Why do people presume undead template means evil template?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kalindlara wrote:
I think the point is thst people want to see that "any evil" bit removed.

I would submit that nothing stops them from doing so in their game, but the pathfinder universe has a pretty clear cut and logical cosmology on the matter.


Kalindlara wrote:
I think the point is thst people want to see that "any evil" bit removed.

yes, i wouldn't go as far as to say let a lich be good like 3.5 allowed with the book Libris Mortis or in the Forgotten Realms Setting with Baelnorn and the arch-lich, but say maybe allow liches to be any non-good alignment


I've experimented with the idea of non-evil undead before but I think liches at the very least have earned their Always Evil title. Even in a universe where undead aren't assumed evil, liches are because if the process that made that creature undead wasn't vile to the core they would be a different type of undead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not just homebrew a new monster instead of fiddling with a classic and iconic monster that is always, and always has been evil? I just don't understand the need to complicate this...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why remove it, is my thought.

There are tons of ways to narratively accomplish what you need a character undead for without making it undead?

Do you need it to live forever? There are ways to do that.

Why do you need non-evil undead?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Why remove it, is my thought.

There are tons of ways to narratively accomplish what you need a character undead for without making it undead?

Do you need it to live forever? There are ways to do that.

Why do you need non-evil undead?

Why do you need Evil undead?

Sovereign Court

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Why do you need Evil undead?

Because Pathfinder's mythology is based upon classical myths - and I certainly can't think of any classic stories in which the undead aren't evil.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Why remove it, is my thought.

There are tons of ways to narratively accomplish what you need a character undead for without making it undead?

Do you need it to live forever? There are ways to do that.

Why do you need non-evil undead?

Why do you need Evil undead?

No one needs it... because it's already there. It's written into the game just like all the other rules and procedures, and fluff. It just is the way that Paizo wants it to be.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Why do you need non-evil undead?
Why do you need Evil undead?

Why not Zoidburg?


DominusMegadeus wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Why remove it, is my thought.

There are tons of ways to narratively accomplish what you need a character undead for without making it undead?

Do you need it to live forever? There are ways to do that.

Why do you need non-evil undead?

Why do you need Evil undead?

I don't need evil undead, I already have evil undead.

Classically undead were monsters. They fed on the blood/life force/flesh/misery of the living. They were often cannibals. They were horrifying and a thing to be feared. Unlife is never classically painted as happy fun times either, in Myth and legend its a really horrible and often painful existence.

Even in the cases of "good" undead we are almost always shown that they are grateful for being released to death. You don't, generally, get tired of living unless something is really wrong and you consider death, "rest."

When the Undead guardian is released he sighs a happy sigh and says, "At last... Peace." Not, "Woo hoo! Time for me to go visit Aruba!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

That floodgate is going to open.

Then we all know what we will see... Good Vampires that hunt Vampires. Good Zombies, somehow, that rise to right wrongs and triumph over evil. Players will demand it, they will point to the spot in the forums, book, etc that a dev confirmed it, and blammo... It will suck.

The problem is that this will happen in your home games too. If you, as the GM, let in one, then players will get twitchy and you'll have countless demands for them.

It has happened before, it will happen again, and it will continue in this cycle for all time.

Nobody is going to tell you that you can't have black and white morality in your games. Nobody is going to force you to consider your villains' motivations beyond being evil for the lols. If that is how you want to run your game, that's okay. Some people prefer to run differently.

If you're happy having entire species as evil to make them antagonist fodder, that's okay. Some people aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

That floodgate is going to open.

Then we all know what we will see... Good Vampires that hunt Vampires. Good Zombies, somehow, that rise to right wrongs and triumph over evil. Players will demand it, they will point to the spot in the forums, book, etc that a dev confirmed it, and blammo... It will suck.

The problem is that this will happen in your home games too. If you, as the GM, let in one, then players will get twitchy and you'll have countless demands for them.

It has happened before, it will happen again, and it will continue in this cycle for all time.

Nobody is going to tell you that you can't have black and white morality in your games. Nobody is going to force you to consider your villains' motivations beyond being evil for the lols. If that is how you want to run your game, that's okay. Some people prefer to run differently.

If you're happy having entire species as evil to make them antagonist fodder, that's okay. Some people aren't.

Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.


RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.

No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

Shadow Lodge

hey guys. here's an idea.
what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration


HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.


Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Shadow Lodge

Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

that might also happen,


Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

Honestly I think it's more that something about being undead that makes you evil. In Pathfinder certain actions are inherently evil regardless of situation, intention, or motivation.

This is touched on in Blood of the Night how a vampire feeding is evil. So its a losing battle to remain good because the act of surviving at that point is an act of evil.

It could be that simply BEING undead is an evil act and over time it forces an alignment shift.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...


Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

Species isn't a game term. Undead is something you become not something you are born. It is an acquired template. Is not equivalent to race or species. It's Lamarkian, not normal heritability.


Adagna wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...

Acting in opposition to Pharasma is not necessarily a good or evil act because Pharasma is neither good nor evil.

Again, Pharasma hates undead and the people who create them because trapping a deceased soul in a corpse helps bring about the end of the world by Groetus, and Pharasma isn't really a fan of the whole apocalypse thing.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...

Acting in opposition to Pharasma is not necessarily a good or evil act because Pharasma is neither good nor evil.

Again, Pharasma hates undead and the people who create them because trapping a deceased soul in a corpse helps bring about the end of the world by Groetus, and Pharasma isn't really a fan of the whole apocalypse thing.

so that would mean the whispering way was created by groetus, right?


Groetus isn't (generally) responsible for the creation of undead, it's just that he benefits from it. Creating undead is akin to dumping toxic waste in the drinking water and figuring that the results will be someone else's problem.

Shadow Lodge

Arachnofiend wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...

Acting in opposition to Pharasma is not necessarily a good or evil act because Pharasma is neither good nor evil.

Again, Pharasma hates undead and the people who create them because trapping a deceased soul in a corpse helps bring about the end of the world by Groetus, and Pharasma isn't really a fan of the whole apocalypse thing.

could you cite sources on that. it's not on the wiki

the wiki claims that he's waiting for "the last soul to die" before starting his apocalypse, which is a remarkably thoughtful thing for an apocalyptic god to do.
wiki wrote:
Overlooking all of Pharasma's Boneyard is another, lesser god. This is Groetus (pronounced GRO-tus)[1], the god of the End Times, a sentient and cruel moonlet that looks down upon the Boneyard and waits for the last living soul to die. When Pharasma judges the last soul after the last living body dies on the Material Plane, Groetus will descend to the Boneyard to do something to it and Pharasma before he moves on to the Material Plane to "clean up" and pack the dust away for another reality. No one really knows what Groetus is going to do once the last soul is judged, but it is generally accepted that it will not be pleasant.

given that half undead exist from relations between undead and mortals, and that undead can do this potentially hundreads of times over an extended period of time, they might prolong reality if they knew about this


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


The only reason it was initially popular is that the author's husband was famous. (Though I do find it interesting that the cold setting was inspired by the year in Europe without a summer due to a volcanic eruption.)

That's kind of like referring to Hurricane Sandy as a few days of heavy rain. :) The eruption of Mt Tamboru was the most powerful explosion in recorded history, dwarfing even Krakatoa. "The Year without a Summer" was a global effect noted even here in America.


Lord Foul II wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

hey guys. here's an idea.

what if the vampires and whatnot aren't actually always evil, but the one who judges them (pharasma) hates undead (and she does) and it doesn't matter because she has her hate on

the more learned undead who know this would probably act more evily out of frustration

or not act evil to spite her

Wouldn't the more spiteful thing to do be to be good? Then everyone would be like "what the hell is Pharasma's problem? Those zombies are so helpful and thoughtful. One carried my groceries in the house the other day. I hate Pharasma for hating these lovable little scamps!" That would be epic level spite...

Acting in opposition to Pharasma is not necessarily a good or evil act because Pharasma is neither good nor evil.

Again, Pharasma hates undead and the people who create them because trapping a deceased soul in a corpse helps bring about the end of the world by Groetus, and Pharasma isn't really a fan of the whole apocalypse thing.

could you cite sources on that. it's not on the wiki

the wiki claims that he's waiting for "the last soul to die" before starting his apocalypse, which is a remarkably thoughtful thing for an apocalyptic god to do.
wiki wrote:
Overlooking all of Pharasma's Boneyard is another, lesser god. This is Groetus (pronounced GRO-tus)[1], the god of the End Times, a sentient and cruel moonlet that looks down upon the Boneyard and waits for the last living soul to die. When Pharasma judges the last soul after the last living body dies on the Material Plane, Groetus will descend to the Boneyard to do something to it and Pharasma before he moves on to the Material Plane to "clean up" and pack the dust away for another reality. No one really knows what Groetus is going to do once the last soul is judged, but it is generally accepted that it will not be pleasant.
given that half undead exist from relations between undead and...

I'm pretty sure undead don't "count" for the souls to be judged but I can't find the source for it now. I thought for sure it was in Inner Sea Gods, hrm...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

whether vampires count or not is (almost) irrelevant.
given that dhampiers DO count


I don't recall any sort of interplay between undead and Greotus.

Rather, undead are hiccups in the system.

One of Pharasma's jobs is to judge the dead. And the undead simply can't be, because they're off contaminating the prime and trying to create more undead rather than getting processed. (I suppose occasionally an undead soul meets the criteria for going to Greotus, though.)

Do keep in mind that undeath is pretty infectious. Even lowly zombies can spread undeath if they're made right.

Undeath can easily become epidemic if it isn't "treated."

Shadow Lodge

For the intelligent undead type, why does infectiousness matter
Hell, in golarion humans will f+@+ (and breed with) anything
So will Dragons
Why are they treated differently


Lord Foul II wrote:

whether vampires count or not is (almost) irrelevant.

given that dhampiers DO count

Dhampirs are in a weird spot because they're not technically undead.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

whether vampires count or not is (almost) irrelevant.

given that dhampiers DO count
Dhampirs are in a weird spot because they're not technically undead.

but they still have souls


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

whether vampires count or not is (almost) irrelevant.

given that dhampiers DO count
Dhampirs are in a weird spot because they're not technically undead.
but they still have souls

...Yes? Dhampir are humanoids and Pharasma doesn't judge people on the circumstances of their birth, only how they lived their life. I wouldn't expect her to hate Dhampir as individuals though she likely bemoans the existence of the race as a whole.

Sovereign Court

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


The only reason it was initially popular is that the author's husband was famous. (Though I do find it interesting that the cold setting was inspired by the year in Europe without a summer due to a volcanic eruption.)
That's kind of like referring to Hurricane Sandy as a few days of heavy rain. :) The eruption of Mt Tamboru was the most powerful explosion in recorded history, dwarfing even Krakatoa. "The Year without a Summer" was a global effect noted even here in America.

Fair enough - I should have just said the northern hemisphere. (I think that the effect on the southern hemisphere was much more limited.)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes but an individual vampire who makes let's say 100 dhampiers (with 100 living souls) over the course of a thousand years will do more to hold back the end of the world than a halfling or dwarf would be able to

And she totally does judge people on the circumstances of their (re)birth
Reincarnate: fine
Raise dead: sure
Breath of life: "wha I didn't notice"
Create undead: get that EVIL shit out of my face


Lord Foul II wrote:

Yes but an individual vampire who makes let's say 100 dhampiers (with 100 living souls) over the course of a thousand years will do more to hold back the end of the world than a halfling or dwarf would be able to

And she totally does judge people on the circumstances of their (re)birth
Reincarnate: fine
Raise dead: sure
Breath of life: "wha I didn't notice"
Create undead: get that EVIL s#@$ out of my face

Those sure are four means of creation that don't bring a new soul into the universe and are not considered birth.

Shadow Lodge

That last one though can. You can theoretically create multiple intelligent undead from the same dead guy.
You usually don't because most of the creation types are mutually exclusive, but not all of them are, especially when you cast make whole a few times after dismembering the body
And a lot of people, heck probably most people, would see any method of coming back to life as a form of birth, especially if you come back in a different form like reincarnate or create undead


Wasn't ripping souls into multiple pieces a Voldemort thing?

Shadow Lodge

Different setting, but kinda.
Why do you ask?


I mean, I'm not sure what setting there would be where tearing souls into pieces in order to fuel multiple undead would be a good thing. And if that's not what's happening when you use one person to make multiple undead, then why do you need souls to create undead at all?

Shadow Lodge

it doesn't usually happen.
It is possible that you don't actually need souls to make undead, like how does undead creation interact with daemons makeing soul gems.


Lord Foul II wrote:

For the intelligent undead type, why does infectiousness matter

Hell, in golarion humans will f%$# (and breed with) anything
So will Dragons
Why are they treated differently

Because dragons, humans, etc., are all living creatures that receive souls from the Positive Energy Plane.

While undead are the corruption of existing souls.

I mean, your question is kind of like "why are babies okay but anthrax isn't?"

I don't think it's that far of a stretch to view undeath as as extremely vicious supernatural disease.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.

Actually, there are quite a few undead that just spring into existence naturally.


Ashiel wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.

Actually, there are quite a few undead that just spring into existence naturally.

Are there any that don't come to be due to the agony and unrest of the soul in question?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.

Actually, there are quite a few undead that just spring into existence naturally.

"I hate you so much my corpse got back up the next day and starting eating brains."

I'm not sure naturally is the right word for it. =P


Lord Foul II wrote:

Yes but an individual vampire who makes let's say 100 dhampiers (with 100 living souls) over the course of a thousand years will do more to hold back the end of the world than a halfling or dwarf would be able to

And she totally does judge people on the circumstances of their (re)birth
Reincarnate: fine
Raise dead: sure
Breath of life: "wha I didn't notice"
Create undead: get that EVIL s!#~ out of my face

Well, there is a general implication from various things (particularly psychopomps I think, which are her servants) that they start getting annoyed and going for you if you raise yourself too often.

As a goddess of fate (well, a former one, I suppose), she tends to take more of a long view when it comes to coming back. Essentially, if you keep on needing a rez, people will eventually get tired and just leave you to rot. And you will still end up dying at the end of your natural lifespan. So at most, it is just an extra couple of hundred years.

Undead can survive for thousands of years if no one kills them. Especially if they get stuck in a cave or something. Often, those that willingly become undead are actively seeking to permanently escape their final judgement- which gets them on her bad side.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some examples of undead purported to spring into or have sprung into existence naturally from Bestiary I.

Ghouls purportedly sprang into existence from cannibalism.

Ghosts spontaneously just appear because they're pissed off. Being pissed off doesn't actually make you evil though (though the description doesn't seem to realize this but according to the alignment rules you actually do have to, y'know, do evil to be evil).

Morhgs spring into being when someone who has killed a lot of people dies. Of course, most adventurers slaughter a ton of things over the course of their careers...

Specters are typically evil dudes too pissed to die so they spontaneously turn into specters instead of dying. So like ghosts, except with more hatred for blue-robed ice wizard/monks. They also really like harpoons and fire...maybe...

Wights spontaneously burst into existence do to things as simple as "a violent death", though they are noted to also be create-able through necromancy or being douchebags. However it's important to note that simply suffering a violent death is enough, so you might end up with a murdered housewife springing back up out of no where. Another fun fact is that pre-Pathfinder (3.x), merely being slain by negative energy / negative levels meant you sprang up as a weight, so if a chaotic aligned commoner picked up an axiomatic weapon - bam - instant wight.

Skeletons and Zombies aren't purported to spontaneously spring up into existence "because reasons" but that's never stopped Paizo from using them in that way, such as with a bunch of samurai skeletons in a certain adventure path who just happen to pop up because they sense a disturbance in the force.

On a Side Note
I kinda think I might run a campaign in the future where a party wakes up after an apparently fatal event, wondering why they're all alive, only to later realize they died and all returned to life as wights after their violent deaths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.

Actually, there are quite a few undead that just spring into existence naturally.
Are there any that don't come to be due to the agony and unrest of the soul in question?

Morhgs can spring up just 'cause they killed lots of bros.

Some undead spring up from being slain by other undead or various negative energy attacks.

While not naturally occurring, happy flowers and sacred oils and linen undead (e.g. mummies) don't require them to be particularly pissed or unhappy about anything. Neither do ghouls.

Of course, the funny thing is...

Nothing about the undead type prevents their alignment from changing after the fact so if they decide to be good there's not a damn thing stopping them from doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Undead aren't, in fact, a species they are a condition.
No they're not, they're a type, like outsider or ooze.

They aren't a naturally occurring type. Neither are oozes.

The only ways to become undead are through magic, disease, or curse.

Actually, there are quite a few undead that just spring into existence naturally.

"I hate you so much my corpse got back up the next day and starting eating brains."

I'm not sure naturally is the right word for it. =P

Well, naturally being defined as innately or inherently, it's pretty natural. It just happens as due course in some cases.

Humorously, while hatred can lead to evil, hatred is not in and of itself evil according to the alignment system. Acting on hatred could lead to evil, however.

Or you could just be a victim of a murderhobo and wake back up a bit paler than usual with a delightful defense mechanism in the form of energy drain.

EDIT: Amusingly, if your party's barbarian kills lots of dudebros in a big battle and then dies during the battle, everyone in question can stand up later as an undead, with the barbarian possibly springing up as a morgh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
but they still have souls

Undead also have souls.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Because Pathfinder's mythology is based upon classical myths - and I certainly can't think of any classic stories in which the undead aren't evil.

Osiris, one of the first undead in mythology. Ra was also undead at one point iirc. And there are other figures in religion who have come back from the dead and are seen as divinity rather than abomination. I mean, in real mythology there isn't really such thing as positive and negative energy.

Ryan Freire wrote:
I would submit that nothing stops them from doing so in their game, but the pathfinder universe has a pretty clear cut and logical cosmology on the matter.

Well the golarion universe, and even then there are non-evil undead in the golarion setting. Pathfinder has rules where you can remove alignment, which I use to get around the boring idea of "Undead are all evil, and there is no way you can ever have a resurrected corpse that does anything that isn't evil".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agony and unrest aren't exactly unnatural either. Unfortunate certainly. But the fact people can come back from unfortunate circumstances unrelated to active necromancy speaks to something far more primal. It's hard to argue it's unnatural unless you want to argue bad things happening is unnatural as well.

Take Floodslain for example. Undead who arise from people who are killed by the natural disaster of spring flooding. There's no necromancer here. No evil act. No vile situation that gives rise to them, simple panic and fear and unrest.

The only explanation in these cases is that undead are a natural occurance. If someone feels strongly about something, they can return. It can be forced by magic, but it doesn't have to be. This is far more natural than making a golem, forcing a sentient being into a shell and making them dance for you.

So by what standard are we measuring natural here? This is a world where plants can maneuver around and eat people, beings from another dimension can be forced into inanimate suits and made to cavort for your amusement, one can make energy from nothing, men can fall 200 feet and survive semi reliably, and the dead can decide they're pissed enough to not want to move on right now.

Which one is unnatural? All of them? Some of them? We can call the undead not normal, they certainly don't always happen. We can call them undesirable, which is certainly the norm. But unnatural doesn't seem accurate since they can happen without any input from intentional force. Indeed as long as souls exist, and death exists, it seems the two can combine to make undeath regardless of anyones will. I mean, I doubt anyone WANTS to be an animal intellect level roaming corpse that's trying to climb over you to escape the drowning that consumes it's every moment.

101 to 150 of 1,318 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do people presume undead template means evil template? All Messageboards