| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how my necromancy-enhanced economy would work. This might be a dreadful place for living humanoids, sort of like large parts of the modern world. Or it might be quite pleasant. Hard to say. I could see Abadar being all for it, just as earth Economists are all for use of fossil fuels. Such a world might have a strong 'steampunk' feel. How do you think those exotic steampunk devices are actually powered?
1. No zombies, just skeletons. Cleanliness is virtue. Probably only skeletal animals, too, to avoid offending people. Also, animal skeletons probably have better power-to-weight ratios for specialized tasks.
2. They are only used for muscle work. E.g. Turning a wheel to pump water, drive a wagon, whatever. Nothing where they can make mistakes. Treat each skeleton as a small engine. Call it a skelemotor. Basically, think of any task now done with with an engine or electric motor, and it can probably be done just as well with a skelemotor.
3. Skeletons are modified for the job. Dangerous bits are removed. E.g. The skeletons that pump water are in a locked pump house, chained to the equipment, pumping with their LEGS. Also their jaws and arms are removed. That way, if they DO go rogue, they are already rendered harmless and chained down.
4. Keep all the undead out of sight. A visitor will never, ever see one. They'll just note that some wondrous devices always operate with no visible source of power. When was the last time you saw the cylinders in an internal combustion engine, or the coils in an electric motor? What's the best possible power-to-weight ratio of a skeleton in a box? It's probably better than that of early steam engines, and requires no fuel ...
5. Train lots of people to build, maintain and operate them. This includes quite a few low-powered spell casters. Given the immense economic gains to be had, and thus the high status of this specialty class, it would be easy to get recruits. Perhaps call them 'engineers' or 'mechanics'....
Good stuff...and yeah probably the most efficient option for using undead would be to stick them on a treadmill and tell them to walk. Simple to command and contain, and you could do it without pesky clergy necessarily getting wind of it.
Of course all of this really seems more like setting related background, and unless you are doing a kingmaker style campaign, may be really hard to have a PC implement.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be insulting, but a lot of posts here imply posters don't know how farming (especially amish-tech farming) works. The ox PULLS the plow, but it takes a human guiding the animal in a straight line and another human in back keeping the plow properly aligned and steered in a straight line. You can replace those laborers with undead, I suppose, but that's more HD to put in your bucket.
Mmhm. Which is why I was more talking about how renting an undead ox for 10 gp would be cheaper than the 50 to purchase(plus feed).
Though you might be able to rig it, with some work, to not sway as much. Since you don't have to worry about the animal wandering off or slowing down, all you need to worry about is the thing getting thrown off by roots and rocks and such.
Either way, it's less work for you, you don't need to worry about guiding the animal. You simply order it to walk, and it does.
Sort of like the difference between a push mower and an electric push mower. Still work, but far LESS work, even in far harder conditions.
EDIT: Zombie oxen are a walking biohazard. These things are going to contract every disease they even have passing contact with, and dead things attract all kinds of scavengers that function as carriers for disease. You'll need to account for these additional problems.
Immunity to bleed, death effects, , paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
People should read at least the Undead type description before entering this discussion.
doesn't the immunity to disease refer to the undead not getting sick from it? I don't think it's meant to infer that they can't themselves spread disease.
Although the simplest option would be to just used well dried/prepped bone, which would be less problematic about hygiene.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
doesn't the immunity to disease refer to the undead not getting sick from it? I don't think it's meant to infer that they can't themselves spread disease.
Although the simplest option would be to just used well dried/prepped bone, which would be less problematic about hygiene.
Were that the case, the Paladin's Divine Health:
At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.
And the Antipaladin's Plague Bringer:
At 3rd level, the powers of darkness make an antipaladin a beacon of corruption and disease. An antipaladin does not take any damage or take any penalty from diseases. He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects.
Would not need to be worded differently.
You have to contract a disease to be a carrier, unless you have a special attack that delivers the disease without you needing to have it.
It's not rules evidence, but as an aside, Antipaladins needed a special ability to be able to contract diseases while being immune to their effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW the Oxen make Profession checks of their own to determine how much wealth they produce for your farmer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Profession is trained only but Craft isn't. An ox (or undead ox) making a Craft (Landscaping?) check would still generate X gp worth of work each week. Since trade goods can be used interchangeably with currency (likely a farmer isn't actually growing GP after all, but X GP worth of trade goods like wheat, tobacco, or livestock) the craft result could be pooled into additional yields, representing the added benefit of the extra labor, which would mean that the farmer with an ox to plow his fields makes better income than a farmer without, and unlike a humanoid, the ox isn't going to keep the results of its check.
Or you might come up with some other way of handling it. However, regardless of the way you adjudicate it, the simple fact is that if a normal ox does it, the undead ox does it better with less overhead. It really doesn't matter the mechanics that are behind it, only that if farmers use animal labor, then undead labor is a better alternative. No matter how you slice the animal's contribution, the undead version can contribute at least as much while not eating, not sleeping, not getting sick, not requiring a barn to protect it from the cold, not worrying about heatstroke, and won't be attacked by wild animals looking for meat.
Beyond that is pretty irrelevant. Further, the skeleton entry in the bestiary says diddly squat about them randomly wandering around murdering people. What it does say is they possess an "evil cunning" which allows them to have proficiency with weapons. That's all.
Here's how my necromancy-enhanced economy would work. This might be a dreadful place for living humanoids, sort of like large parts of the modern world. Or it might be quite pleasant. {. . .}
Of course, that depends very much upon whom you are talking about it being pleasant for. Our Food-Industrial complex is dangerous and unpleasant for the workers, dangerous but deceptively pleasant for many of the consumers, and VERY pleasant for the pointy-haired CEOs . . . .
1. No zombies, just skeletons. Cleanliness is virtue. Probably only skeletal animals, too, to avoid offending people. Also, animal skeletons probably have better power-to-weight ratios for specialized tasks.
Accomplish this, and you'd actually be ahead of our system in some respects. Cleanliness is NOT one of the most reliable virtues of our system.
2. They are only used for muscle work. E.g. Turning a wheel to pump water, drive a wagon, whatever. Nothing where they can make mistakes. Treat each skeleton as a small engine. Call it a skelemotor. Basically, think of any task now done with with an engine or electric motor, and it can probably be done just as well with a skelemotor.
True enough. But in a place where this is big business, sooner or later somebody is going to cut corners and decide to use "Direct Drive".
3. Skeletons are modified for the job. Dangerous bits are removed. E.g. The skeletons that pump water are in a locked pump house, chained to the equipment, pumping with their LEGS. Also their jaws and arms are removed. That way, if they DO go rogue, they are already rendered harmless and chained down. {. . .}
This is one point where the small businesses might be worse than the big ones. The big ones could afford to manage herds of specialized modified Undead (and sequester them relatively safely when uncontrolled on a scheduled basis), whereas the small ones would need to keep their Undead flexible (and would have more trouble with the logistics of sequestering them for scheduled uncontrolled status, as well as scheduling which ones to make uncontrolled in the first place).
6. Various other safeguards. Basically, each time a problem occurs, modify the system to account for that problem.
Or cover it up, or blame it on terrorists, or if that fails, blame it on the victims, who have conveniently been turned into zombies or skeletons themselves. This approach would work especially well in Geb, but might also catch on in other isolated areas, or even some not-so-isolated areas, such as Cheliax, although in that case the Undead would be preferentially made not from Animals, but from Humanoid slaves that disobeyed their masters. For undead-worked agriculture, it helps to pass things like Food Libel Laws (which exist in the modern United States, in case you were wondering, and their purpose is PRECISELY to protect the Food-Industrial Complex from suffering consequences for endangering food safety).
Dotting for interest.
They're also "mindless". They'll do the same thing a mindless golem will do if you don't give it any orders; nothing.
Animals attacking the undead seems highly unlikely since it's extra hard just to train animals to attack them when you want them to (see Handle Animal).
Unintelligent people and/or those who haven't been educated about what mindless undead actually do (identifying what a skeleton or zombie is is a DC 10 Knowledge check almost everyone can make by taking 10), as opposed to the myths like "they go attack people for no reason" might get concerned. But those are the dumb vandals that are going to end up wanted for destroying expensive property, not most people.
It's fine if you want to do necromantic pollution in your games, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about how things work out of the box.
Negative energy beings aren't an unnatural void. They're exactly as natural as positive energy beings. They both stem from equally powerful natural planes, and both have naturally occurring creatures (most living creatures, ghosts) and artifically created creatures (things made in a lab like owlbears and animated skeletons, for example).
"Craft (landscaping)" is a joke that went over your head. It doesn't actually matter what the craft skill you say they're using is. The point is that they can make the check (Aside, earlier I was assuming untrained laborer using profession- untrained Craft makes much more sense).
|
They're also "mindless". They'll do the same thing a mindless golem will do if you don't give it any orders; nothing.
Zombies don't, attacking people instead. Why would skeletons be different?
And then there are oozes. They're mindless but don't sit around waiting for orders. Or vermin. Why would you generalize from constructs to undead but not to oozes or vermin? Just because spellcasters make both? That's shaky logic at best, especially considering the explicit note that zombies don't do that.
Wouldn't it make more sense, if generalizing, to generalize between very similar creatures in one creature type (zombies to skeletons) than to leap creature types entirely (a construct to a form of undead)?
Also...the people at Paizo have explicitly stated that all mindless undead do the attacking people thing. So...yeah, there's that.
There seems too be a massive contradiction between "Controlled" and "Indiscriminately attacks anything that moves".
It makes some sort of sense sense for uncontrolled undead to do so, but not others to default to that.
|
|
There seems too be a massive contradiction between "Controlled" and "Indiscriminately attacks anything that moves".
It makes some sort of sense sense for uncontrolled undead to do so, but not others to default to that.
This is true. I'm talking specifically about uncontrolled undead, though.
Which, given that their controllers will die eventually (barring being undead themselves) will come up pretty regularly if you get this on any large scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but then commanding undead is a thing too. And skeletons, again, have nothing about them that says anything about wandering and killing living creatures. So don't make Romero zombies and move onto the next issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Craft (landscaping)" is a joke that went over your head. It doesn't actually matter what the craft skill you say they're using is. The point is that they can make the check (Aside, earlier I was assuming untrained laborer using profession- untrained Craft makes much more sense).
This. :P
On a side note, if craft (scrimshaw) is a thing (digging holes into an object with tools) then naturally Craft (*insert action that puts holes and ditches into the ground) should work too, right? :P
|
|
Yeah, but then commanding undead is a thing too.
True, but I'm not saying it's an insoluble roblem, just one likely to result in collateral damage upon occasion.
And skeletons, again, have nothing about them that says anything about wandering and killing living creatures. So don't make Romero zombies and move onto the next issue.
This is, as noted, not precisely correct.
#1: By default, mindless creatures still do stuff (see: Oozes, Vermin, Zombies). So...the presumption would seem to be so do skeletons. If they do, one should likely use their Alignment as a guide to what they do...and their Alignment is Evil.
Besides, just from a logical perspective, you use exactly the same magic to make zombies and skeletons, and they have the exact same mental stats...why would you assume different behavior?
#2: It's been explicitly and specifically stated by multiple people at Paizo that uncontrolled undead go around attacking people. That's not a hard rules call, but it's certainly supportive of the arguments I make in point #1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Actually according to the alignment rules, said skeletons would become neutral as they are incapable of moral understanding/choices, and they lack any sort of special rule mechanic to call them out as different from any other creature in terms of alignment rules.
1.5: Ghouls and Mummies are made using the same magic and they are nothing alike sans being undead.
#2: And staff members at Paizo have also made claims that you have to cast magic fang on individual limbs for a monk, or that a monk has to alternate between his main and off hand when making flurries, and that SLAs are spells and not spells, and that destroying an [Evil] scroll that cured a disease with 100% success rate would be better than using said scroll (which destroy it) to cure a child dying of cancer, etc, etc, etc.
I could really care less. It doesn't say skeletons go on rampages, so skeletons don't go on rampages unless the GM just wants them to go on rampages, but that's most definitely a house to house thing, and not a rule or even a standard.
Likewise, I don't care about what is in Golarion anymore than I care about being a wizard making you a world-destroying douchebag in Darksun.
|
|
1: Actually according to the alignment rules, said skeletons would become neutral as they are incapable of moral understanding/choices, and they lack any sort of special rule mechanic to call them out as different from any other creature in terms of alignment rules.
Their listed Alignment seems to disagree with your interpretation. Indeed, changing a non-intelligent creature's Alignment in a blanket manner like this rather directly contradicts the Bestiary's rules. So...you're the one making a house rule if you do this.
It's a totally reasonable House Rule, but a House Rule nonetheless.
1.5: Ghouls and Mummies are made using the same magic and they are nothing alike sans being undead.
Uh...you can't make ghouls or mummies with Animate Dead. That's a completely different spell.
#2: And staff members at Paizo have also made claims that you have to cast magic fang on individual limbs for a monk, or that a monk has to alternate between his main and off hand when making flurries, and that SLAs are spells and not spells, and that destroying an [Evil] scroll that cured a disease with 100% success rate would be better than using said scroll (which destroy it) to cure a child dying of cancer, etc, etc, etc.
Okay, these are the people who make the rules. You can disagree with them (I sure do sometimes)...but that doesn't make them any less objectively right regarding how the rules officially work. Especially when just about every rule there is on the issue supports their position.
I could really care less. It doesn't say skeletons go on rampages, so skeletons don't go on rampages unless the GM just wants them to go on rampages, but that's most definitely a house to house thing, and not a rule or even a standard.
The Alignment rules, how creature types work, and indeed, just about all the rules I can think of argue against you. The only argument you have is conceptual "They're mindless, therefore they do nothing." and runs right up against zombies being equally mindless and not behaving that way at all.
Likewise, I don't care about what is in Golarion anymore than I care about being a wizard making you a world-destroying douchebag in Darksun.
Sure. But I haven't actually brought up anything Golarion specific in regards to this argument (I never mentioned Evil spells being Evil acts or cited a Golarion specific book, for example). The idea of skeletons attacking people when uncontrolled is strongly supported by the rules as written...there is a lack of an explicit behavior note to that effect, but by that logic horses also have no behavior, since their listing doesn't talk about it.
I guess every half elf novice scout on the planet is Lawful Neutral, because a stat block indicates what a creature's alignment will be forevermore no matter what their actions are, yes?
It's create undead. Which is another necromancy spell that does a very similar thing. You're being needlessly pedantic.
They are not, in fact, the people who make all the rules. Most of the rules (aside from extra content like feats and spells and such) in Pathfinder were written by other people circa 2000. It is entirely possible, even highly likely, for them to be wrong about the intent of a rule. And even if we were talking about a rule they'd written, what they wanted to do with it today doesn't change what's already in the book. We're talking about the game we have, not the game we'd have if Pathfinder was published in 2014 instead.
Saying "the rules are against you so you're wrong" is childish and unhelpful. We've been going through how that's provably false.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their listed Alignment seems to disagree with your interpretation. Indeed, changing a non-intelligent creature's Alignment in a blanket manner like this rather directly contradicts the Bestiary's rules. So...you're the one making a house rule if you do this.It's a totally reasonable House Rule, but a House Rule nonetheless.
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." - Alignment
Being mindless means you are incapable of morality. Since skeletons don't have a special effect calling themselves out as not being subject to the normal rules for alignment they are. They would need a special mechanic like the T-Rex's powerful bite (if the T-Rex's stats included x2 Str to damage without this clause the statblock would just be in error, similar to the ogre's statblock being in error in the bestiary).
1.5: Ghouls and Mummies are made using the same magic and they are nothing alike sans being undead.Uh...you can't make ghouls or mummies with Animate Dead. That's a completely different spell.
But it's the same argument. You said the same magic. I presumed you mean spell, right? So why do ghouls and mummies (made with the same spell as each other) have such extreme differences?
If you can pose this question, so can I. The answer I offer to you is because they are two different types of mindless undead (though the zombie fluff in the bestiary is a bit contradictory).
#2: And staff members at Paizo have also made claims that you have to cast magic fang on individual limbs for a monk, or that a monk has to alternate between his main and off hand when making flurries, and that SLAs are spells and not spells, and that destroying an [Evil] scroll that cured a disease with 100% success rate would be better than using said scroll (which destroy it) to cure a child dying of cancer, etc, etc, etc.Okay, these are the people who make the rules. You can disagree with them (I sure do sometimes)...but that doesn't make them any less objectively right regarding how the rules officially work. Especially when just about every rule there is on the issue supports their position.
I can when they get it wrong. The majority of this game wasn't written by anyone working at Paizo. See, remember Paizo's ad-campaign? 3.5 Thrives. Want to know the names of the people on the 3.5 manuals? Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet. Paizo has built upon that and anything not specifically changed is still using the same rules, it even says so on the authoring portion of their OGL.
And no, I don't take however any given designer plays as the mechanics. I have the mechanics for that. Likewise, what material has Paizo published for anything outside of Golarion? We've already established that this is a house rule for Golarion, so Golarion-specific stuff is out.
Further, no, every rule most certainly does not support that position. In fact, I've spent the better part of this thread citing rules and mechanics and making an argument based entirely in what comes out of the actual rules, not different campaigns, not opinions of a staff member, combined with pointing out logical dissonance in the opposing argument. What I've been met with have been people gurgling non-existent rules, more non-existent rules based on those non-existent rules, and analogies about corruption/ink/orphans that reflect nothing in the actual game and in many case fly in the face of what the game actually presents.
The Alignment rules, how creature types work, and indeed, just about all the rules I can think of argue against you. The only argument you have is conceptual "They're mindless, therefore they do nothing." and runs right up against zombies being equally mindless and not behaving that way at all.
Maybe you should go look up those rules. I was thinking you were being at least pretty impartial, but I've lost that faith. There is nothing in the undead creature type (or any other) that supports the other side. Likewise, you haven't actually presented a non-Golarion-specific rule that supports anything of the other side, and in fact the Alignment rules, Creature rules, Magic Item rules, and so forth have all been cited, quoted, dissected, and presented in great detail and have broken all counter arguments put forth, leaving the other side to simply mumble things like "it's wrong, and if you can't see why it's wrong..."
Good day sir, and Happy Holidays.
|
|
I guess every half elf novice scout on the planet is Lawful Neutral, because a stat block indicates what a creature's alignment will be forevermore no matter what their actions are, yes?
*sighs*
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. 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.
Emphasis mine. Changing the alignment of intelligent creatures is fine. Making Lions NE without reason is a House Rule, generally speaking.
It's create undead. Which is another necromancy spell that does a very similar thing. You're being needlessly pedantic.
No, I'm not. One creates two almost mentally and conceptually identical mindless undead. The other creates intelligent creatures. They are exceedingly different spells, similar only in a few ways.
They are not, in fact, the people who make all the rules. Most of the rules (aside from extra content like feats and spells and such) in Pathfinder were written by other people circa 2000. It is entirely possible, even highly likely, for them to be wrong about the intent of a rule. And even if we were talking about a rule they'd written, what they wanted to do with it today doesn't change what's already in the book. We're talking about the game we have, not the game we'd have if Pathfinder was published in 2014 instead.
True to some degree...except that I have an argument for this being the way the rules read without their input. Them confirming that as the intent is just that, a confirmation.
Also, the idea of mindless undead attacking people if left to their own devices (including the zombie thing), is new to Pathfinder, and stuff regarding it is indeed thus written by this group of people. More or less.
Saying "the rules are against you so you're wrong" is childish and unhelpful. We've been going through how that's provably false.
No...we really haven't. Find one place that says how uncontrolled skeletons behave and I'll believe you.
But there is no such place. Which means we need to fall back on other rules and logic to determine such. Both seem to indicate they attack people.
|
|
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." - Alignment
Being mindless means you are incapable of morality. Since skeletons don't have a special effect calling themselves out as not being subject to the normal rules for alignment they are. They would need a special mechanic like the T-Rex's powerful bite (if the T-Rex's stats included x2 Str to damage without this clause the statblock would just be in error, similar to the ogre's statblock being in error in the bestiary).
The fact that the creators of said Bestiary have specifically stated this isn't the case sorta makes this argument fall a bit flat, IMO. I suspect that's not a compelling argument for you, but I feel that if something's survived several rounds of errata and the creators have specifically said it's not an error, treating it as a specific rules exception rather than a typo is the way to go.
"But it's the same argument. You said the same magic. I presumed you mean spell, right? So why do ghouls and mummies (made with the same spell as each other) have such extreme differences?
If you can pose this question, so can I. The answer I offer to you is because they are two different types of mindless undead (though the zombie fluff in the bestiary is a bit contradictory).
Ghouls and mummies have different mental stats...and are, in the case of ghouls, also create by things other than the spell in question. I feel it's a different situation.
Still, you do have something of a point. They could be different. I just don't think they are.
"I can when they get it wrong. The majority of this game wasn't written by anyone working at Paizo. See, remember Paizo's ad-campaign? 3.5 Thrives. Want to know the names of the people on the 3.5 manuals? Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet. Paizo has built upon that and anything not specifically changed is still using the same rules, it even says so on the authoring portion of their OGL.
"And no, I don't take however any given designer plays as the mechanics. I have the mechanics for that. Likewise, what material has Paizo published for anything outside of Golarion? We've already established that this is a house rule for Golarion, so Golarion-specific stuff is out.
Uh...Bestiaries 2-4, the ACG, ARG, UM, UC...a bunch of stuff, really.
I'm unclear on how what non-golarion stuff they've published is entirely relevant, though.
"Further, no, every rule most certainly does not support that position. In fact, I've spent the better part of this thread citing rules and mechanics and making an argument based entirely in what comes out of the actual rules, not different campaigns, not opinions of a staff member, combined with pointing out logical dissonance in the opposing argument. What I've been met with have been people gurgling non-existent rules, more non-existent rules based on those non-existent rules, and analogies about corruption/ink/orphans that reflect nothing in the actual game and in many case fly in the face of what the game actually presents.
Well, I think you're understandably conflating two threads here. And I don't disagree that many people are being unreasonable...but I'm arguing explicitly about one (and only one) very specific thing:
Do skeletons start killing people if left uncontrolled?
That's it.
Maybe you should go look up those rules. I was thinking you were being at least pretty impartial, but I've lost that faith. There is nothing in the undead creature type (or any other) that supports the other side. Likewise, you haven't actually presented a non-Golarion-specific rule that supports anything of the other side, and in fact the Alignment rules, Creature rules, Magic Item rules, and so forth have all been cited, quoted, dissected, and presented in great detail and have broken all counter arguments put forth, leaving the other side to simply mumble things like "it's wrong, and if you can't see why it's wrong..."
I think the fact that the Bestiary rules specifically prohibit changing the alignment of non-intelligent creatures is a pretty good rules argument on my side of this one. If you follow that logic, then the NE alignment rather inevitably leads to the behavior in question.
Combine that with the fact that almost all creatures do something when left to their own devices, the indications that undead mostly kill people, and the utter lack of any statements that skeletons just stand there and wait for orders when uncontrolled (which there were in 3.5), and I feel like there's a fair amount of textual evidence to support my point.
Admittedly, if you go with your logic, that their alignment is in error and they're really N my argument falls apart...but that's not exactly a mainstream opinion and this is the first time I've seen you advance it.
In terms of Alignment, I'm taking the Bestiary rules over those in the corebook, since those are the rules that seem applicable. Given your attitude on the CR of NPC classes, I'd think you would understand my position on that.
Good day sir, and Happy Holidays.
The same to you. Sorry for an offense given, it certainly wasn't intentional. :(
They're also "mindless". They'll do the same thing a mindless golem will do if you don't give it any orders; nothing.
Not necessarily (since in the Bestiaries, Undead have an Evil alignment even when mindless), but a decent-sized Necromantic Services company could shut in mindless Undead that they weren't renting out at the moment (wrong specialization for the season, etc.) before releasing them from control, and later regain control before letting them out.
{. . .}
Unintelligent people and/or those who haven't been educated about what mindless undead actually do (identifying what a skeleton or zombie is is a DC 10 Knowledge check almost everyone can make by taking 10), as opposed to the myths like "they go attack people for no reason" might get concerned. But those are the dumb vandals that are going to end up wanted for destroying expensive property, not most people.
In a society where this kind of business is allowed (for instance Geb, and likely parts of Cheliax and/or Nidal), the vandals can pay for the property destruction, or become Zombies themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Live animals will do work on the farm. And when they are done, they become delicious.
Which, for me, would be more cost efficient and convenient in the long run, than renting the undead sort.
After all, "a cow is just a machine for turning grass into steak."
Yum.
I'm guessing blood money has been ruled out for this discussion, by the way? I guess if you have blood money you are already making inifinite gold via some other method anyway.
i have seen this comment beofre . and i belive a lot of people don't udnerstand a major thing aobut blood money.
yes you can take damage to craete the 500(or more) gp wroth diamond that the spell need. BUT YOU CAN NOT KEEP IT TO SELL LATER.
the bloodmoney create a costly matiriel only when you cast the 2nd spell tha tneed that matiriel. that mean that unless yo uallready have the 500 gp worth diamond then the diamond that is created is used when yo ucast the 2nd spell(it comes and goes) and if you do have the diamond then the new one just replace it. you gained nothing you didn't had before to sell.
"You cast blood money just before casting another spell. As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell."
the material component only form when you cast the 2nd spell. you can not keep it to sell later. (and those have "infinite gold")
I'm guessing blood money has been ruled out for this discussion, by the way? I guess if you have blood money you are already making inifinite gold via some other method anyway.i have seen this comment beofre . and i belive a lot of people don't udnerstand a major thing aobut blood money.
yes you can take damage to craete the 500(or more) gp wroth diamond that the spell need. BUT YOU CAN NOT KEEP IT TO SELL LATER.
the bloodmoney create a costly matiriel only when you cast the 2nd spell tha tneed that matiriel. that mean that unless yo uallready have the 500 gp worth diamond then the diamond that is created is used when yo ucast the 2nd spell(it comes and goes) and if you do have the diamond then the new one just replace it. you gained nothing you didn't had before to sell."You cast blood money just before casting another spell. As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell."
the material component only form when you cast the 2nd spell. you can not keep it to sell later. (and those have "infinite gold")
Assuming I understood your argument (no offense, but your post was a little hard to follow), the infinite gold tricks with blood money don't involve using it to make material components to sell later. It's combining blood money with spells that convert the blood-money components into something sellable. Turn 500 gp of Blood Money into 500 gp worth or gold, adamantium, etc.
^This could work, although it would be rather bad for the spellcaster's health. But I wonder if Blood Money could work with somebody else's blood. By rules as written, it looks like it doesn't, but if some Evil spellcaster could figure out how to make this work, they would certainly use it when they could. After all, the idea of getting rich usually prefers wrecking the health of somebody other than yourself, especially for those who would also be thinking of using Undead livestock and other workers.
Actually, since ritual sacrifices are a common thing for Evil, the above could certainly be part of the mechanics of such sacrifices. Maybe it just requires a higher-level version of Blood Money that hasn't been officially cataloged yet.
Ok. When an animal attacks, its because its hungry, its defending itself, its kind, or its territory; or its attacking because its diseased.
Skeletons do not attack for those reasons. Which is why animals are neutral and skeletons are not.
Its the foul magic and evil cunning that make them evil.
I think Ashiel is pointing at the logical contradiction that comes from something without a mind being evil inherently when evil is a moral position. You can't be evil if you have no intent really. But then, this is kind of an issue that comes from the idea of inherent evil in the first place. You can't really be evil because only an action can be. Its kind of like calling a nuke evil, when its the act of using it that is evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
question: wasn't the skeleton neutral in a past edition of the game?
In AD&D skeletons and zombies (and all mindless creatures) were Neutral, because they were incapable of making moral or ethical decisions.
I think Ashiel is pointing at the logical contradiction that comes from something without a mind being evil inherently when evil is a moral position. You can't be evil if you have no intent really. But then, this is kind of an issue that comes from the idea of inherent evil in the first place. You can't really be evil because only an action can be. Its kind of like calling a nuke evil, when its the act of using it that is evil.
Evil could be a performative. In this sense using the word to mean that the action is the justification and vice versa.
|
|
What Rynjin said.
Also...
Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
So yeah, they follow your orders unquestioningly, and they function as well at any given task as a perfectly normal human being (sans acting on their own).
Meanwhile...
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely."Plow this field. When you are done, go over there and wait for further orders".
It would seem you should seek a druid with regeneration as you seem to be lacking a leg to stand on.
Ashiel, "Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks." isn't the same thing of "they are capable to do a job like a intelligence 10 creature."
A intelligence 10 creature can learn from its mistakes, a intelligence - creature can't.The first time I did helped whitewashing a wall I was 12 year old. I was given a spatula and asked to remove loose tint from the wall. I had little idea of how far I had to go and removed several pieces of plaster together with the old tint. After getting a hear full about my mistake I was more careful and was capable to do a better job. That mean that I have got 1 skill point in craft (masonry)? Not at all, I am still incapable to build a wall. But I can whitewash a wall.
A skeleton or zombie will not learn anything. He will be forever struck to the "scrap anything from the wall" stage.
They are great if you want them to be an energy source. They can pull a plow like an ox with no problem. They can't guide the plow.
Then there are the rules about how they are commanded:
Animate Dead
....This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands.
The undead can be made to follow you, or they can be made to remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place.
No option here to give the control to another being. They obey your spoken command, there is not transitive option to give command to another person.
Control Undead
...
This spell enables you to control undead creatures for a short period of time. You command them by voice and they understand you, no matter what language you speak. Even if vocal communication is impossible, the controlled undead do not attack you. At the end of the spell, the subjects revert to their normal behavior.
Getting control of them require a separate spell, cast by the one that get to control them.
You can craft a magic item that can control undead, maybe even cheaply, but we are still speaking of hundred of GP.
A one shot item that allow you to animate 4 1 HD skeletons will cost 750 gp + 100 gp for the components = 850 gp and it is usable by a level 1 commoner (it could be crafter in a way that will animate 1 more skeleton for 25 gp more, but the if a 1st level character use it one of the skeletons immediately become uncontrolled).
Not bad for a tractor that will last as long as you live if you know how to command them and their limitations.
The problem is that when you die they will become uncontrolled and revert to their basic NE behavior.
A more advanced version of the above mentioned magic items is one that allow you to control the undead as long as you wear it (a item like that is cited in the Kaer Maga supplement) and that allow you to put them to "idle" when you remove it.
Then there is the problem of self defense. Unthinking undead defend themselves if attacked unless ordered differently, but that will require a specific order. You can't give unthinking undead complicated orders full of subordinates. If they do something damaging while following orders and a farmer react how most farmers will react, with 5 swear words for each comprehensible word, menaces ad threats, there are good chances hat they will attack a non-owner doing that.
You can give unthinking undead simple orders. Even things like: "Pull this cart until you get to the Uptown village square" are beyond their comprehension as they don't know where is the Uptown village square (a knowledge skill) and can't recognize a village square form another village square. They are unable to learn where the village is even if they go there every day.
"Follow this road till you get to a fountain" will work, but they will stop at the first fountain they met, regardless of it being in the village square or a watering place with a small fountain.
So they will require constant supervision by someone.
They will work as well as a multy-use power tool. A good work multiplier, but they will need to be guided. They are unable to do useful work alone (with the exception of running on a treadmill, and even that will present problems if the treadmill break).
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." - Alignment
Being mindless means you are incapable of morality. Since skeletons don't have a special effect calling themselves out as not being subject to the normal rules for alignment they are. They would need a special mechanic like the T-Rex's powerful bite (if the T-Rex's stats included x2 Str to damage without this clause the statblock would just be in error, similar to the ogre's statblock being in error in the bestiary).
Specific VS general:
General: mindless creatures are incapable of morality.
Specific: Human Skeleton CR 1/3 - XP 135 - NE Medium undead
"While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."
Creating a Skeleton
...
Alignment: Always neutral evil.Creating a Zombie
...
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
They have a special rule that say that they are always NE. What more you want?
|
|
Assuming I understood your argument (no offense, but your post was a little hard to follow), the infinite gold tricks with blood money don't involve using it to make material components to sell later. It's combining blood money with spells that convert the blood-money components into something sellable. Turn 500 gp of Blood Money into 500 gp worth or gold, adamantium, etc.
I'm guessing blood money has been ruled out for this discussion, by the way? I guess if you have blood money you are already making inifinite gold via some other method anyway.i have seen this comment beofre . and i belive a lot of people don't udnerstand a major thing aobut blood money.
yes you can take damage to craete the 500(or more) gp wroth diamond that the spell need. BUT YOU CAN NOT KEEP IT TO SELL LATER.
the bloodmoney create a costly matiriel only when you cast the 2nd spell tha tneed that matiriel. that mean that unless yo uallready have the 500 gp worth diamond then the diamond that is created is used when yo ucast the 2nd spell(it comes and goes) and if you do have the diamond then the new one just replace it. you gained nothing you didn't had before to sell."You cast blood money just before casting another spell. As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell."
the material component only form when you cast the 2nd spell. you can not keep it to sell later. (and those have "infinite gold")
Fabricate convert the material component in a finished material. But it is still the same material and it disappear the next round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Specific VS general:
General: mindless creatures are incapable of morality.
Specific: Human Skeleton CR 1/3 - XP 135 - NE Medium undead
"While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."
There is no mechanic that is granting the skeleton its alignment, where it is normally incapable of being aligned, and as a result it is in error. It may be an intentional error, which is just sloppy writing, but it is most definitely an error.
For example, the Ogre in the Bestiary I is wielding a weapon it lacks proficiency with but there is no penalty assigned to the attack rolls with the weapon. It is not a case of specific vs general, it's a case of mechanical error.
Similarly, if the T-Rex was simply listed with double its strength bonus to its bite attack it would also not be a case of specific vs general, it would be a case of mechanical error; however the T-Rex has an ability that specifically allows it to apply x2 StrMod to damage with its bite attack which allows the T-Rex specifically to have an exception to the general rule. This is not an error, this is not sloppy.
Skeletons and zombies lack a special rule or mechanic that allows them to be exceptions from the general alignment rules. Because they lack an exception they are subject to those rules just as much as any other creature. Their alignment is changed to X, but the general alignment rules would demand that it be changed to Neutral shortly thereafter.
There are mechanical examples of an exception to alignment rules. The alignment subtypes most commonly associated with creatures from aligned planes cause a creature to always be treated as X. However, again, such a mechanic is missing.
Again, this is sloppy and messy. It isn't internally consistent. It's nothing more than a holdover from 3.5 where they slapped the evil-alignment onto mindless undead so Paladins could smite them (instead of just allowing paladins to smite non-good undead which would have been a cleaner solution). It's not internally consistent, it's mechanically sloppy, and it's not even carrying on a sacred cow (every edition pre-3.5 had mindless undead as Neutral).
Yeah, usually telling people about logical contradictions is a waste of time, largely due to the fact that most don't care whether something like a square circle exists in their games.
{. . .} Specific rules trump general. Skeletons and zombies are evil.
You can house rule differently if you like, but you can't tell the designers they're wrong about how their game works. {. . .}
I'd be inclined to agree with you without needing a second thought, except for the Bestiaries having numerous mechanical errors (several of which are pointed out in sidebars on d20pfsrd.com), usually incorrect computation of Skills or something like that). The Undead being Evil seems to be consistent, though (admittedly I haven't done an exhaustive search), so it is probably not just an error, but really what they meant. Any lingering doubts could be cleared up by a 1 sentence addition to the Undead section of the Monster Types (the Skeleton Template and Zombie Template actually have something like this -- they just didn't bother to put it in the main Undead type description, maybe to avoid wiping out the odd non-Evil Ghost, but you could phrase it in such a way as to allow for exceptions like this).
|
|
Specific VS general:
General: mindless creatures are incapable of morality.
Specific: Human Skeleton CR 1/3 - XP 135 - NE Medium undead
"While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."There is no mechanic that is granting the skeleton its alignment, where it is normally incapable of being aligned, and as a result it is in error. It may be an intentional error, which is just sloppy writing, but it is most definitely an error.
Creating a Skeleton
...
Alignment: Always neutral evil.Creating a Zombie
...
Alignment: Always neutral evil.
Already cited.
That is the mechanic. You are creating a skeleton or a zombie, it get a NE alignment.
It is a mechanic you dislike, but it is there.
|
|
{. . .} Specific rules trump general. Skeletons and zombies are evil.
You can house rule differently if you like, but you can't tell the designers they're wrong about how their game works. {. . .}
I'd be inclined to agree with you without needing a second thought, except for the Bestiaries having numerous mechanical errors (several of which are pointed out in sidebars on d20pfsrd.com), usually incorrect computation of Skills or something like that). The Undead being Evil seems to be consistent, though (admittedly I haven't done an exhaustive search), so it is probably not just an error, but really what they meant. Any lingering doubts could be cleared up by a 1 sentence addition to the Undead section of the Monster Types (the Skeleton Template and Zombie Template actually have something like this -- they just didn't bother to put it in the main Undead type description, maybe to avoid wiping out the odd non-Evil Ghost, but you could phrase it in such a way as to allow for exceptions like this).
It is not a problem with Ashiel argument.
Her argument is mindless = neutral alignment
The Zombie and Skeleton templates have a specific rule:
Alignment: Always NE
It don't say why (maybe the constant influx of negative energy that keep them active?), but it give a specific exceptions to the general rule.
Intelligent undead don't fall under the mindless rule, so they can have an alignment.
I'm with Diego on this. Sorry Diego, that may hurt your case.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm a bit annoyed that Ashiel accused me of deliberately fabricating things and lazy reading of the text when all along she was using houserules for the alignment of undead. Note that there's nothing wrong with house rules - I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. It's just disingenuous to argue from houserules without explaining that's where you are coming from.
"I think RAW is wrong so I changed it" is totally a houserule. And that's perfectly fine in any game where everyone agrees to make the change.
Unintelligent vermin are neutral because they only care about survival and reproduction. A skeleton or zombie is evil because it has different motivations - survival and reproduction aren't really on the table, so they seek death and destruction, thus evil. It's not a motivation so much as a description of their default behavior.