|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIK this only applies to Ghosts (the Bestiary 1 Ghost is True Neutral, and there's a few Good Ghosts areound. Certainly plenty of Neutral ones) and some very unique edge cases, like a Shadowdancer's Shadow (which shares their alignment). Mostly Undead are Evil.
Actually, no. Any intelligent undead can be non-Evil, though Good ones are few and far between. There's a LN vampire in Kaer Maga and a LN mummy in Dragon's Demand, just to throw out a couple of examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIK this only applies to Ghosts (the Bestiary 1 Ghost is True Neutral, and there's a few Good Ghosts areound. Certainly plenty of Neutral ones) and some very unique edge cases, like a Shadowdancer's Shadow (which shares their alignment). Mostly Undead are Evil.Actually, no. Any intelligent undead can be non-Evil, though Good ones are few and far between. There's a LN vampire in Kaer Maga and a LN mummy in Dragon's Demand, just to throw out a couple of examples.
Yeah. Ghosts are the most common non-evil undead. They're the minority of ghosts but not impossible to find. Non-evil vampires and other intelligent undead are possible but incredibly rare. Non-evil liches are right out partly because they consider that a Forgotten Realms thing and are going their own direction. But I can see that they're self-created also plays into this.
Honestly, I'm not sure shadows should be considered undead anyway. They always seemed more like some kind of outsider to me, but their tradition is as undead. I could see ghosts potentially being considered something other as well. Kind of like the Spirituallist's phantom. It's more a stranded soul than a walking mockery of life and death like other undead.
Necromancy is always Evil. However, Evil is not always wrong, and Good is not always right.
Necromancy is always Evil. However, Evil is not always wrong, and Good is not always right.
Necromancy is not always evil.
Raising the corpses of the dead into malicious hate breeding agents of destruction who need neither sustenance nor respiration to function, nor a will of their own to keep their malice in check however, that's at least evil adjacent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with this is what complaint about undead can you not make about golems?That undead are made from some fragment of a sentient soul, whereas it looks like the elemental spirits that animate golems are not by default sentient, given that them awakening to sentience is a low-probability process that only works for some kinds of golem.
Based on currently available information, the elemental spirits that are wholly bound to power a golem have more sentience than the minute life-force fragments that power the animated dead. The current text on the matter is explicit in stating that an earth elemental - an outsider with a minimum Intelligence score of 4 - is typically used as the power source for golems.
Making an earth elemental into an eternal slave 'prisoner with a job' is apparently not Evil while bolstering a minute speck of electrical charge into animating bones and corpses is Evil generates the discussion from my end. I dispute that the creation of golems especially is not Evil based on the stated text describing an act that for anything else is considered objectively Evil in game terms (slavery).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with this is what complaint about undead can you not make about golems?That undead are made from some fragment of a sentient soul, whereas it looks like the elemental spirits that animate golems are not by default sentient, given that them awakening to sentience is a low-probability process that only works for some kinds of golem.Based on currently available information, the elemental spirits that are wholly bound to power a golem have more sentience than the minute life-force fragments that power the animated dead. The current text on the matter is explicit in stating that an earth elemental - an outsider with a minimum Intelligence score of 4 - is typically used as the power source for golems.
Making an earth elemental into an eternal
slave'prisoner with a job' is apparently not Evil while bolstering a minute speck of electrical charge into animating bones and corpses is Evil generates the discussion from my end. I dispute that the creation of golems especially is not Evil based on the stated text describing an act that for anything else is considered objectively Evil in game terms (slavery).
Don't they also use the essences of elementals in magic items like flaming weapons?
Are all magic items evil by definition?
This is turning away from "undead are evil" and towards "veganism for magic."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue where that came from but I guess I would agree that a flaming sword is evil if it required enslaving a sapient creature for it to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue where that came from but I guess I would agree that a flaming sword is evil if it required enslaving a sapient creature for it to work.
It's in talismanic components from Ultimate Campaign, it also covers how you need things like troll's blood or a unicorn's horn to make healing items, etc.
pg 170
Don't they also use the essences of elementals in magic items like flaming weapons?
Are all magic items evil by definition?
Only the ones that include slavery of outsiders. As much as Animate Dead, I guess
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
Based on currently available information, the elemental spirits that are wholly bound to power a golem have more sentience than the minute life-force fragments that power the animated dead. The current text on the matter is explicit in stating that an earth elemental - an outsider with a minimum Intelligence score of 4 - is typically used as the power source for golems.
Making an earth elemental into an eternal
slave'prisoner with a job' is apparently not Evil while bolstering a minute speck of electrical charge into animating bones and corpses is Evil generates the discussion from my end. I dispute that the creation of golems especially is not Evil based on the stated text describing an act that for anything else is considered objectively Evil in game terms (slavery).
But are they necessarily begin bound unwillingly? In other games I've played, there are spirits that can be bound into items, evil casters might just force them in there but good ones can negotiate a contract for the spirit's services. Since these services generally involve doing something that the spirit is the embodiment of, they're often quite willing. A spirit of fire is often perfectly willing to empower an item that burns things. I can see a similar thing being done for constructs.
There's also the question of why golems have no intelligence if they're basically an elemental bound into a physical body. Because the elemental does have intelligence. Maybe they're just lending some animating force instead of piloting the thing. Or maybe it's a kind of uninteligent lesser earth elemental that doesn't get a bestiary write-up because the only time they have any impact on anything is through golems.
Certainly something that should get more of an explanation. Hopefully the upcoming construct book will talk about this.
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
But punching a dude in the nose hurts... Are we now such snowflakes that punching somebody pushes you into the category of Lucifer himself. Next it's gonna be harsh language is evil!
EDIT: To be clear, I agree with vorArchivist that elemental and non-elemental pain should be considered analogous.
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
So Animate Dead using souls to Animate skeletons is optional too?
I am pretty sure that everything a wizard does is evil, they just might not realize how evil it is because the wizard who taught them didn't want them to realize the diabolical nature of their craft.
So Animate Dead using souls to Animate skeletons is optional too?
I mean, have you read this thread? I'm pretty sure that's the point.
|
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
All rules are core? Good to know.
All rules are core? Good to know.that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
Indeed, at least that's how I interpreted anything in the RPG line. Especially since the PRD doesn't really differentiate them.
I guess it's more like: "all rules are equal, and using them to interpret ways to play the game shouldn't be shunned."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say there is no differentiation, given that the first entry is "Core Rulebook". That suggests to me that everything after isn't core.
Neither the in game definition for undead or the feat Craft Construct are in the Core Rulebook, thus they are not core either.
It is reasonable to lump the Bestiary under 'core', if not all of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is reasonable to lump the Bestiary under 'core', if not all of them.
And the goalposts have moved.
Don't they also use the essences of elementals in magic items like flaming weapons?
Are all magic items evil by definition?
This is turning away from "undead are evil" and towards "veganism for magic."
Not even close. We're discussing animate dead, not create undead and variants thereon, let alone any of them used in the area of a desecrate in comparison to what is clearly called out in the current mechanics as forcibly binding an elemental creature into a construct/shell as a power source re: crafting golems.
I'm hoping what will be cleanly established in the new rules is the default mechanics of where magic gets its energy from for doing All of the Things according to either Tradition or School or both, including the crafting/creation of magic items and constructs.
In the case of animating the dead the energy (currently) is primarily drawn from the Negative Plane. Perhaps as a result of the remains' previous 'link' to the Positive Plane being severed at the moment of death. A supplementary, bolstering element of Planar Evil is infused by means of desecrate. Without this pairing I am unconvinced that animating the dead is inherently Evil other than from 'reasons'. Good examples that bear due consideration have been posted upthread that I am mulling over. Thanks for those everyone!
Will it be possible to infuse the undead with other planar energies, i.e., animate/create Chaotic, Lawful, Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil undead with a different 'bolstering' than Evil, or a pairing of such, perhaps with a more robust resistance to channeled energy due to the paired matrices reinforcing each other? In principle there is no reason why not other than it not being mechanically spelled out at the present (barring material existing that has escaped notice/been forgotten). Urgathoa's NE skeletons are not necessarily the same as Orcus' CE zombies nor are either quite the same as, oh, let's say 'tyrant-guard' zombies animated by a priest of Asmodeus.
One of the disservices I feel Paizo did was to rip out the Juju Oracle mystery's compatible-alignment zombie and juju zombie revelation. Prior to this having been nerfed errata'd, their zombies were animated by the wendo spirits they called upon when animating the dead. Rather than edit it so that it read along the lines of 'zombies animated by a juju oracle that fall out of her control immediately disintegrate', they chose to gut that revelation.
In the case of weapons and other items which are infused with elementally-derived abilities it seems far more likely that a minuscule sliver of the corresponding element or mixture of elements is drawn forth and imbued into the receptacle, rather than some Diminutive elemental being wholly bound into the weapon.
In other game systems this is explicitly the method used to enchant many magic items. This is not clearly the case in Pathfinder as the 'default' operative mechanism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is reasonable to lump the Bestiary under 'core', if not all of them.And the goalposts have moved.
Feel free to run a game without a bestiary. Goal post not moved.
Feel free to run a game without a bestiary. Goal post not moved.It is reasonable to lump the Bestiary under 'core', if not all of them.And the goalposts have moved.
Done and done.
But the premise of anything not labeled the Core Rulebook as not being core is still the same.
The Bestiary is a supplement, one can run a game without it, easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot more words spent on the ethics of undead and their creation than golems and theirs. We have literally a single sentence to extrapolate ethics of golem creation from.
On the other hand, we have books and monsters and flavor talking about how undead and creating them is evil.
I do hope it is more clearly laid out why animating dead is evil and crafting a golem isn't. In fact, I suspect that like about elemental spirits is only an unintentional vestige from 3.5
that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
you can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?
you can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
Yes
I wonder why this is even a problem? In the end it counts what you do with your undead. Using an minor evil spell to do a good deed, should be in the end a good deed (we are not talking about Soul Bind here). "But you don't have to do necromancy which is inherently evil!" Yes it is inherently evil, but its not evil to the degree that its by default damning.
Actually in the later RPG-line books, they put in the rule that every three castings moves you a step closer to the evil alignment. So it's damning regardless of your motives or actions.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why this is even a problem? In the end it counts what you do with your undead. Using an minor evil spell to do a good deed, should be in the end a good deed (we are not talking about Soul Bind here). "But you don't have to do necromancy which is inherently evil!" Yes it is inherently evil, but its not evil to the degree that its by default damning.Actually in the later RPG-line books, they put in the rule that every three castings moves you a step closer to the evil alignment. So it's damning regardless of your motives or actions.
That's a perfect example to illustrate why I am so interested in commenting when we are at the cusp of a new edition. That rule is one of the stupidest I have seen. (No offense to Paizo intended; what I think is cool is not always the same as what other folks think is cool.) I would really like PF2 to kill the "tally up how many bad things you did, completely divorced from why you did them" rules used to determine whether you are evil.
It is SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING when you tempt a player to do something bad than when you say, "if you do that, you will become evil, regardless of your intentions." It absolutely kills any emotional roleplay in favor of shallow tropes.
Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the reality is that the elemental bound being sentient is STILL just a leap to conclusions on behalf of the people arguing it. None of the spells to create those golems is actually a summoning or planar binding spell. A mindless spirit of earth (unstatted because it will never be a challenge for a pc) is just as easily described as an earth elemental. A salt mephit is technically an earth elemental too, basically any elemental with the (earth) subtype is an earth elemental. Still nothing written says an intelligent elemental is bound into the golem.
Its unsurprising really, that the "why not golem creation" argument usually comes from the "i hate alignment in all cases" crowd.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the mind that raising undead should be an inherently evil action, and just properly explained and justified in the core books this time.
An action that may have good intentions and possibly even overall-positive results/minimal drawbacks, yet also still an action the very cosmos and laws of nature object to has amazing story potential.
The idea of good-natured people in a rural area raising their ancestors and keeping a happy cult of doing this is great and realistic. The majority of the gods finding it abhorrent also makes perfect sense with the cosmology we have, and their alignment being tainted despite innocent intent makes sense to me. People can carry evil alignments and wish well, after all.
Undeath inherently being evil also keeps necromancy (the act of raising, not the school of magic) from being a common staple of wizardry, and I think that's a very important thing for many tables, especially PFS.
I do like the general concept of 'neutral' undeath, but it can carry very strong setting-warping implications if the setting is high-magic (which Golarion arguably is).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That rule is one of the stupidest I have seen. (No offense to Paizo intended; what I think is cool is not always the same as what other folks think is cool.) I would really like PF2 to kill the "tally up how many bad things you did, completely divorced from why you did them" rules used to determine whether you are evil.If any designers are reading, I want to register a vote strongly against this. Alignment based on actions is much more interesting than alignment based on intent; the former imposes strict penalties you have to assess before choosing something even for a good end, the latter leads to players wanting intent to be a get-out-of-jail-free card and is a lot harder to adjudicate in ways everyone will be happy with.
I think both intent and actions should be important for alignment. And at the same time, not every act is equal. Creating a skeleton one time to handle an emergency is not the same as doing it regularly, or creating ghouls or straight up murdering innocents. And I have to agree with Totoro that tallying up good and evil actions is really problematic. Alignment changes should be GM calls not when you punch enough boxes on your evil card. Likewise having actions cancel each other gets into some really silly territory: "Yeah I murdered several people for no reason, but I'm still good because I did twice as many nice things, so it all evens out!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That rule is one of the stupidest I have seen. (No offense to Paizo intended; what I think is cool is not always the same as what other folks think is cool.) I would really like PF2 to kill the "tally up how many bad things you did, completely divorced from why you did them" rules used to determine whether you are evil.If any designers are reading, I want to register a vote strongly against this. Alignment based on actions is much more interesting than alignment based on intent; the former imposes strict penalties you have to assess before choosing something even for a good end, the latter leads to players wanting intent to be a get-out-of-jail-free card and is a lot harder to adjudicate in ways everyone will be happy with.
I actually kind of agree with you and only disagree with the impact. Specifically, I agree it puts complete control in the hands of the DM. Alignment based on acts alone imposes strict penalties you have to assess before taking an action, unless it is an accident or you have a Catch-22, in which case it operates as a gotcha. The DM can make a decision on alignment "just because" and it makes just as much sense as a decision on alignment "because it is Tuesday." A player cannot appeal a decision because there is no logical framework. It has a medieval charm to it in the sense in medieval times murder was defined simply as an act, so if you killed someone (assuming you were not a noble) you were put to death, even if it was accidental or in self defense; the reason for the medieval charm is because it is divorced from the intellectual underpinnings of modern philosophy and law.
Alignment based on intent allows the player to weigh the choices and make decisions based upon the side they are fighting for. It will leave DMs who don't want players to be able to choose the best weapon for their fight unable to intervene because intent-based alignment is rational; it is not subject to DM fiat. It increases options, but the DM might not like some of the options. And it encourages appropriate assignment of souls in the afterlife such that a person who is always fighting for LG goes to the LG plane after a lifetime of intention to achieve and actual success in fighting for the side of Good and Law, which removes the potential for unfairness in the afterlife, which some DMs might prefer.
In other words, if act determines alignment, the DM gets to overrule logic and common sense in favor of absolute control of his or her dominion. I would argue that the existence of Rule 0 should push us in the direction of an alignment regimen that increases options for players.
I think both intent and actions should be important for alignment. And at the same time, not every act is equal. Creating a skeleton one time to handle an emergency is not the same as doing it regularly, or creating ghouls or straight up murdering innocents. And I have to agree with Totoro that tallying up good and evil actions is really problematic. Alignment changes should be GM calls not when you punch enough boxes on your evil card. Likewise having actions cancel each other gets into some really silly territory: "Yeah I murdered several people for no reason, but I'm still good because I did twice as many nice things, so it all evens out!"That rule is one of the stupidest I have seen. (No offense to Paizo intended; what I think is cool is not always the same as what other folks think is cool.) I would really like PF2 to kill the "tally up how many bad things you did, completely divorced from why you did them" rules used to determine whether you are evil.If any designers are reading, I want to register a vote strongly against this. Alignment based on actions is much more interesting than alignment based on intent; the former imposes strict penalties you have to assess before choosing something even for a good end, the latter leads to players wanting intent to be a get-out-of-jail-free card and is a lot harder to adjudicate in ways everyone will be happy with.
I know few if any DM that would actually accept that excuse and not tack them as Evil after the first or second straight up random murder.
Like wise I don't know a lot of DMs that would think Necromancy isn't evil due to how varied the actual effect is. Are you just moving the bones about? Did you just trap an unwilling soul? Espically if intelligent that's probably the case. Are they suffering or has the magic twisted their soul to the point they don't go back to the afterlife they had? If you tell the undead to do X but X goes against what they would do in life, does that affect their standing in their afterlife?
Lot of question pop up. Just use Animate Object on a skeleton and skip the moral issues. I mean you still might need to worry about the possibility of being charged with Grave Robbing
The problem I'm seeing with Animate Objects (btw, I don't care about this over all subject one way or the other, as my previous post should have shown) But the problem, well problems, I see with Animate Objects is that it A) only lasts for 1 round per caster level, which is honestly ridiculous, B) is a 6th level spell instead of a 3rd level one, C) is 1 small object rather than 4hd per caster lvl. So telling people that they should just replace Animate Dead w/ Animate Objects is pointedly ridiculous.....
Again, just my 2 cents as an outside observer of this bickering, carry on.
then why are you arguing since you think that no word in any of the texts have no more value than any other? Why did you argue the component rules if you didn't believe they have any authority on the assumed setting?Yesyou can't possibly be arguing that the only description of how a golem works that is found in the same paragraphs as the rules for creating golems is just as optional as a system that describes itself as an addon. Do you consider the existence of Constitution as a stat just as optional as the condensed skill set in unchained?that's an optional rule so I don't think it should be given the same weight as the only information on golem construction.
Also since its a fragment of their spirit just like undead that means it probably hurts as much as tearing a nail and is therefore evil.
All rules are optional, as defined in the CRB.
You cannot simply dismiss a set of rules because they don't fit your agenda.
Fake news.
Mostly because you are asking loaded questions coming from a conclusion that any rule that isn't core is less valid when the CRB straight up tells you any such rule can be treated as null.
Literally any of them, you want to combine STR and CON for your games? Go for it.
It makes no difference to me if a rule is optional if the only reason I'm reading it is to extrapolate lore of the game world.
Your 'No true Scottsman' to dismiss anything you deem not worthy of recognition will not hold with me. It's part of the game or it isn't, either way it's not decided until a group sits down at the table and interacts with it.
We are back to Marshmallow fallacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...It has a medieval charm to it in the sense in medieval times murder was defined simply as an act, so if you killed someone (assuming you were not a noble) you were put to death, even if it was accidental or in self defense; the reason for the medieval charm is because it is divorced from the intellectual underpinnings of modern philosophy and law...
Minor nitpick, but first of all "medieval law" was quite a broad selection of legal traditions and customs that changed markedly over the around 900-1000 years that is commonly labeled the Middle Ages.
So looking at how the charge of murder was tried in 8th century Scandinavia would inevitably differ from the definition from the same charge tried in 13th century Scandinavia.Heck, even the murder = a death sentence would in most cases be wrong. The two most often cited punishments in sources from the Middle Ages, were first and foremost fines (or various forms of weregild in the early Middle Ages) and being declared an outlaw.
Now this did increasingly change as time progressed into the high/late middle ages with things like arson, banditry and large scale thievery (defined as thievery over a set value) increasingly pop up as carrying a death sentence (often hanging or beheading), though murder outside of "royalty" didn't seem to do so.
As an example for the Code of Jutland (Codex Holmiensis) of 1241 states that:
Book 2, article 34
"If a man's horse, horn-cattle, pig, dog or other livestock which the man in question is allowed to keep, kills another man, and a oath-sworn is provided that the animal in question did kill the person in question. Then the owner of the animal must pay a fine of nine marks of money* and must swear by oath, that he had no prior knowledge of the animal in question having such a habit. Though if such a thing happens three times, while the animal in question is in the property of the owner, he is to pay full restitution to the affected/court**.
* This is hard to get a precise valuing of, but my best guess (wíth some calculations and a bit of guess-timation) it would be around 1.890 grams of silver or 2040 litres of barley grain.
** This last part is a bit unclear, but I would interpret it too mean that a person convicted for such would pay the fine rates for manslaughter, which included payments to both the victims family and to the court (and king).
I actually kind of agree with you and only disagree with the impact. Specifically, I agree it puts complete control in the hands of the DM. Alignment based on acts alone imposes strict penalties you have to assess before taking an action, unless it is an accident or you have a Catch-22, in which case it operates as a gotcha. The DM can make a decision on alignment "just because" and it makes just as much sense as a decision on alignment "because it is Tuesday." A player cannot appeal a decision because there is no logical framework.
This is why I argue strongly for the rules to specify that a group should talk these things out beforehand, agree to how alignment works in their campaign (in any areas where alignment rules are left vague, which I hope will be fewer in PF2.0) and all be bound by those agreements, DM and players alike.
I basically disagree with the interpretation here. Players can make choices and weigh decisions with action-based alignment more easily. Intent-based alignment either adds a second dimension of uncertainty to argue about, on top of the action-based model, or requires the DM to be entirely subject to player fiat in terms of players claiming intention justifying anything, which is no more appealing than the other way around.
Alignment based on intent allows the player to weigh the choices and make decisions based upon the side they are fighting for. It will leave DMs who don't want players to be able to choose the best weapon for their fight unable to intervene because intent-based alignment is rational; it is not subject to DM fiat.
But intent based alignment is issued by the rules, we can find language for such in the antipaladin code of conduct.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot more words spent on the ethics of undead and their creation than golems and theirs. We have literally a single sentence to extrapolate ethics of golem creation from.
On the other hand, we have books and monsters and flavor talking about how undead and creating them is evil.
I do hope it is more clearly laid out why animating dead is evil and crafting a golem isn't. In fact, I suspect that like about elemental spirits is only an unintentional vestige from 3.5
Since this seems to have gotten overlooked, they are adressing this I believe in the Construct Builder’s Guidebook out later this year.
The problem I'm seeing with Animate Objects (btw, I don't care about this over all subject one way or the other, as my previous post should have shown) But the problem, well problems, I see with Animate Objects is that it A) only lasts for 1 round per caster level, which is honestly ridiculous, B) is a 6th level spell instead of a 3rd level one, C) is 1 small object rather than 4hd per caster lvl. So telling people that they should just replace Animate Dead w/ Animate Objects is pointedly ridiculous.....
Again, just my 2 cents as an outside observer of this bickering, carry on.
Hmm could have sworn I saw it used to make "Fake" Undead before. Different spell?
Also how weird is it that making a dagger fly around and stab at people is a level 6 spell but making a whole skeleton/body get up and move around is level 3?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also how weird is it that making a dagger fly around and stab at people is a level 6 spell but making a whole skeleton/body get up and move around is level 3?
There should definitely be some more and lower level spells to create temporary 'dancing' weapons or have a carpet or tapestry attempt to entangle someone. It's kind of classic 'magic,' and I'd love to see more of it.
The whole magical animation trope seems to go from animate rope to animate objects, while skipping lots of cool possibilities between.