| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The the most part you have just given a list of the advantages of undead. That is like saying the advantages of the psotitive energy plane are [list all the things living creatures can do].
Pest control and self defence using negative energy is still killing things. Incidentally undead are imho a very unethical workforce.
Your list represents a kind of dystopian pragmatic society. Maybe that would work well for a kingdom like Nex.
It would be more extensive of a list but PF rarely actually states when positive and negative energy are used. For example, remove disease might use positive energy/negative energy/neither. Raise dead might use positive energy/negative energy/neither.
As for the pest control and self-defence... That doesn't equal killing. Immobilization and fear can easily be used for those that don't involve death.
And, PF hasn't had a book that actually focuses on negative energy or undead like libris mortis. So negative energy spells are rather short in supply.
Though if I used my imagination about what could be possible, there are things like anaesthetic, stopping convulsions, removing diseases and cancers, contraception, allow blind people to see and allow deaf people to hear, non-lethal offensive spells, provide function to limbs that normally cannot work, provide more efficient methods of slowing/breaking vehicles, more humane method of execution for both use against livestock and criminals, sculpting gardens, stopping rain from touching you, allow function despite an organ ceasing to function, perfect waste removal, landscaping, putting out fires, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So explain why literally anything in the universe dies when it stays on the Positive Energy Plane and Negative Energy gets the bad rep.Actually, undead (and constructs) are unharmed by time spent in the positive energy plane, because the blinding and exploding are non-harmless effects that don't work on objects. Furthermore, fast healing works fine on undead.
So while living creatures will explode when they take in too much positive energy, undead creatures will just gain an arbitrary amount of risk-free temporary HP.
This makes perfect sense.
Paizo pls...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so undead are evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil.
I've pointed that out before, but I like the way you say it better:)
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.
The reason I said nature clerics over just netural clerics is because of people saying that evil was the only way to get negative energy magic and it is an affront to nature... and then a nature priest comes in a starts shooting negative energy everywhere. But still, lawful good clerics can do negative energy effects. Negative energy isn't considered evil, just... undead... but the only justifications for undead being evil is because negative energy is harmful to life and the material plane... in which case it should apply to all negative energy spells.
Sure, but the point is if they had the space then Joe the Nature Cleric probably wouldn't actually have that option, he'd have some kind of custom spell list that didn't include things like that. Domains were the 'easy' way to do 2e's spheres and as such they lost some fidelity in terms of making clerics pop, flavor-wise.
Note also clerics *do* have the code of conduct clause, which may or may not encompass these sorts of things. Because such things are setting-specific, the rules are silent on that. (Another reason why this line of argument is ultimately non-productive.)
I've pointed that out before, but I like the way you say it better:)
Wait, so undead are evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil.
Cute, but you're conflating the positions of a number of people. Some say negative energy is evil, so being animated by it gives you a proclivity towards evil. Some say undead are evil and are the exemplars of being driven by negative energy, so that's evidence negative energy is evil. I don't believe these are the same people, so it's not circular, even though it may not go deep enough for your tastes.
There are alternative explanations, some of which have been said in this thread. You are free to reject them in your head-canon. The rules don't really dig into these details, so it's up to groups who care enough about root causes to decide for themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but the point is if they had the space then Joe the Nature Cleric probably wouldn't actually have that option, he'd have some kind of custom spell list that didn't include things like that. Domains were the 'easy' way to do 2e's spheres and as such they lost some fidelity in terms of making clerics pop, flavor-wise.
And my point is that that is irrelevent. Because that is a tangent to the point of "you can get negative energy from non-evil forces, such as good gods" which if they wanted to stop wouldn't even require any additional pages since it's just adding [evil] to all negative energy spells.
Some say negative energy is evil
And they are objectively wrong so we can ignore them to increase thread efficiency.
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.The reason I said nature clerics over just netural clerics is because of people saying that evil was the only way to get negative energy magic and it is an affront to nature... and then a nature priest comes in a starts shooting negative energy everywhere. But still, lawful good clerics can do negative energy effects. Negative energy isn't considered evil, just... undead... but the only justifications for undead being evil is because negative energy is harmful to life and the material plane... in which case it should apply to all negative energy spells.
No, undead are evil because they have a tendency to do evil things. I haven't seen official justifications for that. I also haven't seen official justification for why red dragons are evil, only descriptions of the way they act that way.
If you're only talking about mindless undead, that's a different matter. But again, there are other reasons a body that naturally needs positive energy would be...wrong when filled with negative energy, even if the negative energy isn't evil itself. Note here that not all evil results from being "wrong" but it's one way to get into the maniacal rather than pragmatic evil camp.
If you reject all those explanations (which is a fine position), the last explanation is that respecting life is good and undead just aren't on that team by their very nature. Intelligent undead can choose to flip their personal balance, but non-intelligent undead don't have that power.
So please don't claim that the only justification for undead being evil is because negative energy is. You can feel free to reject any or all of these justifications, but none rely on an inherent evil to negative energy.
Some say negative energy is evilAnd they are objectively wrong so we can ignore them to increase thread efficiency.
I don't disagree that it's not really supported. But I get annoyed by the straw manning that I was responding to. The point was that gluing together two arguments you disagree with to get to circular logic is really only circular if the same person/camp is espousing both beliefs. I don't believe that's the case here.
If you're only talking about mindless undead, that's a different matter. But again, there are other reasons a body that naturally needs positive energy would be...wrong when filled with negative energy, even if the negative energy isn't evil itself.
Except that is not a fact rules-wise because of things living creatures animated by negative energy turning evil when animated, whether by race or feat or effect.
Basically, one of the big problems with Undead = Evil is that for all justifications I've heard, there are things that show it cannot be true because there... isn't really a justification so there was nothing to defy when it comes to making stuff. They're evil because 3.5e and James Jacobs like that idea.
Undead just aren't on that team by their very nature.
In what way?
I don't disagree that it's not really supported. But I get annoyed by the straw manning that I was responding to. The point was that gluing together two arguments you disagree with to get to circular logic is really only circular if the same person/camp is espousing both beliefs. I don't believe that's the case here.
The person I responded to did use that circular logic though, it wasn't gluing together two arguments, read the posts that come before the Necromancer Paladin post. That is why I only said it to that one individual rather than as a general statement.
Drahliana's argument was just undead are evil, so negative energy is evil. I didn't see claims of the other direction, but that could be a matter of interpretation. Ultimately I think your arguments have been reasonable and in good faith, so I don't want my chiding of others' arguments that I don't think have been in good faith to come across as though they're directed at you. I think there are some points that you're glossing over and I'm attempting to helpfully point them out, but it's possible some of my tone spills over from the people who I think are trying to win rather than make reasonable points.
As for the "team" thing, if we define the "life" that good creatures respect narrowly, "unlife" isn't on that team. I don't find that reason appealing, which is why I don't use it personally. I want life to mean things that are sentient with a sliding scale for things we don't know about.
Let's be clear about things to make sure we're not arguing for the same side. I think that just like red dragons, intelligent undead have a tendency toward evil. There are a lot of flavor reasons for it. Templates aren't really about how you take an existing character and make them a vampire, they're about how you make a vampire from a stat block for a creature. So the rules don't really say that individual becomes evil from my perspective. They don't really address what does or doesn't change about that character's personality, but if we're trying to fill in the flavor for why vampires tend (I think strongly) to be evil there are a few options. I think it's a corruption factor but it could just be which ones survive more than briefly because the good characters wrongly think they're unstoppable monsters now.
If we're talking about non-intelligent undead, I think we legitimately disagree. Ultimately, though, the personality of the base creature is probably irrelevant there. They have some idle behavior they'll do and we can make up reasons for it if we like. The fact that they're actually aligned is part guilt by association and part the fact that those creatures typically act in a way that, if we called them intelligent, would be murderous and evil in existing tropes. I wish they were neutral, but the fact that zombies are fully affected by holy smite doesn't really make me sad. And the fact that evil spells bolster them and that they have synergy with evil clerics is a feature to me, not a bug.
So that's my general perspective. I would rather if they were neutral but had an ability that said they were affected by magic as though they were evil. But this is close enough for me and I can come up with in-universe justification enough to satisfy me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the "team" thing, if we define the "life" that good creatures respect narrowly, "unlife" isn't on that team. I don't find that reason appealing.
I see issue in this simply because while Good respects life may mean that they do not have to respect undead, that I am finding it hard to understand why that would make them considered evil. I mean, constructs are not on that team either.
Let's be clear about things to make sure we're not arguing for the same side. I think that just like red dragons, intelligent undead have a tendency toward evil. There are a lot of flavor reasons for it. Templates aren't really about how you take an existing character and make them a vampire, they're about how you make a vampire from a stat block for a creature. So the rules don't really say that individual becomes evil from my perspective. They don't really address what does or doesn't change about that character's personality, but if we're trying to fill in the flavor for why vampires tend (I think strongly) to be evil there are a few options. I think it's a corruption factor but it could just be which ones survive more than briefly because the good characters wrongly think they're unstoppable monsters now.
I can understand some creatures having a tendency towards evil, even if I personally dislike it, I can see it as reasonable. What I do not find reasonable is a whole creature type with a tendency towards an alignment because of flavour reasons that... aren't actually in the game. It's a swepping decision with a lot of ramifications, but... with no actual justification flavour-wise why it is that way. We can make justifications ourselves, but ... they generally fall flat because of some other rule that paizo has made that contradicts that theory.
If we're talking about non-intelligent undead, I think we legitimately disagree. Ultimately, though, the personality of the base creature is probably irrelevant there. They have some idle behavior they'll do and we can make up reasons for it if we like. The fact that they're actually aligned is part guilt by...
With non-sentient creatures, I will always maintain that they should follow the rules for non-sentient creatures like vermin and animals and constructs that are non-sentient. Having undead be a specific exemption to how everything else works has a large amount of flavour ramifications, that are completely unresolved leading many people (including myself) frustrated to such an "apparently" nonsensical decision.
I'll leave the bigger issues for later discussion, but non-life isn't the same as unlife. One is not life while the other is the antithesis of life. Like I said, it's an argument of last resort that's better than "because I said so" but not much more satisfying because it cheapens good vs. evil by making it awfully close to direct team sport in this case by hinging on definitions rather than concepts. But if you define life narrowly, undeath is pretty much the ultimate disrespect for life. Not just lacking respect (which would be neutral) but actively spiting it.
My personal justification for evil mindless undead in-world is flawed vessel, though.
And, of course, sentient undead are definitely sentient beings, so yea, Good does imply a concern for the dignity of sentient undead.
When an intelligent undead creature isn't being a threat to other creatures, either as a predator or a plotter, I agree completely. When that's true at a deep enough level, there's a good chance the undead creature would not be evil.
Edit: Avaron, we'll have to agree to disagree on undead is antithesis of life vs. antithesis of death. On the good vs. evil or green vs. orange, living and undead aren't interchangeable. If life is closely tied to what it means to be good that distinction is important. But that seems like something Asmodeus would use to separate good and evil. So there is a legitimate difference between the two with this assumption, but it hinges on the cosmology having a perspective that I'd rather stay away from. Plus, it's an assumption I don't need to have a consistent cosmology.
Avaron, I typically don't like to chime in just to agree with someone (when there is a dispute it often feels like piling on and when there isn't it's typically unnecessary), but other than the certainty that a portal won't open up and spew out a bunch of wraith on an unsuspecting village, I agree completely. When they aren't a threat to protecting life, a good creature should either let undead unlive or restore them to life.
Milo - I appreciate the conversation here. Your counterpoints helped illuminate another perspective from mine and I hope my points help reconcile the admittedly dogmatic perspective on undead, even if it's just how someone with different needs can find the status quo valuable.
I think the biggest difference between our perspectives is the stories I want to tell about benevolent undead work best as ghosts, exceedingly rare exceptions, or related non-undead creatures (think the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). Since good undead aren't a core opponent constituency, the lack of variety isn't getting to me, either. Plus, ghosts are such a catch-all for reasons to stick around that you can fit that for pretty much any tragic undead-creating backstory you need.
So thanks again. I'm glad to have explored your stance to the point of understandable differences. I know I'm richer for it.
...this is fairly logically sound. But using the same logic see my above point about casting holy word being good.You know what the [Evil] tag does?
Tells you clerics of Good deities can't cast it. That's it.
Not exactly. Good Clerics, even of Neutral deities, cannot cast it either.
Nowhere in the actual rules does it say "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". It's totally reasonable to say they are, but the rules don't actually do it.It is not written that specific way, but still :
"Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells." (PRD, Cleric class, section on Spells).
So, there are indeed evil spells and these spells are exactly those that a Good Cleric or Cleric of a Good deity cannot cast.
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions." (PRD, Cleric class too).
So, some spells do indeed have an alignment. The prohibition on casting them indeed checks if they are opposed to the alignment of the Cleric or his deity. And the association with an alignment is indicated by the alignment descriptor.
So, the rules do indeed tell us that spells with the indicator Evil are indeed evil spells.
They do not tell it like this because a CE spell (with descriptors Evil and Chaotic) is an evil spell, but also a chaotic spell. The wording used in the PRD (above) just uses less wordcount which has great value for designers and publishers ;-)
If Holy Word is a spell with the Good descriptor, then it is a Good spell.
Is casting Holy Word always a Good act ? I would say yes as far as just the
Casting it was good. Killing a baby depends was the baby a danger to you or others?
If no, then good spell + murder of multiple non-danger babies = evil.
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.
Siabrae would like to have a word with you, being literally undead druids who still have full druid powers.
And are lead by the single most powerful druid in Golarion at the moment.
Here is an interesting sidebar from Pathfinder's Classic Horror's Revisited. To be clear I don't think it is the final word on the subject but it offers a rational for why Undeath is evil in Pathfinder. Note it goes on to say there can always be exceptional individuals. The book is well worth a read.
"Skeletons and zombies are evil, even though they are mindless. This is because undeath itself is a naturally evil force, just as fire is naturally hot. While life and death exist in a cycle, neither is inherently good or evil, for creatures must die to feed others and make room for new life, which in turn must die to make room for even newer life.
Undeath, by contrast, is a perversion of the natural order; an endless state that is neither life nor death, and a power that only corrupts and consumes. Vampires and brainhungry zombies cannot create new life or sustain other life, they can only destroy life and propagate their kind until the world is filled with undying predators and no prey. Even things built with the power of undeath are merely perversions and mockeries of life, whether an animate corpse or an intelligent palace made of bones.
This is not to say that all necromancers are evil or the school of necromantic magic is inherently evil. Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force—the magic of death and the magic of undeath are two different things. A circle of death spell uses the power of death to snuff out life, but it is no more evil than stabbing a creature with a sword. Some argue that magic is just a tool, and how a tool is used determines whether the act is good or evil, but a counterargument holds that some tools are specifically designed to be used for evil, like implements of torture. Worse, some tools are inherently evil, and want to be used for evil. If fire always burned the innocent and spared the guilty, fire would be evil. Undeath is an inherently evil source of power, designed to corrupt and destroy life for no purpose other than hatred and because it can.
There are exceptional, intelligent undead that are not evil, just as there are extremely rare demons and devils who become good, but evil is the norm because their essence is evil.”
The book goes on to explain in a case by case basis why the creature is evil, drawing on the real world legends that inspired them and the in-game justification. For instance...
Not so the ghoul, a feral, constantly ravening glutton whose hunger compels it to seek out the living and whose curse is so horrifyingly fecund. Here, one sees the perfect synthesis of undead blasphemy and living cruelty—a death that brings no peace from madness or hunger... Necromancers have long known the secrets of infusing a dead body with this vile animating force. With the spell create undead, a spellcaster can waken a body’s hunger and transform it into a ravenous ghoul. Stories abound as well of spontaneous transformations when a man or woman, driven by bleakest desperation or blackest madness, resorts to cannibalism as a means of survival. Whether the expiration that follows rises from further starvation or the death of the will to carry on in light of such atrocity matters not, for when death occurs after such a choice, a hideous rebirth as a ghoul may occur.
Now I am curious about the opposite, the unlife.
Inherently GOOD source of power that corrupts the natural order by creating too much life where it does not belong to.
This is because undeath itself is a naturally evil force, just as fire is naturally hot.
Okay... lets see Golarion's (not applicable to RPG-line) reasoning.
Undeath, by contrast, is a perversion of the natural order; an endless state that is neither life nor death, and a power that only corrupts and consumes.
Undead don't only corrupt and consume... And perversion of the natural order isn't good or evil, it's just not neutral. In this specific case of "defying the order of life and death", it should be considered chaotic (which is presumably why Marut exist).
Vampires and brainhungry zombies cannot create new life or sustain other life, they can only destroy life and propagate their kind until the world is filled with undying predators and no prey.
Zombies, can sustain some forms of life but... I'll admit that's a stretch. Vampires on the other hand can create dhampirs, they can summon food, they can be eaten by the living creatures that feed on undead and any creature with purify food and water, etc. I mean they are sentient beings, they can do much more than just destroy life and make vampire spawn.
Even things built with the power of undeath are merely perversions and mockeries of life.
Perversion and mockery aren't evil though...
edit:
Now I am curious about the opposite, the unlife.
Inherently GOOD source of power that corrupts the natural order by creating too much life where it does not belong to.
One of my players made those as a positive energy focused necromancer... the things he animated were pretty horrific.
Milo, it isn't that this line of reasonsing isn't applicable, it's that it isn't binding. it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to use the same logic as the golarion designers to apply to their own pathfinder world.
You say perversion of the natural order isn't evil other people say it is. I don't see how you can contradict the designers absolute statement with your own opposite absolute statement. At best you can create some doubt but they are the designers - they get to choose their world.
Mutating something already living or changing something living into something else isn't creating life. It is perverting life. Even if you take the route that dhampir are conceived by vampires and not a curse or pregnant woman bitten by a vampire, the dhampir are themselves sterile - ending the line.
I've just presented a rationale for why the designers of Golarion (who are after all in many cases are the designers of pathfinder) felt that undead should be evil in most cases. You just aren't happy with that and refuse to accept that the alternate viewpoint is even valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Milo, it isn't that this line of reasonsing isn't applicable, it's that it isn't binding. it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to use the same logic as the golarion designers to apply to their own pathfinder world.
I said not applicable since Golarion fluff doesn't always match up with RPG so you cannot innately trust golarion fluff when it comes to taking it on in a non-Golarion setting. For example, religion and clerics work different in golarion to they do by the rules.
You say perversion of the natural order isn't evil other people say it is.
Because nature =! good in Pathfinder. Nature = Neutral, that's why druids have to have one of their alignments as neutral. Too much good energy on the material plane is a friggin perversion of the natural order. Casting raise dead is a friggin perversion of the natural order since it's defying death.
I don't see how you can contradict the designers absolute statement with your own opposite absolute statement.
Primarily because there's is stuff in the rules that hurts their argument.
At best you can create some doubt but they are the designers - they get to choose their world.
So?
Mutating somethings already living or changing something living into something else isn't creating life. It is perverting life.
I didn't say that mutating things or changing things was creating life. I think you may have misunderstood some part of my post.
I'm not sure it's practical continuing the debate if that is how it is going to be approached.
Those reasons you posted are why it is how it is in Golarion. Nothing I can say can change that, no amount of argument from my will change the objective fact of how they decided it works in golarion. But, I don't read golarion books because I dislike the setting and disagree on many areas with it's primary designers. So, when I discuss these things I am primarily going to look at "RPG-line" and "Campaign setting-line" second.
So if golarion has stuff that disagrees with the RPG-line... I don't really care, since I will use RPG-line over campaign-line. RPG-line overrides Campaign Setting basically, because... well campaign setting line describes a campaign setting which can take liberties and do what it wants to do. It can disagree with the RPG line all it wants, but that stuff is just setting-based houserules.
Also, the campaign-line, rpg-line and player-companion lines are all done by different people. All of it is done by Paizo, but different people have different amounts of sway in the different areas.
So are you saying that the various feats, monsters and equipment released in the campaign lines are not part of the rpg line or are you happy with some cross over but pick and choose what it is?
So are you saying that the various feats, monsters and equipment released in the campaign lines are not part of the rpg line or are you happy with some cross over but pick and choose what it is?
They aren't.
For example, one of the problems that came up with Pathfinder Unchained was that with Unchained Barbarian and Unchained Rogue they only discuss the rage powers and rogue talents from the RPG-line of books and not mentioning how they work with the rage powers and rogue talents from the player companion and campaign setting lines because the RPG-line of books are specifically designed as if those options do not exist.
Another is how Unchained says Unchained Summoner works with all archetypes, regardless of the fact it's mechanics don't work exactly with some player companion archetypes. It doesn't mention those archetypes, because they don't exist to the RPG-line.
Another example is how the monsters from Inner Sea Bestiary have been reprinted in the Bestiaries. Until that time, they are setting specific while RPG-line is setting neutral.
RPG-Line is separate to the other lines, and handled by different teams (though members from one team can go over to do stuff with the other teams, like Mark Seifter's stuff in Familiar Folio and the wood and void kineticist elements).
Though I'm not sure what you mean by "some cross over but pick and choose what it is". Do you mean in my personal games?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say perversion of the natural order isn't evil other people say it is.
It can be argued they're not even a perversion of the natural order, as I mentioned above, the Siabrae keep their powers as druids.
Considering you can lose your druidic powers for using metal armor, being too evil or too good, spreading disease (Pallid Plague), killing your animal companion or teaching non-druids your secret language, that's incredibly significant.And I remember asking a while back on a AMA on Reddit why undead were evil and the answer basically boiled down to 'We have a one line to describe the alignment of creatures and Paladins smiting undead is very traditional, so we put 'em as evil'
Which is just as valid a reason as any really. No one (Alright, most aren't) is saying Undead being all evil all the time isn't a valid position.
But it is a boring position and poorly justified and very, very often defied at best, within the setting canon.
Sometimes easiest answers come when you approach the rules like if it was a video game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes easiest answers come when you approach the rules like if it was a video game.
So undead are evil because the aimer goes red if you look at them?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inherently GOOD source of power that corrupts the natural order by creating too much life where it does not belong to.
One of my players made those as a positive energy focused necromancer... the things he animated were pretty horrific.
I think one of the reasons so many players, GMs and designers are either unable to recognise the treatment of positive vs negative energy is contradictory, or unwilling to admit that contradiction is a problem, is that there's rarely been any exploration of what it means to be inundated by positive energy.
Other than a brief mention of the planar effects in a plane virtually no-one will go*, there's virtually no ill effects to most PC races, from being exposed to positive energy.
*(and even these aren't strictly 'horrific', since most players will see it as 'free hit points. Wahey!', and simply ensure to keep stabbing themselves, to avoid any long-term damage.)
Most positive energy effects are described in a passive way, as the removal of a hindrance, or disabling condition, rather than as an active force applying profound changes on the target.
Like hitting a reset button, to go back to the last save point, before the Bad Thing happened.
The ubiquitous Cure Light Wounds spell, as described in-game by most players and GMs, turns a PC with a deep, ugly scar back into a fresh-faced beauty, with skin as smooth as a baby's bottom.
Sign me up, baby! Hit me with that healing stick!
Imagine if, instead, the flavour text took pains to describe the wound being filled with bubbling purple flesh, erupting from the body's surface like a wall being filled too enthusiastically with expanding spray foam. A web of twisting veins, strangling the meat, causing it to bulge, throbbing and pulsing, the excess hanging from the patient, like a bunch of trembling grapes, occasionally popping from internal pressure, spraying all bystanders with gore.
Once out of immediate danger, the patient must seek help from a practiced surgeon, to take a knife to their flesh, to slice off the excess tumours, and sew them back together in a manner that would allow them to walk abroad in polite society, without attracting the screams of children, causing the weak-hearted to faint, and provoking the civic-minded populace to grab torches and pitchforks to drive this abomination from their town, or to a nearby pyre.
That could be the way it works, like the elder evil Ragnorra mentioned earlier.
I also like the way it was described in the dark sun books with the sun cleric searing the wounds effectively cauterising them.
Ironically in second edition, mummies were animated by positive energy rather than negative - at least according to Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead. The rationale for this is interesting.
The flavour of miraculous healing is generally more benign than tumour like growths filling the gaps. That isn't how most magical healing is described in literature and film, but why not if it fits your game.
You say perversion of the natural order isn't evil other people say it is.It can be argued they're not even a perversion of the natural order, as I mentioned above, the Siabrae keep their powers as druids.
Considering you can lose your druidic powers for using metal armor, being too evil or too good, spreading disease (Pallid Plague), killing your animal companion or teaching non-druids your secret language, that's incredibly significant.And I remember asking a while back on a AMA on Reddit why undead were evil and the answer basically boiled down to 'We have a one line to describe the alignment of creatures and Paladins smiting undead is very traditional, so we put 'em as evil'
Which is just as valid a reason as any really. No one (Alright, most aren't) is saying Undead being all evil all the time isn't a valid position.
But it is a boring position and poorly justified and very, very often defied at best, within the setting canon.
Not sure that is a good example for the particular argument...
They took the corruption into themselves, and today, these druids exist as blighted, undead parodies of their former selves. Known as siabraes, these powerful druids have embraced undeath, bolstered with the strength of the wounded-but-still-living world beneath their feet, and fight not only against demonic trespass into their realm, but against all living creatures, for they are filled with bitterness and hatred for their brethren, whom they regard as cowards. The druidic faith was meant to die, the siabraes believe, for the truth and glory to emerge.
The description specifically calls them out as corruptions of the natural order.
Plus they are neutral evil...
I do agree however that there should always be exceptions to the rule. I really enjoy the Drizzt books. I just want the vast majority of my dark elves to be evil.
They took the corruption into themselves, and today, these druids exist as blighted, undead parodies of their former selves. Known as siabraes, these powerful druids have embraced undeath, bolstered with the strength of the wounded-but-still-living world beneath their feet, and fight not only against demonic trespass into their realm, but against all living creatures, for they are filled with bitterness and hatred for their brethren, whom they regard as cowards. The druidic faith was meant to die, the siabraes believe, for the truth and glory to emerge.
That's the thing, they're corrupted, undead and twisted every which way but loose.
And yet, they are still druids, with druid powers, approved by whatever elemental force makes the call on if a druid is a druid.And they're evil because they're bitter, haggard old men who think their entire faith should have died, not because they took the foulness of the world wound into themselves, theirs is a mortal evil, rather than being corrupted by their very nature.
They're still a part of the natural world and their part of the worldwound is in fact, doing a lot better than the rest of the worldwound specifically because of what they did, which just goes to show you can do some good by becoming undead/sacrifice yourself by becoming undead for good reasons without being entirely damned.
Edit: And I am totally fine with all/mostly evil races, I just don't think undead should be one of them since, like I said before, undead aren't a race, they're mostly just people, who've died horrible deaths, or been cursed, so on, so forth. You remove the tragic element if they're all evil all the time.
Perfect example being the Fellsig, who are evil, resentful and filled with the fury of their terrible deaths, but can still empathize with the living who are damaged. Got a great scenario going on at the moment where my character in one of the games I'm in is having to hire on fire-marked miners to dig in an area heaving with Fellsig, who in turn haven't attacked the camp site, resulting in us digging out silent dwarven hallways and having to negotiate with them constantly about what we can and can't touch/damage/so on, in return they're helping us navigate the traps, creatures that have moved in and we're learning a lot of incredible history of the city we're excavating.
That's so much more evocative and interesting than if they'd just been a besieging enemy who attacked mindlessly every night.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Milo v3, I think you have one concept backwards. The main line of Paizo is the AP line - the RPG was created to support that line. So while the Pathfinder RPG can be used to run any setting you like, the design intention was that it be used to run APs - which are set on Golarion. So the "in-built" fluff of the RPG is such that it conforms to Golarion in general. Thus it can be informative to examine Golarion to determine what the designers were thinking when creating the RPG.
Now, an argument can be made that they have drifted to form more distinct entities over time, but certainly back in the CRB/Bestiary I days, which is where a lot of this fluff originates, the RPG was basically an accessory to the APs. So when you choose to ignore Golarion, which is entirely your right, you choose to ignore the basic setting assumptions on which the original rules were written - so of course there will be things that don't make sense in that context.
For most intelligent undead it's very easy to justify why the average specimen would be evil. Vampires have to maim in order to feed (ability drain never heals on its own), and most of them feed on sentient beings. The creation of a lich's phylactery likely involves some terrible acts, a la Voldemort's Horcruxes. Heck, I could see requiring phylactery creation to involve binding an innocent soul and tormenting it for as long as the phylactery exists - thereby tying the lich's immortal existence to the continuing suffering of innocents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For most intelligent undead it's very easy to justify why the average specimen would be evil. Vampires have to maim in order to feed (ability drain never heals on its own), and most of them feed on sentient beings.
Psst...
Vampires deal ability damage with their blood drain ability. Blood drain deals a most 4 Con damage. You recover 1/day always, 2/day if you're resting or have someone with a +5 in Heal or rest in bed for a day. Or 4/day if you take a day off and have a healer with +5 in Heal.
Since vampires only need to feed once per day per HD of the vampire, even vampire spawn (who have 4 HD) can feed once every 4 days (which means even if they kept feeding on the same person, they'd never kill them). The sample vampire in the Bestiary needs only feed once every 8 days (8th level sorceress).
Vampires are one of the least harmful undead in the game. They can subsist more or less indefinitely off a couple of people or animals and never kill anything.
In fact, in a campaign I was running a while back, a couple of PCs (including a Paladin) were willing donors to a few vampires they had befriended. Especially since the Paladin just recovered the ability damage instantly with lesser restoration each day.
If a vampire kills someone, it was gluttony; an attempt at gaining more power; feeding on those who are already dying; or because they're trying to get "more power" in a hurry (since feeding on creatures can allow them to temporarily amass lots of temporary Hp and such).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, that's kinda the point though. Vampires are supposed to be able to hide among the populace and be a sort of urban count castle dwelling superbad. Even the art for the sample vampire looks very much like a noblewoman or someone attending a ball (it's not hiking gear, that's for sure :P).
If you were just leaving a trail of corpses in your wake, it wouldn't be particularly helpful.
Sometimes easiest answers come when you approach the rules like if it was a video game.So undead are evil because the aimer goes red if you look at them?
Yes kinda.
After all, Pathfinder is a system for normal adventures, kind where you are good guys in shining armor and you kill exotic evil dudes in exotic locations.
Undead is merely another different flavor of enemy. Like demon, or ooze, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
For most intelligent undead it's very easy to justify why the average specimen would be evil. Vampires have to maim in order to feed (ability drain never heals on its own), and most of them feed on sentient beings.Psst...
Vampires deal ability damage with their blood drain ability. Blood drain deals a most 4 Con damage. You recover 1/day always, 2/day if you're resting or have someone with a +5 in Heal or rest in bed for a day. Or 4/day if you take a day off and have a healer with +5 in Heal.
Since vampires only need to feed once per day per HD of the vampire, even vampire spawn (who have 4 HD) can feed once every 4 days (which means even if they kept feeding on the same person, they'd never kill them). The sample vampire in the Bestiary needs only feed once every 8 days (8th level sorceress).
Vampires are one of the least harmful undead in the game. They can subsist more or less indefinitely off a couple of people or animals and never kill anything.
In fact, in a campaign I was running a while back, a couple of PCs (including a Paladin) were willing donors to a few vampires they had befriended. Especially since the Paladin just recovered the ability damage instantly with lesser restoration each day.
If a vampire kills someone, it was gluttony; an attempt at gaining more power; feeding on those who are already dying; or because they're trying to get "more power" in a hurry (since feeding on creatures can allow them to temporarily amass lots of temporary Hp and such).
I stand corrected on the drain thing. Not sure where I got that from, but it's a misconception I've apparently had for years...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most likely sources are...
A) The name, because the ability has the word "drain" in it, though it means drain in the traditional sense.
B) It was written as drain in 3.5, probably due to the writer of the template was again making a mistake due to the name.
Nevertheless it is 1d4 con for every six seconds of feeding. I think vampires aren't exactly famed for their self restraint and temperateness.
I don't doubt their are edge cases where some vampires generally care for those they feed off. The sparklers of the twilight saga for instance. However, these should be exceptions to the general rule. When you are immortal, incredibly powerful and most normal humans fear and loath you it isn't hard to see why in literature and film most vampires look at the humans they feed on as cattle.
Regarding the point about the damage not meaning anything because it can be healed. A sword stroke to the side or a broken leg can be healed, it doesn't mean it isn't a traumatic/painful experience. I don't think 1d4 con drain is negligible and level drain is certainly not going to be pleasant. I don't think you should trivialise vampire encounters by saying - not to worry the damage can be healed. That is not good storycraft or roleplaying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nevertheless it is 1d4 con for every six seconds of feeding. I think vampires aren't exactly famed for their self restraint and temperateness.
Hence why those vampires are evil. It's already been noting that simply using your blood drain attack on someone counts as a feeding and staves off the hunger. If you're drinking enough blood to seriously hurt somebody, you're (most likely) doing so purely for evil reasons.
However, these should be exceptions to the general rule. When you are immortal, incredibly powerful and most normal humans fear and loath you it isn't hard to see why in literature and film most vampires look at the humans they feed on as cattle.
I've said as much in this thread. However, that's again being evil for being evil, not for being undead or even for being a vampire. It just means that given immortality and an enjoyment of blood, the new vampire decides to be evil because there's seemingly no repercussions.
This is akin to someone who would totally love to go on a killing spree but doesn't for fear of retribution, but absolutely would if they became an unstoppable super villain. Normal commoners and most normal soldiers and such have little hope of actually effectively harming, let alone defeating a vampire. So it's not hard to see this happening.
It's a consideration for adventurers too. Even the 3.5 DMG mentioned that high level characters may lose any respect they have for society's rules simply because they expect there to be no way for society to enforce those rules (and it's not wrong).
Regarding the point about the damage not meaning anything because it can be healed. A sword stroke to the side or a broken leg can be healed, it doesn't mean it isn't a traumatic/painful experience.
Given that it is actually impossible to kill someone using it unless they've already suffered damage, and it doesn't in itself actually cause damage, it's questionable as to how painful it actually is. Likewise, how traumatic it is would also depend on the circumstances surrounding the situation. Willing donors (even if those donors were simply charmed) wouldn't likely be traumatized at all, for example.
I don't think 1d4 con drain is negligible
It's not Con drain, and it actually is pretty negligible if you're not out adventuring all over the place or suffering from some other malady.
and level drain is certainly not going to be pleasant.
Level drain strait up kills people. However, the vampire's energy damage is applied on their natural attacks and isn't involved with their blood drain ability. Which means that vampires using abilities like dominate to get commoners to lower their guard so they can feed on them, or simply grappling them (knowing there's nothing a commoner can do to bypass your DR and fast healing), means never energy draining them.
I don't think you should trivialise vampire encounters by saying - not to worry the damage can be healed. That is not good storycraft or roleplaying.
I don't really care about your opinions on story telling or lectures on roleplaying. I'm talking about the facts and since you know nothing about my story telling (and seem to ignore anything I've said about actual vampires in my games) I doubt I will anytime in the future either.
Con ability damage can kill people. It is an exception to damage to the other stats I believe. A person with con damage is suffering severe trauma to their body's leaving them weaker and more vulnerable even if it doesnt kill them. The act of feeding may not be traumatic, but being left on deaths door certainly could be.
This represented by the mechanical effect of the damage. If 10 con is a healthy human, 6 con damage is taking you 60% to death. This is in addition to the fact that it is reducing your curent and maximum hp and fortitude saves.
Trivialising any encounter's impact by saying the damage is irrelent and is easily healed is metagaming. You can make claims that vampire attacks are painless but you haven't provided evidence for that, beyond your own opinions.
You are free to play vampires in your campaigns pulling their punches, avoiding energy drain, only drinking the minimum blood to survive. You can do that. I prefer my vampires along the Strahd von Zarovich / Dracula lines. Then again I'm a traditionalist.
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.Siabrae would like to have a word with you, being literally undead druids who still have full druid powers.
And are lead by the single most powerful druid in Golarion at the moment.
Siabrae are neither clerics nor non-evil so I'm not sure what your point is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Siabrae are neither clerics nor non-evil so I'm not sure what your point is.Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.Siabrae would like to have a word with you, being literally undead druids who still have full druid powers.
And are lead by the single most powerful druid in Golarion at the moment.
The implications can get a bit weird, though. According to the druidic faith, being undead is more natural than metal armor? ("Zombies? Well, sure, they're still walking around with all the rotting flesh and everything, but it's not like they're blacksmiths.")