Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Oaklock 12-02-06, 11:01 PM	I was wondering what happens to summoned creatures when the spellcaster is either slept, renderred unconscious or killed. Do the undead continue to attack the spellcaster's opponent, or do they go away, or do they just stand there without direction? Does it make a difference if this would be a Skeleton, Zombie or an undead with intelligence? Thanks, Fred
Britt 12-03-06, 12:57 AM	Without instruction, summoned critters attack your nearest enemy. If you are able to communicate with them, you can give them other orders. If you go unconscious, they would either continue attacking your nearest enemy or following the last order you gave. If that order is completed, it would start attacking your nearest enemy. If there is no enemy, it would just stand there.
Oaklock 12-03-06, 03:09 PM	Thanks. Is that still the case if the summoning caster is dead? Fred
Britt 12-03-06, 03:13 PM	Everything above should logically follow no matter what the condition of the caster.
Oaklock 12-03-06, 03:22 PM	Thanks
Shieldhart91 12-10-06, 09:01 PM	You can use Summon Undead in Living Greyhawk?
Britt 12-10-06, 09:06 PM	If you mean create undead, yes. It's an evil act, but you can commit evil acts in LG; you just can't be evil. Your DM might want to note it on your AR, but some do that everytime a cleric of Wee Jas channels negative energy.
Britt 12-10-06, 09:07 PM	Sorry, it's an [Evil] spell, which most people consider an evil act. There are some people that will argue that, but I'd rather not get into that argument, so here's your clarification.
Japangirl 12-11-06, 01:59 AM	Certain [Evil] spells aren't terribly evil, and why they have the [Evil] is certainly questionable. It all depends on the situation and the usage. Animating a (chaotic evil) dragon you defeated to help you for the rest of the module is an amusing and not terribly evil use of an [Evil] spell.
Lupo 12-11-06, 08:36 AM	You can use Summon Undead in Living Greyhawk? the various "summon undead" spells from spell compendium are limited by default. so yes, IF one finds access to them one may cast them. nevertheless they have the "evil" descriptor AND some other characters might not like it. so a player of such a caster better ask the players at a table before the module for their attitude towards it or make sure their characters don't get it. and the "summon undead" spells are quite obvious, so little chance to do it unnoticed :D. any of my characters would politely ask such a character to leave the adventuring group, IF they would get it that the character has learned such spells. and yes, that might stop the whole table from succeeding in the module, but it was the choice of the player who brought a possibly disruptive character, and all those who do play such characters know this quite well, some think such a character fun to play :confused:, me definitely not. some lawfull characters might consider to accuse such a charcter of evil necromancy at the local authoroties . . . . depending of the region that might cause him some severe trouble. while it removes a character from the campaing to attack another character, nothing prevents one from informing the local authoroties, or refuse to procede an adventure with a certain character or refuse to help such a character in a dire situation (although this might be seen as an evil act as well) but let's say two party members are down and my cleric is asked to help, a character who has prooven to cast evil spells might not be the first target of healing spells. ciao martin m.
Britt 12-11-06, 12:59 PM	Isn't it just as disruptive to say you won't adventure with a character that uses campaign legal rules? It seems awfully self-centered to say the sole cause of the situation and the only disruptive person is the person doing the summoning.
MichaelTLH 12-11-06, 01:20 PM	Also... depending on the region you are playing in, there could be very bad consequences for your character 'after the game' via TU penalties and so on. ~ M Michael Jones Principality of Ulek Triad
MichaelTLH 12-11-06, 01:21 PM	Isn't it just as disruptive to say you won't adventure with a character that uses campaign legal rules? I guess that's why they call it a role-playing game. :D
Britt 12-11-06, 01:30 PM	Oh, I'm fine with people roleplaying aversion to that and even saying they won't adventure with those PCs. What I dislike is saying that and then calling the other player disruptive for breaking up the table. If someone said they wouldn't adventure with a paladin that never bends the rules, I wouldn't like them calling the paladin player disruptive either.
Lupo 12-11-06, 03:37 PM	Isn't it just as disruptive to say you won't adventure with a character that uses campaign legal rules? It seems awfully self-centered to say the sole cause of the situation and the only disruptive person is the person doing the summoning. LG is a campaing without evil alignment PCs, "summon undead" and some other spells and abilities have the "evil" descriptor. players that choose to have their characters being centered around abilities/spells with an "evil" descriptor are more or less playing "against the current". and players who create those characters know it beforehand. a dm may note "evil acts" in the play notes section of an AR, and report such behaviour to the local triad. repeated such deeds might change a characters alignment to "evil" and therefore removing the character. so while this might work out well with a local group of all neutral or uncaring characters, a con might be not so nice to such a character . . . . ciao martin m.
Britt 12-11-06, 03:47 PM	Trust me, I'm quite familiar with the rules on evil alignments, evil acts, and referring such to the Triad. Again, I'm only talking about calling such players disruptive. Yes, those players may have a harder time at conventions or while travelling, and they should be prepared to accept such problems. Everyone should be willing to accept the likely consequences of their character builds, as they are the ones that built the character and chose for it to be that way. Calling them disruptive though, is not, IMO, justified. I think a player of a paladin should be willing to accept the limitations that puts on his character, and not blame someone else for those limitations.
Morgen 12-11-06, 04:03 PM	Judge people by thier actions, not the descriptors of thier spells. :)
kenobi65 12-11-06, 04:19 PM	Everyone should be willing to accept the likely consequences of their character builds, as they are the ones that built the character and chose for it to be that way. Calling them disruptive though, is not, IMO, justified. I think that there'd be an important distinction here, depending on if the player was upfront about it during mustering / prep. "My PC can cast Summon Undead; is this going to cause any of your PCs a problem?" This'd be no different from me saying, "I'm playing a paladin of Heironeous, who's also a Mounted Borderer (Verbobonc military / police); is this going to cause anybody a problem?" If the player *doesn't* mention this upfront, and then summons ghouls in the middle of a combat, *then* I think it's fair to label that player disruptive.
Britt 12-11-06, 04:30 PM	Apparently there was a bit of misunderstanding. Martin was talking about disruptive characters, not players, which I disagree with much less :)
Mommy was an Orc 12-11-06, 05:47 PM	Certain [Evil] spells aren't terribly evil, and why they have the [Evil] is certainly questionable. It all depends on the situation and the usage. Animating a (chaotic evil) dragon you defeated to help you for the rest of the module is an amusing and not terribly evil use of an [Evil] spell. I'd actually consider that quite evil as an action - you're desecrating the body of a creature you defeated in combat in a way that you draw amusement from it...
Japangirl 12-11-06, 09:13 PM	Funny for the players. Quite powerful and useful for the characters. A skeletal dragon is nothing to sneer at when it's on your side . . .
Mommy was an Orc 12-12-06, 11:00 AM	Funny for the players. Quite powerful and useful for the characters. A skeletal dragon is nothing to sneer at when it's on your side . . . And clearly Evil with a captial E.
Japangirl 12-12-06, 03:37 PM	Why is it evil to animate a Chaotic Evil creature to serve you? The dragon wasn't going to get raised anyways, because what cleric would do that and be able to find the body in time? The dragon's soul isn't destroyed, it's just forced to stay in whatever plane it went to.
TWG_Prometheus 12-12-06, 03:54 PM	It's showing my bias, but if a spell has an [Evil] tag on it, the casting of that spell is Evil. End of story. That MAY not make the character evil, but they'd be standing on shaky ground with even one go of it. I may not agree with the evil tag, but that doesn't change the descriptor on the spell. Creation of undead for any reason in D&D is fairly solidly defined as Evil. I don't particularly care what the target was. Can a LG character use such spells and remain in the campaign? Possibly. It's taking a major risk for minor to no gain, however, and I'd be surprised if anyone I knew attempted it.
Britt 12-12-06, 03:54 PM	I would guess the [Evil] thing might give it away.
WeirdEd 12-12-06, 09:43 PM	It's evil because you are locking the soul of a being into a lifetime of unwilling miserable servitude. In addition, with reanimation spells of that type, what goes down is NOT what comes back up. A Lawful Good Fighter isn't going to come back Lawful Good. That is what makes this spell Evil, it alters the mindset of the recipient into a killing machine. In the case of a dragon, this is somewhat of a moot point (all they lose is discernment), but let's face it, your character will eventually lose control of this monster you made. Even if you possess enough power to control it, the character will eventually expire from old age, and then it will become free-willed. A free-willed undead skeletal dragon. You'd have been better off not killing it in the first place...at least that would have been a monster with predictable (as red dragons go) motivations.
Japangirl 12-12-06, 10:28 PM	But you aren't binding its soul, a resurrection would still resurrect the dragon. So it's not unwilling servitude at all, but rather making a hunk of flesh walk around and bite things for you. And if you are afraid the dragon skeleton will become free-willed, you order it to stand still and do nothing, then have your party destroy it in the way you would normally destroy a skeleton. I still don't understand why it's evil to raise fallen evil enemies to do your bidding. And if the red dragon attacks you first, of course you kill it. As another and less fraught example, the spell Deathwatch is [Evil]. All it does is tell you if people around you are dead, dying, fragile, near death, undead, or neither alive nor dead (ie constructs). It is a first level cleric spell that lasts 10 min/level. How is that evil? Also see Waves of Grief. It's [Evil] but all you are doing is making people really really sad for less than a minute (rounds/level) which gives them some penalties on stuff.
Britt 12-12-06, 11:37 PM	Animating dead does something to the soul. If you animate something, it takes a more powerful spell to bring them back; that indicates something happening to the soul. If you cut the finger off a dead paladin, you would normally be able to resurrect him from it. If you cut the finger off and then animate him, you wouldn't be able to resurrect him until you destroy the undead. Nothing has changed with that finger, but something has changed with regard to bringing him back from the dead. That is strong indication of something happening to the soul. Maybe deathwatch infuses you with negative energy in some way, making it inherently evil. Wave of grief could be doing something similar. Remember, when you try to explain why in D&D, many times you get a headache. Just accept that it is what it is and deal with it. I 99% of the time wouldn't notate an evil act when someone casts either of the spells, but that doesn't make them not evil, it just means they don't rise to the level of being notable in my mind; other DMs might view it differently.
Lupo 12-13-06, 05:29 AM	ok, a question leading somehow away from our fundamentalistic discussion :P what does the feat "augment summoning" do to a summoned undead's hit points????????? ok, the strenght modifier is easy to apply, but what about the constitution? as an undead has no constitution score i fear it doesn't get any additional unlife to spend???? any ideas? ciao martin m.
Mommy was an Orc 12-13-06, 09:00 AM	Monte Cook is the writer of PHB 3.0 and likely the person who made the final decision about what descriptors meant. On page 8 of Book of Vile Darkness, he spells out that [Evil] spells are Evil. While the RAW/RAI in PHB can be interpreted to be ambigious(something I disagree with, but whatever - Evil is a force in the universe according to PHB - Evil spells obviously call on this Evil force - whatever short term benefits you might be getting from casting an [Evil] spell, the long term effects of doing it is going to be Evil), the RAI based on BoVD cannot be. Now BoVD isn't a fully legal LG book, but in this case, the writer of an ambigious rule is spelling out his intent in black and white in a 3.5 compliant book.
trollbill 12-13-06, 12:41 PM	Why is casting Animate Dead an evil act? Other than the fact it has the Evil descriptor, it doesn't really matter. The problem with alignment arguments is there are always exceptions to the rule, and therefore, always justifications for said acts. Do you think most evil people believe they are commiting evil acts? No. Most feel their actions are justified or that they are at least entitled to commit these acts done to them. What this means is that if you try hard enough, just about any evil act can be justified. So arguing about specific instances, from a rules standpoint is pointless. The only thing that matters is the descriptor that labels it Evil (yes, I know the rule aren't clear on this, but they don't specifically state spells with the Fire descriptor generate heat either). Why it's labeled such simply doesn't matter in the context of a campaign system with more than 1 DM. It only matters that it is.
Oaklock 12-17-06, 09:14 PM	Hi, When I first asked the question, being fairly new to versions 3.0 and 3.5, I was trying to figure out as DM how to judge the NPC's actions and their consequences. Fred
DeimosGandymede 12-18-06, 05:48 PM	It is easier in home games to rationalize "evil" acts/spells etc. After all, there are several alignments that believe as long as the ends justify the means etc. However, in LG, we have to be a little more black and white, due to the size and nature of the campaign. So, casting an [Evil] spell, regardless of intention, is an evil act. Period. Arguing this is pointless, since that is the rule, and that is really how it probably should be for living campaigns. (Easier is better given the size of LG). Hope that helps your question on the spells. On actions that are in "the grey area?" Well, thats why you are a "judge"... =) -MW-
katrick 01-05-07, 12:05 AM	[QUOTE=trollbill;10904565]Why is casting Animate Dead an evil act? " Because most societies in and outside of D&D "believe" that disturbing the rest eternal or otherwise of any creature is abhorrent. Hence the term aberrations,abominations etc.. As per Animate Dead it is disturbing said critters rest ergo bad\evil, I would also place Speak with Dead into this category(though it is not listed as an [Evil] spell) with appropriate ramifications from local \wandering clergypersons who may see this as inherently evil (while as a DM i have seen a lot worse) marty
Reska 01-05-07, 12:20 AM	However, in LG, we have to be a little more black and white, due to the size and nature of the campaign. So, casting an [Evil] spell, regardless of intention, is an evil act. Period. Arguing this is pointless, since that is the rule, and that is really how it probably should be for living campaigns. (Easier is better given the size of LG). Hope that helps your question on the spells. Can you point to a specific line that says without a doubt that it's a rule? From what I can see, neither the LGCS or the Circle has made any specific remakrs that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. Unless I missed it.
gomeztoo 01-05-07, 05:57 AM	The Book of Vile Darkness specifically says it. Good characters can't cast it. But do we really have to take a rulebook to prove that using something that is *marked* [Evil] is an evil act? Intentions have no meaning when it comes of determining whether the act is evil. It is. The road to Baator is paved with good intentions. Now, it MAY have meaning on whether a DM will bother to mark it on your AR. But that is another issue.
trollbill 01-05-07, 09:31 AM	[QUOTE=trollbill;10904565]Why is casting Animate Dead an evil act? " Because most societies in and outside of D&D "believe" that disturbing the rest eternal or otherwise of any creature is abhorrent. Hence the term aberrations,abominations etc.. As per Animate Dead it is disturbing said critters rest ergo bad\evil, I would also place Speak with Dead into this category(though it is not listed as an [Evil] spell) with appropriate ramifications from local \wandering clergypersons who may see this as inherently evil (while as a DM i have seen a lot worse) marty You missed the point. 'Why' doesn't matter. Only the fact that it is as far as the game is concerned. The moment you go into 'why' is the moment you get into all those ugly and hard to rule on grey areas and table variance that have more to do with the players' and the DM's personal morality than with the actual game. The moment you start trying to explain the morality of it, someone else is going to come up with a reason why it isn't.
LachlarlanIII 01-05-07, 11:30 AM	The Book of Vile Darkness specifically says it. Good characters can't cast it. But do we really have to take a rulebook to prove that using something that is *marked* [Evil] is an evil act? Intentions have no meaning when it comes of determining whether the act is evil. It is. The road to Baator is paved with good intentions. Now, it MAY have meaning on whether a DM will bother to mark it on your AR. But that is another issue. Actually, only good clerics can't cast [Evil] spells. A lawful good wizard could cast a spell with both the [Chaotic] and [Evil] descriptors. As for the BoVD being the source of your argument, it isn't a core book so most of the rules can be disregarded in terms of LG.
gomeztoo 01-05-07, 03:32 PM	Just because it isn't in the PHB doesn't make it untrue.
LachlarlanIII 01-05-07, 03:39 PM	When I said core, I did not mean Core. Neither the Book of Exhalted Deeds nor the Book of Vile Darkness are listed in the LGCS as valid books for LG. As such, I don't believe we should be making rules calls based on optional information from outside sources as far as LG is concerned.
Mommy was an Orc 01-05-07, 04:02 PM	When I said core, I did not mean Core. Neither the Book of Exhalted Deeds nor the Book of Vile Darkness are listed in the LGCS as valid books for LG. As such, I don't believe we should be making rules calls based on optional information from outside sources as far as LG is concerned. What the argument against [Evil] being Evil is that in order to say [Evil] is Evil is that the people doing so are taking the descriptor too literally and that wasn't Monte's intent. They're not arguing the RAW, because the RAW supports [Evil] = Evil. Descriptors can affect alignment. Some descriptors affect things other than the target of the spell. It doesn't say it affects only the alignment of the target. In essence, they're arguing that it wasn't Monte's intent to allow [Evil] to affect the caster in some way. BoVD makes it extraordinarily clear that it was his intent to allow it to do just that.
_m_ 01-07-07, 10:44 PM	Also... depending on the region you are playing in, there could be very bad consequences for your character 'after the game' via TU penalties and so on. ~ M Michael Jones Principality of Ulek Triad hey, someone with a capital M as their sig. now no1 has an excuse if they get mine wrong.
Hoi 01-14-07, 03:33 PM	I just had this argument with some players. A LG cleric asked if he could cast the spell, I said yes but judged it should only be cast on evil NPCs (to make them serve good) or mindless creatures. The other players argued and so I came looking for an answer. Anyway afer reading the above my argument is about balancing. Animate/Summon undead spells are among the greatest cleric assets. Removing that from good clerics is just unbalancing. F.e. a lvl9 Evil cleric can get 36HD of undead or (based on the MM) 2 Cloud Giant skeletons CR17 each. What does the good cleric have against that? Nothing? He probably can't even rebuke them. I understand the argument and how "why" isn't important but since the creators didn't supply me with something to balance this, I'm just allowing the spell on good clerics with the above restrictions. Rules are rules but the creators can't think of everything. That's why "it is up to the DM" is mentioned a zillion times in the books...
Mommy was an Orc 01-14-07, 03:50 PM	I just had this argument with some players. A LG cleric asked if he could cast the spell, I said yes but judged it should only be cast on evil NPCs (to make them serve good) or mindless creatures. The other players argued and so I came looking for an answer. It isn't an option for a LG cleric. Good clerics or clerics of good deities cannot cast [Evil] spells. Period. It is in the Cleric class description. A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity's(if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells Also, this thread has been resolved - there's a new Dispel Confusion article here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20070109a)
Britt 01-14-07, 03:58 PM	Exactly, they can't cast the spell, no matter what. Also, this is more of an argument for how the undead spells are too good than that good clerics should be able to cast them :/
Hoi 01-14-07, 09:26 PM	Watch me break the rules! *LG cleric casts animate dead* Anyway, I just thought I should mention my experience here so other people can understand that going by the book all the time can create some problems. DMs should definetely take some initiative. In the meantime I found a possible solution to my issue. It's called deathless type found in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Basically I'm thinking that if you ask for the permission of a deceased person to keep their soul in this world so they can serve a righteous purpose, it can't be considered an evil deed right? Good creatures will probably agree, so there you go, you animate them as deathless... Does THIS make sense? Is it legit? Is it balanced? (p157 BoED).
Mommy was an Orc 01-14-07, 10:55 PM	Anyway, I just thought I should mention my experience here so other people can understand that going by the book all the time can create some problems. DMs should definetely take some initiative. As an LG DM, you should not be taking such initiative unless you think the rules aren't clear. In the case of a good cleric summoning undead, the rules are abundantly so as my quote shows...
trollbill 01-15-07, 12:35 AM	Watch me break the rules! *LG cleric casts animate dead* Anyway, I just thought I should mention my experience here so other people can understand that going by the book all the time can create some problems. DMs should definetely take some initiative. In the meantime I found a possible solution to my issue. It's called deathless type found in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Basically I'm thinking that if you ask for the permission of a deceased person to keep their soul in this world so they can serve a righteous purpose, it can't be considered an evil deed right? Good creatures will probably agree, so there you go, you animate them as deathless... Does THIS make sense? Is it legit? Is it balanced? (p157 BoED). Which is EXACTLY why I don't advocate bringing morality arguments into LG regarding rules interpretations unless absolutely necessary. No matter what guidelines you put in place you are going to find the morale equivalent of a rules lawyer who will argue some exception or loophole. Just like we see here. And while that's fine in a home game, it isn't in organized play where consistancy is a key element. The rules say Good clerics cannot cast spells with the evil decriptor. They list no exceptions. The recent Dispel Confusion further extended that by saying casting spells with the evil decriptor is an evil act in LG. Don't like that? Guess what, there are things I don't like the RPGA does either. Sometimes I complain about it, but most of the time I just suck it up and live with it. Why? Because they're right and I'm wrong? No. Because consistancy is the key to maximizing everyone's enjoyment in an organized play environment. If you can't accept this trade-off of minor rules disagreements versus consistancy, then maybe the various forms of organized play really aren't for you.
Japangirl 01-16-07, 01:46 PM	The Dispel Confusion says that you can cast [Evil] spells, just that it isn't really encouraged. Good divine casters cannot, but neutral divine casters and all arcane casters can. "Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC." So good clerics cannot cast [Evil] spells, which isn't really surprising at all and has been a rule for quite some time, I think. Good wizards can cast [Evil] spells, but must be careful of corruption and DMs writing evil acts on their ARs.
LGMoses 01-16-07, 02:08 PM	Taste the power of the dark side :emp:
trollbill 01-16-07, 03:51 PM	The Dispel Confusion says that you can cast [Evil] spells, just that it isn't really encouraged. Good divine casters cannot, but neutral divine casters and all arcane casters can. "Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC." So good clerics cannot cast [Evil] spells, which isn't really surprising at all and has been a rule for quite some time, I think. Good wizards can cast [Evil] spells, but must be careful of corruption and DMs writing evil acts on their ARs. The point is that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is now unquestioningly an evil act regardless of justification. How, exactly, that evil act effects your character is another issue.