Urgathoa.
NEXT TOPIC!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've GOT it! Whoever created the pathfinder universe watched the movie evil dead! Undead are evil because the gods have netflix... Make the most sense out of any idea yet. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IF Undead are to remain evil, I like the idea of an in game explanation, if only so we can avoid "are all Undead evil" discussions in the future!
This is a golden opportunity to increase verisimilitude with little effort.
There are a wealth of choices. Here are my favourite three.
* Tragedy of the Commons: Nightshades state "The souls of mortals lost to the negative plane are drawn up and reborn as undead long before becoming co-opted within the gulf." Extend that to mean that a person who becomes undead has their soul lost to the negative energy plane. Most undead are viral, so over time more and more souls will become undead, and eventually the world will fall to undeath. Every skeleton animated is a step towards the end of the material plane, and thus [Evil].
* Undead are actually Negative Elementals bound into a mortal form. The soul moves on. Some of the bindings are good enough they can access the memories of the body. This means some undead LOOK like they are the person they were, but they are not. They may remember love, or contentment, but the only emotion they really feel is the elemental's drive to increase entropy and destroy life (Nightshade lite, basically). Some undead ACT good out of habit, but eventually habit will break down over the centuries, and they will revert to evil. Unlike Outsiders they cannot be redeemed, and thus regardless of the way they act, all Undead are [Evil]. Bonus: low level nightshade equivalents are possible. Bonus two: we already know Elementals and other Outsiders can be bound to make Constructs, so this is consistent.
* Something is behind Undead. There is no way a fourth level wizard spell should be able to defy Pharasma and the order of the universe, but it can. Whatever it is happens to be [Evil] and it can see through the eyes of, and control the actions of, all Undead. This in turn makes them [Evil] - they are the tool of a divinely evil creature.
The trouble with "is a violation of the natural order" is that that should make undead [Chaotic] rather than [Evil].
I've GOT it! Whoever created the pathfinder universe watched the movie evil dead! Undead are evil because the gods have netflix... Make the most sense out of any idea yet. ;)
Ok, ill bite. What idea would make sense?
Ok, ill bite. What idea would make sense?
So far, graystone has the best one. More sense in that post than in the whole previous thread.
But personally, I think pizza has something to do with it. Or popcorn.
Or perhaps 'chill'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, ill bite. What idea would make sense?
For mindless undead? There really isn't any good reason. It makes as much sense as declaring that a ham sandwich is evil because you made it with spicy mustard [not even EVIL mustard, but normal mustard].
For intelligent undead, we HAVE a reason some are evil: they are pissed off about dying. That still isn't a reason they ALL should be evil: a big dose of neutrality by itself doesn't turn you evil and it shouldn't be any more impossible for a well adjusted undead as it is to have a good goblin. It would be one thing if something inherently evil was responsible for animating undead but there isn't: the 'reason' they are evil is because they are evil and always have been cuz... magic?
So in essence, without a radical change in the cosmic reality of the setting, there IS no reasonable explanation past 'everyone KNOWS undead are evil...'.
|
I see the negative energy plane having a neutral alignment more of meaning it is unaligned, not infused with neutrality or a state of neutrality.
It is anti-material/anti-everything-anything-is-made-of. Infusing something material with the essence of its antithesis, and forcing something that should by its very creation annihilate itself, to exist in some mockery of animation/life is so wrong that the creation is just ... wrong, on a spiritual level, like asuras, demons, devils, etc.
That's my feelings on it. And in my games that is true for all undead. Even the few intelligent good ones, they are constantly struggling against their undead instincts, and almost always eventually give in to them.
Just my take.
3. This thread assumes that Alignment in PF2, like in PF1, is largely objective rather than subjective. By this we mean that, while there are some exceptions to the rule, generally speaking, in Pathfinder, good and evil are non subjective terms.Inquiry: Who sets the objectives for objective good and evil? The creative director? The development team? Paizo as a whole (and if so, through what system do they settle disagreements)? Gary Gygax? HWalsh (there OP)? The current GM?On a case by case basis usually the Current GM following the examples given in the books. There are some things, however, that are actually just evil.
For example:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil.
Consuming the Flesh of an Angel? Automatically evil.
Who decides the things that are just evil and outside of the Current GM's purview? The creative director? The development team? Paizo as a whole (and if so, through what system do they settle disagreements)? Gary Gygax? HWalsh (the OP)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
through what system do they settle disagreements?
I suspect it involves a bunch of funny shaped dice
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had issues with Undeath and its alignment implications before, but putting that to the side theres another issue i do have around this: The Negative energy is *not* evil, but apparently everything created out with it or uses it is considered as evil. From what the positive energy and negative energy have pretty much been defined as "Pro-Life" and "Anti-Life" respectively.
There is a lack of consistency or clearification around this, and the entire aspect of mindless undeath hinges on its "instinct", but so does animals. Would predatory animals then be considered evil as they eat the living? Intelligence among undead that weer them towards evil have its own issue in that is that they are given a personality that is against life due to corruption from the negative energy? Or is that based entirely on the goal/personality implanted by the caster?
The easiest clarification would just be stating outright that Negative energy is evil, but we know where that discussion goes now do we?
First off, I explicitly reject your contract-like language; I don't 'understand' or 'agree to' a damn thing by posting in this thread.
That said: Just wanted to point out that Rule 6 is nonsense. It's entirely possible to critique the setting/canon/lore as having some sort of mistake or serious oversight. Whether that's true or not in this particular case is highly debatable, but we can certainly take swipes at aspects of Golarion if we damn well feel like it.
Doing so might even reveal flaws that someone ends up feeling are necessary to address in the setting's lore.
Not saying that's specifically the case on the topic of undead and alignment, but telling us we can't point out potential issues in the lore is silly and I hope nobody is actually going to abide by such a restriction.
I'll show myself out of this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the negative energy plane having a neutral alignment more of meaning it is unaligned, not infused with neutrality or a state of neutrality.
What is the difference? The plane is as aligned as animals are. Look at what the neutral alignment says: "Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion." THAT is the plane of negative energy. It doesn't CARE about anything. it just IS a primal force of nature. I can't think of anything that BETTER exemplifies a state of neutrality.
Yet somehow an unintelligent undead 'acting naturally' is evil... it's mind boggling... :P Somehow giving entropy a physical form is evil...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced.
Mindless undeads attack people unless specifically ordered not to by their creator, that's evil in my book.
Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced.
Mindless undeads attack people unless specifically ordered not to by their creator, that's evil in my book.
So technically animals can be trained to become evil?
Edit: The question might sound loaded, but its a genuine question about if a animal can technically be trained to have the instinct to be evil.
It's an interesting question. I would tend to say yes, but one must exercize caution when comparing induced and intrinsic behavior.
It's an interesting question. I would tend to say yes, but one must exercize caution when comparing induced and intrinsic behavior.
The other way of making animals evil is by applying templates, though a lot of the time that would just make them into what is already inherently evil. (Undead, Fiendish) And on the term of humans then a trained cleric or antipaladin would have been indoctrinated into being evil aswell.
So in some effect a frenzied animal, or a animal with bad experiences could also be evil in that sense they seek out their target of hatred and just kill/destroy it. (Example being Mooses which have developed a hatred towards humans, or scenarios like a incaptivated tiger, or even a angry housecat)
If we compare a mindless undead to a mindless vermin what would the difference be? That undead actively seek out other things for the purpose of destruction? Or is their purpose more similar to that of the vermin that have a instinct of feeding, even despite undead not normally gain a benefit for this. (Skeletons in this example, tho most under undead seem to feed on some aspect of living beings.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced.
Mindless undeads attack people unless specifically ordered not to by their creator, that's evil in my book.
I program a kill bot. It kills everything in sight. evil? I make a golem that does the same. Evil? I make a resetting trap that kills everything that comes by. Is it evil?
Secondly, mindless undead DO NOT always attack people: in the words of the book, they "tend to". All carnivores 'tend' to kill and eat prey so I don't see that's very evil.
Thirdly, what if mindless undead are always hungry? Wouldn't that make them attack for the same reasons as an animal?
It's an interesting question. I would tend to say yes, but one must exercize caution when comparing induced and intrinsic behavior.If we compare a mindless undead to a mindless vermin what would the difference be? That undead actively seek out other things for the purpose of destruction? Or is their purpose more similar to that of the vermin that have a instinct of feeding, even despite undead not normally gain a benefit for this. (Skeletons in this example, tho most under undead seem to feed on some aspect of living beings.)
As far as i've seen uncontrolled mindless undead tend to wander the area where they have arisen, killing everyone that comes too close. If by some chance their normal area of wander takes some but not all an inhabited area they could expand to kill those that are close to the area, but not too far (as probably their existance is bound to some profane effect around their graves). Refer to Undead Uprising.
@graystone traps are not creatures, so are invalid. Golems and killbots do not occur spontaneously, you have to create them with a specific task; if that task is to actively extinguish life then IMO yes, they are evil.[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as i've seen uncontrolled mindless undead tend to wander the area where they have arisen, killing everyone that comes too close.
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
TEND. Not always but TEND.
Refer to Undead Uprising.
When you DO read the link, you see it actually doesn't bolster your argument.
The undead remain mindless, but the magical power behind the incursion gives them the efficiency and tactical acumen of a living army
It's the "power behind the incursion" that gives them the get up and kill.
traps are not creatures, so are invalid.
They are 100% valid as they have the exact same int score, -.
Golems and killbots do not occur spontaneously
Why does "spontaneously" matter? does that mean created undead aren't evil? If I create and order the undead to not kill do they spontaneously turn neutral?
if that task is to actively extinguish life then IMO yes, they are evil.
Not by the rules they aren't.
ANNIHILATOR, N Gargantuan construct (robot)
"The enormous and formidable annihilator robots roam old ruins and wastelands, ridding them of all life and civilization. They smash structures, slaughter creatures both sentient and bestial, and scorch plant life to ashes. When rampaging, an annihilator indiscriminately destroys rather than following the meticulous approach many other robots take with their work."
They do far worse that undead, destroying plants and structures along with any creature it finds. Totally 100% animal grade NEUTRAL.
[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.
This doesn't bolster your argument either. Recall what you said about animals? "Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced." If attacking when your hungry is acceptable behaviour than a creature that's always hungry could attack all the time and be neutral if we go by your logic. ;)
Undead are evil by default because even the most fluffy, bunny-hugging goodly pacifist PC is backed by a player who sometimes wants the opportunity to throw dice and smash monsters without worrying about compromising their roleplay or having to delay combat by having an angst-fest about it.
Undead are evil by default because even the most fluffy, bunny-hugging goodly pacifist PC is backed by a player who sometimes wants the opportunity to throw dice and smash monsters without worrying about compromising their roleplay or having to delay combat by having an angst-fest about it.In which case the players and GM can play in that sort of game with zero problems. I mean all my games run without alignment whatsoever and never had my players worrying about compromising their roleplay unless that was a specific goal of the session.
Unless your games are literally just run as wargames there is always going to be some context for what the players are doing.
I think you've got that completely the wrong way around. The whole point is that having an unquestionably evil enemy is a great way to provide that context for many parties.
Maybe I play a different style of game, but I've never been in or setup a situation which is just "you are at this place for some reason, don't worry why, and there are some skeletons so kill them."
Let me try again here
My argument isn't coming from a low roleplay / low background style of play - in fact its the complete opposite.
For some characters, finding out that there are a bunch of indisputably evil creatures present at a place can become the reason to go there in the first place. It becomes a roleplay hook.
Its the difference between say "We need the old wizard's spell book but his tower is guarded by golems" and "There is a vampire somewhere in the town - we should find it and slay it before it eats people"
Similarly for groups with some characters strongly into redemption / forgiveness / general pacifism its good to have a range of opponents that are both intelligent but known to be irredeemable - so the group can happily go fight them without having a long in-character debate about if the NPC just needed more hugs as a child.
Undead don't have to be [Evil] to be a dangerous threat that needs to be taken care of. ;)
its good to have a range of opponents that are both intelligent but known to be irredeemable
Doesn't [evil] outsiders fit the bill? They actually HAVE a reason to [evil].
Undead don't have to be [Evil] to be a dangerous threat that needs to be taken care of. ;)
Yep. Nothing about putting them back in the ground presents any moral qualms IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For most players having an evil enemy that is clearly evil that they get to fight can be a lot of fun.
But mindless undead aren't that kind of evil: they are just wandering around and killing things. Literally nothing changes about the reason you kill them if their alignment changes.
If smite is a factor, there is no reason it couldn't work without the alignment: just reword the ability a bit to say "If this target is evil [or undead]."
Some undead (those made via animate dead spells) lack any ability to communicate (outside magical means) and make decisions outside their twisted nature making them different than most sentient creatures. A lot of problems go away if you remove the mindless description. Its not accurate considering that undead can use doors/stairs, weapons, and even armor. There is a drive to kill living things thats not natural. Hopefully such will be accounted for in the undead descriptions in the CRB for PF2.
For most players having an evil enemy that is clearly evil that they get to fight can be a lot of fun.But mindless undead aren't that kind of evil: they are just wandering around and killing things. Literally nothing changes about the reason you kill them if their alignment changes.
If smite is a factor, there is no reason it couldn't work without the alignment: just reword the ability a bit to say "If this target is evil [or undead]."
It already does:
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possess.
Now, regarding your previous post.
When you DO read the link, you see it actually doesn't bolster your argument.
i DID read the article and i say that it bolsters my argument as
one of the most terrifying of all supernatural disasters is the undead uprising—the dead emerging from their graves to claim the living.
"to claim the living" sounds a bit more evil than "to wander about".
It's the "power behind the incursion" that gives them the get up and kill.
Which means that undeads don't just exist, but are brought back by unnatural means (but this instance is the closest i found about "spontaneous" undeads).
Why does "spontaneously" matter? does that mean created undead aren't evil? If I create and order the undead to not kill do they spontaneously turn neutral?
It matters because, as far as Golarion is concerned, Ghost ((un)naturally occuring ones) can be non-evil. Created undeads are evil because the process of creating undeads is evil. The only exception IMO are some (very few) vampires (mainly those who were good when they were alive) after their vampiric creator is vanquished.
ANNIHILATOR, N Gargantuan construct (robot)
"The enormous and formidable annihilator robots roam old ruins and wastelands, ridding them of all life and civilization. They smash structures, slaughter creatures both sentient and bestial, and scorch plant life to ashes. When rampaging, an annihilator indiscriminately destroys rather than following the meticulous approach many other robots take with their work."
Numerian robots are the result of technology gone awry after who knows how much time of bugs accumulating in their programming. As there isn't any newly built robot to compare, i don't consider them a valid proof.
This doesn't bolster your argument either. Recall what you said about animals? "Neutral animals only attack if hungry or menaced." If attacking when your hungry is acceptable behaviour than a creature that's always hungry could attack all the time and be neutral if we go by your logic. ;)
Give me an example of a always hungry neutral creature and i will consider this paragraf.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being hungry for a living being (at least on the Material Plane) means that you have expended your energy below certain thresholds and you need to restore it to a proper level.
It is my understanding that undead do not work like this. Mindless undead seem quite capable of waiting for centuries, then explode in a flurry of actions, then go back to eternal wait without consuming anything. Is the negative energy what restores them to proper energy levels ?
Whereas living beings replenish their stores of positive energy by taking it from their environment (sun for most plants, creatures and plants they eat for animals and vermins).
So, undead cannot really hunger as mortal life does. They are not seeking to access stores of positive energy and consume it to fill their own positive batteries : they have none.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
ANNIHILATOR, N Gargantuan construct (robot)Numerian robots are the result of technology gone awry after who knows how much time of bugs accumulating in their programming. As there isn't any newly built robot to compare, i don't consider them a valid proof.
Also that's an odd case of replacing the setting reasonings with vague flavor text that stills adheres to their Golarion function. In Golarion they are sent forth by an evil Demigod, that's why they are attacking villages and collecting people.
They're basically weapons (with a Charisma score of 1, they can't really act on anything differently), but they're not powered by perverting a natural energy or fragmenting souls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about mindless outsiders made from the stuff of Evil planes ?
Should they be Evil or not ?
I don't think ANY mindless creature should be aligned. You can't have moral thought when you don't have the intellect to contemplate your actions.
Secondly, the Evil subtype does not require an evil alignment.
Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.
So no change is required to allow mindless outsiders to have a neutral alignment.
A lot of problems go away if you remove the mindless description.
EVERY problem I have goes away if they aren't mindless.
It already does:
Debatable as it just gives a bonus to the smite but itself doesn't trigger the smite. Note that is goes out of it's way to mention EVIL dragons. IMO, undead aren't mentioned the same way as they are assumed evil.
Incursion: totally disagree. All evidence points to the incursion itself as the cause/driving force and not the undead themselves.
Created undeads are evil because the process of creating undeads is evil.
Makes no sense. If I use the soul of an orphan to make a mundane knife, it's not an EVIL knife. The aligned act doesn't affect the target: an evil spell doesn't cause it's target to be evil.
Numerian robots are the result of technology gone awry after who knows how much time of bugs accumulating in their programming. As there isn't any newly built robot to compare, i don't consider them a valid proof.
This makes NO sense. It's a kill bot with a neutral alignment JUST like you wanted. WHo CARES about bugs: it's irrelevant. You seem to write it off because it doesn't align with your views.
Secondly, there is NO indication of age in the writeup. As/is a brand new one has a neutral alignment and murders everything in sight. What's even MORE interesting is that they are intelligent, murder everything in sight AND are neutral.
Give me an example of a always hungry neutral creature and i will consider this paragraf.
So you concede that your point on animals is meaningless? Attacking because of hunger is fine so if you make undead always hungry...
As to an example, the The American Pygmy Shrew: "it needs to constantly eat and never sleeps for more than a few minutes. An hour without food would mean certain death."
The Tasmanian devil can swallow up to 40 percent of its body weight in just 30 minutes; that's the equivalent of a human eating 216 hamburgers in the same amount of time. The Tasmanian devil will actually eat to the point that it can barely waddle around.
The horned frog, the Argentinean wide-mouthed frog is fearless when it comes to food. These amphibians can eat almost anything they want, and while a typical diet usually includes rodents, small lizards and snakes, and insects, they'll often attempt to super-size their meal and take on prey as large as themselves. This frog also doesn't know when to say when, sometimes eating to the point of ripping its stomach open.
hummingbirds needs to eat every 10 minutes.
All those examples need to eat though.
Take that up with TheGlitch...
[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.
His claim is that it's the hunger/thirst that's evil, not the need to eat.
Secondly, why is the need to eat a factor? It's the 'intent' and the 'intent' is to try to sate it's hunger. the fact that it doesn't actually gain nourishment is meaningless as it's not an intent to be 'bad' but to feed...
|
|
I don't think ANY mindless creature should be aligned. You can't have moral thought when you don't have the intellect to contemplate your actions.What about mindless outsiders made from the stuff of Evil planes ?
Should they be Evil or not ?
Is moral thought a requisite for having a non-TN alignment ?
In a universe of moral absolutes such as the alignments, I do not see why the capacity for moral thought or choice (that I would call being sentient) is a necessity to having an alignment.
IIRC, even Planes can be aligned and I am pretty sure most of them do not qualify as sentient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is moral thought a requisite for having a non-TN alignment ?
IMO, you shouldn't even have a neutral alignment when mindless: you have the same intelligence as a rock. From the alignment section: "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment". If you HAVE no attitudes [a way of THINKING], you can't have an alignment.
In a universe of moral absolutes such as the alignments, I do not see why the capacity for moral thought or choice (that I would call being sentient) is a necessity to having an alignment.
That's not how the alignment section says it is. "general moral and personal attitudes" are the basis for alignment so "capacity for moral thought" is THE central requirement.
IIRC, even Planes can be aligned and I am pretty sure most of them do not qualify as sentient.
Alignment for a plane is "a predisposition to a certain alignment." As in, it attracts creatures of that alignment and repels opposing alignments. As such, it's much like evil for spells: a descriptor. It doesn't mean it has alignment like a creature. "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on." It's like how an [evil] outsider can have a non-evil alignment as the descriptor isn't the same as an actual alignment.
|
|
For once I agree with greystone and arent animals kinda evil?They hunt and kill to eat and they are not mindless.
Erastil, LG god of Hunting says Hi ;-)
There are IRL some individuals (Animals) who kill for apparently no reason and leave their kills behind without eating them. I would tag those as Evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All those examples need to eat though.Take that up with TheGlitch...
[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.His claim is that it's the hunger/thirst that's evil, not the need to eat.
"Eternal/unquenchable" is pretty different than needing to eat vastly more or die.
Debatable as it just gives a bonus to the smite but itself doesn't trigger the smite. Note that is goes out of it's way to mention EVIL dragons. IMO, undead aren't mentioned the same way as they are assumed evil.
Not debatable as the text is quite clear about undead triggering the effect.
Incursion: totally disagree. All evidence points to the incursion itself as the cause/driving force and not the undead themselves.
While i agree that the curse itself is what causes the undead to come out of their graves, it says that it makes them more tactically savvy, so they can kill better, not that it makes them evil (since they already are).
Makes no sense. If I use the soul of an orphan to make a mundane knife, it's not an EVIL knife. The aligned act doesn't affect the target: an evil spell doesn't cause it's target to be evil.
This makes no sense. Why would using the soul of an orphan be influential in the creation of a mundane knife? If you make a magical knife with said soul you probably are not creating a Bane of the evil outsiders, Merciful Holy knife, but more realistically a sacrificial dagger for some dark ritual. Also if the effect of the spell is to create a creature then yes, an evil spell creates an evil creature (planar binding comes to mind).
This makes NO sense. It's a kill bot with a neutral alignment JUST like you wanted. WHo CARES about bugs: it's irrelevant. You seem to write it off because it doesn't align with your views.
Secondly, there is NO indication of age in the writeup. As/is a brand new one has a neutral alignment and murders everything in sight. What's even MORE interesting is that they are intelligent, murder everything in sight AND are neutral.
As far as i have read there are no robot production facilities on Golarion, so no new robots. Also, as Rysky said, they are most probably responding to Unity, a LE quasi-god, so they are not in control of their actions.
So you concede that your point on animals is meaningless? Attacking because of hunger is fine so if you make undead always hungry...
Undead hunger is metaphorical (except for vampires) so yeah, the point per se is kinda null. Still cheers for the examples.
For once I agree with greystone and arent animals kinda evil?They hunt and kill to eat and they are not mindless.
Death to all the meat-eaters, for they kill others. But wait, aren't there studies that prove that plants "feel" and know that they are being eaten (and in Golarion there are non-mindless plants)? death to all the living-eaters.
"Eternal/unquenchable" is pretty different than needing to eat vastly more or die.All those examples need to eat though.Take that up with TheGlitch...
[Edit] An eternal hunger or unquenchable thirt is unnatural and, expecially if it damages life, evil.His claim is that it's the hunger/thirst that's evil, not the need to eat.
Always having the need to eat vs always feeling you have the need to eat isn't really different IMO. You aren't eating to be 'bad' or 'evil' in either case, you're eating to fill a primal need.
theGlitch: we're just going in circles so I'll just say I 100% disagree with your entire last post but I'm not going point by point anymore. I saw nothing that disproves anything in my last post to you.
|
|
Mindless undead seem quite capable of waiting for centuries, then explode in a flurry of actions, then go back to eternal wait without consuming anything. Is the negative energy what restores them to proper energy levels ?
Just realized that this implies a permanent link to negative energy for all undead, especially mindless ones, that they draw on to sustain their energy level.
Maybe this is what makes it Evil : endlessly drawing on the energy of destruction to sustain its continued undead existence.
Note that I think of Evil here as the font for the mindless undead's actions. Not as their characterization.
I recently thought of the notion that alignments are basically representative of a statistical trend. As in a Good creature's next meaningful action will more likely be a Good one. Same for all alignment components.
We could even have a score for alignments and you would roll a die for each axis to see if you would act in line with your alignment or opposed to it. I think Gygax would love this :-P