|
Is casting Speak w/Dead illegal? or "evil"? Should it be?
This question grows out of another thread dealing with Necromancy... so here is the link to over there...
Other Thread.
but here's the gist of the background to my question...
I'm currently running an AP set in Ustalov and the PCs have picked up a wand of Speak w/Dead. (I figured it would help me reveal some of the backstory that otherwise the PCs may never learn). After recovering the body of a murder victim, conversation came around to how they were continuing the investigation... And as no one suggested it, I had an NPC ask why they don't just cast the spell from the wand on the murder victim and ask it for details of the crime.
The person with the wand stated that they figured using the spell would at best get the evidence/testimony disallowed in court and at worse would get them attacked by the Town Guard. This caught me off guard.
"Why" I asked?
"That spell is Necromancy - and this area has a History of trouble with Necromancy. We just figured that if we cast the spell the locals would attack us."
Whereas I figured it would be part of the SOP for Police Departments in major cities. Bring in a Cleric of Pharasma and have them ask the body who killed them.
After some discussion about the spell Speak w/Dead, we decided to go with my interpretation... I am the GM after all. But heck, what does everyone else think?
Should casting Speak w/Dead be legal/illegal? Is it "evil" or even "Evil"? or just "Icky" (deals with bodies after all).
Is casting Speak w/Dead on a corpse more or less evil than casting Zone of Truth (a compulsion) to force a living person to speak only truth?
Fun questions...
I don't really know, as I have only seen the spell used by Lawful Good characters. Lol.
Do all of the other Necromancy spells have the evil/Evil descriptor? No.
Would your party be afraid to use a wand of Absorb Toxicity or Death Ward?
So, I don't have any sources to back this up (nor do I have the time to try and find them, unfortunately), but my understanding is this:
No, speak with dead is not evil.
Why? Necromancy isn't evil. The act of creating undead is evil. In the setting that Golarion is in, the act of creating undead (and many other acts related to necromancy) impact a dead being's soul as it tries to move through the afterlife. There's a whole process a soul goes through where it travels to be judged by Pharasma and then travels to its final reward/punishment, and then it lives there sometimes forever and sometimes it's re-purposed. Sometimes these souls are used to power a plane or even a deity, which is why many entities have an interest in where souls go in the afterlife.
Creating undead pulls part or all of the soul out of this afterlife process and "powers" the animated corpse or spirit.
Speak with dead only affects the corpse and any memories or knowledge that resonate with that corpse. I remember it being explained as the spell draws on "echoes" of knowledge that still remain with the corpse.
I wish that I had some sources to back this up, because I can see how it looks like I'm pulling these answers out of thin air, but this is how I've come to understand things.
Party casts Speak with Dead...
Local bystander: "Meh, we don't like your type around here, meh."
Party1: "Detectives?"
*simultaneously*
Party2: "The educated?"
I would think that a magically-savvy locale would treat speak with dead as they would any testimony (viz Rashomon). Though depending on the court and the caster, it might not be treated as testimony from the victim, so much as the input of an expert witness, or even hearsay.
Necromancy (the school of magic) isn't illegal or evil.
Necromancy (as usually discussed) is about raising Undead creatures to fight for you. That is illegal in most places and evil everywhere (because the spell Raise Undead [and others] have the evil tag).
It would definitely be admissible in court provided a court appointed or lawful representative was the one to perform the casting, and might be admitted even if it wasn't.
Is it evil? No. It doesn't have the evil descriptor.
School necromancy [language-dependent]; Level ...
School conjuration (healing) [evil]; Level ...
However it's not generally tolerated in USTALAV, and I would say it would definitely not be admissible in court. Revealing that you used any Necromancy magic might get you run out of town by an angry mob regardless of the legality.
|
|
Carrion Crown part 2, Trial of the Beast (set in Ustalav) literally has a part of the trial where the PCs can use Speak With Dead on the victims and explains the good and the fallout that can occur.
From what I can remember basically it worked fine as evidence but it unsettled the gallery so you have to tread carefully with that sort of thing.
In one of the novels and I think in some other adventures a Cleric of Pharasma (very anti-undead) uses Speak With Dead just fine.
SWD is (just like* the Necromancy School itself) not automatically evil or illegal.
*though certain spells are evil and illegal in what they do, like creating undead.
|
|
If I recall, you had to persuade the judge to allow you to bring in the corpse and ask it questions, but I can't remember if the objection was that it was speak with dead, or that the corpse in question was a little girl.Carrion Crown part 2, Trial of the Beast (set in Ustalav) literally has a part of the trial where the PCs can use Speak With Dead on the victims and explains the good and the fallout that can occur.
From what I can remember basically it worked fine as evidence but it unsettled the gallery so you have to tread carefully with that sort of thing.
In one of the novels and I think in some other adventures a Cleric of Pharasma (very anti-undead) uses Speak With Dead just fine.
SWD is (just like* the Necromancy School itself) not automatically evil or illegal.
*though certain spells are evil and illegal in what they do, like creating undead.
I believe it was the latter, since the family of the victim was in attendance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, they messed up a lot of other things.Necromancy is more than just animating bodies and used to include all healing (I do not agree with lumping healing in Conjuration)Thankfully they fixed that in P2.If you says *shrugs*
Moving on.
To be fair, you brought it up. You could also say that cure wounds is evocation in 5e but it wouldn't be relevant to the conversation. This is a PF1e thread, I don't think anyone is looking for how healing works in Stars Without Numbers :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would probably have a lot to do with how corpses are treated. In some cultures, handling corpses in anything but a clean, ritual way is forbidden. In others, when someone dies their corpse is received by their family and put on display for a party.
|
|
Carrion Crown part 2, Trial of the Beast (set in Ustalav) literally has a part of the trial where the PCs can use Speak With Dead on the victims and explains the good and the fallout that can occur.
From what I can remember basically it worked fine as evidence but it unsettled the gallery so you have to tread carefully with that sort of thing.
In one of the novels and I think in some other adventures a Cleric of Pharasma (very anti-undead) uses Speak With Dead just fine.
SWD is (just like* the Necromancy School itself) not automatically evil or illegal.
*though certain spells are evil and illegal in what they do, like creating undead.
This was the exact place were it popped up. Carrion Crown Pt. 2. I slipped in a Wand of Speak w/Dead several encounters back and figured they would use it.
So I figured they'd go to the Holy Sister of Justice and ask her as an officer of the Court to use the wand. That would get the "testimony" available in a timely fashion... and with the correct protocol.
They actually brought in the bodies recovered back to the city and turned them over to the Desna Temple - though there was some discussion as to which temple to turn them over to. A couple of the PCs figured that Pharasma seemed better (dead body and all that), but the village had a chapel to Desna, and one of the PCs has one level of Cleric of Desna, so it was Desna.
The scenario actually provides (a little information) for if the PCs dig up bodies (and SwD those), but the PCs veto'ed that idea when the CHA 5 dwarf suggested it. But they did recover 4 bodies that had not been recovered before.
The only people from the village listed as still being available for the trial were the three sisters (who own a windmill!), who appear not to be related to the kids.
So... Tomorrow we continue the adventure, and I'll see what my players decide to do.
|
|
To be fair, you brought it up. You could also say that cure wounds is evocation in 5e but it wouldn't be relevant to the conversation. This is a PF1e thread, I don't think anyone is looking for how healing works in Stars Without Numbers :PSadly, they messed up a lot of other things.Necromancy is more than just animating bodies and used to include all healing (I do not agree with lumping healing in Conjuration)Thankfully they fixed that in P2.If you says *shrugs*
Moving on.
I made a tangential remark based on a complaint, I have no interest in starting an argument here when the other poster decided to complain again ok said tangent.
Necromancy is more than just animating bodies and used to include all healing (I do not agree with lumping healing in Conjuration)Thankfully they fixed that in P2.
I always thought healing should be Evocation since it summons positive energy.
I always thought healing should be Evocation since it summons positive energy.Necromancy is more than just animating bodies and used to include all healing (I do not agree with lumping healing in Conjuration)Thankfully they fixed that in P2.
Same
I always thought healing should be Evocation since it summons positive energy.Necromancy is more than just animating bodies and used to include all healing (I do not agree with lumping healing in Conjuration)Thankfully they fixed that in P2.
I thought that was the justification for making it conjuration. You are "summoning" positive energy. Evocation is manipulating energy and/or creating something out of nothing. So, fireball is evocation because you're creating fire out of nothing and manipulating that fire to suddenly expand outward.
Though honestly, the definitions of each school are loose enough that I'm sure most spells in the game could easily be in multiple schools.
You could also argue healing could be be transmutation (previously alteration). It's manipulation of material (in this case flesh, blood, and bones). Though obviously it doesn't work like that in Golarion.
Personally I prefer Necromancy, even if it gives the "CN" "white" necromancers more ammunition.
"Zombies are just flesh golems animated by negative energy." :P
Yeah there are justifications for all of them.
There was a thread a while ago about your favourite/least-favourite schools and I put down Necromancy for this reason (I think healing should be "Life/Death" magic), but when we looked at it we realised the problem isn't with Necromancy it's with Conjuration. Conjuration gets a grab-bag of spells that belong in other schools because ... well just because. They get evocation "energy" spells by summoning energy, they get abjuration "protection" spells by summoning protective armour/wards, etc etc. And this doesn't even include summoned monsters who can cast their own spells. It's my only major gripe about pathfinder (although the particular gripe about healing being Conjuration goes back to 3.x)