Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rustmonster 04-11-07, 08:45 PM	Animate Dead: Necromancy [Evil] I do not in the slightest understand this. In the description of Animate dead, it does not mention once an evil act. It says it turns "the body and bones" of the target into an animated minion, not "Turns the body and bones of the target into a horrific rotting monster that promptly eats all babies in a 1000 km radious". The acts performed by these helpers is the diffrence between evil and good, not the spell. If, say, a group of bugbears attacked an orphanage and broke one of the walls, and some adventurers come to help. They swiftly trounce the evil bugbears, leaving behind their lifeless shells. They still have a smashed orphanage on their hands. Luckily, the party wizard specializes in necromancy. After getting the area cleared of civilians, he begins his craft. He animates all of the corpses present, and instructs them to... build. They start taking the rubble and place it back in the space were the wall was, while one of the adventurers puts down mortar before every stone is placed. A task that would have taken hours now takes only minutes thanks to the zombies never getting tired and their massive strength. I believe this spell does NOT deserve the descriptor it has been branded with. The animated dead are tools, like a summoned monster. They can be commanded for good as well as evil. It's, as it always is in life, completly up to the user of the tools.
Mecha_Pope 04-11-07, 09:37 PM	Yes, but according to the good ole monster entries for skeleton and zombie, they're evil, therefore a spell which creates them is also evil. Now, why are they evil? Who knows. The rules don't give us a reason, unfortunatly, which is why this tread is no doubt going to turn into a bunch of people (possibly including me) proposing theories as to why they are evil, or why they shouldn't be. Have fun.
Kouk 04-11-07, 11:07 PM	Actually the Summon Monster spells do have the Evil descriptor, depending on what you summon. Alignment is by default absolute in D&D. There is no extenuating circumstance for anything, if you do something, it has an alignment associated regardless of your intentions. It says in one of the books that Orcs probably view themselves as the good guys and elves as the bad guys, but in general the orcs would be wrong by the universal laws of good and evil. It is just a staple of the game, if you animate the body of any fallen foe you are desecrating it. It is not much different than a ghoul digging a body out of a cemetery and then eating it. Food in itself is not "evil", but it is certainly not a "good" act to dig up someone's body to provide you with the power to kill other people. Why is trafficking with demons and devils evil? Well it often involves some sort of tradeoff in which they benefit, whether material or just the pleasure of getting to kill material plane inhabitants. Dark power also corrupts the user, yadda yadda. If you are perfectly OK with an enemy spellcaster using your body as slave labor in constructing his fortress of doom after he kills you then go ahead and discuss with your DM if Animate Dead should be considered Evil. Part of why it is evil is also as a bit of a counterbalance because it is so powerful I think. If you cast evil spells a lot you become evil and then you get paladins chasing you down.
countbubba 04-11-07, 11:52 PM	Also, creating undead is inherently evil because it inherently brings negative energy into the world, thereby making any summoning of undead inherently detritous to the very nature of life.
suparman999 04-12-07, 12:04 AM	That's debatable, see Tome of Fiends (I know it's not canon, but read it anyway! And a lot of the fan made material is better than WizO's work(which I don't own that much of) cause it's free and stuff. And besides, what really is definately canon about negative energy and undead?) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=646241
Gedrin 04-12-07, 12:41 AM	If, IYC, the bodies of once sentient beings are merely decaying piles of matter no more significant than rotting piece of fruit, and increasing the amount of negative energy in the world isn't harmful to the fabric of life, then the spell probably shouldn't be evil. However if... Drawing more negative energy into the world harms the fabric of life... The bodies of sentients are important and should be handled with care... Abusing the bodies of the dead sometimes causes them to rise as vengeful life hating monsters... Undead, when they slip the attention of their masters, do in fact eat babies as a hobby... or Undead of the types created by the spell are Evil by nature and creating them adds to the force of Evil in the world... Then the spell should probably have the Evil descriptor.
Imatash 04-12-07, 01:27 AM	hmmm outlook is everything....for those that are saying perhaps it is not evil may I suggest a neutral outlook.... For those who state they are an afront to all that is natural and good in the world well then it is evil. Imatash
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 01:28 AM	I believe this spell does NOT deserve the descriptor it has been branded with. The animated dead are tools, like a summoned monster. They can be commanded for good as well as evil. It's, as it always is in life, completly up to the user of the tools. And I would agree with you. The spell being evil, like non-intelligent undead being evil, is an unexplained 3.5 retcon without any real reason, or grounding in the flavor text. It's a rules shift with no substance, and no depth to make it a rational one. Unless the spell specifically creates an evil undead being, there's zero reason for the spell to be evil, much less deserve an evil tag.
Lixith 04-12-07, 02:34 AM	Well to me it's obvious it should be evil. You are turning a lifeless husk (and ya, who cares about the husk, that's not the point here) into an 'evil' creature. Even if the caster is good, and you use the creatures to save puppies and plant roses.... if you are killed or in any way lose control of them, they they return to their true nature. Evil, mindless or not. That's just the way the game works. And about there not being a reason for non-int undead being evil... well... they're undead.... i mean. Come on. Devils are evil, deamons are evil.... Sure you might find some specific cases where that isn't true for whatever reason.... but... they're UNDEAD. Edit:... and besides... what's wrong with evil?
Kouk 04-12-07, 03:27 AM	Unless the spell specifically creates an evil undead being, there's zero reason for the spell to be evil, much less deserve an evil tag. Skeletons and Zombies are actually evil in 3.5, despite being mindless. Alignment: Always NE
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 04:46 AM	Skeletons and Zombies are actually evil in 3.5, despite being mindless. I already addressed that point in my post (though perhaps I could have worded it better). It's an unexplained, and in my opinion unjustified, retcon. Zombies and skeletons are automatons without motivations or will of their own, puppets that only do what they are commanded to do. They're as evil as an animated object. But being icky, or fitting with some preconceived notions fueled by too many B grade zombie movies seems to have justified in some peoples' minds that they should be evil. D&D zombies and skeletons, 3.5 retcon aside, don't have any justification for that however (and negative energy isn't evil).
_SIN_ 04-12-07, 07:53 AM	I think it's based more on morals... OP, if someone could animate dead, would you be completely happy with someone digging up the remains of your relative - be it one of your parents, or even your kids - and animate them - as a public service worker, like a road sweeper?.... Something that is doing the greater good for the community is a Good thing, right?... Is Necrophilia (That's porkin' dead-un's) good or evil? It's bad manners to play with your food, let alone play with your dead! It's evil beacuse it's immoral...
Seeker95 04-12-07, 08:55 AM	Animate Dead: Necromancy [Evil] I do not in the slightest understand this. In the description of Animate dead, it does not mention once an evil act.Mention (in real life) to *anyone* that you intend to do something with a human corpse. Don't mention what you intend to do. Just mention it involves using a corpse. Check out the reaction. In all 50 states, doing *anything* to a human corpse (unless you are a mortician, coroner, or medical student) is at least a misdemeanor, and in most states, it is a felony. Screwing around with corpses, literally or metaphorically, is not well-received by the majority of people. Animating them just does not play well in Peoria.
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 09:10 AM	Sin, for one, I was not suggesting that you start looting graves and animating the contents. That's something you just don't do. Seeker, this is not the US (and arn't there like 51? I'm Canadian), it is a fantasy world where undead exist at all. I'm guessing that for the most part magic like this is not bared, although I'm guessing that citizens would not likely be happy to see your corpse buddies shambling around. Shemeska, that's exactly how I see it. Skeleton and zombies have no minds, so they can not be evil, just like an animal can't be really evil. It just takes orders. I'm guessing that if you got killed your undead would just stop moving, or just start attacking ANYTHING that's handy because the link between you was broken. CountBubba, the inflict spells also bring a ton of negative energy into the world, but are not [evil] spells. Negative energy is not evil, it is just unpleasant for the recipiant (except, of course, to undead).
Seeker95 04-12-07, 09:41 AM	Seeker, this is not the US (and aren't there like 51? I'm Canadian),It's 50. Puerto Rico is a suburb of Miami, and Canada is a suburb of Minnesota. :P it is a fantasy world where undead exist at all.True. It is a fantasy world. But it was created by real-world game designers. And real-world morality assumptions play something of a role in the design of the game.
SilvercatMoonpaw 04-12-07, 10:45 AM	Here's what I tend to see in the arguements for undead being evil (and the spells that bring them about): "They're listed as Evil." It's a boring arguement, plus it still doesn't answer the question. Once you say this then you have to say why that kind of undead is evil. An arguement can be made that if the kind of undead in question is animated by its hatred and goes around generally killing people then it could be considered Evil. Otherwise it's just a flavor convention that could be ignored. "It brings negative energy into the world." Inflict spells. Plus destruction/decay/death is a part of the natural world. "It's a perversion of life/nature." This is another flavor decision. It's not a really bad flavor, just it depends upon how one decides the way "nature" views the result. If you think that maybe nature doesn't care what happens to the remains because they'd eventually be broken down and used some other way, then maybe it's not preverse. "It doesn't respect the bodies of sentients." I hope whoever says this also means the bodies of non-sentients. Otherwise it's a disgusting comment on how humans like to make themselves feel important. It's another flavor decision too: Are bodies necessary for the soul to [blank]? Is the body itself important to the process (such as eventual ressurreciton in the great "return")? The designer of the campaign needs to make these decisions if they wish to use this arguement to explain undead being evil.
wrecan 04-12-07, 10:52 AM	I agree the question must be answered, why are skeletons and zombies always evil? That's the only reason animate dead has an evil descriptor. If you house rule that mindless skeletons and zombies are neutral, then houe rule that animate dead has no alignment descriptor. In my opinion, the rules have decided that anything that is animated by negative energy is tapping into the objective force of evil. Why isn't the plane of negative energy evil-aligned, then? I have no idea, particularly since it must be populated by the evil Wraiths of those visitors whose lifeforce was drained on that plane.
Escef 04-12-07, 10:59 AM	Did it occur to anyone that without the Evil descriptor Good and Neutral aligned PCs would have a retinue of animated followers? Do you know how that would screw up the CR/EL system (as if it weren't already only semi-reliable)? And how much would it slow down combat? Not to mention that D&D is predominately about being the good guys. How many good guys in the works of fantasy literature do you know of have triumped by animating and exploiting the dead. That's taboo in just about every culture. The only time undead were on the good guys side in fantasy literature that I can recall was Lord of the Rings, and the good guys were reluctant to call on them and sent them on their way as soon as was possible.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 11:06 AM	If you house rule that mindless skeletons and zombies are neutral, then house rule that animate dead has no alignment descriptor.Not at all directly related. Just because the undead you create cannot have an alignment (they are mindless, incapable of decision, i.e. neutral) does not mean that the act of creating them must also be neutral.
SilvercatMoonpaw 04-12-07, 11:09 AM	Did it occur to anyone that without the Evil descriptor Good and Neutral aligned PCs would have a retinue of animated followers? Do you know how that would screw up the CR/EL system (as if it weren't already only semi-reliable)? And how much would it slow down combat? This arguement I like. It makes sense without imposing someone else's morals on the game. Not to mention that D&D is predominately about being the good guys. How many good guys in the works of fantasy literature do you know of have triumped by animating and exploiting the dead. That's taboo in just about every culture. The only time undead were on the good guys side in fantasy literature that I can recall was Lord of the Rings, and the good guys were reluctant to call on them and sent them on their way as soon as was possible. But that's because those stories are written by people from cultures where it's taboo (admittedly, that's everyone I can think of, so I'm not going to press it). And there are stories where the undead help out the living without your "we're scared of them" LOTR example. Look up the books of Terry Pratchett, especially the ones featuring Sam Vimes. He's a police chief who hires zombies.
_SIN_ 04-12-07, 12:47 PM	Seeker95 said: Just because the undead you create cannot have an alignment (they are mindless, incapable of decision, i.e. neutral) So what, are all neutral PC's mindless/incapable of decision? Undead aren't neutral, they're mindless. If anything they should be compared to plants... Dude, Pratchett has his own Discworld RPG. These are D&D undead, NOT DW. In general, most fantasy setting I've either read or played, Necromancy has always been portryed as evil...
Pyritefoolsgold 04-12-07, 01:10 PM	Easy. People raised as undead cannot be raised with a raise dead spell, and it takes a much more powerful spell to do the job. This makes it rather obvious that these spells are doing something rather nasty to the soul itself, perhaps drawing upon it's energy to power the body. So if you raise farmer john as a zombie, you're tapping farmer john's very soul to do the job. Obviously this would be wrong and evil, even against bugbears and the like.
Return of the Flumph 04-12-07, 01:53 PM	Easy. People raised as undead cannot be raised with a raise dead spell, and it takes a much more powerful spell to do the job. This makes it rather obvious that these spells are doing something rather nasty to the soul itself, perhaps drawing upon it's energy to power the body. So if you raise farmer john as a zombie, you're tapping farmer john's very soul to do the job. Obviously this would be wrong and evil, even against bugbears and the like. That was the explanation I've always heard, and I like it. I support the notion of making zombies and skeletons neutral rather than evil, but creating them is still an evil act because you are enslaving a soul for your purposes. Bugbears might be evil, but condemning them to metaphysical torture is way harsh.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 02:13 PM	So what, are all neutral PC's mindless/incapable of decision? Undead aren't neutral, they're mindless. If anything they should be compared to plants...You have fallen prey to the most common logical fallacy in the world. Undead aren't mindless because they are neutral. They are neutral because the are mindless. Alignment is based on the ability to make decisions. Mindless undead (and mindless anything) cannot make decisions. No decisions = neutral alignment. You mention comparing them to plants. Lets. Non-intelligent (mindless) plants are also neutral.
wrecan 04-12-07, 02:36 PM	Just because the undead you create cannot have an alignment... does not mean that the act of creating them must also be neutral. No, but I see no other rason for the animate dead spell to be evil-descriptored. Easy. People raised as undead cannot be raised with a raise dead spell, and it takes a much more powerful spell to do the job. This makes it rather obvious that these spells are doing something rather nasty to the soul itself, perhaps drawing upon it's energy to power the body. Trap the Soul, Flesh to Stone and Imprisonment also have this result and are not evil-descriptored. In my opinion animate dead is evil-descriptored because it creates evil skeletons an zombies. Just like a summon monster spell is considered good-descriptored when you summon celestial creatures and evil descriptored when you summon fiendish ones.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 02:53 PM	This makes it rather obvious that these spells are doing something rather nasty to the soul itself, perhaps drawing upon it's energy to power the body. So if you raise farmer john as a zombie, you're tapping farmer john's very soul to do the job. Which would be a great reason for animate dead to be evil. If only it were true. You can't easily bring the person back from the dead because their body is essentially "in use" when you try to use the spell to bring them back to it. Fish eating half your body would do the same thing if you tried a regular raise dead, but it doesn't make a bunch of hungry fish evil in any way. There is absolutely no evidence that animating a person's body with animate dead has any effect whatsoever upon their petitioner out on the outer planes. What I am seeing is a lot of people bringing subjective social mores into the argument in place of objective good/evil notions in-game. Being icky or gross or different doesn't make something evil. Negative energy is just as evil as positive energy, which is to say not at all. Nor does any portrayal of undead in a movie, or another game, or a random book in which the state of undeath may be defined and treated in a radically different manner than in D&D actually matter to the topic at hand. Undeath as a blanket state is not good or evil. It's simply another state of being. Many undead may be evil, but it's situational. Fiends, the embodiment of Evil, are healed by positive energy, but it doesn't mean that anything powered by positive energy is evil. Similarly because some undead are evil, doesn't make them all evil, or the creation of undead evil except for on a case by case basis when it might be.
Morits 04-12-07, 02:57 PM	PHB v 3.5 2003 edition p198 Animate Dead Necromancy {Evil} p 219 Detect Evil: Undead give a faint glow at lvl 2 or lower. Moderate glow at lvl 3-8. strong at 9-20, Overwhelming at 21 or higher. Evil magic items or spells have exactly the same stats. Undead are things and they are just as evil as other evil things. I doubt that animating a corpse has any effect on the soul. The soul has moral choice and cannot have an automatic alignment. Raise Dead is a completely different spell and has the descriptor Heal, the corpse becomes a living person with its own natural soul. Dude, Pratchett has his own Discworld RPG. These are D&D undead, NOT DW Agreed. Reg Shoe, Otto Shriek and Angua have their own souls and make their own choices. DnD Undead are things that obey Evil Wizards. Not to mention that D&D is predominately about being the good guys. How many good guys in the works of fantasy literature do you know of have triumped by animating and exploiting the dead. Aragorn summoned the Ghosts of the Deserters to fight for Isildur's heir so that the curse would be broken. But they had already been cursed, so it was a different issue.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 03:14 PM	PHB v 3.5 2003 edition p198 Animate Dead Necromancy {Evil} p 219 Detect Evil: Undead give a faint glow at lvl 2 or lower. Being undead is just something that modifies an evil aura. You still have to be evil to give off an evil aura that the spell will detect. Good or neutral undead won't show up as evil under the spell, though the wording is awkward and I can understand where the confusion comes from.
Speech 04-12-07, 03:24 PM	I suspect that the reason has more to do with the definition of "good" (as per the SRD) and a the beings' (body being animated) choice. As per the SRD: “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others the key there being respect for life. Powering a body with energy (whether it be negative or positive) and making it obey your will is not being respectful to that beings life or dignity. Also, dominating a sentient being can be warded by a protection from evil spell(and similar magics). The only reason I can see for this is that taking away someone/things choice is evil (as defined by D&D) and a raised creature does not at have any save or way to fight the domination of the necromancer (as opposed to the Dominate Person/Monster spell which does offer saves). Just my take on it... be well Speech
Bruunwald 04-12-07, 03:29 PM	On the one hand, I find it alarming and worrisome that anyone would need an explanation from a game rulebook as to why a horrifying and awful act of enslavement and desecration might also be considered an evil one. On the other hand, I am never surprised as to the lengths people will go to rationalize what they want, or what will give them an advantage. Keep in mind that when we do that, as insignificant as it may seem in regards to a game, we are still joining the ranks of pretty much all of the worst people from all of history.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 03:42 PM	No, but I see no other reason for the animate dead spell to be evil-descriptored.I do not believe you. If you can't see any other reason, you either: are blind; or have not read any of this thread. It is entirely possible that you disagree with any other reason, but to claim that you can see no other reason is an admission of closed-mindedness. And we all know you are not really doing that, eight? :P
Starman IX 04-12-07, 03:44 PM	On the other hand, I am never surprised as to the lengths people will go to rationalize what they want, or what will give them an advantage.Bingo! You can rationalize anything. Doesn't make it any less right/wrong.
LadyAlaria 04-12-07, 04:12 PM	On the one hand, I find it alarming and worrisome that anyone would need an explanation from a game rulebook as to why a horrifying and awful act of enslavement and desecration might also be considered an evil one. On the other hand, I am never surprised as to the lengths people will go to rationalize what they want, or what will give them an advantage. Keep in mind that when we do that, as insignificant as it may seem in regards to a game, we are still joining the ranks of pretty much all of the worst people from all of history. Agreed.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 04:20 PM	On the one hand, I find it alarming and worrisome that anyone would need an explanation from a game rulebook as to why a horrifying and awful act of enslavement and desecration might also be considered an evil one. Who says it's an act of enslavement? What if the mortal agreed to let their body be used after death for undead labor, or to fight in an animated army? After their death it's just a rotting hunk of meat and bone, and at that point it's only subjective social values that determine what should or shouldn't be done to the body. That's not morality, that's what society says, and societies will radically differ on such things, especially in a fantasy world. Some nations might have corpses be impure things of the physical world that deserve to be animated and used for labor till they collapse to dust. Other cultures might feel that to be evil, and only cremation is proper, or using them for fertilizer, or turning them to stone for public ancestor worship. None of them are right or wrong on an objective level. Objective morality exists in D&D, but social mores on what to do or not do to the dead isn't one of those things. I find it disturbing that this isn't apparent and real life hangups and real life very relative social values are being inserted.
Escef 04-12-07, 04:45 PM	<snip> Why am I leery of trusting a known Arcanaloth's sense of morals? ;)
OravennasBrother 04-12-07, 04:45 PM	The animated dead are tools, like a summoned monster. It's, as it always is in life, completly up to the user of the tools. Congrats you get a Cookie for being so evil you can't uncerstand why somethings ARE evil. :cookie:
ArcTan 04-12-07, 07:09 PM	I suspect that the reason has more to do with the definition of "good" (as per the SRD) and a the beings' (body being animated) choice. As per the SRD: “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others the key there being respect for life. Powering a body with energy (whether it be negative or positive) and making it obey your will is not being respectful to that beings life or dignity. ...Enh. The fact that dominate person is *not* an [Evil] spell makes me think that it's to do with energy more than anything else. Yes, casting dominate person is Evil if you do it for a bad reason and if bad results come of it -- which means most of the time it is an Evil thing to do, what with free will and all -- but it's not a *physically* Evil form of energy. Making undead is Evil because the intrusion of negative energy into the Material Plane has a physically corrupting effect on a person's moral outlook. You can do it for a Good reason and it can come to a net Good outcome, but the touch of Evil on you is still corrupting. Also, dominating a sentient being can be warded by a protection from evil spell(and similar magics). Er, no. Domination can *also* be warded by protection from good, protection from law and protection from chaos. If that's what you meant by "similar magics", okay, but note that protection from good is, itself, an [Evil] spell. (And you can use it for Evil purposes, such as blocking a Good-aligned celestial channeler's access to his patron.)
ArcTan 04-12-07, 07:10 PM	Objective morality exists in D&D, but social mores on what to do or not do to the dead isn't one of those things. I find it disturbing that this isn't apparent and real life hangups and real life very relative social values are being inserted. Which is why I always go with the "pollution by negative energy" explanation, myself. And the knowledge -- which makes alignment much more useful -- that Good and Evil are only sort of related to good and evil.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 07:13 PM	Being undead is just something that modifies an evil aura. You still have to be evil to give off an evil aura that the spell will detect. Good or neutral undead won't show up as evil under the spell, though the wording is awkward and I can understand where the confusion comes from. Er, nope. The chart just says "undead", not "evil undead". Helpfully, the other parts of the chart do say "evil creature", "evil outsider", "cleric of an evil deity" and "evil magic item or spell", so you'd think if they meant "evil undead" they'd say "evil undead". But they don't. Undead are animated by an Evil force, whatever alignment the sentience held in the undead may hold. Which is why undead can be Evil even when they're mindless.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 07:17 PM	What I am seeing is a lot of people bringing subjective social mores into the argument in place of objective good/evil notions in-game. Being icky or gross or different doesn't make something evil. Negative energy is just as evil as positive energy, which is to say not at all. Nor does any portrayal of undead in a movie, or another game, or a random book in which the state of undeath may be defined and treated in a radically different manner than in D&D actually matter to the topic at hand. Er, saying that undeath *isn't* Evil because of your own socially relativistic mores is just as much bringing out-of-game stuff in-game. D&D's own materials, in 3.5, clearly say that animating the dead is objectively Evil. It just is, according to the laws of the universe, and societies that believe otherwise are objectively wrong. Channeling negative energy (rebuking undead) is an Evil act, just as channeling positive energy (turning undead) is a Good act. Casting [Evil] spells is an Evil act. It would be *interesting* to have this objective truth in D&D turn out to be false and for undeath to just be a neutral force, but that's not how it *is* in D&D, and claiming that that's how it *has* to be -- because your own logic about such things tells you that technologies are always neutral and morality is solely a matter of intention -- is doing exactly what you're complaining about, pushing real-world social mores onto D&D. This part of D&D is about fantasy, and about the fantasy idea of Evil becoming a physical, identifiable, obvious thing that always wears the same face, *in contrast* to the real world. Undeath as a blanket state is not good or evil. It's simply another state of being. Many undead may be evil, but it's situational. Fiends, the embodiment of Evil, are healed by positive energy, but it doesn't mean that anything powered by positive energy is evil. Similarly because some undead are evil, doesn't make them all evil, or the creation of undead evil except for on a case by case basis when it might be. The fact that animate dead has the [Evil] descriptor is what makes it Evil, from a metagame perspective, just looking at the rules. You can make up whatever justification for that you want, but the existing flavor gives some pretty good justifications, inconsistent depictions of what happens to the petitioner after death notwithstanding.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 07:53 PM	The fact that animate dead has the [Evil] descriptor is what makes it Evil, from a metagame perspective, just looking at the rules. You can make up whatever justification for that you want, but the existing flavor gives some pretty good justifications, inconsistent depictions of what happens to the petitioner after death notwithstanding.Quoted for truth. If I sigged quoted material, this would be there.
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 08:07 PM	Some of the things that have been said here were entirely unecesary. (Note that I am unfamiliar with how to quote people) OravennasBrother, I am highly offended by your calous statment. Calling me evil because I can apparently not "uncerstand why somethings ARE evil" without giving any sort of insight into this is an insult. If you do not have any real comment other than "ZOMG u is evil!" I politly ask you to leave me alone. I intended this thread to see if others shared my veiw that using undead for good was possible, or if not, if they had a well stated opinion on why not. I would be glad to talk to anyone who can intelectually debate on the matter, but most of the posts I am seeing just brand it as evil because of movies, books, and other mediums that say it can not be just because they say so, not because there is any real logic to it. Also yet again, I would like to state that the animate dead spell only says it animates the body, it does not state any soul trapping.
Starman IX 04-12-07, 08:26 PM	You have to understand, people have these things we call emotions and instincts. I don't care whether you're in reality or fantasy people tend to think with these things rather than logic. Sure you can say, "I'm just going to use this dead body to patch up your home," but what they hear is, "I'm going to pull your father, whom you loved deeply all of your life and mourned heavily for, out of the ground and bend his earthly flesh to my WILL!"
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 08:37 PM	Starman, did I once say that I wanted to justify random dead-unearthing and family-traumatizing? Doing that example is very, very wrong. You don't seem to realize what I am saying here. Animate dead is not an inaharently evil act. The use of it, and also the REASON you use it, is important as well. You don't go around unearthing things, but if you defeat an evil enemy and then bring the zombie or skeleton on your quest, that's not really evil if you use them for good.
ZuulMoG 04-12-07, 08:39 PM	On the other hand, I am never surprised as to the lengths people will go to rationalize what they want, or what will give them an advantage. Keep in mind that when we do that, as insignificant as it may seem in regards to a game, we are still joining the ranks of pretty much all of the worst people from all of history. Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with the consensus on this one. Even Escef. :) Sentient beings are affected emotionally by the sight of dead members of their species. That's because being sentient means recognising not only one's own existence, but also recognising that others exist as well. They recognise the corpses as once being one of them, and each species develops its own rituals and rites to deal with them in a manner befitting their worldview. Even if that manner involves eleven herbs and spices, its still a means of dealing with the dead, and recognising them as being kin. That being the case, desecrating the bodies of the slain is an inherently antisocial (IE evil) act. In advanced societies where practices like autopsies and archaeology take place, great care and deference, and a whole new set of rites and rituals, maintain the respect for the dead that has been passed on from early generations. About the only way that the dead are 'used' by society is when organ donations or medical cadavers for teaching are used, and these are done with the consent of the deceased, obtained before their deaths. If you can present a society that believes that post-decedent animation of the dead to use as slave labor is acceptable, well, first off, 2 gets you 5 that society is listed as LE, NE, or CE when it gets its write-up in a gazeteer, and secondly, well, I ain't got no secodnly, I think firstly stands up just fine. Now, I could see a LN society condemning the most heinous of criminals to an eternity of slave labor by animating them after working them to death to continue service after death, but it could hardly be a punishment for trivial offenses, and it still wouldn't cover a PC raising his own private unpaid labor force. The Evil descriptor is entirely appropriate for any spell that creates undead from a formerly sentient corpse. You might be able to argue successfully for animating an animal carcass, but, well, you haven't yet, so I'll wait to hear that argument before I offer to rebut it.
Starman IX 04-12-07, 08:43 PM	Starman, did I once say that I wanted to justify random dead-unearthing and family-traumatizing? Doing that example is very, very wrong. You don't seem to realize what I am saying here. Animate dead is not an inaharently evil act. The use of it, and also the REASON you use it, is important as well. You don't go around unearthing things, but if you defeat an evil enemy and then bring the zombie or skeleton on your quest, that's not really evil if you use them for good.You still didn't understand what I said. Raising anything from the dead is emotionally traumatic. See that word, emotions? It means that you could be curing the world of AIDS and it would still be in the back of somebody's mind that you had to tamper with a dead body to do that. Logic is not logical. The reason it's evil is because reality says it's evil. You can have all the logic you want to justify it, but it's still reality-stamped evil to do it.
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 08:49 PM	ZuulMog, did you read my first post? At all? has anyone here read my first post to the end and actually taken note of what I said? What I'm saying is that 1) This spell should not have the evil decriptor and neither should undead who are mindless as they can not chose to be evil or good or anything 2) I am not saying all uses are right. Animating willy nilly is not a good thing, nor is unearthing graves just to make undead. Also, I would like to point out that you are mainly talking about the real world, like organ transplants. They did not have these things in D&D, so they would likely just bury their dead or some other ritual. But I seem to say time and time again, IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ANIMATE COARPSES THAT HAVE BEEN BURIED FOR ANY REASON!
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 08:51 PM	Zuul, I am also not saying to animate dead in front of those who do not wish to see undead created. In my first example, if you indeed read it, stated that the adventureurs removed the civilians from the area before the spell was cast. I understand emotions as well as you do.
Zyrusticae 04-12-07, 09:03 PM	This subject amuses me greatly. This is why I love playing in the world of Eberron, where I can simply ignore the absolutes of 'good' and 'evil' and cloak everything in shades of grey. Ah, subjective morality... how I simultaneously love yet despise thee.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 09:09 PM	I intended this thread to see if others shared my veiw that using undead for good was possible, or if not, if they had a well stated opinion on why not. I would be glad to talk to anyone who can intelectually debate on the matter, but most of the posts I am seeing just brand it as evil because of movies, books, and other mediums that say it can not be just because they say so, not because there is any real logic to it. D&D says it's evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane corrupts it. As for whether it would be evil in real life or not, who cares? It's not possible in real life, so whatever.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 09:10 PM	What I'm saying is that 1) This spell should not have the evil decriptor and neither should undead who are mindless as they can not chose to be evil or good or anything 2) I am not saying all uses are right. Animating willy nilly is not a good thing, nor is unearthing graves just to make undead. Which is your opinion, sure, but you need to clarify this opinion with more than "I don't think it'd be evil in real life", since D&D isn't real life.
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 09:18 PM	ArcTan, 1) Inflict spells also bring negative energy into the universe, but are not evil decriptor and 2) I didn't say anything about justifying it in real life. I'm justifying it in the game sense. I actually said that you can not use the real world as a guage for it, as the idealogy and technology (ie magic that animates corpses) is radicly diffrent.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 09:23 PM	I intended this thread to see if others shared my view that using undead for good was possibleYou very subtly hid such a view in your opening post. You spent most of your post claiming to be ignorant of how anybody could possibly see animating corpses as being inherently evil. You then spent the majority of your reply time simply disagreeing with the reasons other offered in explanation of why animating a corpse might be considered an inherently evil act. If you wanted a discussion of whether it is possible to use undead for good purposes, you probably should have asked if it is possible to use undead for good purposes.
Seeker95 04-12-07, 09:26 PM	What I'm saying is that 1) This spell should not have the evil descriptor and neither should undead who are mindless as they can not chose to be evil or good or anything.And people disagree with you. You can keep saying it. That will not make people suddenly agree with you. Just accept that some people disagree with you on this.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 09:26 PM	ArcTan, 1) Inflict spells also bring negative energy into the universe, but are not evil decriptor Not on a permanent basis. They shoot negative energy at something and then the negative energy goes away. Note that while they are not Evil in and of themselves, Evil Clerics can cast them spontaneously and Good Clerics can't. It's a question of scale. 2) I didn't say anything about justifying it in real life. I'm justifying it in the game sense. I actually said that you can not use the real world as a guage for it, as the idealogy and technology (ie magic that animates corpses) is radicly diffrent. Well, okay. Then what's the big deal about saying that they just are Evil, period, and it doesn't need what you think of as a moral justification? You're mixing up the idea of an Evil act and an Evil spell. Using fireball to destroy an orphanage is an Evil act, but the spell itself is made of neutral magic. Using animate dead to make skeletons to carry children out of a burning orphanage is a Good act, but the spell itself is made of Evil magic. The [Evil] descriptor has nothing to do with the *moral* evil, per se, of casting the spell, because that will always be situational.
Rustmonster 04-12-07, 09:41 PM	ArcTan, I concide to you the point of others having their own opinion. I did not want it to seem like I was saying these people were wrong for what they think. It was just frustrating when others seemed to be judging my personal character on my veiw instead of trying to see what I was talking about. For example, OravennasBrother's post is when I went a little overboard I think. I only wanted to try to debate this topic. Your post on the negative energy question was very good in my opinion, as I had never thought of this before, that inflict doesn't linger. You are also right that it doesn't really matter what the descriptor is, it can still be used for an act diffrent than the descriptor. I understand that if I was playing, I'd probably just house rule these things into the game or ask if they can be so. I think I'm starting to get tired as well, so I'm going to go to bed. I'm sorry if I have been offencive in my posts or disrespectful in any way. Others can debate on this, but me, I need some rest. Happy discussions.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 10:14 PM	ArcTan, I concide to you the point of others having their own opinion. I did not want it to seem like I was saying these people were wrong for what they think. It was just frustrating when others seemed to be judging my personal character on my veiw instead of trying to see what I was talking about. For example, OravennasBrother's post is when I went a little overboard I think. I think he was making fun of you, not actually calling you evil.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 11:03 PM	D&D says it's evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane corrupts it. Which is still entirely subjective. If that's evil then healing something is evil as well because by the same loose logic you're bringing positive energy into the material plane and positive energy pollution might harm beings powered by negative energy. If a majority of "living" beings were powered by negative energy rather than positive energy, would you claim that positive energy is evil and negative energy was good? Is casting any positive energy spell within the negative energy plane an evil act because it's pollution? Is casting positive energy spells around a trilloch (negative energy powered non-evil creature native to the negative energy plane) evil? You can't have this double standard and try to claim objectivity. But on that, I'm out of this argument. This is one of those issues where people tend to have pre-set opinions on the matter, I'm not going to convince anyone.
ArcTan 04-12-07, 11:28 PM	Which is still entirely subjective. If that's evil then healing something is evil as well because by the same loose logic you're bringing positive energy into the material plane and positive energy pollution might harm beings powered by negative energy. It's not evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane causes X, Y or Z and X, Y or Z is evil. It's evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane is *defined* as Evil. If a majority of "living" beings were powered by negative energy rather than positive energy, would you claim that positive energy is evil and negative energy was good? The definition of negative energy is that that's not how it works. If it were, then it wouldn't be called negative energy. Is casting any positive energy spell within the negative energy plane an evil act because it's pollution? No, but creating negative-energy powered life is Evil no matter where you do it. Is casting positive energy spells around a trilloch (negative energy powered non-evil creature native to the negative energy plane) evil? Casting inflict spells to harm an ordinary living creature is not an Evil spell. (It may be an Evil *act*, but that's a completely separate matter, depending on whether said creature is an arsonist about to burn down an orphanage or an orphan within the orphanage or whatever the hell. Evil spell and Evil act are different.) You can't have this double standard and try to claim objectivity. Oh, come on. This isn't a real-life moral question. This is a question about a fantasy game. In D&D, Evil is an actual *thing* that objectively exists, regardless of intention or utility. It's a substance that things can be made out of, like the Lower Planes and demons and devils. It's an objective fact, in D&D, that devils are Evil, and that even if they do Good things and act Good they will still have the Evil subtype and be inherently composed of the structure of Evil. You may disagree with it, but that's how it works. It's a fantasy game. Real-life morality has little to do with the alignment of the planes. But on that, I'm out of this argument. This is one of those issues where people tend to have pre-set opinions on the matter, I'm not going to convince anyone. I hate to keep saying it, but the rules are the rules. Houserule it if you want, but there's no "real" answer outside of the rules. It's an imaginary world that works according to imaginary conditions that don't exist in real life. If you play a game and the game says that, for the sake of the game, setting puppies on fire is the game's definition of Good, then that's what it is. Arguing that it isn't *really* Good is irrelevant, especially since in this case UNDEAD AREN'T REAL!
Shemeska the Marauder 04-12-07, 11:40 PM	No, but creating negative-energy powered life is Evil no matter where you do it. Nice try but not. Using magic to create a Xeg-Yi, a being composed of and personifying negative energy which is -always neutral- is evil? Try again.
DM-Scott 04-13-07, 12:36 AM	Someone mentioned the game was intended to be played by good characters, and then gave some instances why animating the dead couldn't be good or even neutral by any means - and each of the reasons I read were without a logical base - and let me say something in regards to this. According to many of the reasons why animated dead would have the evil descriptor, or undead being evil, let's look at our old tried and true Raise Dead spell. This spell perverts the natural order of the world, this spell deals with dead bodies, this spell could be considered blasphemous in many cultures, and this spell actually does deal with souls of the dead. Other reasons for declaring all undead or the spell itself evil seem to be primarily based off of negative energy. Ok, it is in print that negative energy is not evil (see manual of the planes), official by WotC and all that jazz. It also points out that positive energy can kill people, go figure. Animate Dead does not mention the enslaving of souls. If you want to include that in your own campaign, by all means, it would definately make me view it as an evil act (yes, I have morals, go figure), but the spell says nothing to that effect. What it does say is that it animates the bodies of the undead, and they are powered by negative energy. Those who use this argument have no basis in the game itself, and are blabbering on without bringing anything to the topic except harsh feelings and insults. Realistically, it is no different from creating an animated object or a golem - how how about this one, a flesh golem!? Frankenstien! :D Mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies are an oversight in the system as a whole. It IS specifically stated that any creature with an INT score of _ is always neutral, but the entry for the mindless undead is Always Evil. This is a conflict, and probably only accepted so that those lovily paladins can go "Hey smite evil, on the bonies, yo!". Even in areas of incredible amounts of negative energy, an idea proposed in Libris Mortis when undead are gathered in large quantities (making it harder to turn them), it has no detrimental effects on things around the undead. When they are destroyed, then the negative energy disperses, when they are animated the energy is confined to animating them. Someone please give me a solid place where it says negative energy is evil. I can go get my manual of the planes book off my shelf and find where it says that it is not. In the same respect, show me where it says that positive energy is good, and again I will get my manual of the planes out. I will back up my argument on the subject with material, logical explanations, and rules examples. If someone can't come up with something better than: 1) Social, 2) Religious, 3) Precieved moral, responses, then I wil indeed ignore those statements because they have no place realistically in the game (as society and religion in a fantasy world means nothing, and morality can vary through knowledge). Problems with the System The idea that good clerics cannot channel negative energy seems rediculas to me. There is nothing preventing them from casting inflict spells which open a channel of negative energy which they control, in the same way I don't think evil characters should be barred from turning undead. This one simple aspect of the cleric class seems to confuse many people into believing that positve and negative energy is somehow more good and evil than positive and negative electrical charges. Combined with the CONFLICTING rules on alignment of the mindless undead and INT _ creatures, this makes for more confusion. Try looking at it like this. It's specifically stated that there are exceptions to creatures that have alignments such as "Always Evil", but that they are rare. However the rule of neutrality in mindless creatures has no such fallback that I know of (please show me if there is one). Celestials and Fiends for example have the Good and Evil subtypes, but can actually be of an alignment opposed to their own. Undead have no such subtypes by default. This points that their alignment is in fact a mistake, an oversight, or just an excuse to allow paladins to smite evil skeletons by default. The whole concept of undead as auto-evil is shaky at best, and also takes a lot out of the idea of good undead, or a good necropolis. Also note that skeletons and zombies do not suffer from any sort of "hunger" aspect as described in Libris Mortis, which is the argument of some on the anti-undead, claiming that you're creating a creature that must somehow feed on the innocent. However it is specifically stated that if released from your control, mindless undead follow their last given order. So even after good ol' Archmagie Magee drops dead, his labratory is still being guarded by his minions, and about three or four of them are still dusting the furniture and sweeping the floor. Also, I would like to say that Shemeska the Marauder has actually bothered to show evidence towards her (or his) side, and has contributed heavily to the topic. My hat's off to you Shemeska. :tiphat:
suparman999 04-13-07, 12:51 AM	Exactly. And I don't have a lot of material but I'm basically sure nothing says any reason. You pretty much nailed it. They're evil so paladins can say "i iz 1337 cuz i yooz smite ebilz on teh undedz lolz" and that's pretty much it.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 01:10 AM	Nice try but not. Using magic to create a Xeg-Yi, a being composed of and personifying negative energy which is -always neutral- is evil? Try again. Can Xeg-Yi be created out of material on the Prime? I don't think so. Things on the Negative Energy Plane are neutral because the NE Plane itself is neutral. Corrupting the Prime with negative energy is what is Evil. Look, it doesn't matter, dude. The core rules say creating undead is Evil. I don't see why this is such a huge problem for people. There's no "real" D&D world or "real" D&D morality to be gotten at here -- the rules say what the rules say and that's it. If you don't like it, change it, but don't act like your changes are fundamentally more correct than just accepting the setting as-is. What's really getting my goat is people acting like I have a "prejudice" against the undead, as though this were a real-life moral issue about some disadvantaged minority group, as opposed to me being willing to take a FANTASY game at face value about a FANTASY setting, which includes concepts like "Some things are just fundamentally objectively evil".
ArcTan 04-13-07, 01:11 AM	Exactly. And I don't have a lot of material but I'm basically sure nothing says any reason. You pretty much nailed it. They're evil so paladins can say "i iz 1337 cuz i yooz smite ebilz on teh undedz lolz" and that's pretty much it. From a metagame perspective, sure. Fine. Is there really a problem with this? Is there a reason to start crusading on behalf of the poor misunderstood undead who are FICTIONAL AND MADE UP SO THAT THEY CAN BE EVIL AND WE CAN KILL THEM IN A GAME?
Shatteredtower 04-13-07, 01:17 AM	Try looking at it like this. It's specifically stated that there are exceptions to creatures that have alignments such as "Always Evil", but that they are rare.Sure. However the rule of neutrality in mindless creatures has no such fallback that I know of (please show me if there is one).No, no, no. Show me this rule that states that a mindless creature must be neutral, please. I can't find it in the PHB's section on alignment, nor in the MM glossary for the entry on nonabilities. Celestials and Fiends for example have the Good and Evil subtypes, but can actually be of an alignment opposed to their own.In extremely rare cases. Even then, the lawful good devil is hurt by a holy smite. Undead have no such subtypes by default. This points that their alignment is in fact a mistake, an oversight, or just an excuse to allow paladins to smite evil skeletons by default.No mistake. No oversight. No excuse, though it certainly makes sense. Evil dictates the action of an uncontrolled, mindless undead creature. It means that uncontrolled skeletons present a danger to living creatures that encounter them, rather than just hanging around purposely, waiting for the next cleric to put them into motion -- or continuing to do what they were last ordered to do until something takes control of them again. If they always follow the last order after becoming free-willed, a 7th level wizard can build the next best thing to perpetual motion machines, more reliable than either windmills or watermills. If they can't, your system leaves virtually limitless reinforcements to a risk-free, no upkeep militia lying around every temple, ready to be called into action by the low level evil clerics to whom your high priest delegated this first line of defense. Why make things that easy for evil, hmm? The whole concept of undead as auto-evil is shaky at best...Looks more solid than this unsubstantiated claim. ...and also takes a lot out of the idea of good undead, or a good necropolis.Not at all. I... Vampire was a lot of fun long before Whedonitis gave us Angel. There's a lot to be said for being cursed to unlife and yet still pure of heart (if not body). Also note that skeletons and zombies do not suffer from any sort of "hunger" aspect as described in Libris Mortis, which is the argument of some on the anti-undead, claiming that you're creating a creature that must somehow feed on the innocent.What hunger? They act according to their nature: killing when the opportunity arises to kill. They will not seek out that opportunity, and they won't break their orders to pursue the chance, but uncontrolled, they default to attacking until destroyed. However it is specifically stated that if released from your control, mindless undead follow their last given order.Where? So even after good ol' Archmagie Magee drops dead, his labratory is still being guarded by his minions, and about three or four of them are still dusting the furniture and sweeping the floor.Death of the controller does not release undead from control. If said controller is killed and raised (or comes back as a lich, for example), command is maintained throughout, in absence of rules to the contrary.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 01:26 AM	Other reasons for declaring all undead or the spell itself evil seem to be primarily based off of negative energy. Ok, it is in print that negative energy is not evil (see manual of the planes), official by WotC and all that jazz. It also points out that positive energy can kill people, go figure. If you actually use the logic "Allowing negative energy to remain in the Prime Material Plane for longer than an instant is Evil", it actually works for the most part. Those who use this argument have no basis in the game itself, and are blabbering on without bringing anything to the topic except harsh feelings and insults. Realistically, it is no different from creating an animated object or a golem - how how about this one, a flesh golem!? Frankenstien! :D OF COURSE there's a basis in the game. The game says [Evil] spells are Evil. The game says skeletons and zombies are Always Evil. I'm trying to work with that rather than flat-out rejecting it and saying one part of the game (as I interpret it) is right and one part (as I interpret it) is wrong, and y'know, it's not that hard. Mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies are an oversight in the system as a whole. It IS specifically stated that any creature with an INT score of _ is always neutral, but the entry for the mindless undead is Always Evil. This is a conflict, and probably only accepted so that those lovily paladins can go "Hey smite evil, on the bonies, yo!". Yeah, so? Big whoop. You'll note that undead being Evil is a bigger deal than the "mindless = TN" idea. There are so many exceptions to "mindless = TN" that it's best to take that as a guideline, unless you want to start stamping out "mistakes" in the MM left and right. (Here's a hint: Lemures are baatezu and fundamentally based on the idea of Lawful Evil, yet are mindless.) Even in areas of incredible amounts of negative energy, an idea proposed in Libris Mortis when undead are gathered in large quantities (making it harder to turn them), it has no detrimental effects on things around the undead. When they are destroyed, then the negative energy disperses, when they are animated the energy is confined to animating them. It has no *rules-based* negative effects, but the color is drained, a heaviness and weariness hangs on the land, dark and gloom consume everything, etc. It's not supposed to be a good thing. Here's another tidbit -- unhallow, an [Evil] spell that makes an area "Evil", bolsters undead within its radius. If undead are supposed to be neutral, is this, too, a mistake? Someone please give me a solid place where it says negative energy is evil. I can go get my manual of the planes book off my shelf and find where it says that it is not. In the same respect, show me where it says that positive energy is good, and again I will get my manual of the planes out. NE *itself* is not Evil. However, the fact that NE is used to animate undead, and animating undead is Evil, the fact that channeling NE is an Evil act, the fact that Evil Clerics automatically get to spontaneously cast inflict spells, etc. all point to an Evil-NE connection, even if NE itself isn't Evil. The best explanation is that the intrusion of NE into the Material Plane constitutes a source of Evil or tendency toward Evil. What I really hate is people "proving" undead aren't Evil with various examples from the books, ignoring the fact that once you say the books are invalid none of those examples are good either. If the books are valid, then mindless undead *are* Evil and animating undead *is* Evil. I will back up my argument on the subject with material, logical explanations, and rules examples. If someone can't come up with something better than: 1) Social, 2) Religious, 3) Precieved moral, responses, then I wil indeed ignore those statements because they have no place realistically in the game (as society and religion in a fantasy world means nothing, and morality can vary through knowledge). It's a fantasy world. That means morality is something the creators of the world can make up, as part of the fantasy. Specifically, it means that, as with many fantasies, Evil becomes a far more objective physical force than merely a relative judgment of ethics. This is, to a large extent, the *point* of the kind of fantasy D&D draws upon, going back to Lord of the Rings (with intrinsically evil races and intrinsically evil magic and intrinsically evil parts of the world). So if the creators of the game say it's Evil, IT'S EVIL. Which they did. So it is. Why do people insist on continuing to argue about this? Problems with the System The idea that good clerics cannot channel negative energy seems rediculas to me. There is nothing preventing them from casting inflict spells which open a channel of negative energy which they control, in the same way I don't think evil characters should be barred from turning undead. Well, then change the system. I don't see what's fundamentally wrong with it despite the fact that you think it's "rediculas". You could just as easily change it the other way and simply bar Evil Clerics from casting cure spells and Good Clerics from casting inflict spells altogether. From *my* perspective, since cure and inflict are the very weakest, most basic form of using postive/negative energy, I have no problem with just saying that Good Clerics have an *easier* time using PE and Evil ones have an *easier* time using NE without those simple uses constituting Good and Evil acts in and of themselves. But whatever floats your boat. This one simple aspect of the cleric class seems to confuse many people into believing that positve and negative energy is somehow more good and evil than positive and negative electrical charges. Well, because they are. PE isn't intrinsically Good in and of itself, but its interactions with the Prime generally are, and same with NE. It's a fantasy game. Of *course* the idea is that energy has more significance in abstract things like morals than in real life. It's not "confusing people" into believing something that isn't true if it IS true, at least to a degree. Combined with the CONFLICTING rules on alignment of the mindless undead and INT _ creatures, this makes for more confusion. The thing about Int -- creatures is a guideline, not a rule. The *rule* for what alignment a mindless creature is is the alignment given in the stat block of the creature itself. The specific case trumps the general guideline, here as elsewhere. Try looking at it like this. It's specifically stated that there are exceptions to creatures that have alignments such as "Always Evil", but that they are rare. However the rule of neutrality in mindless creatures has no such fallback that I know of (please show me if there is one). Sure there is. It's the stat block for the Skeleton in the Monster Manual. It's an *exception*, right there. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a rule. Hell, since this general handwavy "rule" about Int -- creatures having TN alignment isn't of any actual use to anybody, since Int -- creatures that actually *do* have a TN alignment have that TN alignment printed in their own stat blocks anyway, I don't see why there needs to be a "fallback". Celestials and Fiends for example have the Good and Evil subtypes, but can actually be of an alignment opposed to their own. Because they're intelligent and can make choices. Undead have no such subtypes by default. This points that their alignment is in fact a mistake, an oversight, or just an excuse to allow paladins to smite evil skeletons by default. Is the latter really such a bad thing? Why are you getting so worked up about this? Is it *so* bad to say that the moral system in D&D stems from the fact that it is, yes, on the surface a game about shiny good guys smashing the hell out of ugly bad guys, and that deeper stuff within the game is playing with that concept and questioning it gently without out-and-out saying "NO THAT'S NOT TRUE SMITING SKELETONS BAD"? The whole concept of undead as auto-evil is shaky at best, and also takes a lot out of the idea of good undead, or a good necropolis. If you want to create those things, go right ahead. In fact, D&D splatbooks *do* create those things, by creating the deathless type to act as a counter to the undead type. The Eberron setting rather depends on the concept, and on the inherent conflict between PE Undying and NE Undead as part of the setting history. Also note that skeletons and zombies do not suffer from any sort of "hunger" aspect as described in Libris Mortis, which is the argument of some on the anti-undead, claiming that you're creating a creature that must somehow feed on the innocent. The flavor of NE is that these mindless creatures are draining the vitality from the landscape simply by standing around. However it is specifically stated that if released from your control, mindless undead follow their last given order. So even after good ol' Archmagie Magee drops dead, his labratory is still being guarded by his minions, and about three or four of them are still dusting the furniture and sweeping the floor. Also, I would like to say that Shemeska the Marauder has actually bothered to show evidence towards her (or his) side, and has contributed heavily to the topic. My hat's off to you Shemeska. :tiphat: What "evidence" do you need other than the fact that [Evil] spells say "Evil", undead stat blocks say "Always Evil", and the observation that it's just a game and "examples" about how if we really did have magical skeletal servants it wouldn't actually be bad to use them are completely out of place?
suparman999 04-13-07, 01:45 AM	From a metagame perspective, sure. Fine. Is there really a problem with this? Is there a reason to start crusading on behalf of the poor misunderstood undead who are FICTIONAL AND MADE UP SO THAT THEY CAN BE EVIL AND WE CAN KILL THEM IN A GAME? I honestly don't care one way or another. I just felt like putting in my two cents and saying why they're evil. From a Metagaming perspective, yes, cause that's all there is. Refer to Tome of Fiends for fluff suggestions. Maybe Tome of Necromancy: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=632562 and Tome of Fiends is on the first page.
DM-Scott 04-13-07, 03:34 AM	Hmmm, well I'll admit I was a rather annoyed when I made my post (probably a bad idea on my part, posting while annoyed that is), and being sleepy doesn't really help (been sick, sleeping issues). While not really an excuse for my tone (and after re-reading my post, I think I had one), I do apologize. Also, I was pretty sure I knew where to find the INT _ = neutral thing, however to my surprise I could not find it. I pose a question - which doesn't really pertain to the topic at this point - was this a rule in 3.0 that was removed in 3.5? I ask because I know I have read it somewhere in one of my WotC books, but the fact I can't find it at the moment (and the only books I do not still have are my 3.0 which I gave to a friend) leaves me wondering. Because I cannot find the piece to cite it, I conced to the argument of alignment versus INT _ argument because I cannot back it up. However, I do have this to say - It doesn't make sense to me, as compared to fiends who have the evil subtype due to being fiends. The undead type doesn't have evil alignment by default - so really the argument of mindless undead being evil by default, particularly in regards to the skeleton and zombie templates seems odd. Alignment beyond subtype doesn't seem a major factor (summoning a humanoid orc somehow who's alignment is lawful good doesn't make the summoning spell lawful or good, or I don't believe it would anyway), whereas summoning creatures such as celestial hawks and fiendish hawks actually are dealing with planar alignments (good and evil subtype outsiders). See what I mean (Summon Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm))? It just doesn't seem to make sense, to me, that the mindless - hungerless / thoughtless (meaning incapable of choosing to hurt someone on its own) - but all undead aren't inherently evil (such as the necropoliton who has no alignment adjustments) and are not statistically treated as such. It seems like a double standard. Yeah, so? Big whoop. You'll note that undead being Evil is a bigger deal than the "mindless = TN" idea. There are so many exceptions to "mindless = TN" that it's best to take that as a guideline, unless you want to start stamping out "mistakes" in the MM left and right. (Here's a hint: Lemures are baatezu and fundamentally based on the idea of Lawful Evil, yet are mindless.) Again I can't find the mindless / alignment thing it seems, so I can't rebute this. However, Lemures are kind of a poor example because of their subtype. Even with a neutral alignment, they would be treated for all purposes as being evil, due to being composed of evil itself, like a pit fiend. Their actual alignment however would make sense to be neutral. OF COURSE there's a basis in the game. The game says [Evil] spells are Evil. The game says skeletons and zombies are Always Evil. I'm trying to work with that rather than flat-out rejecting it and saying one part of the game (as I interpret it) is right and one part (as I interpret it) is wrong, and y'know, it's not that hard. Generally certain levels of logic are assumed (I think). For example, it is assumed that you have gravity in the game, so if you drop something and it doesn't fall, there's usually a reason given. The problem is, there is no strait answer for why animate dead has the Evil subtype. It all comes down to fluffing and stuffing for people to explain why it is evil, as there is no real way. The game explains what evil is in game terms as best it can, but it doesn't fit the spell. Unhallow and Hallow also suffer from this problem which again confuses many people (maybe I'm confused too because of it all) is that both state to fill an area with positive or negative energy and then tack on the good / evil spell descriptors. Positive and Negative energy have however been said to not be inherintly good or evil. It's my oppinion (worthless as it is) that Hallow and Unhallow should probably actually fill the area with Sacred and Profane energies, and instead affect outsiders in a more profound way - making them more fitting to the good / evil aspects of the spell, or simply do away with the spell descriptor entirely if you want it just for dealing with undead. I think people will endlessly continue to debate this entire subject because quite honestly there are those who don't agree that it should be the way it is because to them it just doesn't make any sense beyond fluff or "because it says they're evil". It breaks some of the trust in the game's mechanics and the designers' reasonings on certain aspects. You begin to notice holes which don't always match up right. Also someone several posts back was saying how terrible it would be if adventuring parties could make undead and still be considered good characters or good aligned. Y'know to me (again pointless) RPGs are about creativity and expression of ideas. Things that needlessly limit characters seem to be working backwards to me. The game is about the players. If you don't think it is, go run a D&D without the players and have a great time. Game balance is a factor, but the spells have set levels, they scale with caster level, and the rules are set for their limitations - so really it comes down to options. There is no good reason mechanically that making undead servants is an evil act, but because of the evil-descriptor, many DMs will give players a hard time over alignment and casting "evil spells", when they want to make a character who uses necromancy and undead as their tools of choice. Also, on the note about undead becoming uncontrolled. The example given with Archmage Magee dying was an example. Also, I made a mistake - the last order given was a 3.0 thing - so it doesn't really apply to the 3.5. However it doesn't say that the skeletons go on killing rampages after being uncontrolled - they can't make the deciscions to do so. That too is fluff. But I'm not sure I have much more to say on the subject. What I do know for a fact however, and this only applies to myself and the people I've gamed with over the years. I've seen some darn good reasons for undead not to be inherintly, evil - including but not limited to: 1: Characters using undead to help hold the lines against oncoming groups of evil warriors, ala LotR style of standoff. 2: Preforming civil cervices - animating pack animals for poor peasants, living fallen debres off of innocents pinned under them, cleaning, performing manual labor for the benefit of others. 3: Characters such as one from a game I played in - A undead neutral good cleric of magic, protection, and undeath, whos belief system involved a theurgic responsibility to help people, protect life from being lost or stolen (IE: murder for example), and had many undead servents (polished skeletons with spiritual ingravings and designs were common) to help them and the common people. Now this cleric, she was cool. She and her order had what felt like infinitely more flavor to many of our group, than say - a Pelorian cleric. These things are easily possible because most people I've ever gamed with really just ignore the evil descriptor and have never bothered to even passingly suggest that using it would be a bad thing. To them, it's just another fireball. Not to say that the party doesn't role-play things like initial distaste for undead. In fact, in our most recent campaign, the party actually consists of the aformentioned cleric, as well as a rogue / wizard / cleric of pelor. Now he's an interesting character. An adventurer who found faith, so to speak, and a spiritual power, who was innately wary of the undead-loving cleric. However he testified on her behalf to have her freed from a local jail, as she was found camping on her pilgramige by some hunters are was jailed for "dark magics". She had done nothing wrong, and he felt that until she was being sentenced unfairly. Later on, after much philosophy and role-playing, as well as being put through a number of tight situations, the pelorian cleric grew to accept the other cleric as a friend, and strong companion to the forces of good. Stating "I believe Pelor, god of all that is the sun and goodness, has blessed me with illumination to my sight; for I see you clearly now, and I know Pelor sees the light in you too". It was very memorable. Anyway, I need to wrap this up. Peace out everybody, and game on.
_SIN_ 04-13-07, 09:28 AM	I think one of the only exceptions to the rule would be to gain consent from the creature you wish to raise as undead. As for your civil servants - I'd rather have no street sweepers to be honest. Treading in faeces is nasty enough, let alone treading on a hunk of rotting flesh that has fallen off one of your zombies! On top of that, there's the disease issue. Undead are not renownd for their hygene... Then there's the issue of kids & undead. You honestly think a child would be fine surrounded with rotting corpses? Me thinks years of sitting on couch, yapping to said shrink would be in order... Oh, and seeker, I wasn't falling for 'the most common logical fallacy in the world' (Are you sure THAT many people have this argument about mindless=neutral? I would have thought the most common logical fallacy would be 'how do you define the laws of logic without using logic?'). I was just saying IMHO, undead shouldn't have an alignment, or have the alignment of the person who raised them. To me neutral implies that you're not involving yourself by choice. Maybe in the stat block it should state: Alignment: DIMINISHED RESPONSABILITY :D
OravennasBrother 04-13-07, 10:07 AM	(Note that I am unfamiliar with how to quote people) OravennasBrother, I am highly offended by your calous statment. Calling me evil..... is an insult. I There's a little button at the bottom of every post labelled (Appropriately) QUOTE. I apologize, I thought the Sarcasm was obvious.
wrecan 04-13-07, 12:56 PM	I do not believe you. If you can't see any other reason, you either: are blind; or have not read any of this thread. Or you simply don't understand the metaphorical use of the word "see". Obviously, I am not blind. "I do not see" merely means none of the reason proposed to date are convincing to me, and for the reasons I or others have explained. "see" is a bit shorter and, with the exception of you, easily understood by people not trying to be pedants. It's not evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane causes X, Y or Z and X, Y or Z is evil. It's evil because bringing negative energy onto the Material Plane is *defined* as Evil. All of the cause wound spells expressly bring negative energy into the Material Plane. They are not evil-descriptored. As much as I'd like "negative energy pollution" to be the reason, it is not consistent with the rules.
Escef 04-13-07, 01:02 PM	Or you simply don't understand the metaphorical use of the word "see". Nor you that of "blind".
wrecan 04-13-07, 02:21 PM	He clearly wasn't using the metaphorical definition of "blind" because he references that as yet another alternative in the final paragraph of his post. He was being smarmy, as evidenced by his use of the ":P" emoticon at the end of his post.
StormKnight 04-13-07, 02:40 PM	Why does a fireball have a 20' radius*? Why do diamonds power resurrection spells? Perhaps the "evil" descriptor is for the same reason these things are - either for some fundamental reason that's how magic works, or the arcane and strange formula that has been passed down for centuries to create undead happens to use energy that is "evil". While I'm sure there are innumerable possible metaphysical explanations for this, does anyone else find it interesting to just leave it at "they're evil" and let the characters within the world worry about it? Let the good necromancer argue that she's just using a force as a tool while the good cleric assures her that surely if the gods deem this magic evil it must be wrong for good people to use it? I mean, if you settle all the 'why's', whats left for philosophers in the game world to debate? Well, besides "What if we are really just imaginary constructs in a game someone is playing?" ;) *I do not have a PHB near me and do not have spell stats memorized off hand. I have no idea if a fireball does, in fact have a 20' radius. But I'm sure it has some fixed size radius. You get the point.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 03:21 PM	However, I do have this to say - It doesn't make sense to me, as compared to fiends who have the evil subtype due to being fiends. The undead type doesn't have evil alignment by default - so really the argument of mindless undead being evil by default, particularly in regards to the skeleton and zombie templates seems odd. What do you mean? Undead actually *do*, mostly, have Evil alignments by default. Leaving aside mindless Skeletons and Zombies, pretty much every core undead monster in the Monster Manual has Alignment: Always Evil (I just ran through d20srd.org's monster filter and checked; the only exception is Mummies, which are merely Usually Lawful Evil, and Ghosts, which retain their base creature's alignment). Moreover, Undead always detect as Evil using the detect evil spell. (Shemeska the Marauder claims otherwise, without actually providing evidence for this claim, since the entry in the chart says merely "Undead" while every other entry says "Evil creature", "Evil outsider", or something else with the word "evil" in it.) The thrust of it is that the designers really did push the idea of Undead = Evil really, really strongly in the game. A Good-aligned Vampire is *just as much* an exception to the general rule about Vampires as a Good-aligned Succubus would be. Alignment beyond subtype doesn't seem a major factor (summoning a humanoid orc somehow who's alignment is lawful good doesn't make the summoning spell lawful or good, or I don't believe it would anyway), whereas summoning creatures such as celestial hawks and fiendish hawks actually are dealing with planar alignments (good and evil subtype outsiders). No, actually, if there were a spell that summoned Lawful Good Orcs, the spell would count as a [Law] and [Good] spell. There isn't one, because generally summoning and calling only works on Elementals and Outsiders, but the rule is that the descriptor of a summon/call spell depends on the alignment of the creature summoned or called. See what I mean (Summon Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm))? No. What do you mean? When it says you summon an LG Celestial Dog, it means that you summon an LG Celestial Dog, not that you summon a TN Celestial Dog using an LG spell. You do know that the Celestial template does apply a Good alignment to any creature you add it to, right? It just doesn't seem to make sense, to me, that the mindless - hungerless / thoughtless (meaning incapable of choosing to hurt someone on its own) - but all undead aren't inherently evil (such as the necropoliton who has no alignment adjustments) and are not statistically treated as such. It seems like a double standard. The Necropolitan is a specific exception to the general rule about Undead, who are almost all Evil. You're using the Necropolitan as a standard for the rules about Undead when it's actually a very specific exception, really created for the sole purpose of being able to play an Undead PC without hassle. It's like saying that because Tieflings aren't Always Evil, this means that Demons and Devils aren't inherently Evil. Again I can't find the mindless / alignment thing it seems, so I can't rebute this. However, Lemures are kind of a poor example because of their subtype. Even with a neutral alignment, they would be treated for all purposes as being evil, due to being composed of evil itself, like a pit fiend. Their actual alignment however would make sense to be neutral. However, their actual alignment is, in fact, Always Lawful Evil. Generally certain levels of logic are assumed (I think). For example, it is assumed that you have gravity in the game, so if you drop something and it doesn't fall, there's usually a reason given. The problem is, there is no strait answer for why animate dead has the Evil subtype. It all comes down to fluffing and stuffing for people to explain why it is evil, as there is no real way. The game explains what evil is in game terms as best it can, but it doesn't fit the spell. The game explains what Evil is in very vague, general terms for moral purposes (which has caused no end of stupid debates on the boards), that it's "hurting, killing, oppressing others", bla bla bla. This is not a real *definition*, and anything as broad as Evil is not going to be possible to encapsulate in a simple definition in real life or in a fantasy world. The thing is that in real life the definition of Evil is not "logical" and fluctuates from place to place and time to time. Stuff about "the natural order" or "universal moral laws" gets thrown around that doesn't make much sense. Good and Evil, much as pragmatic moral philosophers try to give them a simple meaning, become mystical, mysterious concepts in people's minds. So what's the big deal with a fantasy game choosing to declare that certain physical things embody this metaphysical thing called Evil, that is at once more and less than the simplistic idea that "evil" is being mean to people? Unhallow and Hallow also suffer from this problem which again confuses many people (maybe I'm confused too because of it all) is that both state to fill an area with positive or negative energy and then tack on the good / evil spell descriptors. Positive and Negative energy have however been said to not be inherintly good or evil. It's pretty clear when you look at the various uses of PE and NE that *using* PE is Good and *using* NE is Evil, although to differing degrees. (Again, cure and inflict spells aren't Good or Evil on their own, AND YET Good Clerics find it really easy to use cure spells and Evil Clerics find it really easy to use inflict spells, ahem ahem I wonder why.) It's my oppinion (worthless as it is) that Hallow and Unhallow should probably actually fill the area with Sacred and Profane energies, and instead affect outsiders in a more profound way - making them more fitting to the good / evil aspects of the spell, or simply do away with the spell descriptor entirely if you want it just for dealing with undead. It's your opinion that this whole, huge "Undead Are Evil" vibe that's incredibly *obvious* if you look at the core materials should be wiped away from the game. Which is FINE. I have no issue with that. But it's not inherently more "logical" or "better" than anything else. (You should also go back and change the detect evil spell, which right now goes off on red alert if it sniffs out anything undead at all. And you might just do away with the Deathless Type, which is now totally redundant.) I think people will endlessly continue to debate this entire subject because quite honestly there are those who don't agree that it should be the way it is because to them it just doesn't make any sense beyond fluff or "because it says they're evil". It breaks some of the trust in the game's mechanics and the designers' reasonings on certain aspects. You begin to notice holes which don't always match up right. Only if you insist that Evil "make sense" from a real-world perspective, that is, *your* real-world perspective of "ends justify means" and "morality is merely a matter of intention and lacks physical reality". These are the kinds of people who probably think the Jedi in Star Wars are hidebound conservatives who haven't looked into the socially beneficial uses of firing lightning bolts from their fingers, and are on Boromir's side with the "Well, why DON'T we just use the One Ring?" thing in LotR. Also someone several posts back was saying how terrible it would be if adventuring parties could make undead and still be considered good characters or good aligned. Y'know to me (again pointless) RPGs are about creativity and expression of ideas. Things that needlessly limit characters seem to be working backwards to me. The game is about the players. Whether it's a "needless limitation" depends on you. The game as written has a very strong flavor about how undeath is Evil and unnatural and wrong and all that. It's a big part of the ideas behind a fantasy setting, behind the concept of "undeath" in folklore and legend in the first place. You can toss it out if you like. But you don't *have to*. For one thing, what's so bad about wanting to be a necromancer who is, in fact, Evil, or perhaps Good but constantly being pulled toward Evil by his dark arts? If you don't think it is, go run a D&D without the players and have a great time. Game balance is a factor, but the spells have set levels, they scale with caster level, and the rules are set for their limitations - so really it comes down to options. There is no good reason mechanically that making undead servants is an evil act Will people stop saying this? That's what the [Evil] descriptor is *for*. At the very least, there *is* a game-mechanical reason why Good Clerics lack any access to the spell animate dead. but because of the evil-descriptor, many DMs will give players a hard time over alignment and casting "evil spells", when they want to make a character who uses necromancy and undead as their tools of choice. *sigh* I would also give a Lawful Good player a hard time about playing a Fiendbinder, because that's part of the flavor of the class. Also, on the note about undead becoming uncontrolled. The example given with Archmage Magee dying was an example. Also, I made a mistake - the last order given was a 3.0 thing - so it doesn't really apply to the 3.5. However it doesn't say that the skeletons go on killing rampages after being uncontrolled - they can't make the deciscions to do so. That too is fluff. Er, how so? The stuff written for Command Undead and control undead say that the undead "do not attack" for the duration of the spell or the Command attempt, which implies that, y'know, they *do* attack if you let the control go. Most of the situations involving zombies and skeletons in D&D modules and stuff involve you coming across them and them suddenly attacking you. Note that Flesh Golems are Int --, and going berserk and killing everything is part of their whole schtick. But I'm not sure I have much more to say on the subject. What I do know for a fact however, and this only applies to myself and the people I've gamed with over the years. I've seen some darn good reasons for undead not to be inherintly, evil - including but not limited to: 1: Characters using undead to help hold the lines against oncoming groups of evil warriors, ala LotR style of standoff. 2: Preforming civil cervices - animating pack animals for poor peasants, living fallen debres off of innocents pinned under them, cleaning, performing manual labor for the benefit of others. 3: Characters such as one from a game I played in - A undead neutral good cleric of magic, protection, and undeath, whos belief system involved a theurgic responsibility to help people, protect life from being lost or stolen (IE: murder for example), and had many undead servents (polished skeletons with spiritual ingravings and designs were common) to help them and the common people. Now this cleric, she was cool. She and her order had what felt like infinitely more flavor to many of our group, than say - a Pelorian cleric. Well, sure. If you want to change the flavor and change the rules, go ahead. If you want to create a frightening disconnect between the Evil aura something has and the Good purposes to which it's put, also go ahead. To me that's the only interesting way to use alignment -- to point out that Good and "good" frequently don't match up with each other. But, again, Evil spell =/= Evil act. You can use Evil powers for good reasons. You can call on the Dark Side and channel Force Lightning to save your friends. Doesn't change the fact that there's something corrupting about the power. These things are easily possible because most people I've ever gamed with really just ignore the evil descriptor and have never bothered to even passingly suggest that using it would be a bad thing. To them, it's just another fireball. Not to say that the party doesn't role-play things like initial distaste for undead. In fact, in our most recent campaign, the party actually consists of the aformentioned cleric, as well as a rogue / wizard / cleric of pelor. Now he's an interesting character. An adventurer who found faith, so to speak, and a spiritual power, who was innately wary of the undead-loving cleric. However he testified on her behalf to have her freed from a local jail, as she was found camping on her pilgramige by some hunters are was jailed for "dark magics". She had done nothing wrong, and he felt that until she was being sentenced unfairly. Later on, after much philosophy and role-playing, as well as being put through a number of tight situations, the pelorian cleric grew to accept the other cleric as a friend, and strong companion to the forces of good. Stating "I believe Pelor, god of all that is the sun and goodness, has blessed me with illumination to my sight; for I see you clearly now, and I know Pelor sees the light in you too". Good for you. There's nothing wrong with playing the old "All superstition is just social prejudice, accept people who are different" mantra over and over. The thing is, that's been done *so much* by cheekily clever folks who want to subvert and deconstruct fantasy tropes that it's become its own cliche. I'm actually more interested in doing what fantasy does best -- making our stereotypes and prejudices and dark, nasty ideas *real* -- and playing with a world wherein the social prejudices are, in fact, correct.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 03:23 PM	All of the cause wound spells expressly bring negative energy into the Material Plane. They are not evil-descriptored. As much as I'd like "negative energy pollution" to be the reason, it is not consistent with the rules. Oh, for cripes' sake. And the fact that Evil Clerics can automatically spontaneously inflict and Good Clerics can automatically spontaneously cure means *nothing*? They're too small-scale to have the descriptor, that's all. (From a metagame perspective, they're too useful for either side to not have any access to them.) Healing magic brings PE into the world *for an instant* to accomplish an act of healing, and wounding magic brings NE into the world *for an instant* to do the reverse. The [Evil] spells and [Good] spells tend to be ones that bring NE or PE into the world on a persistent basis, letting it leak into the world over time.
ZuulMoG 04-13-07, 05:47 PM	ZuulMog, did you read my first post? At all? has anyone here read my first post to the end and actually taken note of what I said? What I'm saying is that 1) This spell should not have the evil decriptor and neither should undead who are mindless as they can not chose to be evil or good or anything 2) I am not saying all uses are right. Animating willy nilly is not a good thing, nor is unearthing graves just to make undead. Also, I would like to point out that you are mainly talking about the real world, like organ transplants. They did not have these things in D&D, so they would likely just bury their dead or some other ritual. But I seem to say time and time again, IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ANIMATE COARPSES THAT HAVE BEEN BURIED FOR ANY REASON! Zuul, I am also not saying to animate dead in front of those who do not wish to see undead created. In my first example, if you indeed read it, stated that the adventureurs removed the civilians from the area before the spell was cast. I understand emotions as well as you do. Yes, I read the whole thing. I also take it as an insult that you think I would post a reply to a thread without at least reading the OP. In fact, as I alluded in my first post here (this being my last), I read them ALL. I happen to agree that mindless creatures should not have an alignment. I also agree that skeletons and zombies should not be listed as evil. But I steadfastly maintain that it is an evil act to create either, because it is a desecration of the bodies they are made from, and the act of desecrating the dead is repulsive and anti-social to a high degree, and that is what makes it evil.
DM-Scott 04-13-07, 06:02 PM	ArcTan What do you mean? Undead actually *do*, mostly, have Evil alignments by default. Leaving aside mindless Skeletons and Zombies, pretty much every core undead monster in the Monster Manual has Alignment: Always Evil (I just ran through d20srd.org's monster filter and checked; the only exception is Mummies, which are merely Usually Lawful Evil, and Ghosts, which retain their base creature's alignment). Moreover, Undead always detect as Evil using the detect evil spell. (Shemeska the Marauder claims otherwise, without actually providing evidence for this claim, since the entry in the chart says merely "Undead" while every other entry says "Evil creature", "Evil outsider", or something else with the word "evil" in it.) The thrust of it is that the designers really did push the idea of Undead = Evil really, really strongly in the game. A Good-aligned Vampire is *just as much* an exception to the general rule about Vampires as a Good-aligned Succubus would be. I stated undead are not by default evil. Please note the undead type in the monster manual. It is in no way stating or even suggesting that undead are evil. Most enemies in the monster manual are intended to be faught as foes, and as long as those darn aberrations are evil well then golly gee willikers, we can feel so great about slaughtering them. If you prefer that sort of black and white gameplay and role-playing depth, then that is your buisness and it isn't my place to judge. However, for myself and the rest of our group (which has between 4-12 players depending on our scheduals), we generally prefer something a little deeper than 13 year old "save the princess" style role-playing. Please note - I'm not refferancing any rules, this is our playstyle and I don't expect you to adopt it. What I do find annoying is there IS a number of conflictions in the rules, and a lot of assumtions about the core mechanics of the game - which truely do not seem to fit. For example, while some aspects of the game would suggest undead are innately evil, or that negative energy was evil, other stuff literally says otherwise (such as good an evil clerics using positive and negative energies, but it's specifically stated that positive and negative energy are not tied to good or evil). What about detect good? - Do Deathless show up as a shining beacon of holiness, because they are powered by the not-really-good positive energy (I'm really asking this question, because I don't have my eberron book handy at the moment to double check)? Hollow and Unhallow are supposed to bless or curse a location with holy or unholy energies, I'm guessing was the intent of the spell, but it has no effect on outsiders. While a mindless skeleton would have difficulty in the temple of Hollow-ness, the succubus doesn't feel even the slightest effect. This is an example of imposed flavor. To me, D&D is a system, moreso than it is its own special game. Nothing in the rules litterally states that undead have to be evil, and it is rightly so that nothing states they have to be good either. As a matter of fact, my personal oppinion is that such things should be left to the individual campaign, and should probably be included in the DMG as a varient or suggestion for something - instead of a printed rule which is conflicted by other printed rule. The Necropolitan is a specific exception to the general rule about Undead, who are almost all Evil. You're using the Necropolitan as a standard for the rules about Undead when it's actually a very specific exception, really created for the sole purpose of being able to play an Undead PC without hassle. It's like saying that because Tieflings aren't Always Evil, this means that Demons and Devils aren't inherently Evil. The Necropoliton is no less of an undead than a zombie. Also there is no general "rule" that undead are evil. It may be assumed, or perhaps even suggested, but there is no rule for it. Which is rules such as the Evil descriptor on Animate Dead or even the moral alignment of skeletons and zombies lacks credibility. Also in regards to the tiefling. Tieflings are native outsiders. They have some history of fiendish blood in their family tree, which gives them a tie to the power of the outsiders, but they also lack the evil subtype, and are native outsiders. Obviously demons and devils ARE inherintly evil because they do posses the evil subtype as they are formed of evil. They could have another alignment in the case of the Succubus Paladin, and still retain their evil subtype, which in turn would cause spells such as Detect Evil, or Holy Smite to affect her differently. However, if a truely innately chaotic and evil being can actually have an alignment of Lawful Good, then why is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that a mindless being who lacks the evil subtype, and of a type that in itself has no ties to evil, should have a Neutral default alignment, or that casting a spell to create such a thing is any more evil than creating homunculi? This also extends to the summon monster spell, which was mentioned earlier. The spell only becomes a spell of that descriptor when used to summon creatures of that particular subtype. SRD When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. Note that it is mentioning the type of the creature, not the creature's alignment. This is also the reason that should you click on the link to "evil" in the hypertext SRD in the summon monster spell, you are pointed towards the evil subtype. It is not a question of alignment, it is a question of creature type. When you rebutted that lemure's alignment is in fact always lawful evil, you also stated in your reply that there can be exceptions to their actual alignment (maybe 1 out of 1 million mindless lemures are actually chaotic good? Meh...) but their subtype remains Lawful and Evil. So their alignment aspect obviously isn't really a rule, even to you. It's pretty clear when you look at the various uses of PE and NE that *using* PE is Good and *using* NE is Evil, although to differing degrees. (Again, cure and inflict spells aren't Good or Evil on their own, AND YET Good Clerics find it really easy to use cure spells and Evil Clerics find it really easy to use inflict spells, ahem ahem I wonder why.) You say it is pretty clear, but it is actually stated in the rules that positive and negative energy are not good an evil respectively. That is very clear. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#negativeEnergyPlane)'s the info on the positive and negative energy planes themselves. Neither have good or evil planar traits, and both are deadly and harsh in their own ways, and potentially beneficial to different types of creatures. And yeah, good an evil clerics do seem to find it particularly easy to use one or the other, and I too wonder why. I also wonder why it is that neutral characters have to pick one or the other to form this speciality but never get to change their minds later. It's almost like picking a class feature that has been force-flavored a certain way. It's your opinion that this whole, huge "Undead Are Evil" vibe that's incredibly *obvious* if you look at the core materials should be wiped away from the game. Which is FINE. I have no issue with that. But it's not inherently more "logical" or "better" than anything else. (You should also go back and change the detect evil spell, which right now goes off on red alert if it sniffs out anything undead at all. And you might just do away with the Deathless Type, which is now totally redundant.) Well despite the fact I like the deathless type - yes, it is totally redundant mechanically. But it does make traveling with lliving characters easier, considering you don't have to worry about the healer preparing the right spells or whatever, and they are just undead powered by "positive energy" which is again a neutral energy by itself. It also isn't required that deathless be good either. As for it being more inherintly logical, I again point to the fact that it isn't stated as a requirement in the actual mechanics of the game and would be an entirely setting specific aspect (better left to the Dungeon Master's guide). It may be implied in the player's handbook, but it's also backed up in the monster manual that undead aren't automatically evil, which is also the core books. There are also everything from the deathless to good liches. Most enemies in the monster manual are in fact meant to be faught by heroes, and undead do make good tools or minions of evil characters. Not to say they themselves or the methods for creating ALL undead are evil (not to say they all aren't either), especially mindless skeletons and zombies. Good clerics could have things to be gained too. Also, despite the fact it's not official by any means, I did read over the Tome of Necromancy brought to the subject by another poster, which links to a rather sizable load of undead related stuff. Playing with fire seems logical to me. Only if you insist that Evil "make sense" from a real-world perspective, that is, *your* real-world perspective of "ends justify means" and "morality is merely a matter of intention and lacks physical reality". These are the kinds of people who probably think the Jedi in Star Wars are hidebound conservatives who haven't looked into the socially beneficial uses of firing lightning bolts from their fingers, and are on Boromir's side with the "Well, why DON'T we just use the One Ring?" thing in LotR. This actually offends me. My real world perspective has little to do with anything. Furthermore, you insult me by acting as if you know what that perspective is, especially with the "ends justify the means" and "morality is merely a matter of intention and lacks physical reality". Sorry, I don't believe either of those. I have the gift of reason, which most people do (or should). This is for the most part irrelivant. Also, I'm a star wars fan myself. I will also say that the force and its corruption effects are complete "setting flavor" of star wars. Each has a leg in the idea of good and evil, and philosophically maybe there are reasons for throwing around lightning bolts (it hasn't corrupted Eleminster), but wait...that's two different settings and stories. The ring was an Artifact (see special plot way of destroying it, immense power, etc) and was in itself vile and evil - see evil items, possibly even intelligent evil item. Because it was Sauron's darks soul. These are attacks on my character (that is my existence as a person, not a fictional character in an RPG) and I do not appriciate them, nore do I feel I've warrented them from you. You sir act as if you know me, and most obviously do not. My grandfather used to say something about oppinions, and something about assumptions, but neither should be repeated on this board due to questionable content (not the webcomic ;)). Will people stop saying this? That's what the [Evil] descriptor is *for*. At the very least, there *is* a game-mechanical reason why Good Clerics lack any access to the spell animate dead. There is no good reason not to make animate dead unavailable for good clerics. In fact, considering that a Neutral cleric can well within the core rules cast it while still having access to good spells is all the more reason to simply not play a good aligned character, which limits character options from a role-playing point of view and has little effect on some pseudo game balance idea (with the exception that hey now spells like Unholy Smite and Blaspheme now affect your hero as a neutral character, whoopie!). *sigh* I would also give a Lawful Good player a hard time about playing a Fiendbinder, because that's part of the flavor of the class. Some could base such a concept on King Solomon from biblical lore, who was supposedly said to have been a good-guy who with the power of god bound fiends to his will to serve good (and build a temple). Considered a master of demons and unclean spirits, he was also supposed to be a wise and good-guy. Might be kind of a cool idea. The idea has merit, methinks. Er, how so? The stuff written for Command Undead and control undead say that the undead "do not attack" for the duration of the spell or the Command attempt, which implies that, y'know, they *do* attack if you let the control go. Most of the situations involving zombies and skeletons in D&D modules and stuff involve you coming across them and them suddenly attacking you. Note that Flesh Golems are Int --, and going berserk and killing everything is part of their whole schtick. Note these spells (Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm), and Control Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm)) These spells also affect intelligent undead. Mindless creatures get no save. So you could find an undead skeleton doing absolutely nothing and just simply control it using the spell. The fact that it says undead cannot attack you does not mean they always do, but that they cannot. A vampire who's been controlled may not attack you even if you cannot tell it "don't attack me", and in no way actually suggests mindless undead have some sort of instinctual desire to kill, maim, and slaughter. Implied indeed... Also modules and adventures are not the rules. They make use of the rules (usually) but are not even always the guidlines for the rules. If undead suddenly just spring up and start attacking without a reason, that's just poor adventure structure. Finally, the flesh golem isn't an undead and the berserk thing is a specified trait only mentioned in the flesh golem's statistics. This isn't a trait of undead and is unique to the flesh golem or a creature who actually has the trait. Well, sure. If you want to change the flavor and change the rules, go ahead. If you want to create a frightening disconnect between the Evil aura something has and the Good purposes to which it's put, also go ahead. To me that's the only interesting way to use alignment -- to point out that Good and "good" frequently don't match up with each other. But, again, Evil spell =/= Evil act. You can use Evil powers for good reasons. You can call on the Dark Side and channel Force Lightning to save your friends. Doesn't change the fact that there's something corrupting about the power. You again pull it setting specific things into the core rules, assuming that it's somehow mystically corrupting, has no in game effect other than restricting an option which has no unbalancing effect to a good cleric. This has nothing to do with star wars, and evil spells aren't the dark side of the force. If you want to run a star wars themed D&D game, then certainly you could specify that evil spells are of the dark side and corrupting, but I don't believe it has a place in the system and does seem to cause a lot of confusion (again maybe I am in fact confused) and thus a lot of debate and conflicts of ideas. The thing is, that's been done *so much* by cheekily clever folks who want to subvert and deconstruct fantasy tropes that it's become its own cliche. I'm actually more interested in doing what fantasy does best -- making our stereotypes and prejudices and dark, nasty ideas *real* -- and playing with a world wherein the social prejudices are, in fact, correct. What an admirable outlook... Let's hope the anti-D&D and fantasy fanatics don't get ahold of this thread. :embarrass Finally I want to say that the reason I do support the necro-neutrality is because it opens up doorways of fun and interesting roleplaying and game strategies and ideas, and it makes sense within the system (and I love the system). Maybe something I say here will make sense to someone else somewhere else, and they may decide they like the idea of good and evil undead, and the not-so-implied neutrality of the positive and negative energies. Perhaps even there are opposing orders of necromancers, some good, some bad. Each a power center, with different goals and motivations, but similar tools. But that's the musing of another day, another topic. Peace out everyone, and game on. :D
ArcTan 04-13-07, 06:50 PM	ArcTan I stated undead are not by default evil. Please note the undead type in the monster manual. It is in no way stating or even suggesting that undead are evil. Most enemies in the monster manual are intended to be faught as foes, and as long as those darn aberrations are evil well then golly gee willikers, we can feel so great about slaughtering them. If you prefer that sort of black and white gameplay and role-playing depth, then that is your buisness and it isn't my place to judge. However, for myself and the rest of our group (which has between 4-12 players depending on our scheduals), we generally prefer something a little deeper than 13 year old "save the princess" style role-playing. Please note - I'm not refferancing any rules, this is our playstyle and I don't expect you to adopt it. Using the idea that some things are inherently corrupting or unnatural or evil isn't "13-year-old save-the-princess" roleplaying, by any means, and I resent the implication that it is, just like tossing away those rules and saying "Golly, morality is a matter of choice" isn't the key to suddenly becoming mature, deep and intelligent. Like I said, the good vampire or the misunderstood necromancer or the nice, friendly dragon has become its *own* cliche now, far from being a bold deconstruction of existing cliches. What I do find annoying is there IS a number of conflictions in the rules, and a lot of assumtions about the core mechanics of the game - which truely do not seem to fit. For example, while some aspects of the game would suggest undead are innately evil, or that negative energy was evil, other stuff literally says otherwise (such as good an evil clerics using positive and negative energies, but it's specifically stated that positive and negative energy are not tied to good or evil). Er, check again. The SRD says that channeling positive energy is a Good act and that channeling negative energy is an Evil act. The SRD also says that Evil Clerics always channel negative energy (Rebuke Undead) and that Good Clerics always channel positive energy. The PHB, as I've been helpfully reminded in other threads, makes specific exceptions for this for specific gods. But there's not nearly as much of an "inconsistency" here as you seem to think. Yes, inflict and cure spells aren't Evil, but Good Clerics spontaneously cast cure spells and Evil Clerics spontaneously cast inflict spells. That sounds like a connection to me. The only *big* inconsistency is people talking about how the Positive Energy Plane and Negative Energy Plane don't themselves have the good-dominant or evil-dominant traits, which I think *can* be settled by saying "Positive energy is Neutral on its own plane but the intrusion of PE into the Material is Good". If you don't think so, then it's an easy thing to change, since the MotP is 3.0 rather than 3.5 and therefore out-of-date anyway, and since the planes themselves and their denizens rarely come into play in anyone's games, at least not nearly as frequently as undead. What about detect good? - Do Deathless show up as a shining beacon of holiness, because they are powered by the not-really-good positive energy (I'm really asking this question, because I don't have my eberron book handy at the moment to double check)? Deathless originally come from the Book of Exalted Deeds, not the Eberron campaign setting, and IIRC they are the opposite of Undead in every way, including showing up under detect good. Hollow and Unhallow are supposed to bless or curse a location with holy or unholy energies, I'm guessing was the intent of the spell, but it has no effect on outsiders. While a mindless skeleton would have difficulty in the temple of Hollow-ness, the succubus doesn't feel even the slightest effect. This is an example of imposed flavor. Well, yeah. And succubi aren't turned by Turn Undead, because it's called Turn Undead, because the original purpose was always Undead being the primary Evil that Good Clerics fight (and that Evil Clerics spread) on the Material Plane. Outsiders are so called because they do most of their stuff outside. To me, D&D is a system, moreso than it is its own special game. Nothing in the rules litterally states that undead have to be evil, and it is rightly so that nothing states they have to be good either. As a matter of fact, my personal oppinion is that such things should be left to the individual campaign, and should probably be included in the DMG as a varient or suggestion for something - instead of a printed rule which is conflicted by other printed rule. What are you talking about? There is no rule for what Undead, as a Type, have to be. There are exceptions to the general *observation* that most Undead are Evil -- Ghosts are a specific exception in core, and the Necropolitan template was, as observed, intended to be another exception. The rules *also* include the actual, specific entries for various Undead, which state that Vampires are Always Evil, Liches are Always Evil, Wights are Always Evil, etc. The Necropoliton is no less of an undead than a zombie. Also there is no general "rule" that undead are evil. It may be assumed, or perhaps even suggested, but there is no rule for it. Which is rules such as the Evil descriptor on Animate Dead or even the moral alignment of skeletons and zombies lacks credibility. Oh, c'mon. The rules say that casting animate dead is Evil, and sure enough, Skeletons and Zombies are Always Evil. None of the core [Evil] spells for creating undead create Necropolitans (and part of the Necropolitan flavor is, indeed, that Necropolitans *can't* be created the way ordinary undead can be), and, in fact, all of the undead created by the [Evil] spells that create undead are Always Evil. Where's the inconsistency? Also in regards to the tiefling. Tieflings are native outsiders. They have some history of fiendish blood in their family tree, which gives them a tie to the power of the outsiders, but they also lack the evil subtype, and are native outsiders. Obviously demons and devils ARE inherintly evil because they do posses the evil subtype as they are formed of evil. *sigh* Okay. You get my point, however, about how Tieflings' relationship to Demons and Devils is kind of like how Necropolitans relate to the main kind of Undead. They could have another alignment in the case of the Succubus Paladin, and still retain their evil subtype, which in turn would cause spells such as Detect Evil, or Holy Smite to affect her differently. However, if a truely innately chaotic and evil being can actually have an alignment of Lawful Good, then why is it such a stretch of the imagination to think that a mindless being who lacks the evil subtype, and of a type that in itself has no ties to evil, should have a Neutral default alignment, or that casting a spell to create such a thing is any more evil than creating homunculi? Er, what? This is backwards. If alignment is solely and exclusively a function of a person's own intentions and morals, then a Lawful Good Succubus should be Lawful Good, period. If she believes in Law and she believes in Good, she's LG. Her physical body should have nothing to do with it. But in D&D, it DOES. She may be the most LG person in the world -- she might always look both ways before crossing the street, might give thousands of gold pieces to cure sick puppies, might heroically quest to defeat the demon prince Grazz't, whatever. She still has the CE *subtypes*. Her flesh and her "essence" are still CE, in complete disregard of what her actual intentions are. In other words, *alignment exists independently of one's own intentions*. Which means that it's completely possible for something that doesn't even *have* intentions, like a Skeleton, to have an alignment because the "essence" that animates it is somehow Evil, in the same way that the "essence" that animates a Succubus is Evil. If it's possible for her "essence" to be CE in direct DEFIANCE of her actual intentions and ideals, why is it impossible for something to be NE that doesn't have any intentions and ideals to defy at all? This also extends to the summon monster spell, which was mentioned earlier. The spell only becomes a spell of that descriptor when used to summon creatures of that particular subtype. It's not subtype, it's *alignment*. Celestial Badgers don't have the [Good] subtype or the [Chaos] subtype. Check out the stat block. Celestial badgers are Magical Beasts with the Extraplanar subtype. Undead bodies are composed of dead rotting stuff or ectoplasm or whatever, but that doesn't make them any less Evil-aligned. Animate dead makes Skeletons and Zombies, which have the Undead Type but are Always Neutral Evil, so animate dead is an [Evil] spell. Summon monster I can be used to summon a Celestial Badger, which has the Magical Beast (Extraplanar) Type but is Always Chaotic Good, so when used like this it's a [Chaos] and [Good] spell. Really, it's exactly analogous. Note that it is mentioning the type of the creature, not the creature's alignment. This is also the reason that should you click on the link to "evil" in the hypertext SRD in the summon monster spell, you are pointed towards the evil subtype. It is not a question of alignment, it is a question of creature type. No, it's not. Using summon monster I as an example, not a SINGLE MONSTER on that list has an alignment-based subtype. That's not something the Celestial or Fiendish templates provide. When you rebutted that lemure's alignment is in fact always lawful evil, you also stated in your reply that there can be exceptions to their actual alignment (maybe 1 out of 1 million mindless lemures are actually chaotic good? Meh...) but their subtype remains Lawful and Evil. So their alignment aspect obviously isn't really a rule, even to you. Well, no. There could be some way to make a Skeleton conscious and capable of choosing to be Good. (Is there an awaken undead thing somewhere? I bet there is, even if I can't remember its source.) This doesn't change one whit the fact that the force animating the Skeleton is inherently Evil. Aren't you getting that my *whole point* is that alignment exists independently of creatures' choices and ideals? So that Lemures are still LE in *essence* even if they somehow choose to be Chaotic Good? You say it is pretty clear, but it is actually stated in the rules that positive and negative energy are not good an evil respectively. That is very clear. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#negativeEnergyPlane)'s the info on the positive and negative energy planes themselves. Neither have good or evil planar traits, and both are deadly and harsh in their own ways, and potentially beneficial to different types of creatures. It's clear that *uses* of PE and NE on the Material are Good and Evil, though. You're creating a contradiction by trying to enforce a rule that doesn't need to be a rule -- saying that "If using positive energy is Good, then the PE Plane itself needs to be good-dominant", which is a statement I wouldn't take as necessarily being true at all. And yeah, good an evil clerics do seem to find it particularly easy to use one or the other, and I too wonder why. I also wonder why it is that neutral characters have to pick one or the other to form this speciality but never get to change their minds later. It's almost like picking a class feature that has been force-flavored a certain way. Well, sure. It's also "force-flavored" that Paladins are LG. So? Well despite the fact I like the deathless type - yes, it is totally redundant mechanically. But it does make traveling with lliving characters easier, considering you don't have to worry about the healer preparing the right spells or whatever, and they are just undead powered by "positive energy" which is again a neutral energy by itself. It also isn't required that deathless be good either. No, but it's just as unlikely as an Evil Vampire, if you look at the deathless creatures that have actually been statted up, like in Eberron. As for it being more inherintly logical, I again point to the fact that it isn't stated as a requirement in the actual mechanics of the game and would be an entirely setting specific aspect (better left to the Dungeon Master's guide). It may be implied in the player's handbook, but it's also backed up in the monster manual that undead aren't automatically evil, which is also the core books. What core setting there is *is* the Monster Manual, which contains example after example after example of Always Evil Undead, *one* example of Usually Evil (the Mummy), and one example of Alignment (any), the Ghost. Stuff like the Necropolitan is stuff that's a lot closer to being non-core and "setting-specific" than this is. There are also everything from the deathless to good liches. Most enemies in the monster manual are in fact meant to be faught by heroes, and undead do make good tools or minions of evil characters. Not to say they themselves or the methods for creating ALL undead are evil (not to say they all aren't either), especially mindless skeletons and zombies. Good clerics could have things to be gained too. Good Liches are just as rare as Good Pit Fiends, judging by the Always Evil entry. If they wanted to say that Liches are just Evil in the same convenient way that Orcs tend to be Evil, then they would be Usually Evil, not Always Evil. Also, despite the fact it's not official by any means, I did read over the Tome of Necromancy brought to the subject by another poster, which links to a rather sizable load of undead related stuff. Playing with fire seems logical to me. There are a lot of people who don't like the idea of Necromancy = Evil *because* they want to play around with the idea of a "misunderstood" Necromancer whose sinister aura really is only the fault of baseless superstition, and there are a lot of people who write supplements for doing this. More power to them. This doesn't make the way they play more correct. This actually offends me. My real world perspective has little to do with anything. Furthermore, you insult me by acting as if you know what that perspective is, especially with the "ends justify the means" and "morality is merely a matter of intention and lacks physical reality". Sorry, I don't believe either of those. I have the gift of reason, which most people do (or should). This is for the most part irrelivant. Then why do you keep insisting that it's illogical that something can be Evil if used for Good ends? I find it perfectly logical, even if I disagree with it, that a spell to save someone's life could *itself* be Evil even if the action of saving their life could be completely Good. This is what a lot of fantasy predicates itself on, forbidden power and its corruption. Also, I'm a star wars fan myself. I will also say that the force and its corruption effects are complete "setting flavor" of star wars. Each has a leg in the idea of good and evil, and philosophically maybe there are reasons for throwing around lightning bolts (it hasn't corrupted Eleminster), but wait...that's two different settings and stories. I know. I'm using one as an example of the other. The ring was an Artifact (see special plot way of destroying it, immense power, etc) and was in itself vile and evil - see evil items, possibly even intelligent evil item. Because it was Sauron's darks soul. There have been people on these threads attacking the idea of Evil items existing at all in D&D, given that they argue that Evil is only the result of free-willed intention. These are attacks on my character (that is my existence as a person, not a fictional character in an RPG) and I do not appriciate them, nore do I feel I've warrented them from you. You sir act as if you know me, and most obviously do not. Well, whatever. I myself in real life think that ends usually justify means (or at least compensate for means, depending on the scale), and that when you look hard at it moral ideas that aren't based on free-willed choices are very dodgy. But fantasy is all about exploring ideas one doesn't feel to be true in reality to see where they take you. What I *don't like* is people rejecting what is an essential part of D&D and high fantasy in general -- a physical existence of metaphysical realities, Evil being a *thing* that remains Evil no matter what you do to it or with it -- because it "doesn't make sense". To me that's blurring the line between reality and fantasy in a way that directly harms our ability to fantasize, whether you do so intentionally or not. There is no good reason not to make animate dead unavailable for good clerics. Sure there is. Because it's part of the flavor of the default D&D rules that Undeath = Evil. [qutoe]In fact, considering that a Neutral cleric can well within the core rules cast it while still having access to good spells is all the more reason to simply not play a good aligned character, which limits character options from a role-playing point of view and has little effect on some pseudo game balance idea (with the exception that hey now spells like Unholy Smite and Blaspheme now affect your hero as a neutral character, whoopie!).[/quote] Is the only reason to play a Good-aligned character to have a more powerful character? If the only thing you care about is being more effective in combat, then realistically you really *should* play a Neutral character, shouldn't you? Since that's a pretty fundamentally Neutral outlook? Look, I've actually argued this from the other side before, but that's in the context of using alignment to actually judge characters and reward them for being "good". Which isn't really what D&D is about -- you *don't* get rewarded for being Good in D&D. Being Good in D&D is something you do because that's the side of the struggle you want to take. It's a flavor thing. I mean, I think the Evil Outsiders you can summon or call as an Evil spellcaster are a hell of a lot cooler (so to speak) than the Good ones, and the Lawful and Chaotic ones are both really lacking in comparison, so I might want to play an NE character in D&D. Given that I've learned better than to treat D&D as a forum for serious moral debate as opposed to an ass-kicking power fantasy about stock fantasy tropes, I don't see why that's a problem. I don't see why we have to make the rules say that Good Clerics can summon Vrocks just because Vrocks are cool and it's not "fair" otherwise. Some could base such a concept on King Solomon from biblical lore, who was supposedly said to have been a good-guy who with the power of god bound fiends to his will to serve good (and build a temple). Considered a master of demons and unclean spirits, he was also supposed to be a wise and good-guy. Might be kind of a cool idea. The idea has merit, methinks. Yeah. You could do that, sure. You would be *changing* the flavor, however. Right now the PrC says "Any nongood" for the alignment restriction, and right now I'm okay with that. Note these spells (Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm), and Control Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm)) These spells also affect intelligent undead. Mindless creatures get no save. So you could find an undead skeleton doing absolutely nothing and just simply control it using the spell. The fact that it says undead cannot attack you does not mean they always do, but that they cannot. A vampire who's been controlled may not attack you even if you cannot tell it "don't attack me", and in no way actually suggests mindless undead have some sort of instinctual desire to kill, maim, and slaughter. What mindless undead do when they're uncontrolled remains up to the DM, though. "Mindless" certainly doesn't imply a lack of ability to do *anything* -- Black Puddings are Int --, as is a Flesh Golem that's gone berserk. I'm fine with saying that the definition of what "mindlessly Evil" creatures do with their time when not commanded is up to the DM, just as the DM decides what specific Evil things a Neutral Evil human being does with his time. There isn't a clear definition one way or the other. Also modules and adventures are not the rules. They make use of the rules (usually) but are not even always the guidlines for the rules. If undead suddenly just spring up and start attacking without a reason, that's just poor adventure structure. Enh, if you say so. Finally, the flesh golem isn't an undead and the berserk thing is a specified trait only mentioned in the flesh golem's statistics. This isn't a trait of undead and is unique to the flesh golem or a creature who actually has the trait. That's not the point. The point is that there's nothing that says that "Int -- creatures completely lack the ability to make decisions or do anything on their own"; the Flesh Golem explicitly contradicts that, as do the mindless Oozes that go around eating things. Maybe Skeletons whack anything that moves if you don't command them. Maybe they just stand there. Maybe they just walk forward slowly, smacking anything in their way out of their way. None of these requires any intellect to do; all of these would be in keeping for an Int -- character, and all of them are equally plausible under the current rules. You again pull it setting specific things into the core rules, assuming that it's somehow mystically corrupting, has no in game effect other than restricting an option which has no unbalancing effect to a good cleric. It's [Evil]. It's Evil. What else am I supposed to assume? This has nothing to do with star wars, and evil spells aren't the dark side of the force. If you want to run a star wars themed D&D game, then certainly you could specify that evil spells are of the dark side and corrupting, but I don't believe it has a place in the system and does seem to cause a lot of confusion (again maybe I am in fact confused) and thus a lot of debate and conflicts of ideas. *sigh* The main confusion stems, I think, from the fact that, as people have pointed out, D&D has been inconsistent on this in the past and formerly ruled all mindless Undead to be Neutral based on overzealous application of the "mindless = TN" rule, when this was not their intention. The way Turn Undead and such have always worked has always implied to me that D&D works with the "undead = unnatural and therefore evil" idea. What an admirable outlook... Let's hope the anti-D&D and fantasy fanatics don't get ahold of this thread. :embarrass Hey, whatever. I'm not the one who put Orcs being Usually Evil in the Monster Manual, man. I acknowledge that things like Lord of the Rings have troubling racist and classist overtones. I don't let that get in the way of me enjoying them. The fear of the Other and of the unknown is an intrinsic part of being human and part of how we see the world, and entertainment's job is to play with that and stimulate that to excite us and help us pass the time. Finally I want to say that the reason I do support the necro-neutrality is because it opens up doorways of fun and interesting roleplaying and game strategies and ideas, and it makes sense within the system (and I love the system). Apparently you don't love the parts that specifically deal with alignment, because you haven't brought out any part of the *system* that actually says things like "Alignment only exists as part of people's moral choices, and things that can't make choices don't have alignment". In fact, most of the time when this conflict comes up the game comes down hard on the other side, with things like Outsiders with alignment subtypes, Lycanthropic strains, and Undead. As someone else noted, why does it take away roleplaying opportunities for Necromancy to be Evil? It *adds* roleplaying opportunities -- it means now you have a hook for your Good-aligned Necromancer to attract suspicion and fear from everyone in the world and for this suspicion to be *justifiable* rather than something you can easily pooh-pooh as ignorant. It opens up a philosophical debate *within* the world about these mysterious poles of alignment and how they match up -- but not quite -- with human experience of right and wrong. It's *interesting* to have a world where Evil is something you can see and touch, because, much as we call that POV "childish", we're not actually acquainted with a world where that's TRUE -- we, in fact, like to believe that right and wrong are merely a matter of choice, and the idea that some kind of force or energy could take that choice away from us is scary and disturbing. Maybe something I say here will make sense to someone else somewhere else, and they may decide they like the idea of good and evil undead, and the not-so-implied neutrality of the positive and negative energies. Perhaps even there are opposing orders of necromancers, some good, some bad. Each a power center, with different goals and motivations, but similar tools. But that's the musing of another day, another topic. Peace out everyone, and game on. :D Yes, having Necromancy be purely Neutral opens up *other* roleplaying opportunities. But the Necromancy = Evil thing can be used and has been used for things besides "Ha ha dungeon crawl smash all the skeletons". And the Neutral thing can be and has been used for dungeon crawling purposes too (the fact that some people would just like to smash their enemies with a wall of skeletons and are upset that alignment prevents them from doing so is telling). All I'm saying is not to knock the rules for being the rules, or the flavor for being the flavor.
Seeker95 04-13-07, 08:24 PM	Are too. Am not. Are too. Am not. You both make valid points, but by this stage of the argument it appears you are both more interested in proving the other wrong than discussing the topic. I've been there before, and it will go on for pages.
suparman999 04-13-07, 08:29 PM	Haven't we all... Then there's Godwins law, which'll make it go on months longer still.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 09:06 PM	Yes, I read the whole thing. I also take it as an insult that you think I would post a reply to a thread without at least reading the OP. In fact, as I alluded in my first post here (this being my last), I read them ALL. I happen to agree that mindless creatures should not have an alignment. I also agree that skeletons and zombies should not be listed as evil. But I steadfastly maintain that it is an evil act to create either, because it is a desecration of the bodies they are made from, and the act of desecrating the dead is repulsive and anti-social to a high degree, and that is what makes it evil. From a metagame perspective, that is indeed why they picked this to be Evil in the game. Within the game, though, it's an objective fact that it's Evil -- it's repulsive and antisocial and this repulsive antisocialness reflects an objective fact of the universe that breaking the cycle of life and death in this way is Wrong and will corrupt the user. The upshot of this is that you *can* have whole societies where this *is* how they use the dead, and they think that what they do is good and right and okay, and *they are objectively wrong*. And the fact that they use such Evil magic doesn't just make them Evil, but will corrupt them and make them Evil in other respects -- that places that use undead inevitably become bad places to live. (Karrnath in Eberron is a good example, especially because it takes place in a supposedly "shades of gray" campaign world, and yet does roll along with this concept and sees the irony in it -- a lesser campaign setting would have Karrnath be a happy fun law-abiding good place that just happens to have undead, going for the cheeky reversal of cliche rather than embracing the cliche and complicating it.)
ArcTan 04-13-07, 09:07 PM	Haven't we all... Then there's Godwins law, which'll make it go on months longer still. Oh, I'm just waiting for someone to compare me to the Nazis and Necromancers and Skeletons to the Jews and Gypsies. Hey, I just did it to myself by implication. Does that mean I technically win?
suparman999 04-13-07, 09:19 PM	I don't think so, I'm pretty sure it has to be made directed at another person. But I' no lawyer. I just know it's generaly more like "Z0MG STFU /\/\4N G0 2 EHLL U R T3H HILTERZ LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOOLOLLOLOLOLOL OOLLOLOLOOOLOLLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOOOLOOOLOOO OLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLLL OO13371337133713371337133713371337133713 37!!!1" for instance.
DM-Scott 04-13-07, 10:51 PM	You both make valid points, but by this stage of the argument it appears you are both more interested in proving the other wrong than discussing the topic. I've been there before, and it will go on for pages. I have little less to carry on in this debate for the very reasons you've mentioned. It has become obvious to me that certain aspects of the game are conflicting in certain ways, and then all the moral good / evil basis of the whole situation defaults to fluff. Like ArcTan said, it's implied, never stated, and leaves the players and GMs to figure out the fluff. In regards to his succubus versus turn / rebuke undead thing, I don't think he was paying attention to what I was pointing out as a possible flaw in the system. Turn / Rebuke undead don't work on the succubus because it's not holy or unholy energies, it's an energy that has an effect on undead. The original suggestion that the hollow and unhollow spells could fill the area with sacred / profane energies and applies the modifiers to evil outsiders instead of undead to keep with the preceived flavor of the spell. But that doesn't matter at this point. It's not worth arguing, because in the end, he's not listening (I think I am, but maybe I'm not). Most of his rebuttals to my points weren't actually addressing the point made in said point. Insinuation that playing a neutral cleric to build a character like you want to express an idea as a powergaming ploy is somewhat upsetting. There are many inexperienced DMs out there who try to heavily enforce things like alignment changes, and try as a player might to do something different their concept can be shot down by simple misunderstandings an "implied" facts. It just doesn't blend right in the rules, and there are no definitive answers that I've been shown, or found. Also, to ArcTan, your tiefling versus necropolitan isn't really a fair point. Tieflings lack any racial type with fiends beyond being outsiders (also shared by angels and archons) such as Tanar'ri, B'aatezu, Evil, Chaotic, or Law. However a necropolitan is undead. The point I was stressing (which you've pointed out many times) is undead are evil isn't a rule, but just a majority. There are no game mechanics that stress they have to be evil (see the undead type itself). And in regards to the Paladin Succubi, my point was the succubi actually has the evil and chaotic subtypes. Undead do not, and are not within the rules innately evil. In fact, you said if the undead were created by some other means than an Animate Dead spell they wouldn't have to be evil. *sigh* But I digress. Peace out everyone.
wrecan 04-13-07, 10:59 PM	Oh, for cripes' sake. And the fact that Evil Clerics can automatically spontaneously inflict and Good Clerics can automatically spontaneously cure means *nothing*? It doesn't mean nothing. It does mean what I said it means: not all spells that infest the Prime Material with negative energy is evil-descriptored They're too small-scale to have the descriptor, that's all. Mass Inflict Serious Wounds is a 7th level spell that uses negative energy to inflist no less than 16 hp damage (and up to 59 hp damage) to no fewer than 13 individuals (and as many as 20). That's not small scale by any standard. Mass Inflict Serious Wounds does not have an evil descriptor. (From a metagame perspective, they're too useful for either side to not have any access to them.) But we're not discussing this from a metagme perspective. From a metagam perspective, the answer is much simpler: the game designers wanted to deny undead-creation to good aligned divine casters. The [Evil] spells and [Good] spells tend to be ones that bring NE or PE into the world on a persistent basis, letting it leak into the world over time. Untrue. The SRD has 27 evil-descriptored spells. 13 of them (almost half) have durations measured in rounds. At less than epic level, the spell won't last more than three and a half minutes. 4 of them have durations measured in minutes, a few hours at most. Of the remaining spells, Blasphemy's effects do not last more than 10 minutes. Nightmare lasts one evening. Unholy Blight lasts no more than 4 rounds. That means there are only 7 of 27 spells that fit your description of leaking negative energy into the world over time. The ratio of good-aligned spells is even less favorable to your argument. Of the 19 good-descriptored spells only three spells -- bless water, hallow, and consecrate -- could be said to leak positive energy into the prime material on any sort of persistent basis.
ArcTan 04-13-07, 11:12 PM	Untrue. The SRD has 27 evil-descriptored spells. 13 of them (almost half) have durations measured in rounds. At less than epic level, the spell won't last more than three and a half minutes. 4 of them have durations measured in minutes, a few hours at most. Of the remaining spells, Blasphemy's effects do not last more than 10 minutes. Nightmare lasts one evening. Unholy Blight lasts no more than 4 rounds. And all inflict spells are Instantaneous and inflict damage that is immediately gone, even mass inflict serious wounds. (I mean, a meteor swarm is more large-scale than that in terms of *damage dealt*, but that's not the issue here -- the issue is "infecting" the Prime with NE.) That means there are only 7 of 27 spells that fit your description of leaking negative energy into the world over time. I didn't say "over time" as in "a year". I meant opening a channel between the Prime and the NE Plane for any length of time. I specifically had spells like deathwatch and eyebite in mind when I said it -- those spells have in addition going for them the fact that the channel you're opening is your own body, or at least your own eyes. The ratio of good-aligned spells is even less favorable to your argument. Of the 19 good-descriptored spells only three spells -- bless water, hallow, and consecrate -- could be said to leak positive energy into the prime material on any sort of persistent basis. Not *all* [Evil] and [Good] descriptor spells are based on PE or NE. After all, there are also [Lawful] and [Chaotic] spells, which have no known connection to energy types. However, the ones that don't explicitly deal with using aligned energies to oppose other alignments *do* generally have to do with using NE or PE, which is why there's more [Evil] and [Good] spells than [Lawful] and [Chaotic] spells, and why there's more [Evil] than [Good] spells (because there are more uses for NE than PE in Core -- seductive and easy is the path of the Dark Side). *Every* Lawful and Chaotic spell is a Lawful or Chaotic version of holy word/blasphemy, holy aura/unholy aura, protection from X, dispel X, etc. So actually when you strip out these inherently alignment-based spells to see what's unique to Good and Evil, all you've got are a bunch of negative energy-using spells and a few positive energy ones that oppose it (and one unique alignment-based spell, holy sword, presumably unique because it's on the Paladin spell list and Paladins can only be LG, and Paladins care more about the Good part than the Lawful part).
ArcTan 04-13-07, 11:26 PM	I have little less to carry on in this debate for the very reasons you've mentioned. It has become obvious to me that certain aspects of the game are conflicting in certain ways, and then all the moral good / evil basis of the whole situation defaults to fluff. Like ArcTan said, it's implied, never stated, and leaves the players and GMs to figure out the fluff. In regards to his succubus versus turn / rebuke undead thing, I don't think he was paying attention to what I was pointing out as a possible flaw in the system. Turn / Rebuke undead don't work on the succubus because it's not holy or unholy energies, it's an energy that has an effect on undead. The original suggestion that the hollow and unhollow spells could fill the area with sacred / profane energies and applies the modifiers to evil outsiders instead of undead to keep with the preceived flavor of the spell. Okay. I believe this was actually a domain power Clerics with an alignment domain had in 3.0, though I could be wrong. If you want to make the system one where Undeath is a Neutral thing and the Turn/Rebuke stuff works on Outsiders instead, that'd be interesting -- it'd force you to use Outsiders a lot more than they usually show up, though. (Partly because the game makes creating Undead a lot easier than summoning/calling Outsiders.) But that doesn't matter at this point. It's not worth arguing, because in the end, he's not listening (I think I am, but maybe I'm not). Most of his rebuttals to my points weren't actually addressing the point made in said point. I apologize if that's how I came across. This has cropped up in three different threads now, though, and I'm getting annoyed at feeling like I'm the only one defending the "standard model". Insinuation that playing a neutral cleric to build a character like you want to express an idea as a powergaming ploy is somewhat upsetting. There are many inexperienced DMs out there who try to heavily enforce things like alignment changes, and try as a player might to do something different their concept can be shot down by simple misunderstandings an "implied" facts. It just doesn't blend right in the rules, and there are no definitive answers that I've been shown, or found. Oh, I'm not saying that people who don't like alignment are powergamers -- far from it -- or even that I would always use alignment in a game (a lot of times I think it's misplaced and unnecessary) or that there's anything but contempt I hold for DMs who put their foot down and shout "Your character is Evil now!" By the same token, though, there's a lot of reasons to use the idea of objective metaphysical Evil in D&D that don't have to do with making the story as simplistic and "save-the-princess" in tone as possible. Also, to ArcTan, your tiefling versus necropolitan isn't really a fair point. Tieflings lack any racial type with fiends beyond being outsiders (also shared by angels and archons) such as Tanar'ri, B'aatezu, Evil, Chaotic, or Law. However a necropolitan is undead. The point I was stressing (which you've pointed out many times) is undead are evil isn't a rule, but just a majority. There are no game mechanics that stress they have to be evil (see the undead type itself). ...Well, yeah. You don't need the Necropolitan for that -- Ghosts retain their own alignment after death. Still, I'm still okay with saying that even if something doesn't have the Evil subtype, that the energy that animates them is Evil and reacts badly to Good energies. In any case, the same thing that says Necropolitans can be any alignment is what says Skeletons are Always Evil -- the stat block. And in regards to the Paladin Succubi, my point was the succubi actually has the evil and chaotic subtypes. Undead do not, and are not within the rules innately evil. In fact, you said if the undead were created by some other means than an Animate Dead spell they wouldn't have to be evil. Well, no, I said that other Undead besides Skeletons and Zombies that are created by some other means don't have to be Evil. Ghosts, for example. The spell is Evil, though, because creating Undead generally *is* Evil. In this particular case, animate dead is *definitely* Evil because Skeletons and Zombies are Always Evil. Just as using summon monster I to summon a Celestial Badger is always Chaotic Good because Celestial Badgers are Always Chaotic Good, even though Celestial Badgers have neither the Chaotic nor Good subtype. (This is a major point I was trying to make that seems to have gotten missed.)
wrecan 04-13-07, 11:41 PM	And all inflict spells are Instantaneous and inflict damage that is immediately gone, even mass inflict serious wounds. (I mean, a meteor swarm is more large-scale than that in terms of *damage dealt*, but that's not the issue here -- the issue is "infecting" the Prime with NE.) But most evil-descriptored spells don't do that. Only seven do. And just as many spells that infect people with negative energy for a duration are not evil-descriptored: Chill touch, energy drain, enervation, ghoul touch, touch of fatigue, waves of exhaustion, and waves of fatigue. I didn't say "over time" as in "a year". I meant opening a channel between the Prime and the NE Plane for any length of time. I specifically had spells like deathwatch and eyebite in mind when I said it Yes, deathwatch and eyebite were two of the seven spells remaining on my list. But that ignores the twenty evil-desriptored spells that don't. And the seven non-evil-descriptored spells that meet your criteria. those spells have in addition going for them the fact that the channel you're opening is your own body, or at least your own eyes. Same for all those non-evil-descriptored spells I identified. Heck, the chill touch and ghoul touch spells turn your own hand into a conduit for negative energy.
wrecan 04-13-07, 11:46 PM	there's more [Evil] and [Good] spells than [Lawful] and [Chaotic] spells Not entirely true. There are 15 lawful spells and 15 chaotic spells in the SRD. There are only 19 good aligned spells. While 19 is more than 15, it's not a whole lot more. It's more accurate to state there are a lot more evil-descriptored spells (27) than spells of any other alignment. However, even assuming there were more moral-aligned spells than ethos-aligned spells, I'm not sure how that supports your argument that animate dead is evil-descriptored because it leaks negative energy into the world on a persistent basis.
Griff 04-14-07, 12:24 AM	Last time i checked didn't mindless skellies mindlessly tear apart any living thing they see mindlessly. Seems kinda evil to make something that were you to not controll it would go and kill indescriminatly. (then there is all the corpse ethics issues which i really dont want to go near) And also someone compared Dominate person/monster to Animate dead a while back, i think that it might be the large non-lethal component of dominate that makes it a non-evil spell. sure you take away free will for a bit but he'll still be alive at the end of it right. All that aside i *like* Animate dead, Current character is a dread necromancer and [evil] spells are a refreshing change. besides a character that casts an evil spell to complete a good act he's done an overall neutral act in my book. Maybe constructs are the way forward ;)
ArcTan 04-14-07, 01:08 AM	But most evil-descriptored spells don't do that. Only seven do. And just as many spells that infect people with negative energy for a duration are not evil-descriptored: Chill touch, energy drain, enervation, ghoul touch, touch of fatigue, waves of exhaustion, and waves of fatigue. Enh. It's not clear whether being exhausted by waves of exhaustion means you've been "infected" by NE. Generally, I choose to interpret it as not, just as taking HP and Str damage from chill touch or just HP damage from inflict critical wounds or harm isn't. The energy is there, does what negative energy does -- damage something -- and goes away. The difference between deathwatch and chill touch is that the negative energy is residing in your body, giving you a *benefit* from it, which is the general clue to me that negative energy is remaining resident. Similarly, death knell, unlike enervation or chill touch, gives you temporary HP and a Str bonus for as long as it lasts -- the fact that enervation doesn't power you up with drained energy is the primary difference between it and Undead creatures' natural energy drain attacks. Yes, deathwatch and eyebite were two of the seven spells remaining on my list. But that ignores the twenty evil-desriptored spells that don't. And the seven non-evil-descriptored spells that meet your criteria. Eyebite and deathwatch put negative energy in you, giving you powers, for as long as they last. Waves of exhaustion, energy drain, touch of fatigue, and so on, *inflict* negative energy on something, after which it goes away. The negative levels or fatigue don't, but those are the *effects* of negative energy, not negative energy itself. (Yes, there is no game-mechanical description of what it means to "have negative energy" in you otherwise. I still think my mental division does make sense.) Same for all those non-evil-descriptored spells I identified. Heck, the chill touch and ghoul touch spells turn your own hand into a conduit for negative energy. Well, so does inflict minor wounds, and we already established what I think about those -- that the negative energy is passing through too quickly to be truly Evil, though it does say something that Evil-aligned Clerics can more easily access inflict spells and the like.
ArcTan 04-14-07, 01:11 AM	Not entirely true. There are 15 lawful spells and 15 chaotic spells in the SRD. There are only 19 good aligned spells. While 19 is more than 15, it's not a whole lot more. It's more accurate to state there are a lot more evil-descriptored spells (27) than spells of any other alignment. However, even assuming there were more moral-aligned spells than ethos-aligned spells, I'm not sure how that supports your argument that animate dead is evil-descriptored because it leaks negative energy into the world on a persistent basis. My point is that all [Lawful] and [Chaotic] spells are alignment-dependent. They're versions of spells that only do things based on alignment, like protection from chaos or dictum. The [Good] and [Evil] descriptors have all these spells too, and they have *extra* spells on top of these. These extra spells all have to do in some way with positive or negative energy, with the possible exception of holy sword. [Evil] has a lot more spells because there is apparently a greater variety of uses for opening a conduit to the NE Plane than the PE Plane, not really a big surprise, given that one has to do with subverting nature and the other reasserting it.
ArcTan 04-14-07, 01:15 AM	Last time i checked didn't mindless skellies mindlessly tear apart any living thing they see mindlessly. Seems kinda evil to make something that were you to not controll it would go and kill indescriminatly. This has always been how I've done it. I can't find a direct reference to this being how it works, but it makes sense to me. It also explains all those random dungeon encounters where you run into uncontrolled Skeletons or Zombies and they just attack you. And also someone compared Dominate person/monster to Animate dead a while back, i think that it might be the large non-lethal component of dominate that makes it a non-evil spell. sure you take away free will for a bit but he'll still be alive at the end of it right. I would just say that the powers of the mind are themselves Neutral, even though they can be used in horrifyingly Evil ways (which most long-term Domination strikes me as, though like all spells there are situations where the greater Good requires it, or whatever). The powers of undeath are Evil and corrupting, no matter what use you put them to. All that aside i *like* Animate dead, Current character is a dread necromancer and [evil] spells are a refreshing change. besides a character that casts an evil spell to complete a good act he's done an overall neutral act in my book. Depends on how Evil the spell, depends on how Good the act, depends on a lot of other things. If a person starts making excuses to try to find a reason to use Evil magic even when it's not necessary, that's a sign of corruption (and something that happens a lot in this kind of story). Maybe constructs are the way forward ;) The intrinsic morality of making Golems (the fact that it's not explicitly aligned magic in D&D aside) has always been an interesting topic for me, especially since in D&D they have to be made by binding an Elemental animus.
wrecan 04-14-07, 09:59 AM	Enh. It's not clear whether being exhausted by waves of exhaustion means you've been "infected" by NE. Generally, I choose to interpret it as not Sure, but that makes your argument circular. You decide a spell using negative energy is [evil] if it infects you and you decide that any spell that uses negative energy but isn't [evil] doesn't infect you. The difference between deathwatch and chill touch is that the negative energy is residing in your body, giving you a *benefit* from it, which is the general clue to me that negative energy is remaining resident. I don't see how deathwatch gives you a benefit and chill touch doesn't, except you're using the [evil] descriptor to decide which is which, and then using your analiysis of whether it is residing in your body to explain why it's [evil] or not. Well, so does inflict minor wounds, and we already established what I think about those -- that the negative energy is passing through too quickly to be truly Evil, though it does say something that Evil-aligned Clerics can more easily access inflict spells and the like. Yes, but your basis for deciding that appears to be entirely circular.
Seeker95 04-14-07, 11:33 AM	Yes, but your basis for deciding that appears to be entirely circular.Not circular. It is a combiantion of ad hoc and confirmation bias. The only mistake (argument error) ArcTan is making is that he is debating a fact as if it were opinion (the opposite of what most people do on these Boards). Using spells with an [evil] tag is evil, according to the rules. That is fact*. Everything else is ad hoc sprinkled with a bit of confirmation bias attempting to add explanation to something that needs none. Justifying a game mechanic with nonmechanics is unnecessary. It makes for fun, interesting, and even heated multi-page discussions on these Boards, but in the end, it becomes pages of "I think it is the rule because of X" juxtaposed against "I don't think it should be the rule because of Y". Neither of these changes that it is the rule. And neither of these prevents a DM from changing it. *There are many who are of the opinion that this fact should not be. There are many who are of the opinion that the support for the fact is irrelevant because of its explicit source. There are many who are of the opinion that this fact is unsupported by core rules. None of these opinions change the fact. They merely change the application and implications of the fact for their games and for the pseudo-debate.
suparman999 04-14-07, 12:24 PM	I didn't wanna get involved... But the NE plane is Neutral aligned. Not Evil aligned. Therefore there's nothing inherently evil about negative energy. Unless you count hurting things, which a lot of other non evil things do. Also, has Godwins Law taken effect yet?
ArcTan 04-14-07, 03:55 PM	Sure, but that makes your argument circular. You decide a spell using negative energy is [evil] if it infects you and you decide that any spell that uses negative energy but isn't [evil] doesn't infect you. ....Well, yes. The rules are the rules, and I'm trying to think up flavor that justifies them. I don't see how deathwatch gives you a benefit and chill touch doesn't, except you're using the [evil] descriptor to decide which is which, and then using your analiysis of whether it is residing in your body to explain why it's [evil] or not. Again, what's wrong with that? I'm trying to justify the rules, not make up my own rules. Making up flavor to justify existing rules isn't that hard. If they made chill touch [Evil], I'd just say "Well, it turns out chill touch *does* channel negative energy through your body." Just like if they switched a spell from Conjuration to Evocation, I'd say "Well, I guess the spell really does just channel energy rather than creating a material object". It's not like there's an objective reality behind the game to argue about. Yes, but your basis for deciding that appears to be entirely circular. My basis is: 1) The rules are the rules. 2) Flavor exists in large part to justify the rules. 3) It's not hard to make up flavor that appears to justify the rules, though the edge cases are a little arbitrary.
ArcTan 04-14-07, 03:56 PM	Not circular. It is a combiantion of ad hoc and confirmation bias. The only mistake (argument error) ArcTan is making is that he is debating a fact as if it were opinion (the opposite of what most people do on these Boards). Using spells with an [evil] tag is evil, according to the rules. That is fact*. The main thing is that people are saying "This shouldn't be true", and the justification for it is flavor, and I'm showing how it doesn't take much effort at all to find flavor within the core flavor for it being true. I mean, it *is* true, whether you like it or not. You can say it shouldn't be true because it's "illogical" and change it for your games, but if someone can come up with logic to justify it in their games, then clearly you're not universally right.
ArcTan 04-14-07, 03:58 PM	I didn't wanna get involved... But the NE plane is Neutral aligned. Not Evil aligned. Therefore there's nothing inherently evil about negative energy. Unless you count hurting things, which a lot of other non evil things do. Also, has Godwins Law taken effect yet? We've gone over and over the "Negative energy becomes Evil if you infect the Prime Material with it" ground too much to say. Basically, *Undead* are Evil (or strongly Evil-leaning), not NE, but Undead are Evil because they're an unnatural combination of NE with existing life. Spells that combine NE with existing life in an unnatural way are [Evil].
Shinryouga 04-14-07, 04:25 PM	This actually just came up in a game I'm in. The DM officially stated, after much intenste and heated debate, that animating mindless undead would be neutral. Our group goes on a both intent and action alignment paradigm though, so there would be ways to be very evil with animate dead. Regarding the "its there so good and neutral people can't run around with controlled undead", I say, huh? A wizard can animate a crapload of undead and be just fine, by the rules, as he has no restriction on casting spells with alignment subtypes. Also, by the rules, casting them has no actual effect on the person's alignment; its been hinted at that it makes you more evil, but there is no mechanical tracking system for it. It becomes DMs call at that point, which of course will vary for each DM and situation. And while a Good cleric is restricted, Neutral clerics can cast those spells just fine too. I see it this way, negative energy and positive energy are non-aligned. Flat out, no alignment. Heal a blackguard, heal a pally, inflict a devil, inflict an angel, whatever, its what your doing, not how your doing it that matters there. The material plane is made up of for the most part equal parts of all the inner planes; planes which by their nature are non-aligned/neutral. Am I being fiery for bring in more fire to the material plane? What about more acidy? More positivey? More negativy? Good and evil simply don't come into the equasion. For that matter, what if I animate my undead in the abyss, hades, or nine hells? I'm not bringing more negative energy into the material plane, im bringing it into plane that by definition is pure evil. So, positive and negative energy are unaligned. If mindless undead are neutral (and I realize it is dependent upon a house rule, but my group has many holdovers from 2nd edition, one of which is: mindless undead are neutral) then the only thing that could make the act of animating them evil would be the intent to do evil with them, or conciously ignoring the "dignity of sentient beings" by doing so without their permission. Still very likely to be evil in a multitude of ways, but not something thats going to send even a neutral cleric spiraling and screaming to the abyss upon death if done with respect and good intentions and applications. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but this is what works in our game group. Unsurprisingly, the number of game stalling alignment arguments dropped in half after this offcial statement was made. YMMV.
Seeker95 04-14-07, 04:42 PM	I didn't wanna get involved... But the NE plane is Neutral aligned. Not Evil aligned. Therefore there's nothing inherently evil about negative energy.I suspect you haven't gotten involved enough. This point has been addressed many times in this therad.
Seeker95 04-14-07, 04:47 PM	I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but this is what works in our game group.You shouldn't get flamed at all. Offering your opinion in the context of what works in your game without shoving it down anyone else's throat, claiming someone who disagrees with you is wrong, or insisting that your way is the right way is perfectly legitimate. Unsurprisingly, the number of game stalling alignment arguments dropped in half after this official statement was made.Once a DM stands up and lays out the rule, most game-stalling arguments of any type drop at least in half. It is part of being a DM. Don't like the rule? Ask if it can be changed. Don't like the answer to that? Find another game. It is that easy. And your group settled down after the DM set the rule.
SeptimusMagistos 04-14-07, 04:54 PM	In our world, morality is subjective and open to interpritation. In D&D world, morality is objecive. An act can be evil despite any circumstances that surround it. When causing undead to rise, you are commiting an evil act no matter what end you mean to use them for. You can hope that your good act will cancel out your evil act, though.
ArcTan 04-14-07, 05:27 PM	I see it this way, negative energy and positive energy are non-aligned. Flat out, no alignment. Heal a blackguard, heal a pally, inflict a devil, inflict an angel, whatever, its what your doing, not how your doing it that matters there. The material plane is made up of for the most part equal parts of all the inner planes; planes which by their nature are non-aligned/neutral. Am I being fiery for bring in more fire to the material plane? What about more acidy? More positivey? More negativy? Good and evil simply don't come into the equasion. For that matter, what if I animate my undead in the abyss, hades, or nine hells? I'm not bringing more negative energy into the material plane, im bringing it into plane that by definition is pure evil. Material *objects* would be a better way to state my position than Material Plane -- you're mixing negative energy with ordinary material life (since the corpse still has to be that of a person) and the mixture of NE with material things tends toward Evil (which is why the vast majority of Undead are Evil).
Shinryouga 04-14-07, 05:28 PM	Thank you Seeker. I started my day on the wrong side of the bed, posted in a bad mood on a topic I'm deathly tired of, and dolefully expected the worst of responses. You gave me the best. I sincerely hope you have a wonderful day, because you made mine a lot better, and I thank you for it.