Why can a person be made undead no matter how long they've been dead for?

[Yqatuba]

You'd think there'd be a limit like with resurrection spells, both due to the limits of mortal magic and because after thousands of years you'd think Pharasma would have judged them and sent them to their afterlife location.

[OmniMage]

I don't know.

I don't think your average undead skeleton or zombie needs a soul. Ghosts are restless souls by definition. Vampires probably, because they're intelligent undead. I'm not sure about the rest (I'm not an expert on undead).

[Pizza Lord]

Skeletons, zombies, and other mindless undead are usually not really the soul or spirit of the person whose body they were. As for raising other spirits, I think the canonic lore for Pharasma (since you mentioned her specifically), is that she just 'knows' whether a soul or spirit will be raised or brought back sometime in the future ever... and so just does not judge them.
So theoretically if that ever did happen, it would either be from immense power, like wish, or because she allowed it (or both).

[Mysterious Stranger]

For corporeal undead it could be that when you create the undead the spirt animating the undead is not the soul of the original creature. Since undead have strong ties to the negative material plane the spirt probably comes from that plane. The dead body is more of a temporary shell for a malevolent spirt.

Other than skeletons and zombies there are not a lot of undead that are created by spells. Most undead other undead are the result of being killed by an undead or when a creature dies in a specific manner.

[Boomerang Nebula]

In addition to what Mysterious Stranger said the Pathfinder book Planar Adventures pages 64-69 has information on what happens to mortals when they die, judgement by Pharasma and how undead fit into the picture. That is a great resource if you are the GM.

If you are a player ask your GM.

[Senko]

Personally I take my interpretation from Buffy and Shadowrun. You're not actually getting the persons soul your getting a fleshbag with the original beings memories (also how speak with dead works since I know there's meant to be an occult ritual that actually brings the soul back instead or at least that was how it was played when I encountered it) inhibated by some malevolent spirit or demon. Essentially it not Timmy the vampire its a vampire who thinks its Timmy with all morals and inhibitions powered by some shadow demon or the like.

[Melkiador]

You may also think of it not as souls but soul fragments. Just a tiny sliver of the original soul, more like soul residue. With undead like the crawling hand, you could actually make multiple undead creatures from a single body.

[Andostre]

Is it still Golarion lore that creating undead is an evil act because it prevents a soul from moving on to their afterlife? Or has that lore evolved?

[TxSam88]

Andostre wrote:

Is it still Golarion lore that creating undead is an evil act because it prevents a soul from moving on to their afterlife? Or has that lore evolved?

Most of the spells that create undead have EVIL in their descriptor, so yes, evil act.

[Melkiador]

It's still evil, but I don't think we have that excuse anymore. It's not like stopping people from going to the afterlife is inherently good or evil anyway, it's an attack against neutrality.

[Andostre]

Sorry, I could have been more clear: I agree that in Golarion, the act of creating undead is considered an evil act. I'm asking what the reasoning is for that. Why (according to the devs) is it evil?

If I recall, it used to be evil because it prevented a soul from moving on. Or called part of a soul back from beyond, or summoned an evil spirit into the living world, or whatever. I'm just asking if that's still the reason why creating undead is considered evil.

[Senko]

Andostre wrote:

Sorry, I could have been more clear: I agree that in Golarion, the act of creating undead is considered an evil act. I'm asking what the reasoning is for that. Why (according to the devs) is it evil?

If I recall, it used to be evil because it prevented a soul from moving on. Or called part of a soul back from beyond, or summoned an evil spirit into the living world, or whatever. I'm just asking if that's still the reason why creating undead is considered evil.

I don't think it does that considering Geb's undead economy, if all those zombies were stopping the soul moving on it would have been more of a big deal. I do recall a thread where they were talking about undead being powered by negative energy and it disrupting the cosmic balance that maintains creation so they were evil for that. But I don't know how official that view was.

[Coidzor]

Melkiador wrote:

You may also think of it not as souls but soul fragments. Just a tiny sliver of the original soul, more like soul residue. With undead like the crawling hand, you could actually make multiple undead creatures from a single body.

If you're around for killing them, you can make a Soulbound Mannequin or Soulbound Doll construct with soul fragments, 2 crawling claws, 2 isitoq eyeball undead, and a beheaded.

I don't believe you can make a headless skeleton or zombie, though I may be mistaken. I remember some kind of custom headless Ogre undead in Rise of the Runelords, so there might be something somewhere.

[Mysterious Stranger]

If you are summoning an evil spirt to inhabit the body that would be a reason it is considered and evil act.

[Java Man]

Every type of undead that can be created with a spell is evil. Every last one of them will attack and kill living creatures given a chance. Seems fairly self evident that creating them is an evil act.

[Coidzor]

Yqatuba wrote:

You'd think there'd be a limit like with resurrection spells, both due to the limits of mortal magic and because after thousands of years you'd think Pharasma would have judged them and sent them to their afterlife location.

I imagine that ultimately, it's part of why you can cast Reincarnate (away from the body so that it isn't consumed by the spell) in order to bring someone back to life and then make whatever undead you feel like out of the body.

Or do the same thing with the body left behind by someone whose soul has transmigrated into their clone from the Clone spell.

That reminds me of how I've wanted to come up with some kind of plot where a villain's evil scheme actually takes advantage of this or hinges upon it in some way for a good while now. Sadly, I still got nothing, beyond it being a bit of trivia or backstory.

(I suppose "Dave and the Negas" could always be some kind of macabre Bard band.)

Coidzor wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

You may also think of it not as souls but soul fragments. Just a tiny sliver of the original soul, more like soul residue. With undead like the crawling hand, you could actually make multiple undead creatures from a single body.

If you're around for killing them, you can make a Soulbound Mannequin or Soulbound Doll construct with soul fragments, 2 crawling claws, 2 isitoq eyeball undead, and a beheaded.

I don't believe you can make a headless skeleton or zombie, though I may be mistaken. I remember some kind of custom headless Ogre undead in Rise of the Runelords, so there might be something somewhere.

Oh, right, a Dullahan. Silly me. Though that requires Create Undead (but then so do the Crawling Claws), and isn't under the command of the creator.

So that's 1 construct and 6 undead that can be created from a single creature's death while still having them walking around alive in a new body. Before going into homebrew monsters, like animated entrails or skin or what have you.

[Melkiador]

Senko wrote:

I do recall a thread where they were talking about undead being powered by negative energy and it disrupting the cosmic balance that maintains creation so they were evil for that. But I don't know how official that view was.

I think that’s a bit of the thought but it really doesn’t add up. Breaking cosmic balance shouldn’t be any more inherently evil than it is chaotic. It’s really just anti-neutral

[TriOmegaZero]

Undead creation only cares about the body, resurrection magic cares about the soul.

[Azothath]

Yqatuba wrote:

You'd think there'd be a limit like with resurrection spells....

so you recognize that in the RAW spell descriptions for Animate Undead:N(3-4) and Create Undead:N6 that there is no time limit since the death of the creature. You might want the Homebrew or Advice forum to discuss rule changes as this is General chat, but it's all good.

There is the practical limit of having a full corpse or intact dead body. Things that are missing will also be missing after the spell is cast. Normal decay happens. There are also protective spells that protect the corpse from such spells. These details are left to the GM to use his discretion.

The spells have the [Evil] descriptor. Again, it is mainly for GM guidance and how far that goes. For some it just takes one, others a bunch. For guidance Resurrection:C7 does not have the [Good] descriptor nor Slay Living:N(4-6) the [Evil] descriptor.

The spells and the creatures are different. Undead type does not list an Evil Alignment, however, there is chat that it is the usual case. There are exceptions; spellgorged zombie, dread zombie aasimar warrior, ectoplasmic human, ...

[Boomerang Nebula]

Undead are a perversion of life. They are evil no matter how you try to rationalise it.

[TOZ]

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

[Boomerang Nebula]

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

[TOZ]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Are you kidding me?

No.

[Azothath]

before things get too personal - this is a GAME with an alignment scheme that the GM adjudicates. What one person or group thinks is evil another may not.

[Azothath]

If you think there are too many undead there's always this. Undead are a resource that lays about for decades unchanged and unused and Nature abhors such a waste.

[Melkiador]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

Being greedy about your body after you’re done using it could be considered to be evil too. There was actually a Doctor Who episode about this.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Melkiador wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

Being greedy about your body after you’re done using it could be considered to be evil too. There was actually a Doctor Who episode about this.

So it is greedy to insist on rights for my own body but not greedy for the necromancer to take bodies from other people? I don’t follow your logic. Surely the necromancer is the greedy one.

[Temperans]

Some resurrection magic cares about the body, but only in so far as you are bringing the soul back to its body. Ex: Raise dead requires the original body, will not regenerate missing parts, and will not work if the body is undead. The actual ressurection spell will not work on an active undead but will work after its destroyed.

Regardless unless you are dealing with something like a soul jar physical undead have nothing to do with the actual soul. Ethereal undead (ex: ghosts) are either remnant of the soul, or souls that refuse to go down the river.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Senko wrote:

Andostre wrote:

Sorry, I could have been more clear: I agree that in Golarion, the act of creating undead is considered an evil act. I'm asking what the reasoning is for that. Why (according to the devs) is it evil?

If I recall, it used to be evil because it prevented a soul from moving on. Or called part of a soul back from beyond, or summoned an evil spirit into the living world, or whatever. I'm just asking if that's still the reason why creating undead is considered evil.

I don't think it does that considering Geb's undead economy, if all those zombies were stopping the soul moving on it would have been more of a big deal. I do recall a thread where they were talking about undead being powered by negative energy and it disrupting the cosmic balance that maintains creation so they were evil for that. But I don't know how official that view was.

Geb is officially lawful evil, at least according to the Inner Sea World Guide.

That makes sense to me. From what I remember they (Geb) has living slaves that are specifically bred/selected/intended as a food source for some of their undead minions. Geb is not a nice place.

[Senko]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Senko wrote:

Andostre wrote:

Sorry, I could have been more clear: I agree that in Golarion, the act of creating undead is considered an evil act. I'm asking what the reasoning is for that. Why (according to the devs) is it evil?

If I recall, it used to be evil because it prevented a soul from moving on. Or called part of a soul back from beyond, or summoned an evil spirit into the living world, or whatever. I'm just asking if that's still the reason why creating undead is considered evil.

I don't think it does that considering Geb's undead economy, if all those zombies were stopping the soul moving on it would have been more of a big deal. I do recall a thread where they were talking about undead being powered by negative energy and it disrupting the cosmic balance that maintains creation so they were evil for that. But I don't know how official that view was.

Geb is officially lawful evil, at least according to the Inner Sea World Guide.

That makes sense to me. From what I remember they (Geb) has living slaves that are specifically bred/selected/intended as a food source for some of their undead minions. Geb is not a nice place.

Oh I wasn't saying it was good or a nice place just that there doesn't seem (in what I've read/played) to be much concern about it as long as your not Nex. Compare it to say the whispering Tyrant he had an entire town/organization solely dedicated to watching for his return while Geb is just a very unpleasant country.

Also your body is just lying around since you stopped using it the necromancer at least is putting it to some use rather than letting it rot:)

[Java Man]

Java Man wrote:

Every type of undead that can be created with a spell is evil. Every last one of them will attack and kill living creatures given a chance. Seems fairly self evident that creating them is an evil act.

So, no one has a counter arguement for me?

[Coidzor]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

And the much more useful Tiger body that's otherwise just going to go to waste after a jerk druid manipulated it into trying to kill an adventuring party?

Does it have a sacred right to not have its body used for any purpose?

[Boomerang Nebula]

Senko wrote:

Oh I wasn't saying it was good or a nice place just that there doesn't seem (in what I've read/played) to be much concern about it as long as your not Nex. Compare it to say the whispering Tyrant he had an entire town/organization solely dedicated to watching for his return while Geb is just a very unpleasant country.

Also your body is just lying around since you stopped using it the necromancer at least is putting it to some use rather than letting it rot:)

Who said my body is just lying around? Maybe I’m waiting to be restored to life. And if that becomes impossible then I want to be donated back to the earth. What I don’t want is my relatives traumatised seeing my dead body wandering the place.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Coidzor wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

And the much more useful Tiger body that's otherwise just going to go to waste after a jerk druid manipulated it into trying to kill an adventuring party?

Does it have a sacred right to not have its body used for any purpose?

If the tiger is sentient, then sure, its body is off limits.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Java Man wrote:

Java Man wrote:

Every type of undead that can be created with a spell is evil. Every last one of them will attack and kill living creatures given a chance. Seems fairly self evident that creating them is an evil act.

So, no one has a counter arguement for me?

No, I happen to agree with you.

[Melkiador]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period. Going against my wishes for my body is evil. You are basically turning my body into your own personal slave.

There is no moral case for a person’s body to become the property of the first necromancer to happen by.

Being greedy about your body after you’re done using it could be considered to be evil too. There was actually a Doctor Who episode about this.

So it is greedy to insist on rights for my own body but not greedy for the necromancer to take bodies from other people? I don’t follow your logic. Surely the necromancer is the greedy one.

From a certain perspective either is greedy. The necromancer could just as easily use the undead to protect the poor or till the fields. The point is that the intent doesn’t matter, which is weird. Undead are evil because some writer just liked that idea. It’s not inherently evil without that conceit.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Whether undead are inherently evil depends on what an undead creature really is. The game does not explicitly state what undead actually are except that they were once living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces. Sure, they give some features all undead share, but do not define what they actually are.

Pathfinder does state that undead are evil. That seems to imply that the spiritual or supernatural forces animating them are evil. In the case of mindless undead or those that do not retain their memories and personality it seems reasonable that the spirit animating the body is not the original soul. The spirit animating it is an evil spirit summoned from somewhere else to inhabit the dead body. For those undead that do retain their memories and personality the spiritual or supernatural forces probably corrupt the soul turning it evil.

Other game systems may treat undead differently and may have good undead, but that is not how Pathfinder does things. If a GM wants to change that in their game that is their right, but at that point we are talking about a house rule.

[Senko]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Senko wrote:

Oh I wasn't saying it was good or a nice place just that there doesn't seem (in what I've read/played) to be much concern about it as long as your not Nex. Compare it to say the whispering Tyrant he had an entire town/organization solely dedicated to watching for his return while Geb is just a very unpleasant country.

Also your body is just lying around since you stopped using it the necromancer at least is putting it to some use rather than letting it rot:)

Who said my body is just lying around? Maybe I’m waiting to be restored to life. And if that becomes impossible then I want to be donated back to the earth. What I don’t want is my relatives traumatised seeing my dead body wandering the place.

Heh I remember the stories about dead people being found on buses and other public locations because the families couldn't pay graveyard fee's. Doubt it was true but still an interesting thought.

[Neriathale]

Melkiador wrote:

Undead are evil because some writer just liked that idea. It’s not inherently evil without that conceit.

Undead are evil because the vast majority of the real world myths and stories that inspired them portray the unquiet dead as a bad thing, and necromancy as evil. Your campaign may be different, but if you ask the average non-gamer what zombies, vampies etc are, they are not the good guys, and this general belief is the source material for the monsters created for the game.

Then there is the fact that from a system viewpoint the game needs some low-level unequivocally bad monsters for the PCs to fight in a game that at it’s heart is about killing monsters. Given you can’t fight goblins any more without getting told off because they are really lovely charismatic people, undead are the safest go-to bad guys.

[Melkiador]

Neriathale wrote:

Undead are evil because the vast majority of the real world myths and stories that inspired them portray the unquiet dead as a bad thing, and necromancy as evil.

Except you can find a lot of exceptions to that as well, especially in modern media. The problem is not that most types of undead are "usually" evil. The problem is that that they are "always" evil. It's reductive.

[Temperans]

Melkiador wrote:

Neriathale wrote:

Undead are evil because the vast majority of the real world myths and stories that inspired them portray the unquiet dead as a bad thing, and necromancy as evil.

Except you can find a lot of exceptions to that as well, especially in modern media. The problem is not that most types of undead are "usually" evil. The problem is that that they are "always" evil. It's reductive.

Its not reductive. Its different settings having different rules.

The rules in iZombie are different from the rules in Shawn of the Dead, which are different from the Walking Dead, which are different from Night of the Living Dead, which is different from Monster High, which is different from Pathfinder.

You don't like the rules in a setting? Then don't use those rules. But don't go around saying that the rules are wrong. Now complaining that they stated a rule and then changed it, that is a valid complain.

[Azothath]

as for stories, an author needs challenges and antagonists and a way for the protagonist(s) to overcome them and gain power within the story (see the Cinderella plot diagram tracking power). For Drama you need a back & forth of that appearance of power and control.
So undead are a common trope/device for that. I agree that the Game draws on those ideas as well as previous editions (the OGL).

The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice varies from that. Blade and other stories with "good" vampires or antiheroes. And *phtuii* Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer (made a ton of $$$, you may remember it).

So I'm not sure stories are a good basis for a universal. They are mostly imaginary and the Imaginary is not bounded like Reality. undead are fiction

In D&D (the OGL) and PF1 most undead are Evil but not all. That's been known for a long time. So I'd ask you to stop stating that in RAW the Undead Type is Evil. I listed examples in an earlier post that are not Evil.

IF you want to run it that way in your Home Game that's perfectly fine and shows how your local culture and personal tastes have tailored the Game for your use and current group. The Game is made for that and it is expected. The issue is reflecting your Home Game back onto RAW and presenting it as RAW. It happens.

[Java Man]

Point of clarity: if we are discussing whether or not the creation of undead is evil the fact that all of the undead that can be created with spells are evil is relevant. The examples of non evil undead are not ones that could be created with RAW spells.

If we have moved on to a broader "morality of undeath" discussion then the fact that a few undead of a few types can sometimes buck the evil label is a valid point.

[Coidzor]

Neriathale wrote:

Then there is the fact that from a system viewpoint the game needs some low-level unequivocally bad monsters for the PCs to fight in a game that at it’s heart is about killing monsters. Given you can’t fight goblins any more without getting told off because they are really lovely charismatic people, undead are the safest go-to bad guys.

Indeed, a major reason why Zombies and Skeletons went from Neutral in D&D 3.0 and the olden days of AD&D to Evil in D&D 3.5 and onward was to have more low level enemies for Paladins to Smite.

Java Man wrote:

Point of clarity: if we are discussing whether or not the creation of undead is evil the fact that all of the undead that can be created with spells are evil is relevant. The examples of non evil undead are not ones that could be created with RAW spells.

If we have moved on to a broader "morality of undeath" discussion then the fact that a few undead of a few types can sometimes buck the evil label is a valid point.

It gets a little bit muddier when taking into account that there used to be ways to make non-evil undead and then the rules were changed, either overtime as in the case of PF1E's roots in D&D or with whatever happened with Oracles and Juju Zombies.

[Azothath]

on undead Templates;
> variant Yellow Musk Zombie - a plant. Plants are typically NN but no direction is given to change the Alignment.
> Ectoplasmic template - "usually Chaotic Evil". Necromantic but from the living.
> Ghost template - no mention of Alignment. They are dramatic encounters.
> Prana Ghost - "Usually, prana ghosts are more helpful and less malicious than their ethereal cousins, but not always." also as Ghost above.
> [3.5] Osirion Mummy - "Alignment: Usually lawful evil."
> Sea Sworn (undead) - "Alignment: Usually neutral evil." Necromantic but from the living.

Magic Item
> Vest of Shed Servitude [chest] $4000 creates temp undead homunculus (Alignment as Creator). Requirements list animate dead and mirror image.

[Derklord]

Java Man wrote:

Java Man wrote:

Every type of undead that can be created with a spell is evil. Every last one of them will attack and kill living creatures given a chance. Seems fairly self evident that creating them is an evil act.

So, no one has a counter arguement for me?

Well, calling something "self evident" isn't an argument to begin with, and in order for a counter-argument to be made, there first needs to be an argument.

If we ignore the word "self" (and thus make an actual argument out of your statement):
@Premise 1: That "Every type of undead that can be created with a spell is evil" is a case of begging the question - you're stating the conclusion as a premise.
@Premise 2: That "Every last one of them will attack and kill living creatures given a chance" doesn't proof anything, because you need to proof that such creatures are inherently evil, or that creating such creatures is an evil act. And for comparison, there are spells that summon creatures that attack everything, like Summon Swarm or Swarm of Fangs, and these spells are not tagged as evil.

[Derklord]

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Undead are a perversion of life.

Not only is this an unfounded claim, that doesn't make them evil:

"the Shadow Plane emulates the Material Plane’s life but only manages to produce and populate itself with hollow perversions." Campaign Setting, pg. 181
"Shadow Plane [...] Alignment mildly neutral-aligned" Planar Adventures pg. 106

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

They are evil no matter how you try to rationalise it.

No, you need to give a reason as to why they're evil.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period.

I think you mean I shouldn't use your body for anything, because I totally can. It's not as if you could stop me, being, you know, dead.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

TOZ wrote:

There's no reason undead are evil except that is how people want it to be.

Are you kidding me?

If I don’t volunteer to be an organ donor you can’t use my body for anything. Period.

So because you don't want your body to be raised as an undead, that makes it evil for every single person in the universe? Presumptuous much?

If you don't want to be raised, that makes raising you evil. But the game makes raising even a willing target evil, and there's no justification for that. What you presented is a mere fallacy of composition.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:

What I don’t want is my relatives traumatised seeing my dead body wandering the place.

Again that makes the specific act evil, but not all creation of undead. For example, raising your body as a skeleton wouldn't traumatize anyone for "seeing [your] dead body wandering the place".

[Boomerang Nebula]

@ Derklord

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.”

The goddess of undeath (Urgathoa) is neutral evil. The stat blocks for undead in the Bestiary have undead as evil. If we are talking about Pathfinder undead and the process of creating them, they are clearly evil.

If you are talking about the real world, unless you are coming from a premise of moral relativism where terms like “good” and “evil” lose their meaning, 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.

If undead aren’t a perversion of life, then what is?

[TOZ]

Nothing. Normal is just a setting on the dryer.

[Boomerang Nebula]

TOZ wrote:

Nothing. Normal is just a setting on the dryer.

What is your point exactly?