From the Pathfinder Wiki entry for Undead
“The state of undeath is considered a severe moral crime as it violates both a person's body and soul.”
Yet enother empty claim without any evidence or explanation given. How does is always "[voilate] a person's body"? If I gave consent before my death, where is this voilation? And in regards to voilating the soul: We don't have a proper explanation about the interaction between undeadification and the soul, but what we do know is that a spell that indefinitely traps a soul is not tagged as (= always) evil, so if that isn't evil, what exactly does undeath do to a soul that is?
If you are talking about the real world, [...] then creating undead (assuming it was possible) is definitely an evil act that conflicts with our natural rights to life and liberty which are the most basic inherent individual rights any moral system depends on.
How? In what way does the creation "conflicts with our natural rights to life and liberty"? And why does this makes the spells evil and not the act? A fireball burns and destroys, but it's not tagged as evil. A forcecage creates a prison (it outright says so), but it's not tagged as evil.
• Trap the Soul prevents revification more surefire than any undead creation spell, and yet it's not evil, so preventing revification cannot be what makes creating undead evil.
• Swarm of Fangs results in a new creature being on the the caster's plane that attacks everything, and yet it's not evil, so that in iteself cannot be what makes creating undead evil.
• Recorporeal Incarnation destroys a body preventing low-level revivication spells, and it also makes it look like the dead creature was walking aaround again, and yet it's not evil.
If undead aren’t a perversion of life, then what is?
Calling something a "perversion" is what people do when they want to paint something as evil, but aren't able to make an actually argument for that.
once we define individual rights as the basis of morality we can define evil as that which conflicts with those rights. Turning people into undead violates those rights to life and liberty and is therefore evil. This is simple logic. A clear coherent argument supported by reasonable assumptions.
I applaud you for - for the first time - at least making an attempt at an actual argument rather than just empty claims. But in order for this argument to become sound, you need to prove the truth of your second premise (that "Turning people into undead violates those rights to life and liberty").
To be clear, in order for every single creation of undead to be evil, you have to prove that every single creation of undead voilates peoples rights.
You need to demonstrate how turning corpses into undead violates their life and liberty first. All you have proven is that murder for the purposes of undead creation is evil.
Undead creatures can’t be resurrected, turning someone undead prevents them from being revived. It’s analogous to dying on the operating table and the surgeons immediately donating your organs against your will without trying to resuscitate you. It conflicts with your right to life.
An undead creature is a slave. The necromancer can make them do whatever they want without the consent of the victim. It is a simple case of deprivation of liberty.
The real question is why does the necromancer have any rights to other people’s bodies? Why is the victim the only one who has no say? What system allows necromancers to take whatever they want? Certainly none with a coherent definition of good and evil.
@ Derklord
The right to liberty is an inherent, natural, inalienable, absolute, or whatever word you prefer type of right. This means the right to individual liberty cannot be traded away, you can’t consent to lose the power of consent. The right to liberty has to be that way to prevent the paradox of self reference.
Even if you gave consent to the necromancer to be a slave it is evil for the necromancer to accept that promise as it conflicts with a right that can’t be taken away from you.
As for whether other Pathfinder spells should also be considered evil, there is certainly a strong case for some of them. Pathfinder is a gaming system, I don’t expect it to be always consistent on every small detail.
Undead creatures can’t be resurrected, turning someone undead prevents them from being revived. It’s analogous to dying on the operating table and the surgeons immediately donating your organs against your will without trying to resuscitate you. It conflicts with your right to life.
You're constructing a "right to be kept in a state that allows revification". I don't think that has anything to to with a "right to life" in a setting with a known afterlife.
And while you talk about "against your will" for your analogy, you're compeltely ignoring the possibility of that for the actual case at hand.
An undead creature is a slave. The necromancer can make them do whatever they want without the consent of the victim. It is a simple case of deprivation of liberty.
No it's not, because the "right to liberty" only applies to humans (or for fantasy settings, to sapient creatures). A mindless creatures cannot be a "slave" per definition, and the act cannot possibly be a "deprivation of liberty". You could make a case for controlling non-mindless undead, but that a) can't affect mindless ones and b) would only address the morality of doing the controlling.
The real question is why does the necromancer have any rights to other people’s bodies? Why is the victim the only one who has no say?
No, this is not the right question. Who says the victim has no say? Maybe the body belonged to a soldier who made a will that they want their body to be raised as an undead to keep helping their comrades even after death.
What system allows necromancers to take whatever they want? Certainly none with a coherent definition of good and evil.
Same thing as above. Your entire post is made under the assumption that the necromancer took the body agaisnt the previous owner's wishes, but that's not what we're discussing here.
The entire time you're arguing a strawman, not our actual position. You're obsessing with the "your body gets stolen from you" part while completely ignoring situations where that's not the case.
@ Derklord
Well if you think I’m making a straw man argument then clearly state what your position is instead of just objecting to mine.
What are your assumptions? How are good and evil defined? And how does this apply to the morality of creating undead?
|
You need to demonstrate how turning corpses into undead violates their life and liberty first. All you have proven is that murder for the purposes of undead creation is evil.Undead creatures can’t be resurrected, turning someone undead prevents them from being revived. It’s analogous to dying on the operating table and the surgeons immediately donating your organs against your will without trying to resuscitate you. It conflicts with your right to life.
It can’t conflict with your right to life because you don’t have any life at that point. As mentioned above, you are inventing other rights to justify your position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I handle this issue very easily in my games and it explains why raising undead is objectively evil. You are free to ignore my opinion on the matter if you don't like it. If you don't like my conclusions, don't use them.
Why is raising undead evil? Because you prevent the natural process of a soul's journey to the afterlife. This isn't a subjective issue. You are choosing to not respect the sanctity of life (and death) of a sentient being and forcefully stopping them from moving on with existence. It is slavery of the soul. Even raise dead (and resurrection) offer consent to the deceased on returning to life.
Why do you interrupt the soul's journey? Because until Pharasma has judged a particular soul and sent it on it's way, there still exists a tether between that soul and its remains. If you animate the body as undead, it uses that tether to animate the body with energy that is the antithesis of life and causes harm to the soul on the other end. Whether it pulls back the soul from the boneyard or merely uses it as a fuel source is up to the GM.
How does it work with bodies that have been dead for a long time, maybe long enough that Pharasma has already judged the soul? First, whether or not Pharasma has judged the souls up to the GM and not up for the player's to determine. And second, either the spell is very powerful, enough that it can reconstitute the body from scratch and powerful enough to pull an echo of the soul back from its dissipated state (similar to how outsider's energies return to their plane of origin) that it is in effect the same thing, or it completely violates the established norms of life/death cycle and gets Pharasma's attention anyway.
So, to wrap around to the original question: Why can a person (body) be made undead no matter how long they've been dead for? Because Evil doesn't care about the rules. It is one of the reasons that it is Evil. Souls are ALWAYS involved as far as I am concerned, just so that the veracity of how EVIL raising undead remains consistent.
How are good and evil defined?
For the discussion at hand: How the CRB defines them. "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. [...] Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." CRB pg. 166
Also relevant: "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." ibid.
clearly state what your position is
Same as what TOZ said: There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.
If someone calls something evil, they must be able to explain why, and support that with evidence.
If you want to make a case as to why undead or the spells that create them are evil, explain why you cannot have non-evil undead (and with explain, I mean arguments based on morality, not lore), and/or how every single creation of undead voilates peoples' rights. Don't just argue worst case scenarios, your arguments must be true in all situations for the spells or creatures to be always evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is solely my interpretation that is inspired by the lore I've come across but not by the book. Also the recent changes in 2e alignment mechanics throw a little bit of a wrench in the theory but it can still apply narratively.
TL;DR Hypothesis - Alignments are natural forces with different frequencies, separate but affected by (and in turn affects) a creatures moral/ethical behaviours.
I like to see alignment as a frequency. For many (most?) sentient mortal beings, they start life as Neutral, or with no frequency. Over the course of their life, they perform acts of Good, Evil, Order, and/or Chaos that shift their frequency toward one of the Big 8. Or maybe they don't shift all that much and remain without any real frequency, remain Neutral. When you pass to the Boneyard, Pharasma scans you with the funky soul frequency reading stick and yeets you into the appropriate frequency afterlife.
Positive Energy and Negative Energy are forces of nature that are highly resonant with Good/Evil frequencies. That's why clerics and the like, who are gifted the ability to channel those energies, can only channel those with a frequency similar to their own. Now maybe those energies aren't necessarily good or evil but they share the frequency. Maybe its just coincidental that the stuff of the Higher Planes uses Positive Energy and the stuff of the Lower Planes uses Negative Energy. Positive is creative, healing, light, nurtures growth and life. These are nice things right? (Pay no attention to the horrors of too much Positive Energy behind the curtain.) Negative energy is destructive, dark corrupting, hungry, entropic, harmful. I have also seen fictions where the manipulation of dark energies brings with it a corruption, making it more and more likely for the user to do it again, and maybe that applies here too. Negative energy use begets more negative energy use.
Undead are made from negative energy. They are reconstituted from it, strengthened by it, they are burned or turned away by positive energy - a distortion of their own frequencies, an incompatibility. They often carry with them a corruption of life, a hunger for it, an ever present and insatiable need or rage. Unintelligent undead only have this. Intelligent undead can perhaps better keep their hungers and corruptions in check. But they are all aligned, perhaps forcibly, with this "evil" frequency. One could argue that if they have no choice but to be evil, is it truly evil? And that's a very good point. But also within the game are abilities that forcibly make the living a different alignment, including good. The cursed item Helm of Opposite Alignment shifts a creature's alignment to its opposite. Suddenly that mass murderer is a good person! How? It forcibly shifts their frequency.
Under this theory, moral ethics aside, undead are evil because they are made from evil-resonant energy, and making them is evil because it uses evil-resonant energy. You want to bring your loved one back for just a last conversation before putting them to rest, and in life were given consent to do so? By all rights that doesn't seem too evil, but it uses an evil energy. That loved one is corrupted by it, feels a hunger they can never fill, is wrought with anger and hatred not truly of their own. Intelligent undead might just claw their way up to a higher resonance with enough work, but gods is it hard work to fight against your new natural frequency. You can touch a magnet to its matching pole with enough pushing but its always striving to push it away again.
There's some stuff in the theory about the Positive and Negative Energy Planes but that's unrelated to the Undead discussion and I've already gone on too long. Please feel free to openly refute and disagree with any or all of the above, I won't cry (much).
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
and I've already gone on too long. Please feel free to openly refute and disagree with any or all of the above
The only party I want to refute is that you went on for too long.
I like the perspective of likening alignments to frequencies that can resonate with positive and negative energy. There's probably still lots of 'what about...' scenarios that can be used against that theory, but it seems like a pretty clean explanation at first glance.
I look forward to the day that I can throw "One could argue that if they have no choice but to be evil, is it truly evil?" at the table and see some of the people I know go (playfully) apoplectic. The paladin in me would counter that it's a moot point, because evil acts still need to be addressed no matter the cause. The wizard in me would want to explore that line of thinking more and try to get on top of how transformational it could be.
A see the aliment a the 2 sides of the coins, for example during the crusades in Jerusalem in the middle era who was right in think the Muslim or the Christian in they thinking the May said that what they are doing it the right way and the adversary is doing the evil. The same go during the Carl Magnus era during his rein he destroy the pagans religion because it's a blasphemy to they believe so he thinks he was doing good but his method to eradicate the cults is in a way to evil
Now for the positive and negative energy is something that it's related to the nature of the person but in physics said that energy it's not destroyed but it's transform so using this concept if you are good you can use the positive energy if you're evil you can use negative, but if you are neutral you must choose which one you want (in this part I have the issue since if we use the physics concept the neutral could be the aliment that can transform the energy from one to another and vice versa). Now another point is that healing and harm spell any cleric can use them but they are from my point of view different energy (healing is positive and harm is negative) so how can a good cleric with the positive energy can cast harm spell?
Now another point is that healing and harm spell any cleric can use them but they are from my point of view different energy (healing is positive and harm is negative)...
This is a really good point and not one I considered. Truthfully I don't have a good answer for it - Clerics and other divine casters get their power from the god or divine spirit of choice, right? So if Positive is good and Negative is evil, why would a god of one alignment allow the use of the opposing energy? Certainly they aren't able to use Channel Energy with their opposing energy, but Harm/Inflict X Wounds both state the use of Negative Energy, while Heal/Cure X Wounds uses Positive. Neither have the [good] not [evil] descriptors either. That does stand pretty solidly against the "Negative Energy has an evil frequency and that's why Undead are evil" theory, you got me there. Though it is sort of odd that Heal is allowed for evil clerics but Channel Positive Energy isn't. They even both say "channel" in the description. I guess it'd be unfair to evil clerics, mechanically speaking, if the only healing they got was Infernal Healing or a good night's rest.
Off the back of this though, I did look into something. And that something was every non-3pp statblock I could find for the creatures of the Upper and Lower Planes, seeing if any could use spells of the opposing energy type. Its actually huge though so I'm gonna put it in a neat little spoiler box so you can ignore it or pop it open like a can of worms.
The Baddies get interesting. Demons, Devils, Daemons, Demodands, Divs, and Qlippoths. I didn't do Asuras because they have interesting origins that I think could set them apart. There are a few here and there that can use Inflict spells, Harm, Enervation and the like - less popular that the healing spells among the Goodies, but they're there. And more or less, there's a serious absence of healing spells. Nabasus have regenerate but that's not Positive Energy. Among the D-squad, there is exactly one exception: the Advodaza, or Nemesis Devil, can cast Heal.
So that's it, right? Game over, devils can channel Positive Energy, so it's not inherently good. But wait. Because there's a little twist in the origins of Advodazas (Advodazae?). See, Nemesis Devils weren't always devils, weren't always evil spirits. They arose from spirits worshiped by mortals in ages past, who would call out into the night in prayer that something would save them from the dark and beasts and hunger. They would work miracles in exchange for worship and sacrifice. Miracles, for example, like healing the sick and wounded. As time passed and people turned from these spirits in exchange for actual deities, they corrupted and became devils, but they all wish to return to the Material Plane and be venerated again. Maybe this is why they can still perform those miracles despite their alignment. Or maybe I'm grasping at straws.
Because we're not in the clear yet, and here's our biggest downfall. Qlippoths. Yeah, Qlippoths can channel Positive Energy. Three of them, at least: the Utukku has a couple Cure spells(they act as false prophets and gather mortal cults, so I thought it could be something they've grown to do as part of the ruse, but that doesn't hold up with the other two), and the Iathavos and Qlippoth Lord Oaur-Ooung can both cast quickened Heal. They even have the Quickened Spell-Like Ability for it. First I thought maybe because they're not demons its different, but they're perhaps even more Abyssal than demons are. Then maybe that they're Spell-Like Abilities rather than the spell itself but SLAs work just like the spell except without components so that's out the window too. So yeah, evil creatures can channel Positive Energy. Not many, but they're there. And if they can, it means that energies of opposed alignment aren't off limits even to creatures practically made of alignment-stuff, let alone mortal clerics with such a propensity for either side. Does that mean that Negative Energy isn't evil then? Maybe.
Linking back (finally) to the undead conversation, I wonder if an undead cleric could prepare cure spells... like it wouldn't help them much, but is it possible? What would happen to them when they cast them? Would they take as much damage as they heal their touch target for? Whether creatures of evil can use Positive Energy or not, undead are definitely 100% messed up by it, and healed by Negative. And there's definitely a huge correlation as to which sides of Good vs Evil use which energy. So, uh... results inconclusive. But I spent like 2 hours looking this up so I couldn't not post it
|
A see the aliment a the 2 sides of the coins, for example during the crusades in Jerusalem in the middle era who was right in think the Muslim or the Christian in they thinking the May said that what they are doing it the right way and the adversary is doing the evil. The same go during the Carl Magnus era during his rein he destroy the pagans religion because it's a blasphemy to they believe so he thinks he was doing good but his method to eradicate the cults is in a way to evil
Now for the positive and negative energy is something that it's related to the nature of the person but in physics said that energy it's not destroyed but it's transform so using this concept if you are good you can use the positive energy if you're evil you can use negative, but if you are neutral you must choose which one you want (in this part I have the issue since if we use the physics concept the neutral could be the aliment that can transform the energy from one to another and vice versa). Now another point is that healing and harm spell any cleric can use them but they are from my point of view different energy (healing is positive and harm is negative) so how can a good cleric with the positive energy can cast harm spell?
It gets weird when you consider holy water and the fact its "holy" to good and evil gods but "harmful" to undead and undead related beings. Yet evil dieties worshipers tend to come with "unholy" water. If I'm making myself clear, I'm tired and sick.
I prefer the interpretation that most undead are created by drawing on the negative energy plane. Flesh Golems are made using animate dead. When they go berserk, that energy makes them want to kill. My prepetitioners are dodging those rules, except the Reapers who have struck a bargain with their respective outer planes to act as bounty hunters. DC's Specter basically helps victims get revenge without getting their hands dirty. Eventually, he had to find a replacement so he could move on.
...The created skeletons cannot speak, attack, or even defend themselves...
Skeleton Crew has a built in exception for the 'will attempt to kill' statement that was made, as they have no ability to 'go berserk' or act according to their own will. So its use as a counter argument is nebulous at best.
Skeleton Crew does not really create undead. The spell has a duration of 1 day per level not instantaneous. The spell temporarily animates the corpses instead of creating a permanent undead creature.
The spell also places constraints on what the undead can do. The skeletons created could actually still want to kill living things, but cannot because of the spell forcing them to do what they are supposed to do. Since there is no way to “free” the skeletons without ending the spell there is no real way to determine. A caster using animate dead can also control the skeletons he creates, but those can become uncontrolled.
As DeathlessOne points out using it as an argument for the nature of creating undead does not work.
As DeathlessOne points out using it as an argument for the nature of creating undead does not work.
Thank you. This would be the ONE exception (or RARE exception) that I would grudgingly admit that the spell (and the act of casting it) are not inherently evil. It does lack the [evil] tag, after all. People who witness it? Well, they have biases and preconceived notions about undead and won't be as forgiving as I (the GM) would be.
Hey, as long as you’re open and the players and characters know how the world is biased.
At my table, it is core Golarion (and Pathfinder) settings unless specified otherwise. All the general assumptions and implications of how magic is supposed to work are included in that setting.
The only time I would probably deviate from the whole 'raising the undead is evil period' assumption is if the rules of the multiverse and/or magic started operating under very different axioms. Even in an 'evil' campaign, the act of raising undead is still going to be evil, only just generally more socially acceptable ... because evil.
One would think that this thread is proof enough that general assumptions should not be left unspoken.
One cannot speak towards the specific source of this problem without sounding overly harsh, judgemental, and a little mean. I'll just say that it is less a problem with general assumptions and more with specific assumptions made in ignorance of the source material.
And the only way to resolve ignorance is education.
Depends on the particular flavor of ignorance. Education only works on those who want to be taught. Some people simply want things to work a certain way. And they'll argue until they are blue in the face hoping you'll get tired of the drama and just let them do it.
Man, I never understand why 'talk to your players about expectations' is such a tall order.
The answer to drama hounds is the door.
It's not a tall order by any means but people seem to be surprised by often people fail to leap that very low bar to avoid conflict and disagreement. I'm not surprised by it any more (and haven't been for well over a decade now).
I agree with showing drama hounds to the door. The problem is that so many people let them get away with it that it spoils the pool for the rest of us. Whatever gets thrown into that resource (the gaming pool), from which we all draw, effects ALL of us eventually.
There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.
The are no reason to have rules for a game except that is how people want it to be.
This means our real world is canon to Pathfinder. In our world, the intent of the action matters just as much as the action itself.
It only makes the fantastical version of the Earth they included part of the Pathfinder universe. It has no real bearing to how things actually are in the real world and most issues with the alignment system start with people attempting to align the game world with the real world. There is enough argument over how morality works in the real world that I won't bother getting started on it, aside from saying that I do not agree with the intent mattering as much as the action itself (and that disagreement is intense).
There is a meme, that is actually true, that is a billboard sign saying "Just because you did it doesn't mean you are guilty." An example of how this could be true is as follows: You murdered someone who broke into your home. You are not guilty of murder though, because they broke in and were armed. But you did still murder them at the end of the day.
It is not murder. Murder is a legal term, specifically the unjustified killing of another human being with intent. The action committed was merely 'killing', something people constantly misrepresent, as they do in this meme. Killing is merely the ending of a life by another. It can be justified, unjustified, accidental, intentional, and a few other various terms that I leave to the lawyers and judges to hash out.
So this type of logic has to hold true for Pathfinder, because again, it is canon that real world Earth is canon in Pathfinder.
I'd work on your basic axioms and projected conclusions. The logic does not hold up.
100%, state your expectations and make the game what you want it to be.
That is what occurs when someone starts a "Pathfinder game set in the Golarion setting". Any deviations from that should be spelled out and handled in session zero.