up being non-evil, then it is even truer for undead.
Which in no way means that games should be overrun with Good undead BTW, especially on the PCs' side. I do not want THAT glittery species to ever surface in Golarion.
A Devil is free-willed and sapient and is immune to Atonement spell. The spell means squat to the resolution of RAW and undead.
-different sub-topic- I do remember reading about how the first Devil was an Angel who elected to become evil and fell from heaven, but I don't think it's Pathfinder published material.
There is a non-Evil mummy in a Paizo module. (Not that it being non-Evil does anything special. It might as well be Evil really considering what it does in the Module).
There is a redeemed demon in a Paizo AP. If a demon can end up being non-evil, then it is even truer for undead.
Which in no way means that games should be overrun with Good undead BTW, especially on the PCs' side. I do not want THAT glittery species to ever surface in Golarion.
NOW we're on to something potentially. Can you remember the specific names of creatures or at least AP names?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOW we're on to something potentially. Can you remember the specific names of creatures or at least AP names?There is a non-Evil mummy in a Paizo module. (Not that it being non-Evil does anything special. It might as well be Evil really considering what it does in the Module).
There is a redeemed demon in a Paizo AP. If a demon can end up being non-evil, then it is even truer for undead.
Which in no way means that games should be overrun with Good undead BTW, especially on the PCs' side. I do not want THAT glittery species to ever surface in Golarion.
Don't know if this is the module The Black Raven is referring to, but as for a module featuring non-evil undead...
In the module 'The Dragon's Demand' there is a non-evil mummy that was once a human monk from an order that worshiped Irori. The monks were experimenting and basically pulled some terrible monsters into their plane. The head monk went through a process to mummify himself and hid in the temple to await adventurers that could help undo what he and his order accidentally did and could not stop. He's not evil, but I don't have the module with me to see his exact alignment.
NOW we're on to something potentially. Can you remember the specific names of creatures or at least AP names?There is a non-Evil mummy in a Paizo module. (Not that it being non-Evil does anything special. It might as well be Evil really considering what it does in the Module).
There is a redeemed demon in a Paizo AP. If a demon can end up being non-evil, then it is even truer for undead.
Which in no way means that games should be overrun with Good undead BTW, especially on the PCs' side. I do not want THAT glittery species to ever surface in Golarion.
Don't know if this is the module The Black Raven is referring to, but as for a module featuring non-evil undead...
** spoiler omitted **
That would seem to settle it- by RAW there can be non-evil undead. This specific example even became undead intentionally. Thanks.
|
And as far as the AP with a redeemed demon:
That would seem to settle it- by RAW there can be non-evil undead. This specific example even became undead intentionally. Thanks.NOW we're on to something potentially. Can you remember the specific names of creatures or at least AP names?There is a non-Evil mummy in a Paizo module. (Not that it being non-Evil does anything special. It might as well be Evil really considering what it does in the Module).
There is a redeemed demon in a Paizo AP. If a demon can end up being non-evil, then it is even truer for undead.
Which in no way means that games should be overrun with Good undead BTW, especially on the PCs' side. I do not want THAT glittery species to ever surface in Golarion.
Don't know if this is the module The Black Raven is referring to, but as for a module featuring non-evil undead...
** spoiler omitted **
Happy I could help!
|
|
The spoilers above are what I was thinking about. I was just to lazy to use the spoiler tag ;-)
Can't read or comment on that, as I'm playing DD now. And for the next couple of months. :)
Playing and enjoying I expect. I started GMing it for my group and read it all and the module is VERY well done. In fact, in the end, you will likely ask your GM for more ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, there is a non-evil lich way back in the The Great Beyond (book of planes). However, I also recall reading something from the author (Todd Stewart) saying that he statted up the lich before knowing about the "all undead are evil in Golarion" rule. Or something like that. This was years ago.
Xegarius Malikar was his name.
The default is for most every undead creature to be evil, for a variety of reasons. James has explained the reason and rationale behind that default elsewhere.
Does this preclude their being incredibly rare exceptions for one of them to start off as non-evil? Does it preclude an originally evil lich from eventually becoming something other than evil?
If Malikar is revisited at some point in the future in print, perhaps we'll find out what his circumstances are for why he isn't evil. Or it's possible that he'll be turned evil. Time will tell :)
But just like with risen fiends, exceptions to the rule in Golarion should be really really really really freaky rare, with a deep, epic story to explain it all.
Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead and then allying with them are themselves evil actions.
Opinions?
Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead...
It's pretty well established as a trope that making undead is an evil act, so imo, you've made a call consistent with the trope. So far so good if you're interested in sticking to the standard assumptions about undead and necromancy.
...and then allying with them...
This part, I'm less inclined to accept. It's not really an alliance, the undead are compelled. If you apply this argument to a different situation you could say that using Command Undead is an inherently evil act.
Undeath adversely affects an individual psychologically. It warps a person's perception of the sacredness of the body. Gradually, they lose their connection with the living for societal, physiological, and cosmic reasons. Eventually, life becomes cheap, and the concerns of the living become unimportant to an undead.
This is why undead are evil. Yes, an undead can be good. However, the very nature of undeath eventually erodes the mind of even righteous individuals. Liches are an excellent example because their appearance functions as a symbol of their deteriorated conscience. Liches appear skeletal because they eventually grew wary of maintaining their bodies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...it's the opportunity for a future adventure seed when one of those minions turns out to be a lot more than what he bargained for.
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a really terrible sitcom premise?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go back and reread the monster description. The spells that create this monstrosity bind to it thousands of normal spiders, which together form the mind of the undead beast like an arachnid hive. These smaller spiders live in and direct their exoskeleton home, working together to swarm around the deathweb and weave its web sheets.
No it's not an example of what the OP is looking for, because the thing that makes it active, is a horde of LIVING spiders.
Go back and read it again. It is a neutral alignment undead.
Wasn't there some 'good' undead elves in Eberron for 3.5? Is this going down the sparkly vampire path... Oh No!! O_o
Wasn't there some 'good' undead elves in Eberron for 3.5? Is this going down the sparkly vampire path... Oh No!! O_o
Yes, they were animated via positive energy instead of negative energy, and had a different subtype if memory serves.
It's a valid call. It's not a universally right or wrong call, but a valid one.Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead and then allying with them are themselves evil actions.
Opinions?
My understanding is that the vast majority of magic used to create undead is evil-by-definition.
E.g., animate dead is defined as a "necromancy [evil]" spell. So are create undead and create greater undead. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is, by official rule, and evil action.
It's a valid call. It's not a universally right or wrong call, but a valid one.Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead and then allying with them are themselves evil actions.
Opinions?My understanding is that the vast majority of magic used to create undead is evil-by-definition.
E.g., animate dead is defined as a "necromancy [evil]" spell. So are create undead and create greater undead. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is, by official rule, and evil action.
Animating them might be an evil action. But how many evil actions does it take to shift alignments? 1? 2? 20? 1.7 Million?
The cleric in question is Neutral. He has probably committed a fair share of both evil and good deeds. What is a few animate dead tossed in the mix?
And if it only takes casting a spell to mess with your alignment... couldn't he simply cast a [good] descriptor spell before animate dead to effectively buffer himself?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a valid call. It's not a universally right or wrong call, but a valid one.Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead and then allying with them are themselves evil actions.
Opinions?My understanding is that the vast majority of magic used to create undead is evil-by-definition.
E.g., animate dead is defined as a "necromancy [evil]" spell. So are create undead and create greater undead. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is, by official rule, and evil action.
Animating them might be an evil action. But how many evil actions does it take to shift alignments?
DM's call, obviously. I'm merely pointing out that deciding that animating dead is ipso facto an evil act does not require a tremendously strained reading of the rules.
There is, in fact, more support in the rules for the idea that animating a zombie is an evil act than there is for the idea that robbing the poor box from the local Church of Sarenrae or setting fire to the local orphanage is an evil act.
|
|
Okay, now to derive from this thread a bit. I have a player who is piloting a neutral aligned cleric. He wants to take the corpses of all their defeated enemies and turn them into his undead minions. I ruled this as an evil act, not because of the spell being cast, but because the action of creating undead and then allying with them are themselves evil actions.
Opinions?
My heretical True Neutral Cleric of Pharasma agrees 100% with you ;-)
The Neutral thing to do is to take control of encountered undead, use them to your party's benefits and then destroy them as soon as the fight is ended (my Cleric's Modus Operandi).
Creating the undead is almost always Evil.
Keeping them around when there is no pressing need, with the risk that they get free of your control and start rampaging, is even more Evil IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Deathweb (neutral undead) is for some reason an insufficient response to the question "Can nonevil undead exist?", then I direct your attention to the Ectoplasmic Human (neutral undead).
The ectoplasmic template does not always result in an alignment of evil for the creature it is applied to.
To wit: Carrion Crown - Haunting of Harrowstone - Page 86
Ectoplasmic Human CR 1/2
XP 200
N Medium undead
Regardless of the description text for either of these creatures, they are, in fact, simultaneously undead and non-evil. As written. Full stop.
|
|
The Ectoplasmic template is contradictory in some ways. In the section on creating them, it says they are usually CE. The sample stat-block is N. Somebody didn't check themselves, I'm thinking.
As far as Animate Dead being an Evil-descriptor spell, that may make it an evil act, but that doesn't mean it shifts one to being evil entirely. If you go back in history, that same spell didn't have the Evil descriptor. Skeletons and Zombies used to be N in alignment, so go figure. Far as I can tell, it's pretty much just stacking the deck against necromancy through a couple of generations of the game. Ditto the change in healing magic to being Conjuration, which is a change with little to no sense. Necromancy is magic of life, death, and unlife. Healing magic is not magic of life? /rant
Edit: One could argue that using the undead post-fight to help rebuild might mitigate some of the evil of controlling them. :P
The Ectoplasmic template is contradictory in some ways. In the section on creating them, it says they are usually CE. The sample stat-block is N. Somebody didn't check themselves, I'm thinking.
As far as Animate Dead being an Evil-descriptor spell, that may make it an evil act, but that doesn't mean it shifts one to being evil entirely. If you go back in history, that same spell didn't have the Evil descriptor. Skeletons and Zombies used to be N in alignment, so go figure. Far as I can tell, it's pretty much just stacking the deck against necromancy through a couple of generations of the game. Ditto the change in healing magic to being Conjuration, which is a change with little to no sense. Necromancy is magic of life, death, and unlife. Healing magic is not magic of life? /rant
Edit: One could argue that using the undead post-fight to help rebuild might mitigate some of the evil of controlling them. :P
I'm gonna go with not respecting the dead and laying them to rest, and thus preventing them from being resurrected is pretty much the opposite of what a good character would do, and if it is the opposite of what a good character would do, then it makes them evil.
Creating undead itself is an evil act in my games. Using undead is evil. The whole shebang is bad news.
The Ectoplasmic template is contradictory in some ways. In the section on creating them, it says they are usually CE. The sample stat-block is N. Somebody didn't check themselves, I'm thinking.
I usually have cereal for breakfast. Sometimes I have waffles.
That doesn't mean the waffles were a mistake. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is at least one undead type that is not always evil and can even be good. That is a shadow summoned by a shadow dancer. There is no alignment restriction on shadow dancers although it does state that they do not fit comfortably within the lawful alignment there is no rule saying that they cannot be lawful, or even lawful good.
At 3rd level, a shadowdancer can summon a shadow, an undead shade. Unlike a normal shadow, this shadow's alignment matches that of the shadowdancer, and the creature cannot create spawn. The summoned shadow receives a +4 bonus on Will saves made to halve the damage from positive channeled energy and the shadow cannot be turned or commanded. This shadow serves as a companion to the shadowdancer and can communicate intelligibly with the shadowdancer. This shadow has a number of hit points equal to half the shadowdancer's total. The shadow uses the shadowdancer's base attack bonus and base save bonuses.
[
My understanding is that the vast majority of magic used to create undead is evil-by-definition.
E.g., animate dead is defined as a "necromancy [evil]" spell. So are create undead and create greater undead. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is, by official rule, and evil action.
Where is the RAW that spells with evil descriptor are evil acts?
There is at least one undead type that is not always evil and can even be good. That is a shadow summoned by a shadow dancer. There is no alignment restriction on shadow dancers although it does state that they do not fit comfortably within the lawful alignment there is no rule saying that they cannot be lawful, or even lawful good.
At 3rd level, a shadowdancer can summon a shadow, an undead shade. Unlike a normal shadow, this shadow's alignment matches that of the shadowdancer, and the creature cannot create spawn. The summoned shadow receives a +4 bonus on Will saves made to halve the damage from positive channeled energy and the shadow cannot be turned or commanded. This shadow serves as a companion to the shadowdancer and can communicate intelligibly with the shadowdancer. This shadow has a number of hit points equal to half the shadowdancer's total. The shadow uses the shadowdancer's base attack bonus and base save bonuses.
I play a Paladin-Shadowdancer. You can read her journal as a PFS character here
Keeping in mind that since I started the character, they've since closed off the bits that allowed her to be a Pharasmite over the course of years...
The spoilers above are what I was thinking about. I was just to lazy to use the spoiler tag ;-)
** spoiler omitted **
Can't read or comment on that, as I'm playing DD now. And for the next couple of months. :)Playing and enjoying I expect. I started GMing it for my group and read it all and the module is VERY well done. In fact, in the end, you will likely ask your GM for more ;-)
Can also recommend this module.
The creature in question also does not seem to have originated there, since its stat block cites an AP. I don't own the referenced adventure, so I can't confirm whether that version of the creature is evil or not, but based on its fluff I strongly suspect that it would not be.
|
|
The spoilers above are what I was thinking about. I was just to lazy to use the spoiler tag ;-)
** spoiler omitted **
Can't read or comment on that, as I'm playing DD now. And for the next couple of months. :)Playing and enjoying I expect. I started GMing it for my group and read it all and the module is VERY well done. In fact, in the end, you will likely ask your GM for more ;-)Can also recommend this module.
The creature in question also does not seem to have originated there, since its stat block cites an AP. I don't own the referenced adventure, so I can't confirm whether that version of the creature is evil or not, but based on its fluff I strongly suspect that it would not be.
** spoiler omitted **
I own both. I will go and check this. Thank you for the tip.
Come to think of it, non-Evil undead is great fun for a GM. The Paladin of your group is sure to smite the "evil unliving abomination" at once, without checking with Detect Evil first. Same for protection from evil and other such spells. Of course, you can only get players to waste their PC's resources this way if such non-Evil undead stay rare in your adventures.
|
|
I own both. I will go and check this. Thank you for the tip.
Just checked. The AP's part is just fluff content. That said, it implies that the "undead" is more like an automaton : the body is left behind while the soul passes on. Apparently, the creation ritual imparts a copy of the mind to the body so that it reacts as if it was still the living creature (or an intelligent undead).
So, I will not make it Evil as I first thought, and I might even make it immune to the effects of Positive and Negative energy, come to think of it.
I think the important thing to note is this:
1) Can undead ever be not evil? Yes, they can on rare exceptions be not evil.
2) Understand that this should be truly rare. It is not something PCs should access to, it should not be a common occurance. If you have more than 1 in a campaign that would be too much in my opinion.
The act of crating undead is evil. It takes "unusual" circumstances for an individual creature not to be warped by the evil of the creation process. Don't overdo it.
However, James Jacobs has stated that if he had his way there would never be non-evil undead.
Has there been any edit to the Juju mystery? One of the revelations available specifically creates N mindless undead and intelligent undead that match your alignment.
To my knowledge, yes. They redacted it and said that it now created only evil undead.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the RAW that spells with evil descriptor are evil acts?[
My understanding is that the vast majority of magic used to create undead is evil-by-definition.
E.g., animate dead is defined as a "necromancy [evil]" spell. So are create undead and create greater undead. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is, by official rule, and evil action.
I think that, at a certain point, asking after RAW becomes either futile, silly, or both.
Are evil spells evil? RAW, to my knowledge, doesn't say that they are - it's just a spell descriptor. Is doing something evil (casting an evil spell) an evil act? How fine do you want to parse language here?
RAW doesn't say you no longer get to take actions once you have the dead condition. It also doesn't specify which direction things fall in a plane with "normal" gravity. *shrugs*
Pathfinder "cleaned up" for kids.
Skeletons and zombies without orders actually do Macarena. Including trying singing. Possibly forever.
That why evil.
|
|
Pathfinder "cleaned up" for kids.
Skeletons and zombies without orders actually do Macarena. Including trying singing. Possibly forever.
That why evil.
Ah. That makes perfect sense. I redact all my arguments that mindless undead should be neutral due to lack of choice. Such a travesty is clearly the work of the basest and vilest of evils.
/faux-serious
However, James Jacobs has stated that if he had his way there would never be non-evil undead.
Huh? When and where?
I kind of remember him saying, more or less:
Non-evil ghosts are rare.
Compared to non-evil ghosts, non-evil vampires are rare.
Compared to non-evil vampires, pretty much any other type of non-evil undead is so super-rare, they can be considered nonexistent.
Don't overdo it.
^^^ This ^^^
For me, an non-evil undead, like an out-of-alignment-subtype outsider is a powerful story element, and should be used as such.
If you simply throw in a good vampire, a risen succubus, or the like just 'for the lulz', you're soing it wrong, in my opinion.
Showcasing the rare exception from the rule can produce an impact. Using exception after exception after exception will only make things generic.
However, James Jacobs has stated that if he had his way there would never be non-evil undead.Huh? When and where?
I kind of remember him saying, more or less:
Non-evil ghosts are rare.
Compared to non-evil ghosts, non-evil vampires are rare.
Compared to non-evil vampires, pretty much any other type of non-evil undead is so super-rare, they can be considered nonexistent.
He was talking about his home games and the way he runs things when he GMs IIRC, not about Golarion cannon. It it his personal preference, and I believe it was in his ask me anything thread, but that is super long and I don't have time to comb through it find the quote I'm talking about.
He was talking about his home games and the way he runs things when he GMs IIRC, not about Golarion cannon. It it his personal preference, and I believe it was in his ask me anything thread, but that is super long and I don't have time to comb through it find the quote I'm talking about.However, James Jacobs has stated that if he had his way there would never be non-evil undead.Huh? When and where?
I kind of remember him saying, more or less:
Non-evil ghosts are rare.
Compared to non-evil ghosts, non-evil vampires are rare.
Compared to non-evil vampires, pretty much any other type of non-evil undead is so super-rare, they can be considered nonexistent.
It was indeed there, but keep in mind he also said this, later on:
My stance of "all undead are evil" should REALLY be viewed as "MOST undead are evil, because that makes the rare few non-evil ones really feel unusual and special." I'm really REALLY hesitant and wary about doing to undead what Driz'zt did to drow.
While I somewhat agree with him, I think it's a bit of an overreactionary stance to say "all undead are evil" when he actually means "most undead are evil", but then again, I seem to have avoided the Driz'zt craze, as I've never seen the dreaded Driz'zt clone at my table. The closest I got was a LN drow Bard, but in that case, the Drow culture was completely different from FR drow. The main commonalities were matriarchal society and affinity to spiders, but rather than a CE society, they were LN Xenophobic overly paranoid society with a larger tie to Dwarves than to their elven kin.
My stance of "all undead are evil" should REALLY be viewed as "MOST undead are evil, because that makes the rare few non-evil ones really feel unusual and special." I'm really REALLY hesitant and wary about doing to undead what Driz'zt did to drow.While I somewhat agree with him, I think it's a bit of an overreactionary stance to say "all undead are evil" when he actually means "most undead are evil", but then again, I seem to have avoided the Driz'zt craze, as I've never seen the dreaded Driz'zt clone at my table. The closest I got was a LN drow Bard, but in that case, the Drow culture was completely different from FR drow. The main commonalities were matriarchal society and affinity to spiders, but rather than a CE society, they were LN Xenophobic overly paranoid society with a larger tie to Dwarves than to their elven kin.
Hmmm, guess I missed his later explaination on that point. (It's hard to keep up with everything said in that thread just because there is so much.) But I agree with his general principle, and I'm glad he explained further. Saying undead absolutely can't not be evil is extreme, but saying 99.9999% should be evil allows for the 1 in a million non-evil undead.
I think the important thing to note is this:
1) Can undead ever be not evil? Yes, they can on rare exceptions be not evil.
2) Understand that this should be truly rare. It is not something PCs should access to, it should not be a common occurance. If you have more than 1 in a campaign that would be too much in my opinion.
The act of crating undead is evil. It takes "unusual" circumstances for an individual creature not to be warped by the evil of the creation process. Don't overdo it.
However, James Jacobs has stated that if he had his way there would never be non-evil undead.
Well, creating undead is evil, just like how creating dead people to make those undead is usually evil. But being dead is not evil.
There are a lot of undead that have descriptions that include the possibility that they form naturally (ghosts and shadows for instance). Unfortunately, most of the circumstances for 'natural undead' include either a lot of evil/insanity, or at least enough strong emotions that it drives them evil/insane.
Still, there is the vague possibility of a cookie making grandmother waking up one morning and not realizing that she died the night before, and she just goes about making cookies for her granddaughter like normal (spoiler: this story ends with her nose falling into the plate of cookies after a couple weeks).
And I like the idea that, if they are not actively trying to eat people's faces, then an undead might have a relatively long lifespan (assuming they do not get falsely smited by an overzealous paladin). Even if the chances of 'good undead' coming into existence are low....well, centuries are a rather long span of time, so those things can build up when torches and pitchforks do not remove the 'problem'. It would make a decent adventure seed for a caravan of good undead that goes around for centuries just collecting up other like minded ex-individuals, and possibly have the party helping them.
I was in agreement with your Lemeres, until you said caravan.
I don't mind the idea of a ghost grandmother to continue "baking cookies" if it serves to illustrate somethign well and poignantly. However, when you make a whole troop of them, it bother me. I can't explain why exactly, partially it ruins the unique nature of the individual.
For me, literally encountering more than one in a characters life would ruin it for me.