So I'm curious how a person could justify using necromancy while being non-evil. I'm specifically looking at a occultist with the necromancy implement. My thought was that he mainly views it as a tool..probably would bring him down to neutral. I would see him using the dead opponents as "material" Just curious what others experience have been like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, normally, the first argument would be "hey, there is more to necromancy than just making undead!", and then you go onto a discussion about various types of beneficial spells in the school.
...but some of the best abilities of that implement school involves pretty spooky, scary, skeletal things.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a paladin of Tsukiyo, the lawful good deity of Darkness, Madness, and Spirits. He's multi-classed as a haunt collector occultist with the necromancy implement. He considers it an essential part of his spiritual duties, bridging the gap between the living and the dead. He would never animate undead randomly, but the Necromantic Servant he summons with his haunted implement is of one specific spirit seeking redemption through combat in a righteous cause.
Do the whole Priest of Rathma thing and explain that they are a necessary tool in maintaining The Balance. Seriously, the Diablo 2 Necromancer was the first class I played for a reason, and it went on to be my most used/powerful/favorite one to play. I'm really disappointed that I don't have the space on my Tablet to download D3 and try out the Necro there. (I have it RoS on 360, but there's no Necro ToT)
And I'm REALLY disappointed that so many people think "Oh, you're a Necromancer, aren't you? You're EVIL, die!" Next thing you'll tell me is that Red and Black Dragons are both evil as well!
“Every other school of magic can be used for good or evil, why is it the case that necromancy can only be used for evil? I submit that it can be used for good.”
“Every other school of magic can be used for good or evil, why is it the case that necromancy can only be used for evil? I submit that it can be used for good.”
And that argument would be fairly compelling for most necromancy school focused casters. But... again- you WILL be saying that while you have at least one skeleton from the implement school running around.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Necromancer can become a popular figure by helping out the neighbors. Settle in farm country. Animate animals, invaders, and criminals who don't deserve a decent burial. Use your undead minions as labor. Help out your neghbors with farm work. They'll appreciate the help and they'll get accustomed to it. Eventually your neighbors will accept you and you will be a part of the community.
Obviously don't do this somewhere dominated by an anti-undead church. Choose your location wisely.
Additionally, once you've established the precedent of assisting neighbors, do other helpful stuff with your undead hordes. E.g. Power windmills, waterwheels, and wells without wind or water. E.g. Provide a military unit to protect your neighbors, possibly 'commanded' by your neighbors. Intehrrate your undead hordes into the economy and culture of the region in positive ways.
Related magic item I've used before: self-cocking crossbow/siege engine powered by small, cut-down skeleton(s).
Related magic item: boat powered by wheel or screw or oars, driven by skeletons. Galley is easy, but also obvious. Taken to it's logical extreme one can imagine undead driving an industrial revolution. E.g. put a skeleton in a box, with an on/off switch, that drives a crankshaft. If you don't look inside the [sealed] box it performs like a perpetual motion machine. There's all kinds of uses for that, even compared to modern electrical technology.
You know, all of that would work...if there wasn't a hard limit to the number of undead you can control.
Uncontrolled undead naturally attack the living. What is unnatural is when they don't. Why are necromancers 'evil'? The same reason Demonologists are considered evil, because their chosen subject matter is dealing with and exploiting evil creatures.
Is every necromancer evil? Well, no. Much like dragons not every single one strictly follows the general mold. After all, they aren't Paladins, or even barbarians. They are spell casters that have access to certain spells and use them.
If you keep pushing further and further into the field of necromancy you will eventually become evil. Once you start creating and controlling intelligent undead they will eventually start preying on the living. Control spells only act like a charm, not like dominate. Eventually some poor sap wanders into the wrong place and gets made into a snack. And its very difficult to react in a way that doesn't make your character more evil than he was before this happened.
Also you're keeping the company of evil creatures. Creatures that want to destroy the living. That have twisted and extreme emotions. Obsessions that fuel their undead existence. How do you stay clean in the evil environment you are creating?
It isn't impossible to be good, or neutral. Just, difficult. Difficult to the point of being unbelievable.
And hanging out with kindly old Chancellors will make you kill a bunch of children...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, there is more to necromancy than just creating (and controlling) undeads.
I've been a CG Eldrich Knight specialized in necromancy, and there are a lot of Necro spells that that don't involve creating undead creatures. Some are even against undead creatures (e.g. Disrupt Undead).
Most notable and usable Necro spells for L/N/CG Arcane casters:
- Touch of fatigue
- Ray of Enfeeblement
- Ray of Sickening
- Ray of Exhaustion
- (Wall of) Blindness/deafness
- Brow Gasher
- False life (greater)
- Life Pact
- Stricken Heart
- Halt undead
- Healing thief <- this one is hilarious btw
- Howling agony
- Vampiric touch
- Bestow Curse (personal favorite)
- Bloatbomb <- hilarious one
- Deathless
- Enervation
- Fear
- Suffocation
- Vampiric Shadow Shield
- Waves of fatigue
- Banshee Blast
- Curse, Major
- Undeath to death
- Unwilling shield <- hilarious and functional
- Finger of Death (personal favorite)
- Waves of Exhaustion
- Clone
- Energy Drain
- Soul bind
- Suffocation, mass
- Wail of the Banshee
Honestly, there is more to necromancy than just creating (and controlling) undeads.
Sure, but from the original poster...
I would see him using the dead opponents as "material".
While there's more to necromancy than just creating and controlling undead, there isn't more to creating and controlling undead than creating and controlling undead.
"That's my grandmother!"
While creating constructs is unnatural, those creatures aren't inherently evil. Undead are. Also, proliferation of undead isn't beneficial. An argument could be made for controlling existing undead without ever creating new ones, but that just creates a demand that someone will inevitably fill.
At the table I'd find a necromancer trying to justify their actions to others amusing and intriguing. But in-setting, it's defined as evil by deities which are revered as being Good.
In the canonical setting of Golarion Undead are inherently evil, so there is no really saying it's not evil. It's just part of the setting.
However, you are free to play in a slightly different setting where undead aren't necessarily inherently evil.
Being necromanctically focused is fine, there are plenty of spells that aren't about creating or controlling undead in the necromancy school.
But if you want to use undead, it's evil....within the setting.
There is also the "annoying" issue that all of the undead creation spells have the evil descriptor.
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
So, sure if you just create the occasional undead guardian you have room to argue that you're neutral or even good. Literally creating an undead horde as per the OP's title. Will absolutely turn you evil (eventually), even if your intentions are good. Part of the appeal of undead over constructs is that they are much cheaper to replace when they get killed. You might not intend to create 50 undead creatures and maybe you never have that many at one time, but realistically how many undead is an adventurer likely to burn though? I know I started using bloodly skeletons just because it cut down on how often I had to replace them, even then I still had to replace them over time.
If you actively avoid casting necromancy spells that have the evil descriptor then there's no reason you can't be a good aligned necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty easy to be neutral with an undead horde. And that should be good enough. Just use your undead hordes for the good of all, like sending your army of skeletons to tend the fields.
Big thing with the occultist is there a very limited amount of spells I can get. Literally 1 per level. My plan was to pick up the Focus powers: Necromantic Servant and Soulbound puppet..spells would be Grasping corpse. false life and animate dead. So at level 7 assuming 4 points invested in necro I would be able to control 22 HD undead..granted I could go higher but 6 in transmutation and 4 in abjuration (seeing this guy as a "tank" type that uses undead to assist him)
What is odd is in PFS you cannot play a evil character, but they allow the evil spells. Funny enough my focus powers aren't considered aligned, which will most likely be my most used. I kinda see him making skeletons and sending them into a room to take the first couple hits. The animate dead seems like a nice spell in a pinch (aka killed a giant and I bring him back to attack his allies) I just see the occultist kind of using everything as tools
So I'm curious how a person could justify using necromancy while being non-evil. I'm specifically looking at a occultist with the necromancy implement. My thought was that he mainly views it as a tool..probably would bring him down to neutral. I would see him using the dead opponents as "material" Just curious what others experience have been like.
Not nearly long enough ago, our local PFS community had a player whose necromancy-focused PC was rather obsessed with animating dead enemies as walking damage-sinks. He probably should have smacked with a career-ending alignment change by the end of the first session or two I witnessed, just for the willful blatancy of his actions and the cartoon-villain glee he took in getting away with it. (He also had the gall to claim his PC was Silver Crusade. WTF!?) When my daughter expressed an interest in playing a bones oracle, we used this player and PC as a prime example of what she needed to avoid in PFS.
So far, she seems to be doing a pretty good job of finding a palatable balance as Neutral. She's picked up the Raise the Dead and Undead Servitude revelations, but she uses the summoned skeleton/zombie just like she would any other summoned combatant, and so far she's only used Command Undead to turn such creatures against their masters (oracles tend to whoop clerics on opposed Cha checks!). The fact that she chooses to honor Pharasma over any other death-related gods, despite her unhealthy interest in undead, makes for roleplaying moments that range from the headbending to the just plain comical.
I would see him using the dead opponents as "material"
"“And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things.” - Granny Weatherwax
How does a fireball user justify using fireballs? They're basically a spell designed only for mass slaughter, while an animated skeleton can take care of the sick, or free people from mindless repetitive tasks.
Bodies are things, not people. Animating one of your enemies and using him as a weapon to kill his former allies isn't a nice thing to do, but neither was killing him in the first place; battles are nasty. Superstitious people are against that sort of thing, in the same way that superstitious people think heart transplants are unnatural, but I don't see why I should pay attention to what they think...
Of course, canonically it is an absolute Evil, but that's a hard thing to prove to an enthusiastic necromancer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Undead creation being evil is something of a rabbit hole and should be addressed between you, your GM, and the other players. The rules themselves are sufficiently loose that you can do whatever you want and be in the clear, but it can still be disruptive to do so depending on your group dynamic.
Fundamentally it's an area where the theme and mechanics of the game can clash. Undead don't exist in the real world; the fact that they're thematically evil is an intentional design choice. While there's nothing stopping you from playing a morally nuanced game, Pathfinder's default presumption is a clear good vs evil struggle where the "good guys" and "bad guys" are thematically obvious, and undead and undeath are very strongly thematically evil. They are explicitly defined as evil in the game's terms, perhaps the most irredeemable kind. Allowing for deviation from this unwritten thematic code can ultimately undermine the thematic goals.
However, this thematic design decision is inherently in conflict with another aspect of Pathfinder: it's a power fantasy. With only a handful of narrowly-defined exceptions (dominate person, etc) you have complete and total control over your character and are therefor free to break the carefully laid thematic distinctions. You absolutely can create undead (or heck, even be undead) and use them to pursue heroic ends while remaining morally good, and there's nothing in the rules that would ever force you to behave in an immoral manner. In some ways, it's actually a lot like playing a Paladin who wears a skull helmet, black armor, and a tattered red cloak, and keeps a severed finger as a trophy from every villain he's defeated. It's technically on the level, and nothing stops a player from doing it, but it definitely breaks unwritten thematic boundaries.
Ultimately, the question to ask is whether your behavior will be disruptive at your table. Will the presence of a good-aligned necromancer hurt the experience of those players? The rules aren't an actual impediment to this path, it's table etiquette that's the issue. If you get that clearance, you're good to go.
So, sure if you just create the occasional undead guardian you have room to argue that you're neutral or even good. Literally creating an undead horde as per the OP's title. Will absolutely turn you evil (eventually), even if your intentions are good.
The Horror Adventure rules don't actually work as intended, since it means casting perfectly harmless spells with alignment descriptors repeatedly can shift your alignment in any direction. You can be an unrepentant monster, but if you cast Protection from Evil enough times your alignment will shift to Good. Taken to its logical conclusion, these rules leave alignment and morality only loosely connected. While at first glance these rules might appear to give alignment rules some bite, they do the opposite and undermine alignment completely.
One of the fundamental problems with alignment is that it's trying to measure both a character's ethos and morality as well as a measure of cosmic forces (which are tied with the thematic decisions I talked about above). This works well enough if those two things stay in alignment (no pun intended) but if they're allowed to diverge then one has to take precedence. How do you handle a character who acts in a moral fashion while using cosmic evil forces? How about a character who acts in an immoral fashion while using cosmic good forces?
Most people solve this contradiction by ignoring the problem. If you don't allow the thematic aspects of the alignment spectrum to diverge from the moral aspects then there's no issue. So long as the players don't force the issue (say, by being a good-aligned necromancer who creates undead minions) then there is no issue. This is a perfectly acceptable solution given that the goal isn't necessarily to simulate a fantasy universe but to tell a type of fantasy story, and is well-suited to a variety of tables. It's also one of the reasons why the good necromancer is a problem; it forces this issue to rear its head and makes it much harder to ignore.
You know, all of that would work...if there wasn't a hard limit to the number of undead you can control.
Uncontrolled undead naturally attack the living...
If you keep pushing further and further into the field of necromancy you will eventually become evil. Once you start creating and controlling intelligent undead they will eventually start preying on the living.
And an uncontrolled fireball can incinerate a crowded marketplace. Magic is dangerous if it is misused or uncontrolled, but it doesn't mean it has to be misused. It'd be ludicrous to suggest that an evoker is somehow doomed to become some sort of psychotic orphanage-burning parody just because his powers could be used for evil.
"That's my grandmother!"
Setting aside the whole "desecrating the corpse thing", this problem never actually comes up. Due to the fact that Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell at earliest, regular human skeletons/zombies are thoroughly obsolete by the time you get access to it. No necromancers are raiding the graveyard for corpses. You'll use monster corpses, or those of more powerful animals.
At the table I'd find a necromancer trying to justify their actions to others amusing and intriguing. But in-setting, it's defined as evil by deities which are revered as being Good.
That is an inherently circular appeal to authority. "The good-aligned deities say it's evil, and people who venerate those deities agree with that!"
There's a lot of interesting metaphysical lore to Golarion's cosmology, but scratch under that thin layer of paint and you'll find that alignment is fundamentally in conflict between its thematic goals and the actual moral aspect it purports to be. If there's a reason people get up in arms about the "good-aligned necromancer", it's precisely because he forces those questions that the standard setting pretends don't exist.
There is also the "annoying" issue that all of the undead creation spells have the evil descriptor.
So, sure if you just create the occasional undead guardian you have room to argue that you're neutral or even good. Literally creating an undead horde as per the OP's title. Will absolutely turn you evil (eventually), even if your intentions are good. Part of the appeal of undead over constructs is that they are much cheaper to replace when they get killed. You might not intend to create 50 undead creatures and maybe you never have that many at one time, but realistically how many undead is an adventurer likely to burn though? I know I started using bloodly skeletons just because it cut down on how often I had to replace them, even then I still had to replace them over time.
If you actively avoid casting necromancy spells that have the evil descriptor then there's no reason you can't be a good aligned necromancer.
Well, even ignoring the evil descriptor, there might be more alignment problems with spamming animate undead and the like. Many of the evil descriptor spells get that label because they involving doing something that, by nature, might be pretty evil.
In this case- the creation of undead. Paizo went heavily for an "undeath really sucks" setting. So the creation of undead means that you are inflicting a torturous existence upon another creature for an indefinite time period, even though that create is already dead and doesn't pose much of a threat anymore.
You can, of course, get away with a few powerful undead which only require the occasional use of the spell to get a high value asset. That is like the party that 'occasionally' rips out fingernails as part of their operations- and they do good deeds the rest of the time. But horde management require casts that you start getting a hit on your alignment.
...actually, this makes me consider whether you could effectively have a LN judge style NPC that uses undeath as a potential sentence. That way, there would be definite rules and regulations that could mitigate the moral quandaries (such as defined terms before the undead is destroyed and released from its fate, as well as a restriction on when such a punishment is appropriate). That would allow for a character with a morality that is closer to an executioner.
You just need to cast a good descriptor spell for every evil descriptor spell. So, spam that protection from evil spell after each create undead and you're fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just need to cast a good descriptor spell for every evil descriptor spell. So, spam that protection from evil spell after each create undead and you're fine.
And this is why alignment descriptors on spells should be ignored; ideally alignment systems are best abandoned altogether. I also find the Occultist's necromancy resonance power irksome; if you want to play a by-the-book good aligned necromancer you'd likely never benefit from from the bonus to animate dead. Personally Paizo should have gone for a more neutral resonance power and had the animate dead bonus as an implement power or part of an archetype.
I've had an idea for a good (in the moral sense) undead using necromancer floating around for a while. He believes that creating and using the undead is not inherently wrong so long as rules are followed.
The core rules are:
1) The reanimated shall preserve the living (in the archaic sense of protect/keep safe from harm).
2) The reanimated must be controlled by the living or contained.
3) The reanimated must be destroyed after a predetermined period of time. This time can vary, it could be be within hours or it could be within years.
People he reanimates fall into three groups:
The Punished: Being reanimated is part of their punishment for crimes committed.
The Penitent: These are usually criminals who volunteer for reanimation to help make up for the wrongs they've committed.
The Pennies: These are reanimated from bodes purchased, usually from families of the deceased or from relevant authorities but some people will sell the right to their body while they still live. If someone volunteers for reanimation (e.g. a soldier wants to keep fighting the enemy even after death) the necromancer would give them a symbolic penny.
The reanimated are treated with respect e.g. bodies are cleaned, maintained etc. With the possible exception of the Punished, the reanimated have their identities concealed as much as possible and are then marked in some way as to clearly indicate their category e.g. Pennies might have a copper coin tied to them, the Penitent might have an altered symbol of a deity of redemption/penitence and the Punished might have brand which also indicates their crime.
While he strives to adhere to all of these principles he is willing to bend of even break them if in dire circumstances where the living are in peril. I'm not sure what alignment the Grey Necromancer would have, probably LN.
So as you can see I've put too much thought into a character that I'll probably never bring to the table since the group of people I play with regard my current character as evil for using the Speak With Dead spell despite my attempts to point out that there is nothing rules or fluff wise about the spell that makes it evil. My point with all if this is that sometimes no matter what you say or do people will have their nonsensical opinions and there's nothing you can do to change that.
Someone in your party summons an Archon. Some enemy of whatever alignment takes control and it attacks you. You cast Protection from Good.
You just committed an evil act. Horrors. Pffft- RAW can be be petty and silly.
It seems though the issue in the o.p. is creating undead, which can be pretty horrific. I don't see a hard and fast rule so much as what your GM and you come up with.
In Tolkien's LotR world, the GM decided that Sauron creating Nazgul was an evil act while Aragon's unleashing the Army of the Dead was neutral at worst.
In Tolkien's LotR world, the GM decided that Sauron creating Nazgul was an evil act while Aragon's unleashing the Army of the Dead was neutral at worst.
I think that is the very line in the sand that paizo has drawn. Using the feat 'control undead' is not an evil act, but animate undead is evil. Owning an undead horde is grey, but making one is black. The key difference is whether you are the one responsible for making them that way.
(Unless I am missing something- which is very likely) The army of the dead turned into that state due to their own unfinished business- that was self inflicted centuries of torture. Whether they tortured themselves in their cave or did it on the battlefield... Aragon's actions did nothing that would increase their suffering (heck- he lightened it- he gave restless spirits a chance to finish their last business and fulfill the duty they failed at in life).
In comparison, Sauron tricked, cursed, and damned the Nazgul. Sure, their greed made it easy... but usually, the harshest punishment for a greedy person is death (ok- maybe some torture on top, but that too is limited by how much the victim can take before dying). But Sauron... he stole their wills and denied them even the luxury of dying. No escape. And that is solely because Sauron felt that they would be more useful that way.
...actually, this also brings us back to the central question of the thread, huh? Just avoid creating your own undead, and use someone else's. You can be a necromancer that is an "undead expert", who stops their rampage and helps to sooth them before you eventually let them go.
You could even potentially flavor your implement related abilities around that (ie- all of the undead you get for minutes/use are actually souls bound to some item, and you just use your power to give them form out for a brief period). I think I could spin a nice "they are failed test subjects from a necromancer's research into becoming a lich" backstory for that kind of thing.
So did a little reading up on undead in Pathfinder. First most undead I would/could create would be lesser undead..so the soul argument is not applicable. Fundamentally I'm using negative energy to animate a once living creature.
Really that is one thing that confuses me about PFS, you cannot be a evil aligned character and a ton of things are banned...but not necromancy or creating undead. I feel I would play the character as using them as tools..basically he uses the bodies and afterwards they collapse into a heap. He would specifically only use the bodies of opponents. Much as I love the image of a undead horde behind him, it probably wont work.
The fun thing to me about the character is he isn't really a necromancer. He looks like a fighter with the whole med armor, shield and sword. Depending on the group he might put more into abjuration for a encounter..but I really like the idea of soulbound puppet...making it a sage familiar if I need advice or protector to help take some hits at level 5. Intresting though is soulbound puppet and Necromantic Servant don't have the evil description so I can cast them until blue in the face...sigh and with PFS there isnt just one gm.
So did a little reading up on undead in Pathfinder. First most undead I would/could create would be lesser undead..so the soul argument is not applicable.
I disagree on this point, but I don't want to derail this thread. There are things in the game that seem to be evil "because" and other things that aren't evil "because". For example, creating a juju zombie is "evil" but creating a flesh golem isn't. Even though in both cases you're desecrating the flesh of a once living creature and trapping a soul to animate it. For some reason it's completely cool and not evil to trap the soul of an elemental. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Its not like you can even claim the elemental soul doesn't experience anguish, since it's what the whole "berserk" ability is based on.)
But yeah, I think you'll be fine with your plan. Some people at the table might feel like you're trying to "get away" with something but by RAW and RAI it's perfectly fine. I think the primary reason these abilities lack the evil descriptor is because of their temporary nature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leave a long trail of corpses on your adventure and no one bats an eye.
Try to clean up and put them to some use and everyone loses their mind.
Put another way...
Kill monsters and predators, be lauded as a hero.
Use evil, unnatural life-antithetical magic to create monsters and predators, sane people recognize your morality is askew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use evil, unnatural life-antithetical magic to create monsters and predators, sane people recognize your morality is askew.
Again, that's circular reasoning. There's nothing wrong with just accepting that conceit for your own games, since it makes for easy and clean thematic lines in the sand, but it's not a particularly useful in a discussion over whether the conceit itself is valid in the first place.
(Its not like you can even claim the elemental soul doesn't experience anguish, since it's what the whole "berserk" ability is based on.)
That also plays against the idea that undead are fundamentally dangerous. Golems with the berserk ability are a ticking time bomb and far more hazardous than controlled mindless undead.
The problem Dasrak is that it's is simply a true statement that undead are evil and their creation is evil when talking about the setting of Golarion. It's factually true.
Now, if you want to talk about a different setting then it might be different in terms of alignment.
Right now this argument has become:
Person 1: Why is it evil to do this evil thing?
Person 2: Because it's evil, says so in the rules of the universe.
Person 1: But why?
Person 2: Because it messes with the flow of souls into the afterlife and corrupts the natural order.
Person 1: But why?
...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem Dasrak is that it's is simply a true statement that undead are evil and their creation is evil when talking about the setting of Golarion. It's factually true.
Again, that's circular reasoning. If you can't justify it as factually true, then your very definitions are suspect.
"It seems to me that when you say 'good' and 'evil', what you mean is what your god approves and disapproves of. Forgive me if I find that morality no more compelling than the version peddled by the Asmodeans,"
Because it messes with the flow of souls into the afterlife and corrupts the natural order.
"Mindless undead don't affect the flow of souls in the afterlife, and there's nothing inherently sacred about the natural order"
Thing is their soul has moved on, unless you are creating a more powerful undead. But a Skelton/ zombie is just a animated body. I had to double check that to be sure but under undead they point out no soul. It really feels like the rule is "you used negative energy, hence evil" But again if we point at rules, why even allow it? PFS only allows non_evil.. so why make it legal? I hate the idea of casting a good spell Just to even out. I feel the intention should matter more.
Thing is their soul has moved on, unless you are creating a more powerful undead. But a Skelton/ zombie is just a animated body. I had to double check that to be sure but under undead they point out no soul.
Do you have a source for that line of reasoning?
I agree that when making mindless undead, the soul is not present with the physical body. We know this from Magic jar.
(Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)
However, even turning someone into a skeleton does seem to "mess with" that person's soul in some manner since all of the following spells fail if that person has been animated as an undead creature: Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection, and Reincarnate. The last two don't even require a physical body, but contain verbage that the spell won't work unless the undead version of the creature has been slain. It's worth noting that these spells do not make a distinction between sentient and mindless undead the way magic jar does.
The problem Dasrak is that it's is simply a true statement that undead are evil and their creation is evil when talking about the setting of Golarion. It's factually true.Again, that's circular reasoning. If you can't justify it as factually true, then your very definitions are suspect.
"It seems to me that when you say 'good' and 'evil', what you mean is what your god approves and disapproves of. Forgive me if I find that morality no more compelling than the version peddled by the Asmodeans,"
Because it messes with the flow of souls into the afterlife and corrupts the natural order."Mindless undead don't affect the flow of souls in the afterlife, and there's nothing inherently sacred about the natural order"
You character can respond in those ways, but this isn't opinion.
The game mechanics saying raising undead is evil. There is no more to argue. It is evil.
If you want to work in a different setting with different mechanics and different reasons why something is or isn't evil that's absolutely okay.
...Intresting though is soulbound puppet and Necromantic Servant don't have the evil description so I can cast them until blue in the face...sigh and with PFS there isnt just one gm.
I think you just answered your own question. The effective GM in this case says "Heck yeah. Go ahead and spawn away."
FWIW, your reasoning that your recycled crew are mindless and soulless would mean your character could hypothetically be of Good alignment. It would provide some interesting role playing angles.
If you really wanted to focus on the rules aspect of your question, the rules lawyers who haunt the Paizo rules board here have a pretty good track record.
Again, that's circular reasoning. There's nothing wrong with just accepting that conceit for your own games, since it makes for easy and clean thematic lines in the sand, but it's not a particularly useful in a discussion over whether the conceit itself is valid in the first place.
?
Positive energy supports, enhances, and is otherwise associated with life, yes? Negative energy destroys life while fueling creatures which are literally dead. There is nothing circular whatsoever in pointing out that reliance on and encouragement of negative energy is contrary to life. This isn't matter and antimatter, it's life and death.
Trying to take the conversation out of game - and setting - terms and somehow conduct some philosophical real-world round-table regarding the merits of the view that undead are evil is... kinda escaping the very salient and inescapable fact that undead are fictional. Any attempt to step outside the bounds of the Pathfinder/Golarion pair simply shifts the grounds to "what's your favorite goth fiction?" Shrug.
Both positive and negative energy can heal or destroy, though.
It is a place of such overwhelming, fecund energy that all non-natives (including some gods) are generally incinerated within seconds of arrival unless appropriate precautions are taken
The problem Dasrak is that it's is simply a true statement that undead are evil and their creation is evil when talking about the setting of Golarion. It's factually true.Again, that's circular reasoning. If you can't justify it as factually true, then your very definitions are suspect.
It’s not circular reasoning or an appeal to authority, it’s a reference to the rules of the game. None of us can truly say why undead are evil anymore than any of us can say why you get an iterative attack when your BAB is 6 instead of when your BAB is 4 or 9. That’s just the way the game was written. The idea that we should produce something factual, beyond a reference to the rules, to prove a position regarding fictional creatures that do nothing more than observe the rules of the game as they are laid out is entirely laughable.
Both positive and negative energy can heal or destroy, though.
It is a place of such overwhelming, fecund energy that all non-natives (including some gods) are generally incinerated within seconds of arrival unless appropriate precautions are taken
That's not really helpful; classic "too much of a good thing". Good. Thing.
Meanwhile no amount of negative energy is acceptable to living things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, according to RAW, casting Animate Dead (and other undead raising necromancy) is an Evil act. But... that just means you need to cast some [Good] spells so you can be good. This actually works out in the favor of a good guy necromancer as it lets you be whatever alignment you want by playing alignment hopscotch via spells. So RAW, yes a Necromancer who raises an undead horde can be a paragon of Good just by casting some [Good] spells. Problem solved!
Of course if you want to create Undead horde without it being evil you can take the Wretched Curator feat and complete it's goal. Doing so lets you straight up remove the [Evil] descriptor from spells.
/thread.
I wish Wretched Curator was PFS legal. I went through the necromancy spells and really the animate dead spell is the only evil one. I can create skeleton/zombies for 10 min per, a undead familiar for 10 mins per and animate one to trip someone... but not that spell. Sigh. With the occultist only having a few spells it is rough to lose one just to balance. Any good spell on the list with a good category? Only good thing is I don't plan to cast it too often but 2 spells for one :p sigh need caffene
In my opinion It’s one of the flaws of the pathfinder setting that you could make a characterthat focuses on controlling undead.
Goes around arresting control of undead from necromancer and using said undead for good. To farm or do manual labour or defend the needy.
And that character would be evil because aLl uNdEAd aRe bAD
...actually, this makes me consider whether you could effectively have a LN judge style NPC that uses undeath as a potential sentence....
Ooo, I like this. It reminds me of the legal status of slavery (speaking of evil). Did you know the American Constitution doesn't forbid it entirely?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I believe that's why it's legal to make convicts do road work or whatever (not positive). But if a state wanted to make slavery the punishment for first-degree murder, say, doing so might violate... all kinds of things, really, but not the U.S. Constitution.
So why not "Undead shall not be created nor suffered to exist, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"?
|
There is a big difference (morally) between throwing a fireball into a group of enemy soldiers, a group of raiders, and a group of orphans. One is neutral, one is (probably) good, and one is evil.
Alternatively, killing a group of enemy soldiers can be an evil act, killing people is never a good act, and killing orphans isn't always evil.
Casting necromantic spells generally isn't evil...but creating undead is evil. You're bringing into being a creature that if you aren't careful will attempt to kill things simply because they are alive.
What's your opinion on casting cloudkill? Even if you are careful you can end up killing innocent creatures - maybe you didn't realise they were there, or misjudged the wind, or didn't realise there was a gnome burrow beneath the field.
|
|
So I'm curious how a person could justify using necromancy while being non-evil. I'm specifically looking at a occultist with the necromancy implement. My thought was that he mainly views it as a tool..probably would bring him down to neutral. I would see him using the dead opponents as "material" Just curious what others experience have been like.
I tend to play occultists as "scientists", seeking out knowledge and disdaining the petty morality of ignorant peasants and superstitious priests. They are just acting rationally for the greater good, if necessary riding roughshod over the illogical objections of lesser minds incapable of grasping the bigger picture.
They start off as Neutral, and finding out where they end up is part of the fun. Maybe they develop some empathy and realise some things are best left undisturbed; or maybe they find out the hard way that (in Pathfinder, at least) even if you don't believe in Evil, Evil certainly believes in you.
The game mechanics saying raising undead is evil. There is no more to argue. It is evil.
And yet for all those declarations, there's nothing forcing a character who uses such magic to behave unethically. There is literally nothing that prevents someone from playing a heroic necromancer, nor is such a character required to hurt anybody with his actions or cause any lasting harm. Is such a character good due to his moral outlook and selfless behavior, or evil due to using powers that are defined cosmically as evil?
The GM certainly can rule either way, but there are significant consequences regardless of that ruling and what they mean for alignment. Under the hood alignment is trying to represent both morality and a cosmic force (which, if we read between the lines, are really just thematic decisions. Fire and brimstone are evil, clouds and pearly gates are good, etc). In an ordinary game these things are never allowed to diverge, and much like a plot hole that's off in some obscure periphery it won't interfere with the story and experience. However, the existence of a heroic necromancer forces the question to the front and center.
Declaring the heroic necromancer to be evil ultimately moves you much closer to an alignmentless system, where alignment is little more than an empty label. You can call it "good" and "evil" all you like, but if people's ethical outlooks can drastically differ from their assigned alignment then it's not really about morality at all. Taken to its logical extreme this leads to all the Horror Adventures non-sense like good-aligned characters who bathe in the blood of virgins then cast protection from evil afterwards to keep their alignment spotless. I'd imagine very few people actually run things this way.
Declaring the heroic necromancer to be good-aligned has the effect of devaluing alignment descriptors altogether. If moral behavior overrides alignment descriptors, then casting such spells really doesn't have much material impact whatsoever. If your game contains heroic necromancers, and you still want alignment to be a sincere reflection of morality to the best of our abilities, this is really the only option.
The final solution, which is the one I'd imagine most people choose, is to ignore the heroic necromancer. He does not exist, he doesn't need to be considered, and therefor there are no contradictions that need to be addressed. And for the purposes of a classic good-vs-evil story this is probably the ideal solution. Of course, the moment a heroic necromancer sits down at your table you don't have this luxury anymore.