Post/Author/DateTime	Post
robertliguori 09-23-04, 05:20 PM	It says so in the spell description. I will now make my point with the help of Bob. Say hi, Bob. (Hi. Anyway, that's really stupid. You may as well say that if the BoVD defined helping old ladies across the street as evil, it would be.) I do. (You're stupid, then.) Really? Think of this, Bob. Is worshiping Asmodeus evil? (Duh, it says right there in the booo- yes it is evil for reasons besides him having the evil subtype!) Name three. That is, give me three reasons why worshiping an evil outsider is evil, and make sure that they're both necessary and sufficent. (Say what?) That I can't point to another act that's evil that doesn't have your reasons, or an act of neutrality or good that does. (...Hmm.) You see, you've fallen into a common trap. In this world, we have ethicists and philosophers who evaluate the morality of certain things. They do this by applying certain precepts, such as utilitarianism. This is done because there is no objective, universally-agreed-upon definition of good and evil in the real world. There is in D&D. To wit, it detects as evil or has the evil descriptor. (I repeat my question: so casting the 1st-level spell "Help Old Lady Across the Street (Teleportation, Evil)" is an evil act?) I repeat my answer: yes. In D&D, morality is objective. There is no room for debate or subjective points of view. Evil is evil, and good is good. There can be no reason why certain things are good and others are evil. If good and evil could be expressed in terms of "This act helps people, therefore it is good", then goodness would be defined as helping people. Goodness is not defined as helping people: it is a fundamental aspect of the universe. So, either scrap the whole deal, come up with your own definitions of good and evil and make damn sure that you can consider every implications of an act before it is performed for effects like the Phylactery of Faithfulness and such, or accept that in a universe where moral forces have external definitions, they are also by definition arbitrary. So, to sum up, Animate Dead is evil because the book says so. No more, no less, and no reasoning whatsoever behind it.
Joe Gold 09-23-04, 05:47 PM	Wow, haven't seen one of these for a while.
Harmor 09-23-04, 06:13 PM	Defiling the dead is evil. That's the same reason why we don't see anyone using Jim Henson's body as a muppet right now...
kSquared 09-23-04, 07:23 PM	Heh. "Dance, my puppets! Dance!"
green_yawgmoth 09-23-04, 07:30 PM	But that's the thing; there would never be "help old lady across the street [evil]", because it's not evil. But "Summon tentacle demon to rape helpless, tied up schoolgirls" would definitely be evil. Thus, it would have the [evil] descriptor. If you don't like it, you can always take it out of your game. http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
smrtgmp 09-23-04, 07:41 PM	I suppose "because the book says so" is as good a reason as any. Probably the best reason we'll ever get, too.
crazysamaritan 09-23-04, 07:54 PM	I suppose "because the book says so" is as good a reason as any. Probably the best reason we'll ever get, too. True, but that doesn't mean we can't try to rationalize the definitions. I personally consider motivation and action to define your alignment. In RL, I have to apply action more than motive, because there is no reliable way to tell. In DnD, there are detect spells. So IRL, animating dead for the purpose of saving orphans from a burning building is creepy, but good. In DnD, it is evil, and creepy.
ronyon 09-23-04, 08:28 PM	As a pro undead necrocentric player, I cannot agree more! That being said, if the npcs in your game react as real people would, the question of the aceptability of undeath is still in the air. Gruesome,walking former neibors are not going to be acceptable. Visiting your ancestors at the grave yard, and actually being able to have a conversation with them is anotherthing entirely . Also let us look at the average adventuring party.Where they go trouble follows.They break things. They romance your women. They outspend nobles, and they outshine all the locals.They are often theives,allways violent, and tend to ignore laws they do not agree with. Any of the necromancers that i have played would be modle citizens compared to that. The lable of Evil in a by the book world is one that is going to be looked at with skeptasism by some, especially those who have been victemized by those with the lable of Good. So when my neutral necromancer rides into town on his strangly silent steed, there should be a negative reaction, and lots of suspicion. When he defeats the zelous LG cleric who has put people in the stock for every thing from swearing on holy days to unlawful carnal knowlege, and put to death anyone who resists his holy athority, any one who preaches another religion , any one who kills without his say so, even in self defense, and anyone else who he deems deserving, when he defeats this Good guy, then many of the people will be greatful.Many others will seek to kill him, and some wont care. The thing is, no matter what the outcome or even if he fails and dies trying, my character will be satisfied with doing what he sees as right. Thus, book smook, right and wrong dont equal Good and Evil, in a world were Good and Evil are arbitraty lables ina book.
smrtgmp 09-23-04, 08:41 PM	I suppose I should have gone into a bit more detail regarding my views (because I'm sure you were all dying to know ;)) in the above post. Personally, I think the animate spells should be devoid of alignment descriptors. In my campaigns, the animation of undead is a neutral act, its what you do with said undead that earns you the evil tag. That doesn't mean that your average commoner is going to say "its OK, it just neutral." There will still be a social stigma involved, but your alignment isnt going to shift toward evil just because you cast Animate Dead. I suppose my views on this stem back to my second edition days, when the animated corpses of your fallen foes regularly served as trap fodder. Ahh, the good old days.