Science! I'm playing a true neutral wizard who got her hands on some Animate Dead through treasure. I didn't forgo necromancy so I can learn, prep, and cast it without issue. However: it's evil because... Reasons?
From my character's perspective, she likes to push the limits of magic and acceptability, finding unusual combinations and digging into the lesser-explored parts of magic. She's even going loremaster at 9. Her desires for undead are to give herself sight with Isitoqs (as she's blind), create a Bloodied Skeleton whom she can use for assorted tasks and spell combinations, and possibly to stitch some gently used undead together to make a necrocraft, FOR SCIENCE! It's curiosity and pushing boundaries, not necessarily "evil", but... The spell is evil. Three strikes and you're a bad guy because "reasons".
So I guess double question/advice needed. Question, is this evil,? Advice, are there wizard spells with the "good" descriptor to balance out, turning morality into a balancing game that doesn't feel particularly realistic but... If my character goes evil I'm not allowed to play her.
My lawful neutral cleric suffered an alignment change from using animate dead too much. His original purpose was "for science!" and study since he was trying to figure out how to create a new race of sentient beings who are powered by negative energy instead of positive energy.
He never did things "to be evil" but I couldn't really argue with the DM that after casting a spell several dozen times that literally says in the description "casting this spell is an evil act" that he would change alignment. Basically the "evil energies" involved corrupted him.
The alignment change in this case, wasn't even harmful to the character in any way. He worshiped a LE god, so going LN to LE meant if anything he was now closer. He only ever animated the bones of his fallen enemies and the bones of those that his ghoul cohort "assured him" were his enemies.
anyway, the interesting point was that when I spoke with my DM about the alignment change. He felt that my alignment shifted when I made my first bloody skeleton (I had been using the spell before this template was a thing). My DM's reasoning was that this was far more evil than just trapping a soul to animate a skeleton, because the soul could no longer be released by just killing the skeleton. It wasn't only not a limited duration, but it was longer than what a normal skeleton would suffer.
It's really a DM call and it depends on what else your character is doing. My character did lots of good things and all of the surrounding good aligned kingdoms saw my character's kingdom as an ally, especially against the demonic forces we faced. But my character did plenty of terrible things behind the scenes and was decidedly LE.
In a side combat, I literally saved a Hag (as in the creature) who was being attacked by angelic forces, by slaying said forces. It confused the snot out of one of my party members who insisted on following me. My character was able to convince him that things weren't what they appeared to be. After of course I'd come to an agreement with the hag... :)
I don't think animate dead uses a soul to animate the undead, just negative energy.
The Resurrection spells seem to indicate that this is the case.
A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be returned to life by this spell.
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.
In both of these cases the body isn't required and yet if I've animated Farmer Joe into a skeleton not even a Reincarnate or True Resurrection can bring him back. The fact that the latter can bring him back once you destroy said skeleton, tells me the soul is trapped in some way.
Even Speak with dead says.
This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.
Though you do bring up an excellent point. Casting animate dead is not an evil act because it happens to have the evil descriptor. It's an evil act because it messes with the creature's soul in a negative way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As has been pointed out several times in many threads, the Horror Adventure rules have a pretty severe loophole that allows spellcasters to essentially control their alignment. As a result, pretty much no one is running things RAW and every table is doing their own thing. Alignment is very much a talk to your GM issue because the current rules are basically dysfunctional and no one is using them as-written.
Depends how you look at it. I see the issue being one of matching the soul to a given vessel (as in your mortal body). For that, you need the vessel. If the vessel is currently filled with negative energy, you can't really put the sould back in there, so you can't ressurrect. But the undead creation isn't really messing with the soul, at least in the case of basic skeletons, the spell is just messing with the vessel.
except, it's not just "messing with the vessel" as you put it. I could alternatively, take your body chop it up into tiny bits and burn those bits to ash and in both the case of reincarnate and true resurrection (which are the spells I quoted) I can bring you back to life, because the state of the body doesn't matter. Both spells specifically create a new body for the creature.
If body's state didn't matter, it would work on undead versions of the body. See Resurrection
And in fairness, I suspect the reason it doesn't work on undead is more game mechanics, as it doesn't allow saves, so if it did work on undead, this would be a great way for high level characters to defeat even higher level undead. So it works on undead that have been destroyed, but not on "functional" undead.
I see your Resurrection and raise you a True Resurrection.
This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion
As for your argument of not "Phoenix downing" undead to death, I don't know, all the heal spells hurt undead and the save or die spells start at 4th level; raise dead is 5th level. So, I doubt it's a balance issue. Speaking of Raise Dead (which all these spells are based on), while it doesn't have a save, it says that if you don't want it to affect you then it doesn't. In essence it does have a save and you have to willingly forfeit your save against the spell for it to work on you. So, even if it did function against undead, it wouldn't kill them because the undead doesn't want to be killed.
Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces. An undead creature has the following features.I'd think if something as key as using a soul to animate them was in, this would be mentioned. Also, Resurrection requires the soul to be free and willing to return, if it was bound in an undead body it would not be free
In addition, the subject's soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.That's why I don't see animating zombies and skeletons as requiring a soul...Lich is another matter, and that would be evil and requires a soul.
um.... I'm confused, It sounds like you're agreeing with me but then you end by saying that you don't.
yes, Resurrection does not work on someone who has been turned into an undead. Unless I missed something skeletons and other mindless undead creatures are still undead and getting turned into one blocks Resurrection.
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.
It even blocks true res which doesn't require a body of any sort.
That is a big difference I've noticed in the undead-making spells. There's "creating undead", and "animating the dead". And the premise for the alignment questions. One is, according to the deities like Pharasma, perverting life. The other is using a body like a magic puppet.
The question feels more like "when does a body stop being a body and become matter?" My wizard also uses Defending Bone, a spell of Pharasma's favor that uses a skull or femur as a focus. If I animate that same skull into a flaming Beheaded though, or borrow it's eyes for Isitoqs, suddenly it's evil.
Creating an intelligent undead like a Juju Zombie or Skeletal Champion feels potentially evil, and seems to involve the soul since they keep their class levels and memories from life. A skeleton though from description is animation. "Let me borrow these bones for a bit." A Necrocraft is stiching loose undead parts together into a different undead. Putting pieces together into something new. A Flesh Golem is the same idea but... Not evil? An Isitoq can be a familiar with no problem, but making one you're a monster. They're even intelligent, essentially reliving the moments before their death and inflicting them on others.
Point of interest, my animation subjects are bandits and their leader's undead (for the Necrocraft). I mean... Good thing to do: destory them permanent with Holy Water (my wizard carries some to deal with undead). Or she can put them to use helping us, rather than letting good material go to waste. As a neutral character, I feel she views everything at her disposal more as a tool than the connotations of how it influences "good" or "evil".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? This topic again?
How many times do we need to bicker over whether animating dead should be evil or not?
If you think it should be cool make it so in your game. Personally, I prefer creating undead to be evil as that suits my preferred image of an undead creature - they should be a horrific malevolent abomination not a morally ambiguous grey area.
You know Paizo's view. If yours differs, house rule it. Simple.
We can argue this one 'til the cows come home. Just talk to your GM.
If your GM rules that casting [Evil] spells makes you evil, just follow up by casting a bunch of [Good] spells until you're not evil. Animate Dead once. Protection from evil three times. Easy day.
You can get past a lot of the moral objections by animating only unintelligent beasts. Kill a wolf. Eat the meat. Clean the bones and bring it back as a skeleton.
I still think it's weird that making a golem isn't evil, but making animated skeletons is evil. I mean, in both cases, you are basically making robots. Materials is the difference.
Actually, there is one key difference.
The golem-making process is partly spelled out. They are animated by binding an elemental, merging it into the substance of the vessel, and using it to animate the vessel into a mindless, obedient automaton.
Elementals are intelligent creatures.
So you are enslaving an intelligent creature, trapping it in a mechanical vessel, and either lobotomizing it or putting it in an "I have no mouth and I must scream" situation with no control over its body.
So, clearly, the one making skeleton cows is the evil one.
You know Paizo's view. If yours differs, house rule it. Simple.
Which, funny enough, is the, "Cast three Protection from Evils and call me in the morning," version if you're going by the books. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want shamblers (and why would you?) to use as trap-springers and flanking buddies and arrow fodder, human hirelings are cheaper to 'make' (as in, cost a heck of a lot less to hire than you'd spent in onyx making skeletons or zombies), and while it may be little-e evil to send a bunch of living hirelings to their certain deaths, it's not big-e evil with punitive rules mechanics attached.
Animate object is also an option, as of Ultimate Magic, IIRC, and if you want your 'animated objects' to be corpses, that's totally up to you (although it's probably more optimal to make them out of something sturdier and less likely to annoy the peasantry).
Creating undead is either a waste of perfectly good onyx, that you could spend hiring far more capable henchmen, or, if you manage to get control of one capable of creating spawn, totally broken (until it dies and all of the sub-spawn turn on you, ending your career in a fitting and grimly poetic fashion...).
If you want a non-evil necromancer, focus on spells that manipulate life-energy in helpful, or at least non-nasty, ways, or use negative energy in interesting ways (such as to drain energy from an area or effect or creature, weakening it). Find increasingly creative uses for bestow curse or research variations on ray of enfeeblement that affect an area, or confer the stolen strength to you (or a third party within range), or that grant the effects of chill touch to an ally's weapon, or make a contagious cause fear effect that attempts to spread to anyone whom the victim passes during their flight.
The current rules seem to encourage non-playable necromancy options, but the spell research rules are part of the core rules, and you can use them to make a viable non-evil necromancer, focused on damage and debuffing and even buffing effects (by transferring stolen life-energy or strength to allies). The game (and / or setting) may not offer much in the way of encouragement, but the toolbox is robust and limited only by your imagination.
Similarly, Spell Focus (abjuration) and Spell Focus (divination) may be kind of sub-par compared to Spell Focus (evocation), but it's an afternoon's work to whip up some offensive abjuration spells (causing a foe to reject beneficial spells, or even causing spells on a person to explosively unravel, so that he takes damage each round they remain upon him, as the durations burn away double fast), or offensive divination spells (opening someone's mind to a flood of useless sensory data or historical insight that leaves them staggered).
Mindless undead do not utilize the soul. They are given life through Negative Energy, which is the opposite of life (Positive Energy), yet paradoxically is used in this manner, and that is why creating undead is in and of itself an Evil act. Intelligent undead DO utilize the soul alongside Negative Energy, trapping and tormenting it; thus, creating intelligent undead is far worse than creating mindless undead like zombies and skeletons.
It's all up to the GM in regards to alignment changing, but if you're Neutral, I'd say the act of casting Animate Dead or its Lesser version shouldn't be enough to bump you over to Evil unless you do it a lot or do it often. Casting Create Undead and its Greater version, however...
If they don't utilize even part of the soul, why do they stop true rez, which doesn't care about the body's condition?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like to see is a Paizo PF1E or PF2E neutral or white necromancy tradition, including archetypes and spells.
Instead of the usual (and easier) method of magically forcing dead souls to perform services, it would work more like mentally reaching out to the dead souls, persuading and asking the dead souls for their help. In return for their one-time service of animating a corporeal shell, manifesting, or powering a necromantic spell/effect, the white necromancer or witch would agree to grant some reciprocal favor, commensurate with the task performed. These favors would also help ease the souls and haunts passage into the afterlife toward their final judgement.
If they don't utilize even part of the soul, why do they stop true rez, which doesn't care about the body's condition?
As far as I've been able to tell, animated dead would not stop a true res. People appear to be reading "it can't resurrect constructs or undead creatures." as not being able to res someone who's body was animated. Or overread "someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.".
I think the intention if for an instance such as example: vampire Dracule. You cannot true ressurect Dracule, while he is currently a vampire. There cannot be 2 Dracules. Nor can you ressurect vampire Dracule, were he destroyed, as he is an undead.
An animated dead like an Isitoq or Skeleton is not "Skeleton Dracule", it's just race skeleton. Without intelligence they are mindless, or as ability damage states: "A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose." A ghost and zombie can exist of the same person. The body and spirit are separate. Nothing of their self is retained. Base creature loses feats, skills, etc. You can't even divine to ask them questions with Speak with Dead. Either their self is retained like a vampire and they're "alive" for the purpose of the spell, or as a mindless undead, the original inhabitant is not there.
Regardless of whether the undead have any memories of their past selves or any semblances of a mind, as a GM and a player, I have always operated under the rule that some spark of the original spirit/soul was trapped to animate the mindless zombies and skeletons. Therefore, until the undead is physically destroyed, any form of raising/resurrection/reincarnation is prevented as is the soul's ability to move on into final judgement in the afterlife.
If they don't utilize even part of the soul, why do they stop true rez, which doesn't care about the body's condition?
They don't. That text refers to the fact that you can't take an undead creature, cast a resurrection spell, and bring them back to life. You have to kill the undead first, THEN you can bring them back.
A ghost and zombie can exist of the same person.
Where is this in the rules?
How many unded can i make from one corpse?
Can i take a corpse, chop off its head and hands, put it in a suit of armor and then proceed to create
1 ghost, 2 crawling hands, 1 hollow helm, 1 guardian phantom armor, a beheaded and a ghoul?
By your interpretation i should ve able to
A ghost and zombie can exist of the same person.Where is this in the rules?
How many unded can i make from one corpse?
Can i take a corpse, chop off its head and hands, put it in a suit of armor and then proceed to create
1 ghost, 2 crawling hands, 1 hollow helm, 1 guardian phantom armor, a beheaded and a ghoul?
By your interpretation i should ve able to
One by one.
Ghost: No, a player cannot make a ghost with even Create Undead, Greater.
2 Crawling Hands: Yes.
1 Hollow Helm: Yes. However any Phantom Armor disolves the corpse used, so you lose whatever pieces you use. In this case, the head.
1 Guardian Phantom Armor: No, it specifies that it destroys the corpse, thus it would destroy the entirety of your corpse. If you make the beheaded and crawling hands first, it would have no head or hands, losing all things that require those.
Beheaded: No, you're using the head for the Hollow Helm.
Ghoul: No, you're using the body for a Phantom Armor. And even otherwise, without a head or hands, it has no attacks.
Reading each of them individually it tells you the requiments for each. My "interpretation" was pointing out that a creature being a ghost does not stop you digging up his grave and animating his remains. This doesn't kill the ghost, the ghost isn't even aware.
With one body, you can animate the sum of it's parts like any material. You can't spontaneously create new material (without some Conjuration or Transmutation anyway). Perhaps instead of just listing undead you assumed made of "soul" or "flesh", reading each may have been appropriate?
Example, you can't make a Beheaded and 2 Isitoqs. Animating the Isitoqs requires a different process than animating the Beheaded, and you cannot re-animate pre-undead flesh, even though Beheaded don't really require eyes. However, I could create two Crawling Hands from the same corpse I made the beheaded from. They're perfectly good hands. Or I could destroy the head's remains to make a Hollow Helm, make some othe Phantom Armor pieces of the legs, making some spooky boots, or a breastplate with the chest. All the while, the corpse's old ghost can be floating around, uneffected. None of these things require the creature's "soul" so to speak.
Now a Spectre, I can't find any solid information on. Like Vampires they create spawn, and I cannot find clear concensus on how Create Undead works in making them. Or any of the other major spawn-made undead listed in Create Undead.
Also, from James Jacobs himself on these very forums from a 2016 ama.
various undead questions
1 can you make a new zombie/skeleton from the remains of a defeated zombie/skeleton?
2 can you make a ghost(or other incorperal undead) and still make a zombie or other unintelligent undead of the corpse?
3 can you make a ghost(or other incorperal undead) and still make a ghoul or other intellgent undead? if not will the ghost be pulled in to the body to provide the intelligents for the body or will it just not work?
4 how much do you think people in inner sea region would pay to see a pickle punk choir/singing group?
1) Nope.
2) Yes.
3) Nope.
4) Depends 100% on the person in question. It'd range from 0 gp to everything they own.
So, you can have a production line of hollow helms using a single corpse via.
Create Undead and Polymorph any object.
Makes me question why a corpse is required at all. Additionally, shouldn't the default alignment for mindless undead be neutral just like it is for constructs?
So, you can have a production line of hollow helms using a single corpse via.
Create Undead and Polymorph any object.
Makes me question why a corpse is required at all. Additionally, shouldn't the default alignment for mindless undead be neutral just like it is for constructs?
In theory. As you can with PAO make non-living things into living ones. Though at that point, there are likely better things you could be doing with your 8th level spellcasting than pumping out a few haunted helmets a day. Also, not sure how it would work when the polymorph effect expires. Could use some additional research into using temporary transmuted materials as components for spells. Pebble to human, human to zombie would they turn back to pebble after 20 mins?
And to some extent I agree. I think mindless undead should likely reflect their creator. They are controlled after all. However, I also understand negative energy as an evil force, and it is what animates them. Negative energy has a desire for destruction, so left to their own devices, undead will destroy whatever they can. Under their creator though? Debatable in my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many unded can i make from one corpse?
[tangent] For a Scarred Lands game I ran, I wanted something other than just skeletons and zombies for low-HD challenges for my 1st level party, so the wicked necromancer was creating special undead from the skin (wrap around people and attempt to entangle them), viscera (ooze like piles of organs that schlepped around and vomited digestive acid on people) and blood (more liquid-y undead oozes that splashed onto people and attempted to blind and / or choke them). By bleeding, skinning, gutting and finally skeletonizing a single corpse, she could make four 1/2 or 1 HD undead out of them.
Later developments would have included flayed lungs and windpipes flapping through the air like a Viking blood eagle (with a weak fear-inducing moan) and floating brains dangling an entire nervous system like some sort of creepy jellyfish that had weak mental attacks (equivalent to a daze cantrip) and lashing nerve strikes that inflicted whip-like damage with an extra point of electrical damage. It was a whole theme. She was super-frugal, but also wanted to turn herself into an undead creature, one system at a time, and be able to split apart into many smaller undead, like a grotesque undead anatomy-lesson Voltron.
Since all of her research was into anatomy and bodily systems, I suppose she could have made yet another undead out of the soul or spirit, but she was more hands-on and didn't concern herself with matters of spirit. Plus the PCs killed the heck out of her before she got to finish her research. :)[/tangent]
3.5 was even more hilarious, in that you could make an unlimited supply of undead from rocks.
Fabricate to sculpt a statue, and in 3.5, Stone to Flesh explicitly said it turned a statue into a corpse, which makes it a viable target for animating undead.
Additionally, shouldn't the default alignment for mindless undead be neutral just like it is for constructs?
They are given life through Negative Energy, which is the opposite of life (Positive Energy), yet paradoxically is used in this manner, and that is why creating undead is in and of itself an Evil act.
Same goes as to why these mindless creatures are Evil aligned by default.
I thought that negative energy wasn't evil, just like positive energy wasn't good. Just forms of energy, balance of universe, etc. Inflict wounds which deals negative energy doesn't have the evil descriptor. So the premise that animate dead is evil because it uses negative energy seems flawed. In principle, it is how you are using negative energy that is the evil part. Now creating an evil creature seems like an evil act to me. I vaguely remember a time when in DnD zombies were neutral and as such it was possible to have white necromancers. But Pathfinder seems to have made all undead evil (with some exceptions I'm sure), and I'm not sure how you avoid the moral issue of creating evil creatures even for good purposes.
I thought that negative energy wasn't evil, just like positive energy wasn't good. Just forms of energy, balance of universe, etc. Inflict wounds which deals negative energy doesn't have the evil descriptor. So the premise that animate dead is evil because it uses negative energy seems flawed. In principle, it is how you are using negative energy that is the evil part.
That's correct: it's not BECAUSE it uses negative energy, but the WAY it uses negative energy. It is using death to give life. It's putting the way the universe works into reverse. It shouldn't be possible, but it is.