Also he's not the only non-good deity with the Sun domain or the Sun as part of his portfolio, there's also Aldinach (CE), Iaozrael (LE) and Azathoth (CN).
There's also Neutral and Good with Darkness: Count Ranalc (CN), Ashava (CG), Benorus (NG), Kelinahat (LG), Tanagaar (LG) and Yog-Sothoth (CN).
Also, you should really read the sources in that article instead of just believing it is correct. This is the actual Nurgal article from Lords of Chaos:
Not all who worship the sun do so with joy and kindness in
their hearts. Those who venerate the Shining Scourge worship
out of fear or awe. Nurgal embodies the destructive aspects of
the sun, and his minions walk without fear in the full light
of day. His lower body is that of a golden lion with a draconic
tail. His torso is deeply tanned and masculine, and he is rarely
seen without a heavy mace, the head of which appears to be a
miniature sun, held in one four-fingered, taloned hand. His
head is that of a lion as well, and blinding light spews from
his eyes and mouth.
Nurgal’s faith was quite strong in ancient Azlant, and not a
few Azlanti ruins bear evidence of this connection in carvings
that depict a fanged mouth around a sun or the presence of lionlike
monsters. Today, his worship has lessened, and is limited to
the deserts of northern Garund, Qadira, and ruined Ninshabur.
His Abyssal realm is known as Kuthan, an expansive region of
alternating desert and dry savannas under a vast red sun that
never moves from its noontime height above. Narrow gorges
hundreds of miles long connect Kuthan to its neighboring
realm, the Sea of Whispering Sands, where Nurgal’s lover,
Areshkagal, used to rule before being banished to the Blood
Clefts by her sister. Nurgal is also believed to be the half-brother
of Socothbenoth, but this relationship is not friendly, and the
two have been at war for as long as they both have existed.
Funny how it doesn't make a single mention of exceptions....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's presuming that the whole sun = good, dark = evil thing is actually a cosmological rule in Pathfinder which it isn't. You've got good and evil (and neutral probably) examples for all of them and nothing in their portfolios even remotely suggests "Well Nergal could have been a Greater Deity, but the Sun part of his portfolio messes with that" or what have you. It's a lot of reading between the lines and headcannoning in reasons.
Also Nergal is a Demon Lord, not an Infernal Duke /nitpick
Nurgal is a Demon Lord of the sun, Nergal is an Infernal Duke. They are the two halves of an evil Azlanti god of the sun, who was a full deity.
EDIT: Looks like I was responding to old posts, and my clarification was already made. But the Azlanti Nurgal was an evil deity of the sun, although I agree that is only an exception to the existing rule.
A link pointing him out deliberately as an exception to a rule doesn't dispute that a rule exists
Edit Link fixed
This post reminds me that the phrase "The exception proves the rule" is supposed to mean "the fact that some cases do not follow a rule proves that the rule applies in all other cases" not "the fact that some cases do not follow a rule invalidates the rule completely."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm gonna break down, mechanically, why I think it makes sense for animate dead to be evil.
First, you can create non-evil animated corpses with "Animate Object". This is a lot clearer of an example of differentiation between evil and neutral animation. These difference, demonstrated mechanically., implies a lot more of the mindless undead than simply locomotion. The basic undead, as mindless as they are, are still different from a simple animated corpse. They are undead.
Now, while animate object can be used on anything inanimate, animate dead requires certain things. It requires something that was once alive. You can't fashion a bunch of dirt and twigs into a shape of a person and make a zombie. Remains of constructs and undead cannot be used, either. This implies some manipulation of life and the soul.
Then, there is the nature of negative energy. While sure, it isn't inherently evil, it is something from which no good is going to come. It is anti-life, and should probably stay on its own plane.
A lot of the rules creates a delineation between animating an object through necromancy or transmutation. Not making that difference significant is boring above all else. Making necromantic animation evil is flavorful and interesting. I feel it is justified both in rules and setting.
a number of magic items are crafted from body parts of intelligent creatures (even humans). These items, and the crafting of them, are not called out as "an intrinsically EVIL act". Why not?
Heck, a number of ITEMS are crafted from body parts of semi-intelligent creatures - why isn't the crafting of leather items "an intrinsically EVIL act"? Perhaps we should label anyone dealing with dead thing as have severe social stigmas of kegare (穢れ or "defilement") attached to them?
Making a spellbook covered in human skin (or virtually any other use of humanoid body parts) should also be considered an evil act. You got me there.
People just need to stop saying this. It is not true according to the rules and it makes no sense. An act is neither good nor evil. This is why a lion or a robot that is simply following a program are incapable of evil acts. They. simply. are. not. capable; it's right there in the rules on p. 165, 1st column, fourth paragraph. Just stop saying it, fer cryin out loud!
Any act that is divorced from the intention to commit the act *cannot* be evil. If you find a wand and push a button, and it turns out the button is animate dead (you didn't know) and it actually animates some dead, the undead are evil, but you did not commit an evil act. If a robot is programmed to push a button that animates dead, the robot also did not commit an evil act. If a lion steps on a pressure plate that triggers an animate dead spell, the lion did not commit an evil act. If a three-year-old child drops a wand of animate dead, which triggers the spell, the child did not commit an evil act.
Philosophers have tackled this question from the start of civilization and the reasoning always led to the same conclusion. The terms that have been used for centuries are from Latin: actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the intent). Without mens rea, no culpability. In the Middle Ages, there was a period of time where mens rea was disregarded and you would be put to death if you accidentally killed someone (assuming you were a peasant and not a noble), but it was a brief and brutal departure from a more humanitarian philosophical underpinning of law. Even Hammurabi knew better centuries before.
But I also think that flesh golems should be intrinsically EVIL as well. I mean, instead of animating a corpse with magic, you are dismembering a half dozen or more corpses, sewing them together and then animating them with magic. That's gotta be at least as evil as animating undead!Biological research scientist here thinks neither should be inherently evil, btw, if once the soul has gone on, the body is just matter.
Particularly if you can do the Uberstadt-like thing of passing a whole bunch of the nastiest brute labour your society needs off to mindless undead (with some supervision), thereby saving lots of human(oid) misery, which would seem to me pretty definitely Good.
I completely agree.
actus reus: Animate Dead
mens rea: Reduce human misery (good)
Good intentions = Good alignment.
Now, the story I might tell as a DM is that you made a mistake because animating dead is risky, but if I want to tell a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" morality tale, that is another matter entirely.
If they make animate object able to attain roughly the same result as animate dead with similar access points, then by all means I'll give up on animating the corpses of my enemies to eat the rest of my enemies.
There is a certain je ne sais quoi to animating the dead. Some jerk tries to stomp you into stinky toe-cheese, you kill 'em, animate their corpse into your newest scroll caddie and sort through their pockets for loose change.
So, as I suspected, it has everything to do with the fact that Animate Dead is a cheap way to get a powerful effect. It always comes back to power.If they make animate object able to attain roughly the same result as animate dead with similar access points, then by all means I'll give up on animating the corpses of my enemies to eat the rest of my enemies.
There is a certain je ne sais quoi to animating the dead. Some jerk tries to stomp you into stinky toe-cheese, you kill 'em, animate their corpse into your newest scroll caddie and sort through their pockets for loose change.
Exactly. That is why it is so fun when a Good Necromancer raises a bunch of undead to further his good plans... then an Evil Cleric takes them over and wreaks havoc with what is now *his* Evil undead army. Fun for everyone.
Exactly. That is why it is so fun when a Good Necromancer raises a bunch of undead to further his good plans... then an Evil Cleric takes them over and wreaks havoc with what is now *his* Evil undead army. Fun for everyone.So, as I suspected, it has everything to do with the fact that Animate Dead is a cheap way to get a powerful effect. It always comes back to power.If they make animate object able to attain roughly the same result as animate dead with similar access points, then by all means I'll give up on animating the corpses of my enemies to eat the rest of my enemies.
There is a certain je ne sais quoi to animating the dead. Some jerk tries to stomp you into stinky toe-cheese, you kill 'em, animate their corpse into your newest scroll caddie and sort through their pockets for loose change.
"Powerful effect"?
The animated dead are barely worth their CR, let alone their cost. Animated objects usually aren't worth anywhere close to the effort required to animate them as a 6th level spell. Both groups are little more than "blockers" and are often less effective than the foes one encounters with animated dead/objects in tow by a large margin, similarly to summoned monsters.They come in handy for distractions, carrying heavy things when they're big enough and positioning themselves between me and the giants trying to stomp me into stinky toe-cheese.
Exactly. That is why it is so fun when a Good Necromancer raises a bunch of undead to further his good plans... then an Evil Cleric takes them over and wreaks havoc with what is now *his* Evil undead army. Fun for everyone.So, as I suspected, it has everything to do with the fact that Animate Dead is a cheap way to get a powerful effect. It always comes back to power.If they make animate object able to attain roughly the same result as animate dead with similar access points, then by all means I'll give up on animating the corpses of my enemies to eat the rest of my enemies.
There is a certain je ne sais quoi to animating the dead. Some jerk tries to stomp you into stinky toe-cheese, you kill 'em, animate their corpse into your newest scroll caddie and sort through their pockets for loose change.
"Powerful effect"?
The animated dead are barely worth their CR, let alone their cost. Animated objects usually aren't worth anywhere close to the effort required to animate them as a 6th level spell. Both groups are little more than "blockers" and are often less effective than the foes one encounters with animated dead/objects in tow by a large margin, similarly to summoned monsters.They come in handy for distractions, carrying heavy things when they're big enough and positioning themselves between me and the giants trying to stomp me into stinky toe-cheese.
I meant "powerful effect" to be a storytelling theme. I was not judging the actual power of the spell. I like the idea of a Good Necromancer messing with the bull and getting the horns. (I would only do it to an NPC, though, not to screw over a player.)
Ah - okies. I do too, although I would 'screw over' a player who was careless with their mindless mini-onions if it is plausible/the timeline of the villains fairly permits yoinking said mini-onions. ;)
Ah - okies. I do too, although I would 'screw over' a player who was careless with their mindless mini-onions if it is plausible/the timeline of the villains fairly permits yoinking said mini-onions. ;)
Actually, I would, too, come to think of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Philosophers have tackled this question from the start of civilization and the reasoning always led to the same conclusion.
This isn't true.
There is a school of philosophy called Deontology. Many of them would disagree with your view that an agent's intent is integral to determining the morality of its actions (some take the extreme view that an act is evil or good irrespective of not only intention but even outcome!)
Moral philosophy isn't simple. Nor is it settled.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My other favorite proposed explanation for why undead and creating undead are both evil is--it's Urgathoa's fault.
Urgathoa (NE goddess of undeath) was once a mortal woman who escaped the Boneyard and came back to the mortal world because she was greedy and hedonistic and craved more life. In doing so, she became the first undead creature, and brought disease into the world.
So maybe undead are in some sense descendants or reflections of Urgathoa, and so bear the metaphysical taint of her gluttonous and wicked nature.
They could make that connection explicit in PF2, since they're building in stronger ties to Golarion with the new edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for that, Benchak! I didn't know about that particular bit of lore.
I've used a similar arrangement about Orcus in a previous game. In the early days of creation the undead were nothing more than a way for the departed to help and advise the living until Orcus managed to weave a bit of himself into the magic that fuels Necromancy. Once the Gods realized that was possible, they took safeguards against it happening again, but it was too late to completely undo what the demon lord of the undead managed. After that the undead were tainted by his malice.
No - channeling energy is a newish part of the game. Clerics didn't care about that stuff in the first two editions.
The roots of the game clerics only cared about being lawful or chaotic - those were the only two alignments. It was generally assumed all monsters were chaotic and everything else was lawful.
I know good and evil was already in the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, and channeling with alignment restrictions was around at least since Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition from 1988.
If that's "newish" to you, then... thank you, it's just a year younger than I am. It's nice that some people still think that's young.But sure, channeling and good/evil probably weren't in the Chainmail war game D&D was based on or the original D&D. But the original D&D was released 1974 and the basic set with good and evil was released only three years later, and AD&D 2ed with channeling 14 years later. Good and evil have been with D&D for nearly its entire existence, and alignment-based channeling for easily two thirds of its time.
For me, that's a lot more "ish" than "new".
I know I'm late but there was talk about Reincarnation and how that goes against the Cycle of life and death back on Page 4, and I have 2 things to say
A) its life, death, judgement, outsider, life, repeat
B) there's an archetype for that: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo-druid- archetypes/reincarnated-druid
Reincarnation for Free everybody, this Druid is now Outside of the Cycle, so long as she doesn't die in the next week!(its even an Extraordinary ability, so no anti-magic zones can stop it)
I'd also like to reiterate a question johnlocke asked: But then what's wrong about animating animals?
Also to Albatoonoe: um weren't the twigs once alive? Were they not a part of a living tree? What's so different about reanimating a twig and reanimating an arm? Especially since Flesh Golems, which I believe people have said multiple times requires Animate Dead, also requires stitching body parts of various corpses together, so if I fashioned a treant out of sticks, wood, and leaves, of a once living treant and crafted them together, would I not then be able to use Animate Dead on it? (btw the spell does Not say it needs to be humanoid type or of the Kingdom Animalia, so treants and other plant creatures should totally be fair game) >.>
Edit: I now go to bed, Good night all!
|
Creating things that will go on a rampage and kill innocent creatures indiscriminately when you lose control of them (for example when you die) is pretty evil in my book
so... building fires in houses would be evil right? I mean, just because you do it in a fire-place/stove/heater/hearth/etc. doesn't mean it's not going to ever get loose, "go on a rampage and kill innocent creatures indiscriminately when you lose control of " it, right? Never happen...
Wait, wouldn't it be just as bad in the forest? I mean, it's got to be evil to just build camp fires out in the woods, anything could happen... you could easily "lose control of them (for example when you die) and they would break loose ""go on a rampage and kill innocent creatures indiscriminately" ...yeah.
Fire=Evil.
After all, it comes from a plane where you can't survive for long without magical protections... etc.
And I certainly don't want to be stuck with rigid alignment rules that fall apart in any campaign that doesn't adhere to an allegorical good vs evil structure.
How about rigid alignment rules that serve as a starting point for subverting and doing interesting things with an entirely literal good vs. evil structure ?
I'm not particularly on board with undead being always Evil, if nothing else because there are memorable ghosts in Pathfinder products who are far from evil. Negative energy being inherently anti-life, fine, but Good applications for that should be trivial (like zapping the nasty parasites infecting the hapless rescue-object villagers du jour with it.) On the other hand, if the moral basis of the universe decrees it as Evil anyway, that's just another way into a campaign about people who heroically disagree with the moral basis of the universe.
My only issue with that is that the rules of the game and the universe of the game are still going to label them as evil, meaning that they cannot 'heroically disagree with the moral basis of the universe' without being smote by every paladin in the land.
I feel that the 'evilness' of necromancy should be a purely fluff thing, that everyone and their grandma are going to think you're wholly evil even though you're saving lives with your charges
|
Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims. Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.
|
|
Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims. Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.
AH! thank you! been looking for that.
So, Zombies - when left unattended - "tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour". How does this apply to Skeletons then? Do they then do the same thing? Why?
Probably.
|
|
It mentions "evil cunning", so just like Zombies, they probably have an in innate sense to kill.
Golems are made differently (but can go berserk).
Interesting scenario, though I doubt you could give them a vague order like "protect the humans". Something simple like do this repetitive thing over and over would probably work.
|
|
Flames do not go out of their way to kill people. Mindless undead do
from the write-up on Fire Elementals
"Fire elementals are quick, cruel creatures of living flame. They enjoy frightening beings weaker than themselves, and terrorizing any creature they can set on fire."and
"Elemental, Fire - This creature looks like a living, mobile bonfire, tongues of flame reaching out in search of things to burn."
sounds like Evil to me - but wait - they are neutral. So I guess it's ok to use magic to summon/create them...
|
|
Why would mindless undead be Evil if not because they tend to do Evil acts on their own ?
A fire that would on its own try to kill people indiscriminately would be Evil too in my book
A = So because they are evil, skeletons will do evil acts if left with no orders...
andB = Skeletons are evil because they do evil acts if left on their own...
wait...what?
|
If you want creating mindless undead to be Not-Evil then you need mindless undead to be Not-Evil. A fantasy world where you can easily create Not-Evil mindless undead will be significantly different from most fantasy settings we know. Also it will make creating Golems mostly unneeded
I prefer mindless undead being Evil and golems being around
Also using the energy of destruction to create animated things does not sound that wholesome to me
|
If you want creating mindless undead to be Not-Evil then you need mindless undead to be Not-Evil. A fantasy world where you can easily create Not-Evil mindless undead will be significantly different from most fantasy settings we know. Also it will make creating Golems mostly unneeded
Golems are still more effective because the materials are easier to come by.
|
|
If you want creating mindless undead to be Not-Evil then you need mindless undead to be Not-Evil. A fantasy world where you can easily create Not-Evil mindless undead will be significantly different from most fantasy settings we know. Also it will make creating Golems mostly unneededGolems are still more effective because the materials are easier to come by.
Are you sure about that ? Including the significant monetary amounts involved ?
I have seen far more PCs going for Necromancer and its minions rather then Construct-maker and its golems
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It mentions "evil cunning", so just like Zombies, they probably have an in innate sense to kill.
Golems are made differently (but can go berserk).
Interesting scenario, though I doubt you could give them a vague order like "protect the humans". Something simple like do this repetitive thing over and over would probably work.
so, because the word "evil" is used to describe the "cunning" they have that gives them weapon & armor proficiency... they will act like Zombies and attack living creatures (if they have no other orders)?
The flavor text suggests that yes. Nothing in their writeup seems to suggest they simply stand around doing absolutely nothing if they have no one to give them orders.