|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Golarion creating undead is an evil act because you take a person's soul and trap it in its body and keep him away from the afterlife. (Or stop the party from raising a fallen partymember.) What I didn't realize until now is that undead are almost always evil and by that logic, their mangled and tortured souls would end up in the lower planes once they get slain.
Is this true? Can you shift someone's alignment to evil after they passed away by turning them into zombies?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not responsible for what your corpse does after you're dead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.
You're right, except that James Jacobs tells everyone that it does involve soul trapping magic.
And by the way, I did mention the Golarion part. This is not about RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.
This is true.
Nothing in the spell descriptions or the lore describe a skeleton or zombie having a soul trapped inside it.
In fact, given that it is possible to make seven or more kinds of undead out of a single corpse, its pretty hard to support the notion that a person's soul is trapped and corrupted when someone animates their body.
Undead are evil because that's the way the designers want it to be. As a GM it is up to you to come up with the cosmological reasons for that, or to ignore it and come up with your own rules for how and why undead work.
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.You're right, except that James Jacobs tells everyone that it does involve soul trapping magic.
Yes. This is a thematic choice.
Nothing in the rules support it at all, and in fact many things in the rules run contrary to this idea.
It is an issue that has been brought up many times and has never been addressed.
Because of that, you'll need to come up with answers yourself, or maybe just ask James himself in the Ask James Jacobs thread.
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.You're right, except that James Jacobs tells everyone that it does involve soul trapping magic.
And by the way, I did mention the Golarion part. This is not about RAW.
There aren't any mechanics in Golarion sourcebooks that would make that actually true. It's entirely possible for someone to be revived (reincarnate, clone, resurrection, etc) and then their body animated.
Animate dead and create undead do not touch souls at all. They're just [Evil] because Paizo decided the wanted them (and undead in general) to be evil. There's no real support for it, it's an arbitrary decision. If you want something better for your setting or game, you're going to have to come up with it or look for a solution someone else has created.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend starting Here if you want to work out some of the various moral and thematic implications of how necromancy can be handled.
One of the problems with necromancy is that there have been a lot of designers and they can't seem to agree on the fundamental nature of how necromancy is supposed to work. That makes things complicated.
Most of Pathfinder's necromancy issues are legacy problems from previous editions.
|
|
Okay, maybe I wasn't very clear.
My point was that the reason that James Jacobs gave for undead being evil (Namely that you trap the souls in their undead bodies even though the rules don't indicate that you do.) could have some nasty consequences. Not being able to create an undead because the soul has already returned to life as his friends cut off a finger for the resurrection spell is just a small example. It could also happen the other way around, or as I mentioned, as an undead you're neutral evil so once you die again you go to Abaddon.
So i guess a totally utilitarian society would be evil lol
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hang on... create undead specifically creates intelligent undead. Sure, animate dead makes some mindless skeletons, hello it's basically an animated object that just happens to be a corpse, woopdedoo, but ghouls? Devourers? Banshees?
All of the create and greater create undead spells specifically make undead with intelligence, and almost all of them are specifically undead that can 'naturally' come about as a result of a person's life or death. So... where does that intelligence come from? Are you making a brand new female elf soul to create a banshee? Just... out of nothingness? Cuz I'm pretty sure that if you make a banshee that doesn't have a soul... you don't have a banshee.
Correct. In fact, magic jar even notes that some undead (such as incorporeal ones) are in fact souls.
Likewise, mummies and greater mummies in D&D are created via create undead spells and it's often seen as an alternative to things like lichdom for basic immortality.
However the "physics" do not support the soul trapping stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of Pathfinder's necromancy issues are legacy problems from previous editions.
Speaking of legacy: The 3.5 'Book of Vile Darkness' called creating undead evil in general since it brings negative energy into the world, making it a worse place no matter of the intentions of the creator. I don't find that overly convincing, but it's a point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of Pathfinder's necromancy issues are legacy problems from previous editions.Speaking of legacy: The 3.5 'Book of Vile Darkness' called creating undead evil in general since it brings negative energy into the world, making it a worse place no matter of the intentions of the creator. I don't find that overly convincing, but it's a point.
But that also raises the question, shouldnt inflict spells be evil then?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that also raises the question, shouldnt inflict spells be evil then?Most of Pathfinder's necromancy issues are legacy problems from previous editions.Speaking of legacy: The 3.5 'Book of Vile Darkness' called creating undead evil in general since it brings negative energy into the world, making it a worse place no matter of the intentions of the creator. I don't find that overly convincing, but it's a point.
Exactly. The Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds were (bad) splatbooks that overly complicate alignment and make it conflict with itself and the rest of the ruleset (as well as logical reasoning). They are the books that act like doing heinous evils to other people is A-OK as long as you're doing it to evil people, and even having one book call out certain spells as evil and then having the next book print those spells on the spell-list of exalted prestige classes.
Seriously, alignment breaks down more and more the farther you get from its core. The core alignment rules are simple, elegant, and rational. Good is defined in its most basic form and evil in its most basic form and you can derive most anything from there.
Zombies eat brains
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.Not exactly true. Both spells prevent that creature from ever being raised via the raise dead spell.
Well you can't raise the animated corpse because it's a creature again. You could, however, raise someone with a portion of their original body and animate their former corpse. Animating their former corpse doesn't suddenly slay the revived character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.Not exactly true. Both spells prevent that creature from ever being raised via the raise dead spell.
But that is kinda because raise requires the body. Also, the body is already being animated by negative energy, so most likely Since raise dead is a lower level spell, it doesnt have enough oomph to cancel out the negative energy AND have enough left over to restore positive energy to the corpse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you can't raise the animated corpse because it's a creature again. You could, however, raise someone with a portion of their original body and animate their former corpse. Animating their former corpse doesn't suddenly slay the revived character.It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.Not exactly true. Both spells prevent that creature from ever being raised via the raise dead spell.
For example, if you take a hair sample from the corpse of a character slain you can cast reincarnate to bring them back with an entirely new body. It doesn't destroy their still existent corpse, nor does it make their corpse an invalid target for animate dead, so you can literally animate a skeleton of yourself that just died. You can't take the skeleton and use it to raise yourself though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that is kinda because raise requires the body. Also, the body is already being animated by negative energy, so most likely Since raise dead is a lower level spell, it doesnt have enough oomph to cancel out the negative energy AND have enough left over to restore positive energy to the corpse.It's just arbitrary. As written neither animate dead nor create undead interact with the dead creature in any way other than manipulating their corpse.Not exactly true. Both spells prevent that creature from ever being raised via the raise dead spell.
It's also a balance concern. Pre-3E, people would use spells like raise dead against powerful undead like liches and vampires to kill them with aging penalties and stuff. Now it's very simple. You cannot cast raising spells on undead. If you cast raising spells on destroyed undead it brings them back as their living counterparts.
So you cannot 1-shot the 1000 year old lich and it makes dying as the undead a less trivial matter (while also providing a potential out).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you raise a corpse as a zombie, destroy the zombie, and cast sanctify corpse on the remains to drive out the negative energy, why must you still use resurrection? Because the spell caused irreparable damage to the connection between body and soul. That is why it its evil, even of the corpse labor isn't used for evil things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you raise a corpse as a zombie, destroy the zombie, and cast sanctify corpse on the remains to drive out the negative energy, why must you still use resurrection? Because the spell caused irreparable damage to the connection between body and soul. That is why it its evil, even of the corpse labor isn't used for evil things.
Or maybe because you literally destroyed the corpse...
I mean, with a living creature, you can stab its throat and it dies. With a zombie who has no flowing blood or anything... the only conceivable way to kill it would be to destroy the body into a bloody pulp...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also a balance concern. Pre-3E, people would use spells like raise dead against powerful undead like liches and vampires to kill them with aging penalties and stuff. Now it's very simple. You cannot cast raising spells on undead.
Actually:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and True Resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
May still be restricted by when you consider the target "died" and it can be blocked by unwillingness maybe
So you cannot 1-shot the 1000 year old lich and it makes dying as the undead a less trivial matter (while also providing a potential out).
Actually again: Undeath to Death and I may find some other spell or ability that can oneshot undeads of any type.
|
|
So if you raise a corpse as a zombie, destroy the zombie, and cast sanctify corpse on the remains to drive out the negative energy, why must you still use resurrection? Because the spell caused irreparable damage to the connection between body and soul. That is why it its evil, even of the corpse labor isn't used for evil things.Or maybe because you literally destroyed the corpse...
I mean, with a living creature, you can stab its throat and it dies. With a zombie who has no flowing blood or anything... the only conceivable way to kill it would be to destroy the body into a bloody pulp...
No, you just do enough damage to the body so the unlife cannot sustain it. It take less damage to dispatch a zombie than a 5th level commoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you just do enough damage to the body so the unlife cannot sustain it. It take less damage to dispatch a zombie than a 5th level commoner.So if you raise a corpse as a zombie, destroy the zombie, and cast sanctify corpse on the remains to drive out the negative energy, why must you still use resurrection? Because the spell caused irreparable damage to the connection between body and soul. That is why it its evil, even of the corpse labor isn't used for evil things.Or maybe because you literally destroyed the corpse...
I mean, with a living creature, you can stab its throat and it dies. With a zombie who has no flowing blood or anything... the only conceivable way to kill it would be to destroy the body into a bloody pulp...
Considering that unlife can sustain a skeleton I think shows that it can sustain on very little...
The thing is, HP damage to a commoner is an abstraction. Small knicks and close calls. Until he hits negatives (bleeding out). An undead can take hits that would normally fell most living things (stab to the throat for instance). The small cuts I reallt doubt do much kf anything to an undead. The reason the collapse at 0 is because they are almost like an construct. At 0 hp they are literally brOken. You straight up destroyed them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with the interaction between souls and creating undead is that only intelligent undead utilize the souls. Mindless undead are just animated corpses. Therefore, Lesser Animate Dead and Animate Dead should arguably not have the Evil descriptor, whereas Create Undead and Create Greater Undead unarguably should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of Pathfinder's necromancy issues are legacy problems from previous editions.Speaking of legacy: The 3.5 'Book of Vile Darkness' called creating undead evil in general since it brings negative energy into the world, making it a worse place no matter of the intentions of the creator. I don't find that overly convincing, but it's a point.Actually, BoVD is 3.0. BoED is 3.5, which causes a lot of people to get them mixed up (for the longest time I just assumed BoED was also 3.0).
I can totally see Command Undead being always evil to cast. It's a much more powerful, crueler version of Dominate Person. Whilst Dominate Person allows for extra saves and can't force someone to do something against their true nature, Command Undead has no restrictions, is much harder to become immune to, and is a lower level spell to boot.
Command Undead is 2nd level and is a pseudo-charm spell when used on intelligent undead.
There is also the Command Undead Feat which lets channeling act as a long term Control Undead effect. That's the one that lets you make the undead do horrible things, and even then it allows a save every day, which Dominate does not. You can still make a person do things against their nature with dominate - it just gives them another save, which is great for a hero who got an unlucky save but doesn't do much for a peasant being ordered to kill their family because they are fishing for natural 20s. The only think you can't make it do is things that are self-destructive, and all that means is that the caster will have to get their hands dirty in order to polish the dominated creature off. Not much of a difference here, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games...
I would say that Create/Animate Undead is evil because it makes something inherently evil. Negative energy itself is completely Neutral, but a being that is Undead is jealous of all life and wants to snuff it out in its hatred.
Some ghosts aren't evil? They are still in a state of suffering and misery until they can be released and creating a creature doomed to that state is evil in my book.
Even if you Create/Animate Undead to power a treadmill that grinds wheat where there is no wind or river, you have still made a thing that wants to rip the life out of every living thing it can reach.
Even cats will wait untill you might be dead before eating your face off.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games...
I would say that Create/Animate Undead is evil because it makes something inherently evil. Negative energy itself is completely Neutral, but a being that is Undead is jealous of all life and wants to snuff it out in its hatred.
Some ghosts aren't evil? They are still in a state of suffering and misery until they can be released and creating a creature doomed to that state is evil in my book.
Even if you Create/Animate Undead to power a treadmill that grinds wheat where there is no wind or river, you have still made a thing that wants to rip the life out of every living thing it can reach.
Even cats will wait untill you might be dead before eating your face off.
Everything about this is more or less demonstrably false. Especially the cat thing. It would be a better world if big cats would actually wait until you were dead before they started eating you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skeletons do not want to rip the life out of every living thing, as they do not have wills of their own and cannot Want.
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, maybe I wasn't very clear.
My point was that the reason that James Jacobs gave for undead being evil (Namely that you trap the souls in their undead bodies even though the rules don't indicate that you do.) could have some nasty consequences. Not being able to create an undead because the soul has already returned to life as his friends cut off a finger for the resurrection spell is just a small example. It could also happen the other way around, or as I mentioned, as an undead you're neutral evil so once you die again you go to Abaddon.
Undead are almost always evil, and that is indeed due to the corruption of the soul. But that corruption does not tarnish what the soul did when it was alive. What you do as an undead has no effect on your life before you became undead.
In the case of a lich, where you likely were an evil vile person (because that's what kind of people become liches), if you're a lich and destroyed, your soul is then released back into the cycle and you end up going to where an evil person would go.
In the case of a vampire, where you were a good person who got turned into a vampire and then spent ages or hours (doesn't matter which) as an evil undead, when you are released from that condition by being destroyed, your soul re-enters the soulstream and are judged for your living life, not your "I didn't choose this" unlife.
It's possilbe for your soul to accept and embrace that change, in which case you WOULD end up being judged harshly.
Turns out, Pharasma is really really really good at knowing the difference, and you don't get sent to hell for punishment just because someone made you undead as a result.
Being turned undead against your will, in other words, is not an evil act. There are no "nasty consequences" to your immortal soul in this case like you suspect, as a result.
Because animating the rotting maggot filled corpse of your granny so it can be your slave, shows that your moral compass is pointing in the right direction.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because animating the rotting maggot filled corpse of your granny so it can be your slave, shows that your moral compass is pointing in the right direction.
That's why you animate skeletons rather than zombies :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skeletons do not want to rip the life out of every living thing, as they do not have wills of their own and cannot Want.
Non sentient undead have an instinctive malice.
They're naturally driven to kill any living thing on sight if left on their own devices without a real reason.
The pile of bones suddenly stirs, rising up to take on a human shape. Its long, bony fingers reach out to claw at the living.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. 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.
When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skeletons do not want to rip the life out of every living thing, as they do not have wills of their own and cannot Want.Non sentient undead have an instinctive malice.
They're naturally driven to kill any living thing on sight if left on their own devices without a real reason.
The pile of bones suddenly stirs, rising up to take on a human shape. Its long, bony fingers reach out to claw at the living.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. 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.
When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims.
This is actually pretty good.
But check again what you wrote and quoted.
I'll go over your major arguments and specific rules-quotes.
Non sentient undead have an instinctive malice.
Kind of true, but somewhat misleading. See below.
They're naturally driven to kill any living thing on sight if left on their own devices without a real reason.
This is only half true.
The pile of bones suddenly stirs, rising up to take on a human shape. Its long, bony fingers reach out to claw at the living.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. 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.
The top (which I put back into italics) is fluff text. Holding the whole of such to that is as accurate as holding the whole of these creatures to,
This lanky man sneers as he draws his sword. Tiny horns and a barbed tail reveal that he is something more than human.
... which, given what Paizo has printed about them is demonstrably empty of any true meaning. It's there for inspiration, not rules. (And yes, I linked to the d20pfsrd on purpose - its single entry is much more complete and references everything Paizo has printed on them).
But what, then, do skeletons have?
they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.
Good golly, good gosh, you should warn people about those clerics of Iomedae, Torag, Erastil, Sarenrae, Shelyn, Arshea, Cayden Cailean, Desna, and every other good deity! What evil cunning they have! They, too, can wield weapons and armor!
But, to be sure, let's get a definition of 'cunning' - mine, per the rules, was use of intelligence, which skeletons definitively lack. Hence, I figured it meant, "they can have proficiency in weapons and armor despite being mindless, 'cause that's a classic trope, even though normally mindless creatures can't have feats and thus no proficiencies" kind of akin to how zombies get toughness, despite their mindless state.
Still, a nice hunt might lend clarity.
Cunning: based on knowledge checks - i.e. intelligence.
Fox's Cunning: hops up your intelligence.
Amulet of Spell Cunning: wizards prepare more spells! Intelligence!
Dogslicer - noted as an 'unusually cunning' idea for goblins to have... a crafting and engineering check, i.e. intelligence-based.
Octopi are noted as 'cunning' creatures - that is, they are known for their intelligence... though their PF ability scores don't reflect this, as they're not considered sentient. This one's pretty shaky, I have to say.
Unfortunately for me, that's about where the evidence for my interpretation runs out.
Native Cunning is about perception (or wisdom), cunning initiative is about wisdom, the serpent is considered 'cunning', but it's in terms of being deceptive (i.e. charisma), gladiator archetype uses charisma-based skills, imenteshes are 'cunning' (but I've little sense of what that means with such anarchic creatures), and the Dragon Shaman is just vague... it says 'cunning and wise' but has no particularly 'cunning' elements beyond the wise (maybe it's intelligence- or charisma-based bonus feats it can choose?)... so that deep-sixes my own interpretation as the only way to take it.
Hence, it mostly seems to boil down to, "hey, this is kind of a clever application of mental scores" more than anything concrete or definable.
So... is it an 'evil' cunning? Yes. What sort? The only two things that we can draw any parallel to is "being proficient with weapons and armor, and having the improved initiative feat" (normally impossible for mindless creatures), and "their wisdom and charisma scores are both 10" (which isn't 'cunning' at all).
... which kind of makes their 'evil' cunning just kind of... suck at being evil, and look an awful lot more like being neutral that's arbitrated to be evil because "ew" (which is kind of a problem the Necromancy school suffers from in general).
Left to their own devices? Skeletons don't do nothin' they aren't ordered to.
When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims.
Here is where your assertion is definitively accurate... zombies. They're terrible. In every way. Don't make them. Voila.
That said, if you insist on the opening line of skeletons as being 'hardcoded' into them, than zombies are great ways to destroy stuff you want ruined. After all:
This walking corpse wears only a few soiled rags, its flesh rotting off its bones as it stumbles forward, arms outstretched.
So just drape it in cursed clothing or evil artifact clothing: bam, instant soiled rags instead!
(It's also contradicted by the 'variant zombies' within the zombie entry itself, though - fast zombies, in specific.)
EDIT: for ninja #bens...
EDIT 2: Just to be clear, though I disagree with the assertion that it definitively helps the setting, I understand Mr. Jacobs' reasoning behind the decision to make undead always evil, and, by default, he is correct in Golarion as-printed-and-accepted-as-canon (unless he's overruled somehow, which I sincerely doubt is ever going to happen and don't especially want it to, as that sets an unfortunate and unpleasant precedent for other reasons).
Hence, in Golarion's extended 'verse, it's definitively evil, and it creates exclusively evil creatures.
Following similar logic, the skeleton's cunning is 'evil' - by definition, since it's noted as 'evil' it is, then, 'evil' - and we can 'forcibly' explain it away using the alignment rules; most notably:
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
The last sentence doesn't apply to skeletons (unless their master happens to be evil), but it could be argued that their violence-oriented capabilities (specifically proficiency with weapons and armor and natural weapons) and lack of any emotion or consideration could align itself with evil as presented in that paragraph.
But then you'd have to ignore the paragraph three steps up:
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. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Hence, it's a bit of rocky ground and wanders into the 'circular reasoning' argument 137ben mentioned, and the 'very arbitrary' argument Aratrok mentioned.
Various arguments are forwarded, and I understand them, but none of them are either definitively canon or terribly convincing... to my tastes, which, naturally, diverge from those of others.
Then again, I don't like coffee, so...
Anyway, point is, James is correct about Golarion () and hence explanations need to 'agree' with his assertions, whether or not they are backed by the rules.
And that post up there of his is actually pretty great and insightful. :)
(It also makes me wonder about a Helm of Opposite Alignment, and I'm starting to think that in-canon for Golarion, that's the way it works as well, but I'd be interested in James' take on it.)
Also: sorry!
I didn't have a chance to respond to this one before, and then forgot it.
Rectifying...
It's also a balance concern. Pre-3E, people would use spells like raise dead against powerful undead like liches and vampires to kill them with aging penalties and stuff. Now it's very simple. You cannot cast raising spells on undead.Actually:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and True Resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
May still be restricted by when you consider the target "died" and it can be blocked by unwillingness maybe
So you cannot 1-shot the 1000 year old lich and it makes dying as the undead a less trivial matter (while also providing a potential out).Actually again: Undeath to Death and I may find some other spell or ability that can oneshot undeads of any type.
This is a pretty good post, but I'd like to point out a few rebuttals.
First, going really, really old school:
Raise Dead (Necromantic) Reversible
Level: 5 Components: V, S
Range: 3" Casting Time: I round
Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Special
Area of Effect: One person
Explanation/Description: When the cleric casts a raise dead spell, he or she can restore life to a dwarf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, or human. The length of time which the person has been dead is of importance, as the cleric can raise dead persons only up to a certain point, the limit being 1 day for each level of experience of the cleric, i.e. a 9th level cleric can raise a person dead for up to 9 days. Note that the body of the person must be whole, or otherwise missing parts will still be missing when the person is brought back to life. Also, the resurrected person must make a special saving throw to survive the ordeal (see CHARACTER ABILITIES. Constitution). Furthermore, the raised person is weak and helpless in any event, and he or she will need one full day of rest in bed for each day he or she was dead. The somatic component of the spell is a pointed finger. The reverse of the spell, slay living, allows the victim a saving throw, and if it is successful, the victim sustains damage equal only to that caused by a cause serious wounds spell, i.e. 3-17 hit points. An evil cleric can freely use the reverse spell; a good cleric must exercise extreme caution in its employment, being absolutely certain that the victim of the slay living spell is evil and that his or her death is a matter of great necessity and for good, otherwise the alignment of the cleric will be sharply changed. Note that newly made undead, excluding skeletons, which fall within the days of being dead limit are affected by raise dead spells cast upon them. The effect of the spell is to cause them to become resurrected dead, providing the constitution permits survival; otherwise, they are simply dead.
And,
Resurrection (Necromantic) Reversible
Level: 7 Components: V, S, M
Range: Touch Casting Time: I turn
Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Person touched
Explanation/Description: The cleric employing this spell is able to restore life and complete strength to the person he/she bestows the resurrection upon. The person can have been dead up to 10 years cumulative per level of the cleric casting the spell, i.e. a 19th level cleric can resurrect the bones of a person dead up to 190 years. See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised. The reverse, destruction, causes the victim of the spell to be instantly dead and turned to dust. Destruction requires a touch, either in combat or otherwise. The material components of the spell are the cleric's religious symbol and holy/unholy water. Employment of this spell makes it impossible for the cleric to cast further spells or engage in combat until he or she has had one day of bed rest for each level of experience of the person brought back to life or destroyed.
Reincarnation (Necromantic)
Level: 6 Components: V, S, M
Range: Touch Casting Time: I turn
Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Person touched
Explanation/Description: This spell is similar to the seventh level druid spell of the same name (q.v.). It does not require any saving throw for system shock or resurrection survival. The corpse is touched, and a new incarnation of the person will appear in the area in 1 to 6 turns, providing the person has not been deod for longer than 1 day per level of experience of the magic-user. The new incarnation will be:Die Roll----Incarnation
01-05-------bugbear
06-11-------dwarf
12-18-------elf
19-23-------gnoll
24-28-------gnome
29-33-------goblin
34-40-------half-elf
41-47-------halfling
48-54-------half-orc
55-59-------hobgoblin
60-73-------human
74-79-------kobold
80-85-------orc
86-90-------ogre
91-95-------ogre mage
96-100-------troll
Reincarnate (Necromantic)
Level: 7 Components: V, S, M
Range: Touch Casting Time: 1 turn
Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Person touched
Explanation/Description: Druids have the capability of bringing back the dead in another body if death occurred no more than a week before the casting of the spell. The person reincarnated will recall the majority of his or her former life and form, but the class they have, if any, in their new incarnation might be different indeed. Abilities and speech are likewise often changed. The table below gives the reincarnation possibilities of this spell:
Die Roll----Incarnation
01-03-------badger
04-08-------bear, black
09-12-------bear, brown
13-16-------boar, wild
17-19-------centaur
24-28-------dryad
20-23-------eagle
29-31-------elf
32-34-------faun
35-36-------fox
37-40-------gnome
41-44-------hawk
45-58-------human
59-61-------lynx
62-64-------owl
65-68-------pixie
69-70-------raccoon
71-75-------stag
76-80-------wolf
81-85-------wolverine
86-00-------use magic-user reincarnation tableAny sort of player character can be reincarnated. If an elf, gnome or human is indicated, the character must be created. When the corpse is touched, the new incarnation will appear in the area within 1 to 6 turns. (Cf. sixth level magic-user spell reincarnation.)
Raise Dead allowed a save if you were undead - the others did not. Hence the idea of one-shotting BBEGs... though, yeah, a thousand years does seem to be hyperbolic memory distortion, as time is want.
Anyhoo, had more, but I've run out of time. It's sleepy-by bed-time. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just houseruled that creating undead requires human sacrifice. Makes portraying it as irrevocably bad so much easier.
Then again, I also put all the healing spells back under necromancy, where they belong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just houseruled that creating undead requires human sacrifice. Makes portraying it as irrevocably bad so much easier.
Then again, I also put all the healing spells back under necromancy, where they belong.
What if you wanted to create an undead dwarf, do you still sacrifice a human? What about an undead T-Rex or an undead dragon?
And if you kill a T-Rex, is that a sacrifice (and if it is, is it an irrevocably bad one?) or simply ridding the world of a nasty predator?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed creating an undead was evil because:
a)It involves channeling negative energy
b)You are defiling a corpse
As for souls and such... I have always played that when you die, you 'go into the light' (burning fires, whatever)-Your soul is gone to a 'better place'.
If someone decides to muck about with your fleshy, mortal remains, your soul isn't involved.
I mean, can a low level caster animate your corpse as a skeleton, and tear your soul from its final resting place, forcing it to come back to the mortal world?
Nope.
Having your corpse raised doesn't prevent resurrection, because your soul isn't trapped in the corpse.
Wut? It prevents True Res?
uh... did not know that.
We don't play that way, houserule I guess. Wow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed creating an undead was evil because:
a)It involves channeling negative energy
b)You are defiling a corpse
A) Negative energy isn't evil, otherwise the plane of negative energy would be evil and inflict spells would be evil.
B) That would be dependant on the culture. Cremation in some cultures would be considered defiling a corpse, but it is not universally classed as evil.
I assumed creating an undead was evil because:
a)It involves channeling negative energy
b)You are defiling a corpseA) Negative energy isn't evil, otherwise the plane of negative energy would be evil and inflict spells would be evil.
B) That would be dependant on the culture. Cremation in some cultures would be considered defiling a corpse, but it is not universally classed as evil.
The game has been published by English speaking North Americans.
Traditionally, the mores and values of this group has been applied to the game.
Generally, defiling corpses is seen as bad.
If you come from a culture where this isn't the case, it may seem odd to you, but to 'us', it is evil. Cannibalism isn't normal here, animating dead isn't 'normal' in the game world.
Assumptions are made, generalities applied.
Giving examples that go against this has no relevance, as there are exceptions to virtually all things.
As for channeling negative energy to animate a corpse, I guess I'm assuming another cultural bias. The words 'negative' and 'animating a corpse' SOUND evil (again, cultural bias).
Ruleswise, it's evil because the writers of the game said so. I guess we don't need to discuss any further than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules it does prevent resurrection. Even True Resurrection.
And while animating your corpse as a skeleton doesn't directly involve your soul, creating higher level undead seems to - particularly the various intangible ones.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and True Resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.