Post/Author/DateTime	Post
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-11-04, 03:18 PM	I'm settling this debate once and for all. While creating undead is evil by the core rules, actually being undead is not evil. I cite the following examples: 1. No where do the core rules say outright that all undead are evil or hate life. 2. The ghost, listed in the monster manual as an undead with the incorporeal subtype, has alignment:any(same as base creature). 3.0 SRD Link (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmonsterstemplates.rtf) 3.5 SRD Link (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersG.rtf) 3. The mummy in the 3.5 monster manual is listed as alignment:usually lawful evil. This means that there can be good aligned mummies as easily as there are good-aligned kobolds or evil-aligned gnomes. My source(3.5 SRD) (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersM-N.rtf) 4. Under the 3.0 rules the celestial template can be added to any non-evil corporeal creature regardless of creature type, so you could have celestial skeletons and zombies. Done.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 04-11-04, 03:31 PM	Agreed.
Ceran 04-11-04, 03:38 PM	Hear! Hear! Maybe finally my DM, will let me play a neutral lich now! ;)
Orcy The Green Wonder 04-11-04, 04:02 PM	You could in fact play a neutral lich, pick up the faerun monster manual and check out the good-aligned liches. Orcy believes theres also neutral in there somewhere. This would also proove the point that undead are not always evil. Creepy and probably keep-to-themselves-ish but not always evil.
Freefall 04-11-04, 04:50 PM	I say it would depend on the type of undead, wouldn't it? Some undead types are listed as being only evil in one way or another (vampires and wights to name 2). If you want some sort of rationale for undead being evil more often than good, maybe just say that the process has an inherently corrupting effect on the creature. Ever see Pet Semetary? Something like that. The raised dead in Weiss & Hickman's Deathgate Cycle (I think it's the volume with the giant dragon in the river of lava on the cover) go nuts too. Basically, being infused with negative energy is really bad for your nerves.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-11-04, 04:58 PM	My point is that undead as a creature type are not inherently evil. Some people are under the mistaken impression that all undead must be evil, a misunderstanding one could come to easily given the number of good descriptor spells that work against undead and the fact that all spells creating undead have the evil descriptor. Here's my explanation for why most undead are evil. In general undead form when a soul returns to its body through will (sometimes aided by magic or supernatural circumstances) and reinhabits it, powering it's body by enhancing the residual negative energy left from its death. Now since good-aligned people reside in various paradises in the afterlife (like celestia and such) they're happier there than the material. Even most neutral people would rather stay in mechanus or limbo or sigil than be a rotting carcass robbed of physical pleasures such as food and sex. It's generally only going to be the evil ones being burned in hellfires in baator or being used as betting chips in a demon's game of poker who would prefer a numbed and hideous existance to their current state.
Arakano 04-11-04, 05:42 PM	I would say most undeads are evil because a) they are mindless beings who are filled with negative energy b) they drain the life of other beings (vampires, wights...) So, a lich, who lives all by himself and retains his personality, does not have to be evil. Same goes for ghosts. I even designed an order of Paladins of the RN goddess of death. They believe in eternal service to the forces of good, so they become undead to keep on their struggle forever (would make a cool PrC, wouldn´t it? ;) )
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-11-04, 05:51 PM	Actually, only two core undead are mindless: the zombie and the skeleton. In the case of the morgh, it's an evil undead because it was evil to begin with (mass-murderer who died without atoning for crimes) and the bodak is simple the corpse of somebody who got killed in the abyss and their vacant body was possessed by the forces of evil and chaos.
Ogre4Hire 04-11-04, 05:58 PM	Ghosts and Liches are free to be whatever alignment they wish, though evil spellcasters have a much greater tendancy to choose lichdom than good spellcasters. Vampires, wights, ghouls & ghasts, mummies, shadows, wraiths, and spectors in theory could be good aligned, but most would have some trouble keeping their alignment if the DM enforced the "must feed on the living" requirement. Skeletons and Zombies lack the necissary intelligence to become good or evil. Most other types of undead (Morghs, Nightshades, Bodaks, Devowerers, and some of the really weird ones in MM2 & FF) have evil core componants, and it makes no sense for them to be anything but evil.
Scarlet Knight 04-11-04, 07:56 PM	I'm an old fashioned type of guy, I guess. I like my beer cold, my music loud, and my undead EVIL ! :devil:
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-11-04, 07:59 PM	I'm saying that not all undead are evil by the core rules, nothing about preference.
canamrock 04-11-04, 08:05 PM	I don't think anyone will give much of an argument to the contrary, since the evidence cited is nigh refutable. Don't worry, your mission in life is being fufilled... (wait for it) ... tricking us to buy undead servants so they'll turn on us at your command! :b: ;) http://www.geocities.com/canamrock/BlDGrin.txt
Cantankerous One 04-11-04, 08:10 PM	I'm sorry, I was unaware that you were my DM, R. M. G. C. L. F.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-11-04, 08:12 PM	Cantankeous, I think you're being a little agressive. These are boards for discussing the game rules amongst other things, and in the debates about spell alignments and animate dead and such one of the issues that inevitably always comes up is somebody incorrectly says that all undead are evil.
Incenjucar 04-12-04, 12:04 AM	1) Again, there is nothing in the core rules that states that negative energy is evil. Not only do good characters in various books use negative energy (An FR goodie-goodie uses Enervation as a sorceress), but the whole "Only fit to harm others" thing that is so often touted is bunk. Death spells are highly favored by the goody goody folk in BoED. Negative Energy is also a very 'soft' attack form. It's not listed as being especially painful (It just wears you out, basically), and is a very effective method of reducing a foe to helplessness so that you can AVOID killing them. A level one foe isn't as big a deal as a 40th level one. You can use kid gloves much more safely. 2) In the core books, as I recall, the percentage of non-always evil undead (Ghosts and mummies) is 11.111...% One out of ten undead lack a requirement to be evil, and half of that don't even have a TENDANCY. And that's JUST in the core books.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-12-04, 12:07 AM	Mmm, non-core undead. I wuv my pet gravecrawler!
Incenjucar 04-12-04, 12:26 AM	Yeppers. The further you get from core, on average, the greater the non-always evil percent, give or take a few books.
canamrock 04-12-04, 02:45 AM	Originally posted by Incenjucar 1) Again, there is nothing in the core rules that states that negative energy is evil. Not quite true. The core books have been self-contradicting on this to some extent. In a debate with chonjurer, we figured that while the energy itself seemed to be non-aligned, the act of summoning it in any way was. So, as said, the undead themselves are officially as evil as is stated in the MM, no more, no less. However, if made by a spellcaster, the spellcaster is still evil. The morality required to explain this is roundabout, but I can attempt to explain my understanding of it if so desired.
Boondoggle 04-12-04, 04:21 AM	By the core rules, the undead type isn't inhernetly evil. However, creating undead or transforming yourself into a lich is evil.
Incenjucar 04-12-04, 04:31 AM	The only negative energy spells that are [Evil] are those that create undead, and the one that bolsters them. No others. Further, I don't recall it saying that becoming a lich is evil, merely that it could only be applied to evil beings. As an aside, great to see you around again, 'Rock. We were fearing the worst when you disapeared from the forums and the mature game.
canamrock 04-12-04, 04:48 AM	Originally posted by Incenjucar The only negative energy spells that are [Evil] are those that create undead, and the one that bolsters them. No others. Further, I don't recall it saying that becoming a lich is evil, merely that it could only be applied to evil beings. As an aside, great to see you around again, 'Rock. We were fearing the worst when you disapeared from the forums and the mature game. I'll check my 3.5E books when I get them back from my friend's house, but in 3.0E, there was a specific quote in the book that automatically equated all NE use to evilness. I'll check to see if they actually pulled that (which fixes a lot of problems, really). On that aside, thanks. Between my computers both breaking and falling into a period of depression (or something vaguely similar to it but distinctly different, not sure exactly what it is), I was gone from all my regular boards for some time. I'm still in no condition to run online games, mentally or technologically, but I'll be back with stuff to discuss, since I'm trying to run RL games of D&D and Exalted. Thanks for the welcome. :)
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-12-04, 08:55 AM	Camanrock, I think you might be referring to the quote saying "regarless of your alignment, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act." That statement in fact is often quoted out of context as it only applies in reference to turning or rebuking undead.
was_fired 04-12-04, 09:58 AM	Originally posted by Incenjucar I don't recall it saying that becoming a lich is evil, merely that it could only be applied to evil beings. It is easy to forget some things but in this case the SRD is clear. Right under lichs as characters, "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. "
athanasius 04-12-04, 04:10 PM	That you can have a good mummy or ghoul. Interesting
Wickerbull 04-12-04, 06:36 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. "regarless of your alignment, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act." That statement in fact is often quoted out of context as it only applies in reference to turning or rebuking undead. I agree. Totally taken out of context. I'm pretty convinced that using positive or negative energy could be good, or evil, or neutral. You could just as readily blow somebody to bits with positive energy as you could heal them. But you could wither someone away to nothing or harmlessly capture them with negative enrgy, so as to take them alive, like what was said earlier. I just feel that either energy can be abused, and the abuse/misuse of the energy is what's evil, not the channeling itself. I do consider creating undead evil though, because it's creating a mockery of life and trying to play God, which you really shouldn't do. But I'm totally in favor of good aligned undead. Most can think freely just like the living can, and make their own moral decisions, so why not?
feng the barbarian 04-12-04, 09:09 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. I'm settling this debate once and for all. While creating undead is evil by the core rules, actually being undead is not evil. I cite the following examples: 1. No where do the core rules say outright that all undead are evil or hate life. 2. The ghost, listed in the monster manual as an undead with the incorporeal subtype, has alignment:any(same as base creature). 3.0 SRD Link (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmonsterstemplates.rtf) 3.5 SRD Link (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersG.rtf) 3. The mummy in the 3.5 monster manual is listed as alignment:usually lawful evil. This means that there can be good aligned mummies as easily as there are good-aligned kobolds or evil-aligned gnomes. My source(3.5 SRD) (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersM-N.rtf) 4. Under the 3.0 rules the celestial template can be added to any non-evil corporeal creature regardless of creature type, so you could have celestial skeletons and zombies. Done. usally it is done by a necromancy which is considered evil but then again there are good liches out there
Eco-Mono 04-13-04, 02:07 AM	*ahem* Thank you, Read My Glowing Claw-Like Finger. Once again I find myself in agreement with you.
DragonX10^9 04-13-04, 02:42 AM	Well, I've noticed that some undead are "always" evil, and some undead are "usually" evil. Usually does not mean always, so yes, you can have a good/neutral mummy or lich.
Incenjucar 04-13-04, 03:01 AM	Not to mention that "Always" doesn't means "Always", just "Almost nearly totally always". Even fiends can rise. Heck, there's a whole collection of rules for it spanning two books.
Reklin Hace 04-13-04, 02:31 PM	I'm just gonna jump in here to point out a few things. [list=1] Using Negative energy to create undead is evil only when using someone/somethings corpse or soul. Making one from clay or old tombstones is fine. Just because something became a wraith/shadow/ghoul/etc does't mean you have to be evil. The "Emancipated Spawn" prestige class from Savage Species shows this. The deathless type from Book of Exalted deeds sucks. I remember reading a whole section in a Forgotten Realms book about good liches. Negative and positive energy is neither good nor evil. How it is used determines that. Undead dont have to be evil! Fight the power! *Is completely unaware of the people staring at him.* [/list=1]
R.M.G.C.L.F. 04-13-04, 04:23 PM	I agree with you on most of those points except for number one. First in D&D trapping a soul is not evil (otherwise trap the soul and soul bind would have evil descriptors), likewise desecration of a corpse is not wrong. Second, creating undead, regardless of what components you use, is evil by the core rules (or at least spells that do it have the evil descriptor). Granted this does not make much sense in conjunction with some other rules, but that is the letter of the rule, whilst the spirit remains as incomprehensible as the far realms of insanity. Third, how do you create an undead creature using clay and tombstones? :confused:
feng the barbarian 04-13-04, 04:35 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. I agree with you on most of those points except for number one. First in D&D trapping a soul is not evil (otherwise trap the soul and soul bind would have evil descriptors), likewise desecration of a corpse is not wrong. Second, creating undead, regardless of what components you use, is evil by the core rules (or at least spells that do it have the evil descriptor). Granted this does not make much sense in conjunction with some other rules, but that is the letter of the rule, whilst the spirit remains as incomprehensible as the far realms of insanity. Third, how do you create an undead creature using clay and tombstones? :confused: i agree with all these points especially trap the soul because you could trap the soul of an evil being. desecration of a corpse is not evil however, some people consider it wrong.
m_man96 06-03-04, 03:08 AM	I think the whole reason why this debate even exists is that PCs want to live forever. Think about it. The PCs are all playing good- or neutral-aligned characters, while creating and aiding (bolstering) undead is evil. So, this debate is the inevitable and unescapable result of a PC's desire to live forever. Why don't we create a SPELL that does this? Or an epic spell? Actually, I've already done this. Here it is: Immortality Transmutation Spellcraft DC: 50 Components: V, S, XP Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Personal Target: You Duration: Permenant Saving Throw: None. Spell Resistance: No. To Develop: 630,000 gp; 12 days; 25,200 XP. Seed: fortify (DC 17). Factors: stop aging (ad hoc +30 DC), caster does not require sustenance (ad hoc +20 DC), change from target, touch, or area to personal (-2 DC). Mitigating factors: burn 1,500 XP (-15 DC). The caster is surrounded by a nimbus of blinding white light as his body is fortified against aging permenantly. After he/she casts this spell, the caster no longer ages ever again, remaining the same age as he/she was when he/she cast the spell.
Eco-Mono 06-03-04, 03:58 AM	Originally posted by m_man96 stop aging (ad hoc +30 DC) I'd never allow that ad-hoc. Fortifying +1 year onto one's lifespan takes a +2 DC, meaning that for +30DC you could live fifteen years longer which to an elf is pocket change and is certainly a far cry from immortality for any other race.
The Ethereal Wickerman 06-03-04, 05:08 AM	...As for me, I just cross out the alignment listing with a permanent marker, that will teach those peky alignment restrictions...:smirk: :D Sorry, couldn't resist... But I agree, I would allow good Undead (heck, i'd allow anything!) so long as there is a reason. It doesn't have to be complex, just something like "they were NG when they died", and why not, just because they dont have a pulse?. CG Barbarian: "ARGH!, Thog not breathe, Thog mad!, THOG SMASH!!!" [but he's a ghost, so technicely he cant, but you get the picture]
DwelleroftheDeep 06-03-04, 11:28 AM	Poor alignment users, I on the other hand, am an Arcana Unearthed GM, and there-for can act with impunity! ps: I know what you are ythinking, yes I am crazy:looloo:.
DwelleroftheDeep 06-03-04, 11:28 AM	Cripes, a double post
The Ethereal Wickerman 06-03-04, 01:22 PM	Originally posted by DwelleroftheDeep Poor alignment users, I on the other hand, am an Arcana Unearthed GM, and there-for can act with impunity! ps: I know what you are ythinking, yes I am crazy:looloo:. By all means no, it's great to finally find a kindred spirit!...:D
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-03-04, 04:55 PM	Originally posted by m_man96 I think the whole reason why this debate even exists is that PCs want to live forever. Think about it. The PCs are all playing good- or neutral-aligned characters, while creating and aiding (bolstering) undead is evil. So, this debate is the inevitable and unescapable result of a PC's desire to live forever. Why don't we create a SPELL that does this? Or an epic spell? Actually, I've already done this. Here it is: Immortality Transmutation Spellcraft DC: 50 Components: V, S, XP Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Personal Target: You Duration: Permenant Saving Throw: None. Spell Resistance: No. To Develop: 630,000 gp; 12 days; 25,200 XP. Seed: fortify (DC 17). Factors: stop aging (ad hoc +30 DC), caster does not require sustenance (ad hoc +20 DC), change from target, touch, or area to personal (-2 DC). Mitigating factors: burn 1,500 XP (-15 DC). The caster is surrounded by a nimbus of blinding white light as his body is fortified against aging permenantly. After he/she casts this spell, the caster no longer ages ever again, remaining the same age as he/she was when he/she cast the spell. PC immortality is not the issue. Most campaigns won't last long enough for PCs to die of old age, and undead are still just as vulnerable to axes and fireballs.
Adrez Nesnsid 06-03-04, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by Eco-Mono I'd never allow that ad-hoc. Fortifying +1 year onto one's lifespan takes a +2 DC, meaning that for +30DC you could live fifteen years longer which to an elf is pocket change and is certainly a far cry from immortality for any other race. I personally believe that the default aging effects are way too harsh. Slowing, reversing, or stopping the aging process is one of the few things that magic, as a rule, can't do, even though, of all of the stuff that's discussed in any discussion regarding D&D, its probably the closest thing to something that could actually happen in real life. I think that you should be able to gain immortality by using Wish or Miracle slow the aging process with third level spells, halt the aging process with 7th level spells, and reverse the aging process with eighth or ninth level spells as well as restore life to people who have died of old age with any of the Resurrection spells (Regular or true) (albeit perhaps with increased constitution loss). I don't quite understand why aging should be so hard to reverse in a world where you can make magical shields appear just by saying a bunch of fancy words.
m_man96 06-03-04, 06:10 PM	Originally posted by Eco-Mono I'd never allow that ad-hoc. Fortifying +1 year onto one's lifespan takes a +2 DC, meaning that for +30DC you could live fifteen years longer which to an elf is pocket change and is certainly a far cry from immortality for any other race. Well . . . I could just pop, what, +200 DC on there and turn it into a ritual. OR I could have a caster pull the life energy off another and prolong their own lifespan. But, MAN, that'd be so evil!!
BrianMc223 06-03-04, 06:37 PM	Stop aging Ad Hoc +1000DC. And I wouldn't consider a point less.
m_man96 06-03-04, 07:22 PM	Well, sure, if you want the spell to ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO DEITIES!!!! COME ON. Ad hoc +100 DC. Not a point less. Fair?
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-03-04, 07:26 PM	Could you maybe move the immortality spell to the spells and magic items forum?
Hannibal 06-03-04, 08:32 PM	Wouldn't liches have to be evil? If It's considered evil to create undead, turning yourself into one would also be evil, wouldn't it?
DungeonMaster 06-03-04, 09:19 PM	I don't understand what all the confusion/debate is about? Skeletons and zombies are neutral - there's absolutely not a question about it. Undead are not necessarily evil. Liches, by core rules are always evil, and the process of becoming a lich is a "act of uspeakable evil and can only be undertaken by a character's own free will". Commiting the act in and of itself turns them into evil creatures. Ghosts are clearly different and may be any aligment.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-03-04, 09:46 PM	DungeonMaster, I never understood what the confusion was about either, so I created this thread for the purpose of referencing. Now whenever it comes up in another debate about necromancy and evil and all that stuff I can simply link to this and cut out a good page or two worth of fruitless arguing.
Kesh 06-04-04, 12:20 AM	The new Eberron campaign setting has a template for good undead: "Deathless."
Tenzhi 06-04-04, 12:29 AM	Originally posted by Kesh The new Eberron campaign setting has a template for good undead: "Deathless." Is that not the same template that first appeared in the Book of Exalted Deeds?
Illithidbix 06-05-04, 11:36 AM	As far as “Necromancy is evil” is concerned, I’ve never seen very good reasoning behind that, I mean I see no inherent reason why animating corpses is “inherently evil”, at least not when fireballing people to death or shoving 3' of cold steel into their gut isn't. If anything Enchantment seems to be the most inherently “evil” magic, since it relies upon Mindcontrol and removing free will… (oh you’re prior opinions of me, and right to freedom of thought are irrelevant, and you now like me, because I’ve just cast “Charm Person”…). Considering many necromancy spells cause debilitation rather than death, they actually seem to be the most humane attack-spells, even the instant death spells seem kinder than burning someone alive. And as far as "channelling negative energy is evil because it destroys life" goes, well surely fire/lightning/acid etc causes as much, if not more damage to life as any negative energy blast would… Even positive energy can be pretty bad, I mean too much of it and the poor living thing explodes… I see no reason why negative energy is inherently any more evil than other types, it’s merely a case of how the caster employs it. Of course if the character is a type of undead that sustains itself by sucking the life-energy from other creatures then it has rather serious ethical problems with how it views the values the sanctity of life of others But then I always ditch the Alignment system in favour of more coherent and specific individual personality and belief systems (salutes The Ethereal Wickerman and DwelleroftheDeep)
Gez 06-05-04, 03:53 PM	RMGCLF has valid rule points. On the other hand, the flavour of unlife and necromancy in D&D is heavily biased toward Eeeeeevil. So you could see that as yet-another-fluff-vs.-crunch debate. Even when not evil themselves (3.0 skels and zombs, neutrals out of mindlessness), undead are pawns of evil. Traditionally, only incorporeal undead can be non-evil (I blame Mani and his material-things-are-evil,-spiritual-things-are-good philosophy). Often, the undead are immortal -- they rejected natural mortality and thus can't die normally, they have to be destroyed by someone or something (usually, a team of adventurers). In that, they can be likened to cancerous cells. Cancers are caused by cells that mutate in a way that allow them to survive their programmed death. As they continue to live, to reproduce, and to use up resources, these "undead" cells create an anarchic growth (a tumor) that can eventually kill the whole organism. This analogy is very valid for all spawning undeads -- vampires, shades, wights, etc. -- as they can indead create this anarchic growth.
Terraneaux 06-06-04, 02:33 AM	Seeing as skeletons and zombies are soulless and mindless, it really shouldn't be an evil act to create them. I mean, creating a ghoul is one thing (a fiendishly intelligent creature that goes around eating people and doing evil) , but creating a mindless automaton... creating golems aren't evil, why should skeletons be? For the campaigns I DM, mindless undead aren't evil in the slightest.
Eco-Mono 06-06-04, 03:29 AM	Originally posted by Terraneaux Seeing as skeletons and zombies are soulless and mindless, it really shouldn't be an evil act to create them. I mean, creating a ghoul is one thing (a fiendishly intelligent creature that goes around eating people and doing evil) , but creating a mindless automaton... creating golems aren't evil, why should skeletons be? For the campaigns I DM, mindless undead aren't evil in the slightest. I second this entirely. See my Constitutions for details.
Incensius 06-06-04, 03:58 PM	1. zombies and skeletons can be created by both good and evil characters. If they are created by good, then they will most likely be neutral. That's how i see things....if they are created by evil, they will be used to do evil things. According to one of my fav. manuals, BoVD, comitting evil acts, even if under influence, will most likely turn you into evil. 2. liches from my point of view are God Damn evil....like everyone said, it is an act of utter evil, and must be done willingly. No good character will want to become immortal to preserve the goodness of the realms. They're not Helm for Christ's sake. and if they do, they'll most likely be punished by the Gods, or become evil as time passes and their flesh turns into rotting pieces of meat. 3. vampires ARE evil....they have to feed, don't they? i tried playing a bladesinger that became a vampire, but only killed drow. He became a servant of Shevarash, but soon couldn't help himself...it's pointless... 4. ghosts do NOT have to be evil. They're simply souls that didn't accomplish what they had to do.... 5. even if there was a good undead...how long would he survive? do you really think positive energy using creatures ask questions when they see a lich? also...what about reaction rolls? Christ! that's unthinkable....
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-07-04, 05:48 AM	Few thing, 1. First, BoVD is completely non-core, it is an optional set of rules for those who want harsher and more polarized alignment rules. 2. About liches, I can understand with unspeakable rituals used to become undead, by how does your body decaying affect your morality? If I stop bathing for a few weeks will I suddenly start shoplifting and beating elderly people? 3. Vampires, despite connotation, do not have to feed, and I think a vampire adventurer would still have more than enough quarries in battle to sate him. Sucking out a random evil minion's blood is no more evil than stabbing its heart out with a rapier. 5. However long normal undead last. Even if their not good, their also not naive morons, and they'll be aware of the fact that people will try to attack them and try to hide their undeadness and flee in general. Also, the same question could be said for other oft-evil-aligned entities, like orcs and kobolds, but they can still be good.
Gez 06-07-04, 06:13 AM	Originally posted by Terraneaux Seeing as skeletons and zombies are soulless and mindless, it really shouldn't be an evil act to create them. I mean, creating a ghoul is one thing (a fiendishly intelligent creature that goes around eating people and doing evil) , but creating a mindless automaton... creating golems aren't evil, why should skeletons be? For the campaigns I DM, mindless undead aren't evil in the slightest. You have to destroy an undead before attempting to resurrect the person it was before, so even a mindless automaton undead like a zombie must do something to its former soul. It's an old topic.
Gemstone 06-07-04, 06:48 AM	Why is vampires always chaotic evil? I mean, they could live on blood from those who wants to give it away :angel:
Incensius 06-07-04, 11:13 AM	Baelnorn: Baelnorns are elven liches who have sought undeath to become th ebackbones of their families, seldom-seen sources of magic, wise counsel, and guardianship. In ancient Myth Drannor, they stood watch against thieves, protected journeying elves, kept family lore, and tutored young wizards in magic. Since the fall of that elven city, they remain in its ruins, standing guard over deep vaults holding powerful spellbooks and magic items. Baelnorns are tall, impressive-looking undead elves with shriveled skin and glowing white eyes. They do not radiate an aura of fear, nor do they have phylacteries (though some do make use of the clone spell), but they otherwise share the standard powers and abilities of liches. They can turn undead as a good cleric of their own level, and also have the ability to create a projection. a little refference material from the Monsters of Faerun manual, page 90...
Gez 06-07-04, 03:41 PM	There's also the Archlich (good human lichs) in the same book, same page.
Eco-Mono 06-07-04, 04:11 PM	Originally posted by Gez You have to destroy an undead before attempting to resurrect the person it was before, so even a mindless automaton undead like a zombie must do something to its former soul. Not really. I think the problem here is merely that there's suddenly something else inhabiting the body, so there's no room for the original soul until that other thing is evicted.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-07-04, 06:17 PM	Originally posted by Gez You have to destroy an undead before attempting to resurrect the person it was before, so even a mindless automaton undead like a zombie must do something to its former soul. It's an old topic. *points to link in sig*
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 12:42 AM	Look, all you "Undead aren't Evil, just harmless automatons made of dead flesh" can have your own opinions, but I'll go with the traditional image of Undead as obviously dead skeletons acting like they did in life, sardonically mocking their living brethren, which makes them much more horrific then mindless corpse-bots.. Remember that in traditional Medieval Beliefs, necromancy is evil because it disturbs the dead from their sleep and draws them back in some form from the afterlife. This is because people of the times took death much more seriously, and believed in showing respect for their dead. Even peasants are given proper burial and armies often call truces at night so each side can gather their dead for burial rites. The dead were given respect long after their burials, and most myths about the undead are born of the belief that angering the dead will bring about negative repurcussions. The origin of the classic Barrow Wight came from the idea that corpses who were displeased with their funerary arrangements or refused by the Afterlife (or had their tombs disturbed) would walk the earth again to voice their displeasure and take it out on anyone who crossed their paths. In my campaign, Undead are given the fearsome and horrific reputations that Undead of Earthen Myth recieved, and for good reasons. Undead aren't the same as Golems, and shouldn't be seen the same way.
Luminosity 06-08-04, 02:39 AM	1. First, BoVD is completely non-core, it is an optional set of rules for those who want harsher and more polarized alignment rules. Every rule is optional, and FRCS is also non-core. By bringing up Baelnorns, you brought this discussion beyond the core rulebooks. The BOVD and BOED are as official as any of your secondary sources. 3. Vampires, despite connotation, do not have to feed, and I think a vampire adventurer would still have more than enough quarries in battle to sate him. Sucking out a random evil minion's blood is no more evil than stabbing its heart out with a rapier. However, Vampires are always evil. From this, one may deduce that any motive for feeding other than feeding itself must be superficial. Second point: extended life can be had by non-epic means. Reincarnate and Mind Switch allow for immortality. Third point: Animate Dead, as I have already said in the past, may be evil because it denies the ability for the corpse to be returned to life by Raise Dead. In a sense, Animate Dead is theft of property. It is worse, in fact, because this property cannot be returned.
varder_kiften 06-08-04, 12:45 PM	All undead are evil! It's a fact. Sure their alignment can be good, but that doesn't change that fact that every bit of energy in them is evil. Never does a ghost rise because he wants to save the world. That's what a martyr is. Ghosts rise from selfish fealings such as regret and vengance. It's just like a good person casting an evil spell for the purpose of good, it doesn't change the fact the spell is evil. Go around casting evil spells for good enough and you become evil, and the same way with undead. You can't be evil encarnate and stay good forever. With the only thing keeping you alive being evil, you'd either just relize it's wrong and end your life or grow to it and be evil. Energy used to create undead comes from the negative energy plane and "negative=bad".
rockfall22 06-08-04, 12:48 PM	Of course being undead doesn't ALWAYS make you evil, but a lot more evil has come from undeath than good. Archliches (monsters of faerun) are good aligned, and many undead are neutral aligned, because they are mindless. However, in the case of creatures such as vampires, famine spirits and wights, their connections to either demons or negative powers or greed and whatever else means that evil permeats their undying husks.
Adrez Nesnsid 06-08-04, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by varder_kiften ...Energy used to create undead comes from the negative energy plane and "negative=bad". My dictionary disagrees: From Webster's new World Dictionary: Second College Edition: Negative: adj. 1. Containing, expressing, or implying a denial or refusal 2. Opposite to something....b) Biol. ddirected away from the source of a stimulus ...d) Math. designation a quantity less than zero, or one to be subtracted; minus e) Med. not demonstrating or proving the existance of symptoms, bacterai, etc. f) Photog. reversing the relation of light and shade in the original subject.... -adv. a word, affix, phrase, etc. that denies, rejects, or refuses....-vt. -tived, -tiving 1. a) to refuse; reject b) to veto.... 2. To deny; contradict 3. to prove false; disprove 4. to counteract; neutralize -interj. no! not so! I think that these are the definitions of the descriptor "negative" clostst to the "negative" in "negative energy".
St. Maelstrom 06-08-04, 04:57 PM	Emptied
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-08-04, 05:36 PM	Originally posted by Luminosity Every rule is optional, and FRCS is also non-core. By bringing up Baelnorns, you brought this discussion beyond the core rulebooks. The BOVD and BOED are as official as any of your secondary sources. I did not bring up the Baelnorns. Every example I have is from the monster manual itself. All rules have the option of being used or not used in your campaign, but the core is the default. The BoVD is specifically a change with harsher and more black and white alignment standards and contradicts core rules in several places. If we bring every DnD book into the argument, then we have lots of contradictions and there is no correct answer. However, Vampires are always evil. From this, one may deduce that any motive for feeding other than feeding itself must be superficial. Second point: extended life can be had by non-epic means. Reincarnate and Mind Switch allow for immortality. Third point: Animate Dead, as I have already said in the past, may be evil because it denies the ability for the corpse to be returned to life by Raise Dead. In a sense, Animate Dead is theft of property. It is worse, in fact, because this property cannot be returned. Adventurer's routinely theive from what they kill without it being evil. You slay an orc, you get to take his +1 axe, his gold, his armor, his gems, his golden statuette of his wife and his artificially grafted silver hip. Why not take the corpse as well? But that is a digression. My main point is that just because creating undead is evil, that does not mean that the undead themselves are. By the same token that being concieved in a rape does not make you evil, being created by evil magic does not make you evil.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-08-04, 05:42 PM	Okay, negative energy is not evil. Negative energy kills living things and causes harm in its raw and uncontrolled form, yes. So does fire. Negative energy is the essence of death to living entities as we know them, that's not the same as being a force of evil. If you want to make negative energy evil, then you have to make positive enegy good. Even demons and devils, the physical incarnations of evil are powered by positive energy. Killing in dungeons and dragons is not always evil and can sometimes be good, when the noble warrior slays evil fiends or kobolds or bandits or whatnot. The negative energy plane is one of the inner planes, one of the elemental forces of the universe. If it was evil it would be in the outer planes with the alignment-based planes of baator and celestia and limbo. Let's please not digress this into a negative energy is evil debate. Negative energy is not evil, positive energy is not good, end.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-08-04, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by St. Maelstrom This is the single best response I have read yet. Where is this "Undead aren't really so bad" groundswell coming from? Because they aren't always bad. Some undead are neutral, some undead are good. Being smelly and rotten and not having a pulse does not automatically make you evil. Look over at the first post.
Incenjucar 06-08-04, 06:07 PM	1) While opinions are perfectly valid within homebrew and houserule conversations, they are NOT valid in a discussion about official rulings. Your opinion does not count in a discussion of facts. 2) D&D is not Middle Ages Europe. 3) If monsters in D&D have to be like monsters in real world mythology, you'll have a lot -more- good undead (Many cultural traditions have friendly dead folk), but will have to get rid of most of D&D's dragons. 4) The term 'always' in D&D does not mean always, in regards to monsters. Please read the manual before talking out your rear. After all, even fiends can rise. 5) The term 'usually' -definately- doesn't mean always. As such, there are at least as many good mummies as good drow. 6) There is absolutely no stated ruling that negative energy is any more evil than any other form of energy. If you actually read the book, you'll find that negative energy actually tends to have a softer impact than other damage, because it often -weakens- them to a point where you can -stop- them without killing them, while with fireball it only matters when they're at 0hp, which is a much harder range to work with. 7) Nowhere in the books does it state that undead have to be evil. And the further from core you go, the more the good/evil ratio shifts towards good and neutral. 8) Most of the undead that are listed as 'always evil' are cursed infection undead (wraiths) and undead that you have to be evil when you die to become in the first place (mohrgs). The undead constructs, zombies and skeletons, are another matter entirely. 9) I repeat, your opinion does not matter. Your guesses, your imagination, and your historical basese are meaningless. D&D has electric lizards for crying out loud. You can't expect the same assumptions from D&D anymore than you can assume a 'dragon' in Poke`mon to correspond to St. George's foe. Just the facts ma'am.
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 06:17 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. Because they aren't always bad. Some undead are neutral, some undead are good. Being smelly and rotten and not having a pulse does not automatically make you evil. Look over at the first post. Someone apparantly missed the point I was making with my post... Which was that "Undead are a deeply disturbing mockery of life, the dead belong to the land of the dead and aren't drawn back to the realm of the living unless driven by anger or pulled back by unholy magic." The world's mythologies treat the Living and the Dead as being made to dwell in seperate realms for good reason; to use magic to bring the Dead back to the land of the Living is tantamount to violating the natural order of things. It goes way beyond "undead are smelly and rotten and don't have a pulse", it's more like "Since that wizard raised Grandpa from the grave last winter to work our fields, our production's gone up, but I just don't feel right about it... Sure, he says it's just Grandpa's dead body and his soul's not in there, but I look at him and can't help but think we're keeping him from enjoying the rest he earned after a life of hard work."
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 06:20 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar 1) While opinions are perfectly valid within homebrew and houserule conversations, they are NOT valid in a discussion about official rulings. Your opinion does not count in a discussion of facts. 2) D&D is not Middle Ages Europe. 3) If monsters in D&D have to be like monsters in real world mythology, you'll have a lot -more- good undead (Many cultural traditions have friendly dead folk), but will have to get rid of most of D&D's dragons. 4) The term 'always' in D&D does not mean always, in regards to monsters. Please read the manual before talking out your rear. After all, even fiends can rise. 5) The term 'usually' -definately- doesn't mean always. As such, there are at least as many good mummies as good drow. 6) There is absolutely no stated ruling that negative energy is any more evil than any other form of energy. If you actually read the book, you'll find that negative energy actually tends to have a softer impact than other damage, because it often -weakens- them to a point where you can -stop- them without killing them, while with fireball it only matters when they're at 0hp, which is a much harder range to work with. 7) Nowhere in the books does it state that undead have to be evil. And the further from core you go, the more the good/evil ratio shifts towards good and neutral. 8) Most of the undead that are listed as 'always evil' are cursed infection undead (wraiths) and undead that you have to be evil when you die to become in the first place (mohrgs). The undead constructs, zombies and skeletons, are another matter entirely. 9) I repeat, your opinion does not matter. Your guesses, your imagination, and your historical basese are meaningless. D&D has electric lizards for crying out loud. You can't expect the same assumptions from D&D anymore than you can assume a 'dragon' in Poke`mon to correspond to St. George's foe. Just the facts ma'am. Well, excuse me for trying to bring up that D&D's treatment of Undead derived from it's fantasy roots, which themselves derived from Medieval Myth. You wanna criticize a point of rule, fine, but don't complain when someone tries to put that rule back into it's proper context.
Incenjucar 06-08-04, 06:39 PM	Originally posted by Romulus LoneWolf Well, excuse me for trying to bring up that D&D's treatment of Undead derived from it's fantasy roots, which themselves derived from Medieval Myth. You wanna criticize a point of rule, fine, but don't complain when someone tries to put that rule back into it's proper context. D&D is not based on Medieval Myth, it's INSPIRED by it. Huge difference. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT make claims about D&D based on actual mythology and actually be -right-. The rules are IN THE BOOK. They did not add "For further information on undead, read about Christian interpretations of zombies". Stick to provable facts. Save the comparisons for "Being Undead SHOULD be Evil" topics, so I can show all the counter-examples without spamming.
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 06:55 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar D&D is not based on Medieval Myth, it's INSPIRED by it. Huge difference. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT make claims about D&D based on actual mythology and actually be -right-. The rules are IN THE BOOK. They did not add "For further information on undead, read about Christian interpretations of zombies". Stick to provable facts. Save the comparisons for "Being Undead SHOULD be Evil" topics, so I can show all the counter-examples without spamming. Oh excuse me... Yes, let's build a game inspired by fantasy and old tales of sword and sorcery, but let's not follow their lead when it comes to the monsters we use. Sure, Orcs, Ogres and Goblins are as evil as those stories, Dwarves dwell under the mountain and are master craftsmen like in those tales, and Dragons are big, powerful and greedy like in those tales, but Undead? Nah, we don't have to make them evil and horrific like they are in those stories... Double standards, much?
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 07:16 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. I'm settling this debate once and for all. While creating undead is evil by the core rules, actually being undead is not evil. I cite the following examples: 1. No where do the core rules say outright that all undead are evil or hate life. 2. The ghost, listed in the monster manual as an undead with the incorporeal subtype, has alignment:any(same as base creature). 3.0 SRD Link (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmonsterstemplates.rtf) 3.5 SRD Link (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersG.rtf) 3. The mummy in the 3.5 monster manual is listed as alignment:usually lawful evil. This means that there can be good aligned mummies as easily as there are good-aligned kobolds or evil-aligned gnomes. My source(3.5 SRD) (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersM-N.rtf) 4. Under the 3.0 rules the celestial template can be added to any non-evil corporeal creature regardless of creature type, so you could have celestial skeletons and zombies. Done. ...All right, didn't read the original post, and now that I have, I only agree in part, and here's what I think of the following concepts: 1-The state of Undeath comes in part from the Dead being angry and stirring because of it, or after being enslaved or corrupted through some dark, supernatural means. 2-Once again, traditionally, ghosts occur because the spirit has "unfinished business", such as a trauma it can't escape or an anger it can't ignore, thus stirring for dangerous reasons. 3-Once again, traditionally, mummies didn't stir unless it was to protect their tombs and kill anyone who entered them, except if they were priests coming in to make offerings. Otherwise, the idea of Mummification was that the dead's body was preserved sp it's spirit remained at peace in the Afterlife. 4-I agree on this point, although the idea of a Celestial Zombie is rather ridiculous, as you'd only end up with something an Evil Cleric could enslave and turn against the Good Clerics, who'd then have to Turn the Celestial Zombie. You're better off using the Deathless Type instead, creating an undead-like creature, only one that is truly Non-Evil.
Incenjucar 06-08-04, 07:21 PM	Originally posted by Romulus LoneWolf Oh excuse me... Yes, let's build a game inspired by fantasy and old tales of sword and sorcery, but let's not follow their lead when it comes to the monsters we use. Sure, Orcs, Ogres and Goblins are as evil as those stories, Dwarves dwell under the mountain and are master craftsmen like in those tales, and Dragons are big, powerful and greedy like in those tales, but Undead? Nah, we don't have to make them evil and horrific like they are in those stories... Double standards, much? I'm sorry, but you seem to have read very little actual fantasy and mythology, based on these arguments. 1) The most famous pre-Tolkein orc had a fish's tail. It's in Bulfinch's section on Charlemagne. It looks like an ugly mermaid. You can find it online. 2) Elves are children-like creatures in Norse myth. Dwarves are merely DARK ELVES, and are borne of maggots, are masterful magic crafters beyond even the gods, etc. They also constantly want to bump boots with goddesses, and nearly manage it. 3) D&D trolls are in no way like the classic troll such as seen in LotR, Harry Potter, and similar things. 4) D&D dragons are usually dramatically different from anything in myth or pre-D&D fantasy, especially with how the Metallic ones are drawn now. 5) D&D also has psuedo-dragons and faerie dragons. 6) Undead are mostly shown as evil in HORROR MOVIES. In Fantasy, they're as often good as evil. Remember the once-cowardly spirits that saved the fricking day in LotR? Remember how many kindly shades are in Greek myth? How many kindly ghosts and spirits you see in fantasy books, games, and movies, especially D&D-based such? 7) Have you any idea how many cultures consider the dead to be kindly things, or at least potentially so? It's the ANGRY dead and SAD dead that they worry about. Now, please, if you want a "Undead SHOULD be Evil" thread, start it. This is about what they ARE, not what they SHOULD.
St. Maelstrom 06-08-04, 07:41 PM	Emptied
Incenjucar 06-08-04, 07:47 PM	Ghosts. Mummies. Obviously all lies.
Romulus LoneWolf 06-08-04, 07:55 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar Now, please, if you want a "Undead SHOULD be Evil" thread, start it. This is about what they ARE, not what they SHOULD. (Snips the arguments about differences between D&D items and their sources, as it ignores that no matter what, they're still recognisable as being similar to their inspirations.) As for your last point, my apologies.. I had no idea this debate thread was closed to any opinions that opposed the "Evil aren't Undead" line, and that only yes-men who agree with the original thread's author were welcome to post. Far be it from me to exercize my right to disagree...
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-08-04, 08:08 PM	I'm not angry, but I am a little perplexed and frustrated. Even if they are angry or restless, their still not evil, just angry and restless. The egyptian mummies did not get their bodies preserved so that they could rest peacefully in the afterlife, infact it was closer to the opposite. The body was preserved and inscribed with magic charms and tokens and spells so that once interred, the dead spirit would come to possess the body and reanimate it, then traverse into the afterlife, body and all. But the mummy point is mute, as the mummies of dungeons and dragons are clearly something altogether apart from egyptian mummies. I don't remember anything saying they come to life when angered or anything about them being "natural" undead, just stuff about clerics animating them to guard tombs. My best guess is that they are created by magic only, and that when brought to life they have the default alignment of Lawful Evil but over time they can be persuaded to different ethical fews. Celestial skeletons don't sound that rare or impossible to me, just seems like the natural effect of a mindless undead on celestia wandering around uncontrolled for a few decades. Also they wouldn't be nothing more than evil cleric fodder because as a result of the celestial template they have intelligence scores (int3), which is at the very lower end of a sentient being, with the ability to think and make choices and act by reason. They would still be pretty simple-minded and low in capacity for individual action, but they might go and rally behind a good-aligned cleric of wee-jas or something.
St. Maelstrom 06-08-04, 08:17 PM	Emptied
Incenjucar 06-08-04, 08:34 PM	Originally posted by Romulus LoneWolf (Snips the arguments about differences between D&D items and their sources, as it ignores that no matter what, they're still recognisable as being similar to their inspirations.) As for your last point, my apologies.. I had no idea this debate thread was closed to any opinions that opposed the "Evil aren't Undead" line, and that only yes-men who agree with the original thread's author were welcome to post. Far be it from me to exercize my right to disagree... Disagreeing about a fact tends to be called "insanity". Does agreeing that 2+2=4 make me a yes man? This thread is about what undead ACTUALLY are in D&D. Not what they coulda shoulda woulda, but what they ARE. In FACT. On PAPER. In the SRD. VISIBLY. PROVABLY. TRUTHFULLY. INARGUABLY. In D&D, core rules, by definition, good undead are expected to exist. There are as many LG ghosts (a type of undead) as there are CE ghosts (still a type of undead). You can disagree with whether they SHOULD be good. But that's NOT the topic of the thread. We're talking about the core facts and assumptions. D&D assumes that good undead can exist and not even be utterly unique. It's right there, in the books, in the SRD, in EVERY EDITION EVER MADE. This is not an OPINION thread, this is a FACT thread. An opinion thread would be titled something like, "Should Undead always be Evil?" But that is not this thread, that is another possible thread on a similar path. Is it that really hard to figure out the difference?
Sweet Steph 06-09-04, 05:32 AM	Originally posted by Romulus LoneWolf Look, all you "Undead aren't Evil, just harmless automatons made of dead flesh" can have your own opinions... That's not an opinion. It's a fact, and it's stated quite plainly in the rulebooks. ...to use magic to bring the Dead back to the land of the Living is tantamount to violating the natural order of things. So by your reasoning, spells such as Raise Dead and Resurrect violate "the natural order of things" as well. Does that make these spells Evil as well?
Hypersmurf 06-09-04, 07:42 AM	Now I don't dispute that there are examples of neutral and even good undead floating about. Interestingly, though, they all show up on a Detect Evil spell... Detect Evil detects evil creatures, evil outsiders, evil items or spells, clerics of evil deities... and undead. -Hyp.
Gez 06-09-04, 08:33 AM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. *points to link in sig* Which? The "Report post to moderator" one, or the "IP logged" one? :D
Gez 06-09-04, 08:48 AM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. They would still be pretty simple-minded and low in capacity for individual action, but they might go and rally behind a good-aligned cleric of wee-jas or something. And being still undead, they would still be rebuked/commanded by evil clerics, and turned/destroyed by good clerics. Also, I don't have my PH with me so I can't check it (gods stuff isn't in the SRD), but I don't remember Wee-Jas allowing good clerics (just like St. Cuthbert don't accept evil clerics).
Luminosity 06-09-04, 09:48 AM	Adventurer's routinely theive from what they kill without it being evil. In what way is theft not an evil act?
Incenjucar 06-09-04, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf Now I don't dispute that there are examples of neutral and even good undead floating about. Interestingly, though, they all show up on a Detect Evil spell... Detect Evil detects evil creatures, evil outsiders, evil items or spells, clerics of evil deities... and undead. -Hyp. That's because some designers seem to agree with the idea that undead SHOULD be evil, while others clearly think otherwise. Like many alignment issues, rather than making a decision, they simply made a mess of things. This is much of why so many people are so against alignment, especially since the deities somehow can do blatantly evil acts and still be 'good'. But then, people do that with the deities they worship IRL, so, eh. Humans. Ffft.
DungeonMaster 06-09-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar That's because some designers seem to agree with the idea that undead SHOULD be evil, while others clearly think otherwise. Agreed, the same "designers" who think undead should be evil also think the eyebite spell is black evil as well. :looloo: I think I know who's got the zombie's head screwed on right and who doesn't. Yet another DM... :devil:
lukelightning 06-09-04, 04:30 PM	Wee Jas allows lawful good clerics, the restriction regarding Wee Jas is that her LN clerics rebuke undead/channel negative energy. Originally posted by Gez Also, I don't have my PH with me so I can't check it (gods stuff isn't in the SRD), but I don't remember Wee-Jas allowing good clerics (just like St. Cuthbert don't accept evil clerics).
Hypersmurf 06-09-04, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Agreed, the same "designers" who think undead should be evil also think the eyebite spell is black evil as well. :looloo: Detect Evil detects undead of any alignment in 3E as well. -Hyp.
Incenjucar 06-09-04, 05:48 PM	Makes you wonder how many good undead have died at the hands of idiots using Detect Evil.
Hypersmurf 06-09-04, 05:50 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar Makes you wonder how many good undead have died at the hands of idiots using Detect Evil. None. Some may have been destroyed, of course. And in all likelihood, more have been destroyed by people not using Detect Evil. In general, skeletal robed figure with glowing eyes... most adventurers are gonna go with the odds and start Smiting :) -Hyp.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-09-04, 05:51 PM	So, with the detect evil spell, you can have say, a level 5 neutral good ghost cleric who will simultaneously detect as good and evil, and have equal aura strengths of both? :uh-huh: I cite this as proof that the demanding task of creating the comprehensive 3rd edition rules has driven some game designers insane.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 06-09-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar Makes you wonder how many good undead have died at the hands of idiots using Detect Evil. Of course, one might also wonder how many innocent people with a 3.5 eyebite spell cast on them have died at the hands of morons using detect evil. Spell auras will also make somebody excude an evil aura, so it's not prudent to smite anything that lights up on the evil-dar.
Gemstone 06-09-04, 06:05 PM	Dwarves are merely DARK ELVES, and are borne of maggots, are masterful magic crafters beyond even the gods, etc. They also constantly want to bump boots with goddesses, and nearly manage it. Actualy, the dwarves from the Norse mythology is way much more like the dwarves from DnD than they are like darkelves... (I hope you didn't mean drow...). A big difference would be the LA if anything :P
Incenjucar 06-09-04, 06:28 PM	Depends on the source. Bulfinch's (And yes, I know Bulfinch was an idiot, but it's one of the more popular sources despite) defines Dark elves to be dwarfs (Be that as size or race), born of maggots, etc etc. They certainly aren't drow. --- I have a feeling that, if they would get a single person who gets to decide what is and is not evil, and that person isn't religious or otherwise biased, we would have fewer people coming up with house rules to toss out alignment.
Gemstone 06-10-04, 02:39 AM	As far as I know, the good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaos axis is only there to ensure that players have no problem of killing that typical Evil lich. I mean, wouldn't the basic idea of the game be ruined if we didn't know if that lich is evil or not? However, that's not for me to judge and now over to the thing about undead... Myself, I belive that not all undead is evil. Mostly, it depends on who raised the undead and what intentions he/she had for that particular undead. If a thousands of years old Lich raised a zombie to guard an orphanery, the zombie would have a good cause and thus be good (even if his alignment doesn't tell us that). If a shaman raises his fellows spirits to guard their own tomb, it wouldn't be evil, just a mean to protect the tomb. So as far as I know, the purpose of the undead is what matters. Even if you create an undead whos alignment is evil, it may still do good things for your bidding. Btw. Don't take this as any official stuff or something. It's just me trying to solve this problem from my point of view and with everything I know in my calculations. If you have any comments, please send em ^_^
Incenjucar 06-10-04, 03:27 AM	Originally posted by Gemstone As far as I know, the good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaos axis is only there to ensure that players have no problem of killing that typical Evil lich. I mean, wouldn't the basic idea of the game be ruined if we didn't know if that lich is evil or not? I've always figured that alignment was more so that spell effects act properly and so DMs and players could more easily sum things up, rather than be some bizzare form of bigotry. However, that's not for me to judge and now over to the thing about undead... Myself, I belive that not all undead is evil. Mostly, it depends on who raised the undead and what intentions he/she had for that particular undead. If a thousands of years old Lich raised a zombie to guard an orphanery, the zombie would have a good cause and thus be good (even if his alignment doesn't tell us that). If a shaman raises his fellows spirits to guard their own tomb, it wouldn't be evil, just a mean to protect the tomb. According to the books, if you have all undead be evil in your world, you're houseruling away the expected ratios. So as far as I know, the purpose of the undead is what matters. Even if you create an undead whos alignment is evil, it may still do good things for your bidding. Yep. And there's no written restriction on hallowed undead, to boot. Just a matter of making the spells and the "Always Good" skeleton description.
EnSabaNur 06-10-04, 09:35 PM	I agree that Just because you become Undead doesn't mean that you turn evil; In fact, some of the Undead can become the ultimate defenders of good. For example, I have something that you can kick around. Imagine that your a powerful knight, Wizard Etc. and you come back as Undead but your driven by a need to protect the innocent and avenge the victims of violence (not just your own Murder) and as a result they will show no mercy to those that commit evil (Evil Goblinoids, Priests that worship Evil Gods, Demons, Devils Etc.) if someone were to kill the families of such a being then this Undead Paladin/Avenger will show no mercy to the ones that did the deed. they also would have a very deep Hatred towards those that would murder children and worse. Granted that they would not look pretty but they would be of the purest good.
Gemstone 06-11-04, 06:36 AM	Granted that they would not look pretty but they would be of the purest good. Now were talking :D Atualy, I thin kthey should add some more good undead in the MM... Protector (template) Adds special abilities but also limits the creature from leaving a certain are OR a certain person. If that place or person is destroyed, the protector will also be destroyed or assigned a new person/site.
Gez 06-12-04, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by EnSabaNur ... show no mercy... very deep Hatred... purest good. What you say.
EnSabaNur 06-12-04, 12:31 PM	That is indeed along the lines to what I'm talking about, however if I would have to disagree on one pont; say that the person that they were protecting gets killed I would not say that the undead warrior winds up obliterated it would however suffer incredible harm but it would recover overtime and hunt down the murderers who did the deed along with their masters.
Gez 06-14-04, 06:10 AM	I guess that, if showing no mercy and being motivated by very deep hatred still means you're the purest good, then the point is moot. Undead, with their utter lack of mercy and their very deep hatred for the living, just plain can't be evil. Or do you mean you have to have an hatred of something evil? Enter the paradox of the Blood War. Demons have the deep hatred of devils, and show no mercy to them. Agents of purest good? Same thing with devils. Each side becomes the Purest Good because the other is evil. Nice paradox.
Hypersmurf 06-14-04, 06:33 AM	Originally posted by Gez I guess that, if showing no mercy and being motivated by very deep hatred still means you're the purest good, then the point is moot. Or do you mean you have to have an hatred of something evil? Wait... so... Demons are Paladinbots? -Hyp.
Incenjucar 06-14-04, 06:44 AM	Also, kobold baby roasting is how to get in to several paladin PrCs.
EnSabaNur 06-15-04, 09:37 PM	The Undead Warriors that I'm thinking of would use everything within their power to protect the innocent (including protecting their own families) and to bring those that commit acts of incredible evil to justice. (This includes the Undead that tread the paths of ultimate Evil.) Anyone that would slaughter the families of such a being would earn the undying enmity and fury of these Undead Warriors. Those who are of the truest good would have little to fear from these Undead Warriors.
Draconiss 06-15-04, 11:41 PM	I dont know if anyone mentioned this but if you want a Good ONLY undead type check the "Book of Exaulted Deeds" for the Deathless type. Its basically a positive energy based good undead subtype. Has a big breakdown in begining of monster section.
Incenjucar 06-16-04, 04:33 AM	Yes. Using the deathless concepts, but ignoring the positive energy thing, and you have a spiffy good undead to make a baelnorn proud.
Masamune 08-18-04, 06:21 AM	Originally posted by Arakano I would say most undeads are evil because a) they are mindless beings who are filled with negative energy b) they drain the life of other beings (vampires, wights...) Uh, technically no. On part a, the "mindless" beings raised DO what the caster tells them, so they can be good, lawful, or even chaotic or neutral. It all depends on the alignment of the person who cast the spell to raise the being. And I'm going to have to say no to part b also. Not all vamps have to be evil. Almost all could live the same ammount time feeding off of animal blood they find at the local town butcher as a vamp who feeds off of humanoids. It would take some serious motivation, but you can get vemps to become neutral and good alignments.
Arilou_skiff 08-18-04, 08:11 AM	Actually vampires get sick and (eventually) may die if they feed on animal blood for too long (VRGVAMP) Sometimes they do anyway "Better to drink from a rancid pool of water than to die of thirst" but it's not healthy. Also, is this the same "Undead is not evil" thread that has always been around?
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 08-18-04, 12:33 PM	Actually vampires get sick and (eventually) may die if they feed on animal blood for too long (VRGVAMP) Sometimes they do anyway "Better to drink from a rancid pool of water than to die of thirst" but it's not healthy. I assume that that abbreviation is van richten's guide? If so, then it doesn't really apply to base D&D. Ravenloft went out of its way to make undead as evil and tragic as possible, but its rules don't apply to every D&D setting. Though even if this is true, and you can't pull an "Angel" by drinking pig's blood from the butcher's, you can always pull a "Morbius" by drinking the blood of criminals and evildoers during combat.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 08-18-04, 05:03 PM	"Pulling a Morbius", what strange expressions we gamers coin.
Arilou_skiff 08-18-04, 06:57 PM	Hehe, believe it's a reference to Michael Morbius, Spider-Man's vampiric antagonist (villain is the wrong term)
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 08-18-04, 09:11 PM	And of course, pulling an "Angel" was a reference to Angel, or Angelus, the vampire-cursed-with-a-conscience from Buffy (and later his own spinoff series that I personally felt was a better show), who routinely got pigs' blood from the city butcher to satisfy his thirsts.
Uratoh 08-19-04, 12:54 PM	I just wonder how the Skeleton and Zombie can be listed as evil aligned when they dont even have an intelligence score, thus making them incapable of making the decisions required to have an alignment...
Hypersmurf 08-19-04, 04:48 PM	Originally posted by Uratoh I just wonder how the Skeleton and Zombie can be listed as evil aligned when they dont even have an intelligence score, thus making them incapable of making the decisions required to have an alignment... In the same way that a Magic Circle Against Good will show up on a Detect Evil spell. It doesn't make evil decisions; it simply is evil by its inherent nature. -Hyp.
Ratguy629 08-19-04, 11:51 PM	pg-8 The book of vile darkness "even if commanded to do something good, undead are unvariably bring negitive energy into the world, wich makes it a more darker and evil plave" Sounds clear to me it says its the WORST thing you can do worse then rape or murder
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 08-20-04, 01:25 AM	Gah. I always hated the interpretation of negative energy as evil, too. It's necessary. It's death energy. Without it, you'd explode (see positive energy plane effects). And casting "inflict" or "harm" isn't evil. I think they just trumped up that "skeletons are evil because there's negative energy in them" thing to justify allowing smite evil to work on them, and to simplify things, not because it's accurate
Arilou_skiff 08-20-04, 07:19 AM	Originally posted by Ratguy629 pg-8 The book of vile darkness "even if commanded to do something good, undead are unvariably bring negitive energy into the world, wich makes it a more darker and evil plave" Sounds clear to me it says its the WORST thing you can do worse then rape or murder And it's contradicted in other sources, what's your point?
R.M.G.C.L.F. 08-20-04, 10:54 AM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf In the same way that a Magic Circle Against Good will show up on a Detect Evil spell. It doesn't make evil decisions; it simply is evil by its inherent nature. -Hyp. Except they give magic circle against good an evil descriptor, the don't add an alignment statistic block to it and make it neutral evil. It's a just abjuration[evil]
Hypersmurf 08-20-04, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by R.M.G.C.L.F. Except they give magic circle against good an evil descriptor, the don't add an alignment statistic block to it and make it neutral evil. It's a just abjuration[evil] Well, the alternative would be to make skeletons and zombies neutral, but give them the [Evil] subtype. But then they'd overcome DR X/Evil, and maybe the designers didn't want them able to do that... -Hyp.
barnaby36 10-05-04, 06:54 PM	Azelin Theology states that labor is the ultimate evil. Anything that can be used to protect the free, unlimited power of creativity can and should be used. As well as constructs fit this, they are a burr in every spellcaster's robe to create. Unthinking undead fit the role just as well as consructs, yet they are much easier to create, and the spirit has left the body. Waste not. I very much agree with the comments that I saw (those on page 1), in that negative energy is not evil, just as positive energy is not good. The fact that the soul is stuck in the MatPlane is not so bad, especially once they get used to it. In Aurus, undead get a bad rep because any species which one is not a member of, in which a sizable portion of the population commits atrocities, is bound to the fate of the whole population being blamed for the actions of some. Only approx. 60% of Aurus's undead are evil. Not too bad. But away from my homebrew, as well as Azeltir's inspired philosophies, I believe that undead do have a potential for goodness, even if they come from a corpse, or even if the creator made the corpse. Seriously, give necromancers a chance. I need Libris Mortis so bad. barnaby36
The Grinning Pint 10-05-04, 07:01 PM	DM, R. M. G. C. L. F. Did anyone else find that strangely.. letterlike? :rolleyes:
Starmage21 10-05-04, 07:12 PM	Liches, by core rules are always evil, and the process of becoming a lich is a "act of uspeakable evil and can only be undertaken by a character's own free will". Commiting the act in and of itself turns them into evil creatures. I would NEVER want to play in a game run by you. Deviating from your alignment, even long enough to become a lich will not instantly change you to evil alignment. In the case of Paladins, they would lose some abilities, but I bet after the change, they would still be LG, and probobly seeking real atonement (not some stupid spell) for taking the good fight to eternity.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-05-04, 07:44 PM	pg-8 The book of vile darkness "even if commanded to do something good, undead are unvariably bring negitive energy into the world, wich makes it a more darker and evil plave" Sounds clear to me it says its the WORST thing you can do worse then rape or murder No, the worst thing you can do is use the BoVD to decide what's good or evil ;)
Tenzhi 10-06-04, 01:54 AM	Besides, due to the balancing nature of the prime, bringing negative energy into the world will cause positive energy to be brought in somewhere else. Ergo, creating undead is really a means to bring positive energy into the world. ;)
The_Dark_One 10-06-04, 02:12 AM	Skeletons and zombies are neutral - there's absolutely not a question about it. Actually, skeletons and zombie are always (though this doesn't mean without exception, I know) Nuetral Evil. This is a fact.
darczero 10-06-04, 02:22 AM	I'm settling this debate once and for all. While creating undead is evil by the core rules, actually being undead is not evil. Agreed!!! Someone finally said it!
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-06-04, 02:38 AM	Actually, skeletons and zombie are always (though this doesn't mean without exception, I know) Nuetral Evil. This is a fact. Only in the revision and only because of the thrice cursed BoVD. They used to be neutral -- as they should have stayed.
The_Dark_One 10-06-04, 03:22 AM	I don't know. I like the image of a creature animated by malevolent forces and filled with mindless hate. Just because something doesn't understand why it is filled with hate and bloodlust doesn't make it any less evil. What I want is a Good version of animate dead that creates skeletons and zombies of good alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-06-04, 10:42 AM	I don't know. I like the image of a creature animated by malevolent forces and filled with mindless hate. Just because something doesn't understand why it is filled with hate and bloodlust doesn't make it any less evil. What I want is a Good version of animate dead that creates skeletons and zombies of good alignment. - Negative energy is not a malevolent force. - There is no mindless hate in there. - There is no bloodlust. Stop adding your own flavor to try to justify your beliefs here. Thats exactly why the BoVD was an abomination to game design.
pres_man 10-06-04, 11:16 AM	justify allowing smite evil to work on them, and to simplify things, not because it's accurate I think this is the main point why they are listed as evil. Nobody really wants a paladin standing there going, "Well they're not evil, maybe we shouldn't destroy them." Please, a paladin should walk up and start putting the undead back into the ground. What I want is a Good version of animate dead that creates skeletons and zombies of good alignment. I created just such a spell. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=316124
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-06-04, 05:47 PM	Nobody really wants a paladin standing there going, "Well they're not evil, maybe we shouldn't destroy them." Please, a paladin should walk up and start putting the undead back into the ground. Why is it so wrong for a pally to actually think before using his sword?
pres_man 10-06-04, 06:01 PM	Normally it's not. Yet who wants a paladin to have a moral dilemma about destroying skeletons. Paladin: Would it be wrong to destroy these skeletons, I mean they aren't evil. They are just doing what they were told to do. On the other hand, they are an affront to life and so should be destroyed. What if we grapple them and tie them up? Maybe if we could cast speak with dead we could find out what they want to happen to them. Oh wait that spell doesn't work since it now is undead. ... Rest of the Group: Shut up!!! Charge and destroy the skeletons. Paladin: Wait guys we might be able to make them our friends.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-06-04, 07:28 PM	Wouldn't the same dumbass paladin have the same problem with using the sunder action? These are marrionettes, not sentient beings.
Starmage21 10-06-04, 08:21 PM	These are marrionettes, not sentient beings. Exactly why mindless "crafted" undead should remain neutral.
The_Dark_One 10-07-04, 07:47 PM	Stop adding your own flavor to try to justify your beliefs here . Thats exactly why the BoVD was an abomination to game design. Actually, I was simply stating what I would find to be an impressive story reason behind the Evil tag. I never said anything about negative energy. The malevolent force I spoke of was the foul magic of the Animate Dead spell. I think we can both agree that an EVIL SPELL is truly a Malovolent force. And the fact that skeletons and zombies are EVIL is not a belief of mine it is an absolute, undeniable fact. The 3.5 monster manual which, follow me here, is 100% core , says that they are. Some of you have stated that the Book of Vile Darkness is not core;the Monster Manual certainly is. 3.5 supercedes anything in Third Edition. I am not giving an opinion here. I am right (go look it up, I'll wait). If you want to houserule that they aren't, you are completely free to do so. It will, however, be a houserule. and therefor not in any way core. My original post was in respone to someone (and I honestly forget who) giving an opinion in oppostion to the core rules and presenting it as fact as if the rules were in total agreement with him. This is why I posted back to tell him that he was wrong. Okay, I admit it. You are right, I am wrong. I will never doubt you again. You are the most brilliant person I have ever encountered. You are the way, the truth and the light. I feel privillaged to be on the same message boards as you. You are my hero. Never Posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Actually, I too believe that being undead isn't evil. I love the idea of good skeletons and zombies. I think there should be a spell that allows their creation. Oh, I think 3.5 made them evil because the spell that created them was evil. Since they were created by an evil spell, they must be evil.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-07-04, 10:20 PM	How about 'no', Dark One. You still implied that the skells and zombs are "filled with mindless hate" and "filled with hate and bloodlust", which means you still added your own flavor which has no basis in the core rules. Further, just because a spell has the [evil] tag, doesn't make it in any way a malevolent force. Sorry, but my post stands. And I have not added any new heros to my pantheon.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-08-04, 09:08 AM	The main thing is, it's not that the undead or evil or whatnot, no one cares if the undead are always evil. It's the lack or flavor text. If the description of either Animate Dead or the Zombie/skeleton entry had mindless hateful beings, then there would be no problem. But they are just saying undead are evil because they say so. That's not cool. This skeleton is going to stand motionless until someone tells it to do something, and that's evil? Baloney. However, technically flesh golems are mindless and hateful, and if not controlled go on destructive rampages where they try to destroy everyone and everything around them, and even require the casting of animate dead to create them! Really, as written in the core books, there's more reasons for a flesh golem to be neutral evil than a skeleton, as the flesh golem actually IS is a mindless destructive being filled with hate for everything around it. A skeleton or zombie is not, they literally do nothing unless commanded to. A Flesh golem can be controlled, but it can break free at any time to destroy things. and they're neutral. What I'm saying is, a skeleton should not be evil when a flesh golem is not. If they alter the skeletons and zombie's flavor text to amke them evil, then I will go along with it. but the flavor text does not match game description.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-08-04, 03:22 PM	Lets not forget the enslaved and enraged elemental jammed in the golem's body.
Eco-Mono 10-08-04, 05:13 PM	And the fact that skeletons and zombies are EVIL is not a belief of mine it is an absolute, undeniable fact. The 3.5 monster manual which, follow me here, is 100% core , says that they are. And the fact that skeletons and zombies are NEUTRAL is not a belief of mine it is an absolute, undeniable fact. The 3.5 srd which, follow me here, is 100% core , says that they are. Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions.Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Here is my point: When two core rules conflict, you cannot claim that either rule is undeniably true. Rather, it comes down to DM interpretation to decide which supercedes the other.
Objulen 10-08-04, 06:17 PM	D&D's main problem with undead steams from how it treats death and life. In most modern ways of thinking, life, death, good and evil are independant concepts that are not directly related, though they are often found together in the same issues; however, this is incidental, not a direct connection. In most D&D settings, however, its "Life and Good" and "Death and Evil" with a "well...maybe" added in for good measure. For example, creating undead or influencing them with negative energy is evil, but using negative energy to inflict harm on the living isn't (in and of itself). Then, when you get into actually creating undead, the reasons listed in the Bood of Vile Darkness for it being an evil act are shoddy at best. It says that unliving corpses are corruptions of "life and purity" (again with the "Life and Good" instead of life and good being seperate entities) because --They bring negative energy into the world, which makes the world a "darker and more evil place" (this refers to the "Death and Evil" instead of just death happening to occur with evil). But let's look at the logic here. --Increasing the amount of negative energy in the world is evil. --Positive energy is the opposite of negative energy, as demonstraited by the core rule books and how they list the interactions of positive and negative energy. --Thus, 1 Negative Energy Unit (NEU) = -1 Positive Energy Unit (PEU) Moving on --Living creatures are powered by positive energy, which is measured with hit points. --When you inflict damage on a living creature, you subtract hit points. This is the same as adding negative hit points. This is the same as adding negative energy. EX: Bob hits Ted with his sword for 8 points of damage. This equals -8 hit points, which is the same as -8 PEU. This is the same as 8 NEU, so functionally Bob has just added 8 NEU into the world. --Adding negative energy into the world is an evil act. --Dealing damage to the living adds negative energy. --Dealing damage to the living is an evil act. According to this reasoning, killing any living thing is evil, so every living thing that kills another living thing, plant, animal, orc, dragon, etc., is evil. This means that the vast majority of living creatures are evil, especially paladins, who go around killing evil, but living creatures. The reasoning has also be given that the undead 'violate the natural order'. Let's look at that statement. Nevermind that what exactly is natural and what constitutes the 'natural order' is open to so much debate it isn't even funny, but the worst that can be said about undead is that they have been transplanted from their origional environment. An creature that is part of the 'natural order' can be said to have a native environment where that creature can thrive and survive, and the undead have such a place, a place where they alone can flourish without the intervention of magic or other protective measures -- the Negative Energy Plane. And since undead have a natural environment, the worst that can be said is that they are not in their native environment when they are created in places such as the Forgotten Realms or Oerth, not that they 'violate the natural order' anymore than a Polar Bear in the rain forest violates 'the natural order'.
Starmage21 10-08-04, 07:43 PM	just face it. Undead are evil because they arent inside coffins or buried underground /sarcasm Actually, the above practice was started only to keep wolves and carrion from feasting upon the body.
Lion21 10-08-04, 09:47 PM	Let me state as unofficial spokesperson for logic and good gaming everywhere: Undead are NOT by nature evil. The concept is bull. Hands down. The book of vile darkness is an abomination. I must point out something of extreme importance.: You see, while "logic" per se is not the highest priority in a game about dragons, wizards and well..undead, "Logical Plausability" is. The statements the book of vile darkness has made on the matter of the undead stretch logic, common sense and suspension of disbelief to the point of nonexistence. Why is negative energy evil? Is it because its "negative"? What about it makes it foul and unwholesome? It's potential uses for good arguably outnumber and outweigh its uses for evil...so that can't be it. Positive energy is actually quite destructive. Overdoses of it can and do make people explode... So it's harmful side-effects certainly can't make negative enrgy evil. The fact is folks, the BoVD is full of it. Use your brains. Now then, its quite arguable that *creating* undead is evil...provided you also accept that the process involves the calling forth and subjugation of the souls of the departed...or the summoning of malevolent sprits/entities from beyond to animate the corpses. I've heard people say the create undead spells simply push negative energy into a body....but if thats all, then the act certainly cannot be deemed evil. In fact, look at the creation of constructs(which is regarded as neutral)- intelligent constructs are actually metal or stone(or other substance) bodies/shells that hold trapped and controlled elemental spirits. If thats not atleast morally questionable..I don't know what is. If negative energy infused into a body to animate it is evil...then why isn't it evil to animate, say... a chair? Why not an animate object cast on a corpse? You can see the logical irregularities that come from a blanket labelling of negative energy as evil. Thus, undead themselves, unless possesed of free will and choosing to do evil, or animated by malevolent entities are not inherentaly evil OR good.
Objulen 10-10-04, 12:02 AM	Now then, its quite arguable that *creating* undead is evil...provided you also accept that the process involves the calling forth and subjugation of the souls of the departed...or the summoning of malevolent sprits/entities from beyond to animate the corpses. Even this is tossed out the window in D&D cosmology. In the MM 3.5, to create a flesh golem you have to stitch together various body parts and then enslave an elemental spirit, which is demonstraited by the fact that it breaks free -- if the spirit was willing, why would it break free and go on a rampage? Yet this is not described as evil. So I can take some corpses, stitch them into a 'golem', enslave an elemental spirit, and that's ok, but taking some bodies and raising them as mindless servants is evil because it uses 'negative energy'. Further, the only undead creation spell listed in the PHB that grants automatic control of the undead to the caster is Animate Dead, which creates mindless undead (who happen to be evil even though they have no minds and lower intelligence scores than animals. Go figure). Create Undead and Create Greater Undead offer no control over the undead created -- a spell or controlling attempt has to be used for any effect.
Thievingrouge 10-10-04, 05:18 PM	The way I see it is like this-(non-core sources used) Undead are evil,deathless are good, and re-ensouled are neutral(re-ensouled is my idea). each variety has it's own creation spells involved.deathless involves bargaining with heavenly powers, re-ensouled involve speaking with the animating spirits directly. druids still dislike them all.
Arcuna 10-10-04, 08:23 PM	Holy. Crap. I saw this thread and jumped for joy. *shows thread to undead-loving player/DM/friend*
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-10-04, 11:47 PM	Deathless is a catastorphic failure in logical game design, catalysed by the LotR movies.
Kojiro James 10-11-04, 12:05 AM	Can't we all agree that it just depends on the spellcaster and call it a day?
Objulen 10-11-04, 02:24 PM	Can't we all agree that it just depends on the spellcaster and call it a day? It would be nice, but as far as canon is concerned that isn't the case. Not that I that much about canon per se (the Golden Rule of Role Playing -- there are no rules, only suggestions), but it is still annoying.
Kojiro James 10-11-04, 09:32 PM	What do large guns have to do with undead?
The_Dark_One 10-11-04, 11:14 PM	And the fact that skeletons and zombies are NEUTRAL is not a belief of mine it is an absolute, undeniable fact. The 3.5 srd which, follow me here, is 100% core , says that they are. Well, I've always been under the impression that the specific rule always supercedes the general rule. The rule are written that way so that it is easier to have exceptions exist without specifically noting, every single time, that a given specific rule is an exception to the general rule. Can't we all agree that it just depends on the spellcaster and call it a day? Originally posted by Kojiro James Actually, this would be a pretty elegant solution. Deathless is a catastorphic failure in logical game design, catalysed by the LotR movies. Just out of curiousity, what is it about Deathless that you don't like? I haven't really read the description that well (I'm talking about the one in Eberron here), but I thought it was great when I saw it. A spell that creates undead and has the Good tag? Its what I've wanted for so very long.)
Sancus 10-11-04, 11:27 PM	And the fact that skeletons and zombies are NEUTRAL is not a belief of mine it is an absolute, undeniable fact. The 3.5 srd which, follow me here, is 100% core , says that they are. This is a false statement. You may want to check your SRD again, because that is not what it says. Under the skeleton entry... "Alignment: Always neutral evil." However, I agree that it's a bit silly, something that is mindless can't be good or evil because that requires intent of some sort. In any case, a Paladin would never have a moral issue with killing skeletons or zombies, because they're not sentient, it's like smashing a car. You may as well say that they might have a moral dilemma with smashing a catapult, because skeletons are the same thing as a catapult.
Objulen 10-12-04, 12:45 AM	Just out of curiousity, what is it about Deathless that you don't like? I haven't really read the description that well (I'm talking about the one in Eberron here), but I thought it was great when I saw it. A spell that creates undead and has the Good tag? Its what I've wanted for so very long.) Deathless are a new creature type, seperate from Undead, that are basically the 'good' Undead. They are animated corpses and disembodied spirits fueled by positive energy (which is supposed to be the energy of life), and thus operate under different rules. The reason why this is a terrible thing is because it skirts around the issues and adds another pile of garbage on an already messy situation, even further muddying the waters of internal game logic. For example, Undead are supposed to be mockeries of the natural order because they are animated corpses. However, Deathless are not mockeries of the natural order even though they are animated corpses because they use positive energy. But if being an animated corpse doesn't apply (which it can't because Deathless are animated corpses, but creating them isn't evil), then it falls back on Undead being fueled by negative energy and negative energy being bad. But, as I proved above, it is logically impossible for the moral statement that negative energy is evil to be true unless harming and killing any living thing is automatically evil as well, and equivilently evil to creating undead, which is supposed to be worse than murder by the description in the BoVD. Which means that you can't use it and hope to maintain the alignment systems in an objectively moral universe because the rules of that objective morality, as stated, also means that anything that kills anything living (plant, animal, or other) is also evil. So what it basically boils down to is that some gamers would like interal game logic to remain consistent and credible, not some jumbled mess that a bored college student can point out in spare time.
The Happy Gank 10-12-04, 07:56 AM	3. The mummy in the 3.5 monster manual is listed as alignment:usually lawful evil. This means that there can be good aligned mummies. My source(3.5 SRD) (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersM-N.rtf) The only problem with this logic is that just because a type of monster can be other than "lawful evil" does not mean that type of monster will ever be good. Keep in mind that there are just as likely, or even more so likely, vile "chaotic evil" mummies in this case. Not saying a good mummy could never happen, but you fall into a trap if you automatically assume that "usually _________ evil" means that there will be an example of a "good" type of that creature.
Objulen 10-12-04, 11:24 AM	The only problem with this logic is that just because a type of monster can be other than "lawful evil" does not mean that type of monster will ever be good. Keep in mind that there are just as likely, or even more so likely, for there to be vile "chaotic evil" mummies in this case. But it does mean that there probably will be one at some point in time some place in the multiverse. You don't run into an alignment being actually rare in a planar sense until you hit the 'always' mark. Before that its unusual and somewhat uncommon.
CroydCrenson 01-06-05, 12:43 AM	Its becoming a theme nowadays: The lnes between good and evil are starting to blur... Just because one is undead, doesn't mean one HAS to be evil ^)_^ It just means that they see theri undead status leads them to better things on that side...but come on ^)_^ an undead could just as easily want to settle down and try (poorly) to keep a farm working. Tireless farmer! huzzah!
lord_faust6979 01-06-05, 02:38 AM	I read most of the first page of this debate and based on that I shall render my opinion: Even if the creatures description says "Always xxxxevil", I still believe that there are always exceptions (though rare). For instance, drow are supposed to always be neutral evil, but look at drizzt and Laurel Benre (I think thats her name), both are drow and neither of them are evil. I believe a vampire can be something other than evil. Just because they need the blood of the living does not mean that they have to kill those they feed upon. Besides any creature living or undead that has intelligence has the ability to distinguish right from wrong and choose their own path!
Gilean 01-06-05, 03:44 AM	Just because they need the blood of the living does not mean that they have to kill those they feed upon. And they don't need to drink blood. SRD states that killing is evil, and paladins are good. Go figure.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-06-05, 04:21 PM	Killing can't be evil. That would make every PC evil. Oh, and thanks to the libris mortis, vampires finally have an actual reason to drink blood. They are diet dependent on it, without it they gradually lose animation and mobility until they become essentially a self-aware corpse (can't move or anything, just look and listen). Also, it's not much more evil to suck an orc's blood out than it is to hack him to death with a sword or sear away his flesh with a melph's acid arrow. At least in the vampire's case the blood is put to good use. And anyway, there are plenty of undead that have no need, desire, or even ability to feed upon the essence/blood/flesh/souls of the living.
The Happy Gank 01-06-05, 05:57 PM	Not every PC need kill...there can be other ways to handle hostile situations. That said, I've grown undecided if the status of undeath in itself is "evil..." However, many undead creatures can commit evil act...
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-06-05, 09:49 PM	Not every PC need kill...there can be other ways to handle hostile situations. That said, I've grown undecided if the status of undeath in itself is "evil..." However, many undead creatures can commit evil act... Many creatures in general can and do commit evil acts. The majority of all creatures are listed as evil because they're main function is things for the PCs to fight.
Zulkir of Abjuration 01-06-05, 10:47 PM	Liches are evil. Period. The proccess of becoming a lich is unspeakabley evil. This means that you either become evil by doing it or you must already be evil. Archliches and elf-liches use another process and have different abilities and properties and thus are not liches. They are reffered to as liches because of the same basic princible is involved. In the book detailing all things good they have a good version of undead. They use positive energy and typicaly are guardians. The two references to good undead are one, LG elf mummies guarding a tomb of a drow vampire, and two, an elflich defending an elven relic were both where they were guardians. Good undead are made to protect, not to have immortality. The reason that negative energy is seen as evil is because it is a destructive force. The reason that positive energy is seen as good is because it is a healing force. These planes are not aligned because negative energy can destroy evil and positive energy can destroy good. Kind of the same thinking as America having guns legal. Guns are tools for killing. Killing is illegal. Guns are legal. We of Thay understand these things...
Viashino_wizard 01-06-05, 11:00 PM	Being a lich doesn't nescisarily make you evil. It does, however, make you supreamly disinclined to be good, as the ritual requires black magic unavailable to creatures of good faith. A Lawful Neutral scholar purging the secrets of the universe, for example, might become a lich to continue his research after his death. Such a NPC would be Lawful Neutral, not evil. The possibility of a lich as the PC's benifactor is highly underexplored. I myself am quite fond of the idea of usually evil monsters (like the mind flayer) fighting on the side of good. Remember: It's the DM's world, so what he (or she) says goes. If the DM wants a Lawful Good lich to provide support to the PCs, a Lawful Good lich will provide support to the PCs.
Callahan 01-07-05, 12:18 AM	there is a variation of the lich that is good.
The Happy Gank 01-07-05, 08:35 AM	Many creatures in general can and do commit evil acts. The majority of all creatures are listed as evil because they're main function is things for the PCs to fight. Yes, but my point is that a PC doesn't necessarily have to kill in order to resolve a conflict with a monster/creature... You don't necessarily have to hack and slash away at your opponent, there can be other options...
Viashino_wizard 01-07-05, 12:27 PM	You know, this argument really is kind of pointless. No matter what you decide, it will have no effect on any game. Each game's DM determines the characteristics of creatures in his or her game, and usually, they will make undead evil. There are, of course, DM's who make their campaignes diffrent, so there's probably at least one game where the undead are champions of good. Blah.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-07-05, 03:35 PM	In the book detailing all things good they have a good version of undead. They use positive energy and typicaly are guardians. The two references to good undead are one, LG elf mummies guarding a tomb of a drow vampire, and two, an elflich defending an elven relic were both where they were guardians. Good undead are made to protect, not to have immortality. First, positive energy undead as the good undead are a fairly stupid concept. After all, orcs, beholders, demons, and various other creatures are powered by positive energy but are still evil. And if you have negative energy undead evil, and positive energy undead good, what are the neutral undead powered by? Good undead need not be made for any specific purpose. Some undead just form out of powerful emotions and drive to live. Some are after-effects of a create spawn attack. Most good undead, such as good mummies and ghosts, are good because they choose to be so and it is their moral alignment. The ghost of a good person is good, the ghost of an evil person is evil.
Viashino_wizard 01-09-05, 12:08 AM	Good undead need not be made for any specific purpose. Some undead just form out of powerful emotions and drive to live. Some are after-effects of a create spawn attack. Most good undead, such as good mummies and ghosts, are good because they choose to be so and it is their moral alignment. The ghost of a good person is good, the ghost of an evil person is evil. I quite agree. For example, readers of the Harry Potter series (which is just about everyone) will agree that the Fat FRiar ghost is most deffinetlly good. Ghosts are just incorporal humanoids (ok, DEAD incorporal humanoids), and thus are just as prone to being good or bad as the race they came from. An orc's ghost will probably be Chaotic Evil, and a dwarf's ghost would usually be Lawful Good. Some undead are, of course, evil by nature due to the way they are formed. (A wight, for example, is what is left when a humanoid's life-force is drained, leaving only hatred and negative energy.
thasis 01-15-05, 01:17 PM	In ebberon there's no alignment so undead could act good if they wanted in that setting. The beuties of ebberon.
Elthbert 01-15-05, 02:26 PM	Camanrock, I think you might be referring to the quote saying "regarless of your alignment, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act." That statement in fact is often quoted out of context as it only applies in reference to turning or rebuking undead. I disagree that it only applys to turning or rebuking undead, it certianly doesn't say that it only applies in that way. I know it is in that section. But it is set off by itself within that section for a reason, channeling negative energy is evil, and yes I understand that this means casting harm to often is going to change your alignment, so what?
Elthbert 01-15-05, 02:27 PM	In ebberon there's no alignment so undead could act good if they wanted in that setting. The beuties of ebberon. theres no alignment! what kind of screwed up world is that where there is no good and no evil. That doesn't even make sense.
Elthbert 01-15-05, 02:42 PM	Kind of the same thinking as America having guns legal. Guns are tools for killing. Killing is illegal. Guns are legal. That is a really bad analogy, first of all it's not even correct, Guns are tools for killing, killing is not illegal and guns have a restricted legality. On the other hand Negative energy destroys life, it can do nothing but that, D&D take the objective stance that life is Good ( very Judeo-Christian of them) and destruction of life is evil, Negative energy can do nothing but destroy so it in and of itself is evil. Now before we get into the fact that in D&D Good goes around destroying life all the time, it is in order to protect life ( we could get into all sorts of Natural Law or utilitarian arguements but that is a bit silly for a Game) That is why negative energy is evil it is not a tool, it is destruction given form.
bomaz 01-16-05, 12:07 AM	skeletons and zombies are mindless. Therefore they are usefull never tiring servants. in my campign I had a good wizard having his skeletons clean his house. they are cheaper than golems.
Viashino_wizard 01-16-05, 12:36 AM	skeletons and zombies are mindless. Therefore they are usefull never tiring servants. in my campign I had a good wizard having his skeletons clean his house. they are cheaper than golems. Hee hee, that's really funny! Why didn't I think of that?
Melpomene 01-16-05, 12:50 AM	::yawns grandiosly:: Undead negative souls create a vaccume which causes animation and requires a desire to negate soullife. Harming souls is evil. Mindless undead are therefor, evil. Intellegent undead have a choice, but are severlely tinted toward evil due to unquenchable hunger...
Quenditar 01-16-05, 12:50 AM	Am I the only one who thinks they changed the rule because calling something incapable of moral action "evil" seemed less silly than saying paladins couldn't smite mindless undead? That's the only logical explanation.
Gilean 01-16-05, 10:01 AM	Undead negative souls create a vaccume which causes animation and requires a desire to negate soullife. Source?
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-16-05, 11:10 AM	::yawns grandiosly:: Undead negative souls create a vaccume which causes animation and requires a desire to negate soullife. Harming souls is evil. Mindless undead are therefor, evil. Intellegent undead have a choice, but are severlely tinted toward evil due to unquenchable hunger... Um...no. There is no "negative soul' or desire to negate soul life. There is negative energy, created by death, focused and bound into animating the body by any combination of heavy negative energy presence, magic, or strong emotions. Negative energy is negative life force, not "negative soul". There is no vaccum, no soul-harming for many undead. Take a zombie. A slam may crack your bones, rupture your kidneys, and bruise you, but it affects your body, not your soul. You can't punch somebody's soul to death. Not all intelligent undead have unquenchable hunger. The libris mortis categorizes undead metabolisms into different groups. Some have a psychological craving, some have an actual need to feed to remain animate, some don't have any inherent need or desire, and some don't feed at all. Numerous undead fall into the two latter categories. I cannot overstress that mindless undead, in no way, shape, or form, harm souls! It's impossible. They have no attacks that even use negative energy, much less ability drain or energy drain powers that might imply feeding on a soul. They slam or claw. They punch or rake. Maybe some special variants may cut, bite, or stab. They do NOT do crap to souls. There is no "killer desire", no "hunger for life". They are meat puppets, automatons, soulless, mindless, shambling bodies controlled and created by magic that unthinkingly obey their master's commands. They can be no more evil than a printing press or a remote controlled care or a footstool.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-16-05, 11:13 AM	I disagree that it only applys to turning or rebuking undead, it certianly doesn't say that it only applies in that way. I know it is in that section. But it is set off by itself within that section for a reason, channeling negative energy is evil, and yes I understand that this means casting harm to often is going to change your alignment, so what? It means for rebuking/commanding. Period. If channeling negative energy, IE using it an any way, shape or form, was evil, they would either give all negative energy spells such as chill touch and harm the evil descriptor, or not bother to give the evil descriptor to any spells that use negative energy at all.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-16-05, 11:21 AM	That is a really bad analogy, first of all it's not even correct, Guns are tools for killing, killing is not illegal and guns have a restricted legality. On the other hand Negative energy destroys life, it can do nothing but that, D&D take the objective stance that life is Good ( very Judeo-Christian of them) and destruction of life is evil, Negative energy can do nothing but destroy so it in and of itself is evil. Now before we get into the fact that in D&D Good goes around destroying life all the time, it is in order to protect life ( we could get into all sorts of Natural Law or utilitarian arguements but that is a bit silly for a Game) That is why negative energy is evil it is not a tool, it is destruction given form. Negative energy has a negative effect on life, but if skeletons are powered and animated by negative energy and can still be used to constructive purposes, it by defination can do something other than destroy. Skeletons and zombies can build houses, guard cities, and water plants. They can do whatever their master tells them to do provided it is simple enough for them to understand. Destroying life is not evil in DnD. There are spells and weapons which can and will do nothing but destroy. When's the last time a fireball or acid arrow was used to heal or help somebody? Hm? There are many forces which, in their raw form and many other states, have a harmful effect on life, but can still be controlled put to work for whatever uses one sees fit. Take radiation for example. It is deadly to all living things. It deforms, poisons, and eventually kills any living being exposed to it. Yet by putting it in a controlled reactor, you generate electricity that can serve any number of purposes. If you just randomly create a blob of negative energy and poke it, yeah, it'll hurt you, or if you throw it at somebody, they will suffer damage. But, if you channel it into a skeletal corpse of say, an ox, then harness it to a plow, and command it to plow the feilds, it shall do so for you without tire or question. You can of course command the ox to sheild an innocent, or to attack somebody, but that is your choice. Intelligent undead, while they may have a destructive force coursing in them, they can controll it. Just like humans don't eject random blasts of positive energy causing weeds to shoot up and searing any undead nearby, undead creatures can effortlessly prevent their negative energy from harming people.
Melpomene 01-16-05, 12:40 PM	Um...no. There is no "negative soul' or desire to negate soul life. There is negative energy, created by death, focused and bound into animating the body by any combination of heavy negative energy presence, magic, or strong emotions. Negative energy is negative life force, not "negative soul". There is no vaccum, no soul-harming for many undead. Take a zombie. A slam may crack your bones, rupture your kidneys, and bruise you, but it affects your body, not your soul. You can't punch somebody's soul to death. Not all intelligent undead have unquenchable hunger. The libris mortis categorizes undead metabolisms into different groups. Some have a psychological craving, some have an actual need to feed to remain animate, some don't have any inherent need or desire, and some don't feed at all. Numerous undead fall into the two latter categories. I cannot overstress that mindless undead, in no way, shape, or form, harm souls! It's impossible. They have no attacks that even use negative energy, much less ability drain or energy drain powers that might imply feeding on a soul. They slam or claw. They punch or rake. Maybe some special variants may cut, bite, or stab. They do NOT do crap to souls. There is no "killer desire", no "hunger for life". They are meat puppets, automatons, soulless, mindless, shambling bodies controlled and created by magic that unthinkingly obey their master's commands. They can be no more evil than a printing press or a remote controlled care or a footstool. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have gone on record as saying they do in more than one occassion. Mindless undead are always listed as NE, and will atack living creatures once released from the mind-whip of controll. Not all, or even most, mindless undead are controlled. The ones that aren't may lack the best means needed to stop the positive energy around them from giving them constant pain, but killing those beings and releasing thier souls somewhere else is a start Undead do have negative souls, as well, a replaced soul which uses negative rather than positive energy. Of course, YMMV, depending on your campaign, etc. My view of undead plants them firmly in the "evil" camp, however.
Viashino_wizard 01-16-05, 12:55 PM	Actually, mindless undead, like all mindless beings, are neutral. They do not activley seek to destroy the living unless commanded by their masters. Of course, most of said master will be evil, so the undead in question will probably be commanded to comit evil acts. The actions of a mindless undead are really just extensions of their master's actions.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-16-05, 01:15 PM	Actually, mindless undead, like all mindless beings, are neutral. They do not activley seek to destroy the living unless commanded by their masters. Of course, most of said master will be evil, so the undead in question will probably be commanded to comit evil acts. The actions of a mindless undead are really just extensions of their master's actions. Yes, at least that's how it should work, but for some insane reason the 3.5 designers decided to go against basic game logic and common sense and change zombies and skeletons to "always neutral evil" so that paladins could have more smiting opportunities.
Starmage21 01-16-05, 01:48 PM	In my campaigns casting Animate Dead does dot have the vil descriptor, and anything with the mindless trait is neutral (even the embodiments of evil creatures, like lemures), but have a smite vulnerability trait that makes a smite evil attack work on them.
Viashino_wizard 01-16-05, 02:18 PM	You should really send that in to Wizards. It's much better than neutral evil skeletons.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-16-05, 04:07 PM	Or even simply tell them to stop making arse-hatted and gratuitous violations of basic game concepts and rules just so that the mighty paladins can smite more. They're powerful enough, and you've got turning to take care of mindless undead anyway. >_<
Elthbert 01-16-05, 05:24 PM	It means for rebuking/commanding. Period. If channeling negative energy, IE using it an any way, shape or form, was evil, they would either give all negative energy spells such as chill touch and harm the evil descriptor, or not bother to give the evil descriptor to any spells that use negative energy at all. just because they don't have the evil discripter doesn't mean they're not evil, the discriptors are a method of regulating spell selection evil clerics can't cast " good spells" good Clerics can't cast "evil" spells that is it, it soen't mean that casting spells which channel negative energy is not evil. That doesn't even make sense, its evil to channel negative energy to command undead but not to do anythinig else ? It doesn't say that this is the only time it applys it says " regardless of your alignment, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act." How could it be regardless of you alignment if it wasn't possible for Clerics of differant alignments to do exactly that.
Elthbert 01-16-05, 05:35 PM	Destroying life is not evil in DnD. There are spells and weapons which can and will do nothing but destroy. When's the last time a fireball or acid arrow was used to heal or help somebody? Hm? anytime it is used agianst an evil creature bent on harming the innocent. Destroying life is evil in D&D, that is the reason that good creatures protect the helpless and evilcreatures victimize them and kill them. There are many forces which, in their raw form and many other states, have a harmful effect on life, but can still be controlled put to work for whatever uses one sees fit. Take radiation for example. It is deadly to all living things. It deforms, poisons, and eventually kills any living being exposed to it. Okay that isn't exactly correct, radiation is actually needed for creature s to evolve, if you believe evolutionary theory. Yet by putting it in a controlled reactor, you generate electricity that can serve any number of purposes. No you can't a nuclear reactor generates radiation as an unwanted by product there is no benifit to the radioactive nature of the reaction, it is the heat which is used to boil water and therefore turn turbines which inturn generate electricity, radiation can be used for helpful purposes on a discrete level only by selectively targeting it's destructive potential ( such as radiation teeatment for cancer). It is opnly useful in i's ability to destroy. If you just randomly create a blob of negative energy and poke it, yeah, it'll hurt you, or if you throw it at somebody, they will suffer damage. But, if you channel it into a skeletal corpse of say, an ox, then harness it to a plow, and command it to plow the feilds, it shall do so for you without tire or question. You can of course command the ox to sheild an innocent, or to attack somebody, but that is your choice. That is the same argument that monsters have used forever, the thing about D&D is that Evil is Objective in D&D there is no subjective nature to it at all, Good And Evil Are not realitive in D&D try reading the section on Evil in the BoVD.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-16-05, 09:32 PM	I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have gone on record as saying they do in more than one occassion. Mindless undead are always listed as NE, and will atack living creatures once released from the mind-whip of controll. Not all, or even most, mindless undead are controlled. The ones that aren't may lack the best means needed to stop the positive energy around them from giving them constant pain, but killing those beings and releasing thier souls somewhere else is a start Undead do have negative souls, as well, a replaced soul which uses negative rather than positive energy. Of course, YMMV, depending on your campaign, etc. My view of undead plants them firmly in the "evil" camp, however. Each one of these posts have stepped farther from Core, then farther from crappy official supplements, then farther from third party material, then farther from third party material for different systems. At this point, its cloesr to Ikea desk instructions than it is the the core rule books. Stop stating your houserules as fact.
Viashino_wizard 01-16-05, 11:00 PM	Well, from what I can tell, some house rules are better than the ones wizards came up with.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-16-05, 11:15 PM	Except these lack all logic -- hells, they lack the basic elements of logic, considering: 1) How in the Inferno can a mindless creature crave or want? 2) The creatures in question have no mechanism to drain/eat/damage souls. 3) Nor do they have the capacity to sense such things. I can say that monsterous spiders want nothing more than to cross planar boundaries and steal divine ranks from gods. That doesn't make what I said less stupid since the spiders can neither comphrehend DvR or planar travel and have no ability to steal DvR. To make this flavor work, one would need to bump zombies to INT 4, grant them a soul sense ability and an CHA drain attack.
Norade 01-17-05, 12:15 AM	I generally consider anything mindless to have no alignment, period. Neither I nor any other player in any of my campaigns has ever used a paladin, so the whole smite evil thing has never been an issue. I believe that any intelligent undead can choose any alignment except creatures like morghs, who have to be evil to begin with, and even then, should eventually be able to atone and begin the path to not being evil.
Viashino_wizard 01-17-05, 11:04 AM	Actually, if a mohrge became none-evil, it would fall apart. It's animated by it's own evil. A spawn of kyuss, on the other hand, can't change it's alignment except when neutralize poison is cast on it. That's because the vile spell cast to make it a spawn instead of a normal zombie makes it activly seek living beings to infect.
Luminosity 01-17-05, 11:46 AM	I cannot overstress that mindless undead, in no way, shape, or form, harm souls! It's impossible. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Please quote the entry that affirms your claim. They can be no more evil than a printing press or a remote controlled care or a footstool. Unless those objects can be neutral evil, as skeletons and zombies are in D&D, you are incorrect. The libris mortis... ...isn't core.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-17-05, 12:03 PM	Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Please quote the entry that affirms your claim. That statement by me has been put in Unless those objects can be neutral evil, as skeletons and zombies are in D&D, you are incorrect. Skeletons and zombies SHOULD NOT more accurately, because it goes against basic rules and common sense. They are described as mindless automatons with no will of their own. They have no capacity to think, and with a charisma score of one their personality and will is equal to that of an animated object. They take no initiative, have no thoughts, no will of there own, and therefor lack any capacity for malevolence. Even a lemure has a higher charisma score and evil and lawful subtypes, which gives it some excuse since its actually made out of the damn stuff. ...isn't core. It is however the only source telling us that any undead hunger for life, and how they do it. A non-core WotC focus book is better evidence than saying "everything undead seeks to harm souls because of another thing that I made up!"
Luminosity 01-17-05, 12:16 PM	That statement by me has been put in What? Skeletons and zombies SHOULD NOT more accurately, because it goes against basic rules and common sense.... Your opinion does not change the facts. It is however the only source telling us that any undead hunger for life, and how they do it. A non-core WotC focus book is better evidence than saying "everything undead seeks to harm souls because of another thing that I made up!" I've been waiting a while for you to pull something like that. Do you remember posting this: All rules have the option of being used or not used in your campaign, but the core is the default. The BoVD is specifically a change with harsher and more black and white alignment standards and contradicts core rules in several places. If we bring every DnD book into the argument, then we have lots of contradictions and there is no correct answer. ...? Non-core is in, but only if it helps your argument, eh? Sorry, Charlie, but you seem to want it both ways. Nothing you say is going to change the FACT that skeletons and zombies are evil. It's in the entry. You're free to waste time crying about it, or you could come up with a flavorful reason for their alignment, as so many in this thread have tried to do, only to be whined-at by you.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-17-05, 12:24 PM	anytime it is used agianst an evil creature bent on harming the innocent. Destroying life is evil in D&D, that is the reason that good creatures protect the helpless and evilcreatures victimize them and kill them. So then if negative energy is used against an evil creature bent on harming the innocent it is fine. Okay that isn't exactly correct, radiation is actually needed for creature s to evolve, if you believe evolutionary theory. Mild amounts yes. However in general it has a harmful effect on all living things it is exposed to. Most such mutations are negative ones or deformities that later get weeded out by natural selection. No you can't a nuclear reactor generates radiation as an unwanted by product there is no benifit to the radioactive nature of the reaction, it is the heat which is used to boil water and therefore turn turbines which inturn generate electricity, radiation can be used for helpful purposes on a discrete level only by selectively targeting it's destructive potential ( such as radiation teeatment for cancer). It is opnly useful in i's ability to destroy. Um, yes you can. The radioactive energy creates a chain reaction which produces heat. The radioactive power starts the reaction and much of it is changed to heat in the process. So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor. That is the same argument that monsters have used forever, the thing about D&D is that Evil is Objective in D&D there is no subjective nature to it at all, Good And Evil Are not realitive in D&D try reading the section on Evil in the BoVD.Yes, they are objective, but they also are esdinged to make sense. You don't just arbitrarily make purple flowers evil because you don't like them, or make dwarves evil because their unnatractive, or make all illusion spells evil because their creepy. To the best of my knowledge most monsters haven't been arguing about that, do to their lack of existance. Also, there are good monsters, such as gold dragons and blink dogs.
R.M.G.C.L.F. 01-17-05, 12:29 PM	What? Sorry, typo. Your opinion does not change the facts. Point taken. I've been waiting a while for you to pull something like that. Do you remember posting this: ...? Non-core is in, but only if it helps your argument, eh? Sorry, Charlie, but you seem to want it both ways. Nothing you say is going to change the FACT that skeletons and zombies are evil. It's in the entry. You're free to waste time crying about it, or you could come up with a flavorful reason for their alignment, as so many in this thread have tried to do, only to be whined-at by you. Point taken. I really shouldn't be going on a tangent about skeletons and zombies here. I rescind my previous arguments.
Viashino_wizard 01-17-05, 01:28 PM	Non-core is in, but only if it helps your argument, eh? Sorry, Charlie, but you seem to want it both ways. Nothing you say is going to change the FACT that skeletons and zombies are evil. It's in the entry. You're free to waste time crying about it, or you could come up with a flavorful reason for their alignment, as so many in this thread have tried to do, only to be whined-at by you. Maybe it's because skeletons and zombies a party encounter are probably being commanded to do evil acts. That's still no excuse to imply a mindless undead is capable of independant thinking, which is required to have an alignment other than neutral. By independant thinking, I mean having an intelligence score, even if it's 1.
Viashino_wizard 01-17-05, 01:32 PM	[quote=R.M.G.C.L.F.]So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor.[/qoute] Ha! Burn!
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-17-05, 01:45 PM	1)Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Please quote the entry that affirms your claim. 2) Unless those objects can be neutral evil, as skeletons and zombies are in D&D, you are incorrect. 3) ...isn't core. 1) They don't have a CHA drain ability. Every other creature that has applyable flavor about harming souls does CHA drain as part of that ability. 2) Which misses the point of this thread, which is to argue the point that the change of some creatures to 'evil' in the revision was a dimwitted move because the only reason was because those creatues were undead. 3) Niether is the BoVD, which is the only place people can turn to argue thier feeble points about the 'evil' nature of negative energy. Niether are the vast and convoluted imaginations of some posters who think that because they say zombies seek to harm souls or that thier creation binds the soul of the previous occupant means that its anything more than a poorly thought out houserule.
Elthbert 01-17-05, 05:06 PM	So then if negative energy is used against an evil creature bent on harming the innocent it is fine. No because it's use is evil in and of itself, because it brings more curruption/entropy into the world, In D&D the " you have to break a few eggs to make an omlete) arguement is evil, there is no debate, useing negative energy is evil, because negetive energy is the stuff of unlife? death / corruption etc. Um, yes you can. The radioactive energy creates a chain reaction which produces heat. The radioactive power starts the reaction and much of it is changed to heat in the process. Um, no you can't radiation does not become electricity period, your science is faulty, Radiation does start the reaction but that is the only desireable aspect of radiation in the entire process. So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor. No, because it( the tumor) is endangering a living creature, not to mention it is not a creature, it is simply unhealthy tissue. It there for has no distinct right to exist. Yes, they are objective, but they also are esdinged to make sense. You don't just arbitrarily make purple flowers evil because you don't like them, or make dwarves evil because their unnatractive, or make all illusion spells evil because their creepy.. Nothing arbitrary about it, negative energy is evil because it is destruction, in and of itself. To the best of my knowledge most monsters haven't been arguing about that, do to their lack of existance. Also, there are good monsters, such as gold dragons and blink dogs. Are you really this obtuse or are you just doing it for my benefit, I was refering to Humans who are monsters, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc.
Elthbert 01-17-05, 05:10 PM	quote=R.M.G.C.L.F.]So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor.[/qoute] Ha! Burn! Wow another paragon of intellect which gives D&D such a good name.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-17-05, 05:40 PM	No because it's use is evil in and of itself, because it brings more curruption/entropy into the world, In D&D the " you have to break a few eggs to make an omlete) arguement is evil, there is no debate, useing negative energy is evil, because negetive energy is the stuff of unlife? death / corruption etc. Nothing arbitrary about it, negative energy is evil because it is destruction, in and of itself. You've been reading the BoVD too much.
Melpomene 01-17-05, 06:28 PM	Not to become too much more involved in this flamewar, but, Negative Energy, as it has been stated in this and other threads, is not intriniscally evil. It is just nonthingess and nonbeing. However, those who have desire to do great evil, destroying souls, etc., weild it above the other energies and elements.
Elthbert 01-17-05, 06:38 PM	well we disagree, I am continding that the use of negative energy is in fact always evil.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-17-05, 07:42 PM	It is just nonthingess and nonbeing. Wait, what? No. Its negative energy, the mirror image of positive energy. Its not non-being, its not 'nothing'. And for Elthbert, its not evil. Its basically black fire. Fire kills, fire destroys, but fire isn't spun off of some divine spindle of destruction, its just one of the building blocks of the multiverse, just like the other five elements on the Inner Wheel. There is an evil energy and its called alternatively unholy energy or profane energy. And its not negative energy. I think we need to just ditch the names pos/neg because some people have a severe cognative dissonance when trying to think of something in terms of positive and negative. Its like saying protons are good and electrons are evil. ITs a term that has a wierd dicotomy. Instead, we should refer to them as life and unlife or something like they. except somewhere along the way we also got the stupid idea that life = good (try telling that to the living, breathing great wyrm black dragon who's eating you) Something needs to seriously be done with the disasterous lack of creativity in gaming terminology because some people just don't get it (a certain writer of a certain erroneous supplement that ruined core DnD included).
Elthbert 01-17-05, 07:44 PM	You've been reading the BoVD too much. I don't think so, I think that it's that I've played D&D too long, I can't imagine anyone even arguing this position 20 years ago, I didn't think the BoVD was anything new, it just seemed like a 1st edition treatment of evil, more graphic yes but not harsher. But where that the case I am not one of those whith a " It isn't core complex" since you want to stay with in the core-- in anycore book can you show me anywhere it says that Negative energy isn't evil, can you show many any creature which has a negative energy attack that isn't evil, anyone at all ( do not say characters as we are arguening that very point) I have cited a place where it says channelling negative energy is an evil act, if you are contending it isn't then cite something that says it isn't anywhere in the core books.
Elthbert 01-17-05, 07:49 PM	Its like saying protons are good and electrons are evil. ITs a term that has a wierd dicotomy. Instead, we should refer to them as life and unlife or something like they. except somewhere along the way we also got the stupid idea that life = good (try telling that to the living, breathing great wyrm black dragon who's eating you) Well you see the Idea that life = good is kind of the entire concept of good, in D&D, in philosophy , in religion, pretty much everywhere, that which fosters life is good, that which attacks life is evil--- it is good that a black dragon is alive, what the dragon does with that life is almost universally evil.
Viashino_wizard 01-18-05, 12:02 AM	Wow another paragon of intellect which gives D&D such a good name. Hey, you don't have to insult me because I have a diffrent opinion than you (and for your information, that remark hurt me alot). [quote=Elthbert]So then if negative energy is used against an evil creature bent on harming the innocent it is fine. No because it's use is evil in and of itself, because it brings more curruption/entropy into the world, In D&D the " you have to break a few eggs to make an omlete) arguement is evil, there is no debate, useing negative energy is evil, because negetive energy is the stuff of unlife? death / corruption etc. ----------------------- So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor. No, because it( the tumor) is endangering a living creature, not to mention it is not a creature, it is simply unhealthy tissue. It there for has no distinct right to exist.[/qoute] Those two statements just contradicted each ither.
Rolk Flameraven 01-18-05, 12:39 AM	Undead are evil, in most but not all cases, for the same resion that a Wearwolf is. A wolf though nutral, is seen as evil as such the Wearwolf is evil, that is the only resion that Necromancy spells that bring about makeing undead have the evil type. 'Playing God' is seen as evil and so its an evil spell, but its one of the times that evil can be used to do good. Its the same with any other spells that have an 'Evil' type, they are evil only becuse they are beleaved to be such, or more to the point WERE beleaved. Old tails and the like are a large base for D&D and many of the "evil" things are from them. The book of the dead, BoED, and the mini-FR mon-man all show ways of being a good undead, all are 'non-core' true but it is there. As for just the main three books, almost all are evil, ghosts don't have to be (one of the seven in FR is a ghost) but Vamps and such are. It comes down too the "Always" and the "normaly" and even with the Always there is that one that goes aginst it just to prove the law, a Good vamp and such, good anti-heros if over used.
Elthbert 01-18-05, 11:10 AM	Hey, you don't have to insult me because I have a diffrent opinion than you (and for your information, that remark hurt me alot). [quote=Elthbert]So then if negative energy is used against an evil creature bent on harming the innocent it is fine. No because it's use is evil in and of itself, because it brings more curruption/entropy into the world, In D&D the " you have to break a few eggs to make an omlete) arguement is evil, there is no debate, useing negative energy is evil, because negetive energy is the stuff of unlife? death / corruption etc. ----------------------- So, by your definitions treating cancer would be evil, because it's destroying a living growing tumor. No, because it( the tumor) is endangering a living creature, not to mention it is not a creature, it is simply unhealthy tissue. It there for has no distinct right to exist.[/qoute] Those two statements just contradicted each ither. First if i truely hurt your feelings for that I am sorry, but I don't see" ah, burn" as a particularly constructive statement. Now as for the other 2 statements they don't contradict each other at all, treating cancer does not require the use of negative energy, not in the real world which is what that statement is addressing, nor in D&D. Treating cancer is right because it is removing unhealthy tissue, useing negative energy is not alright because it is increasing the corruption in the world, it is bring in more unlife or better put " antilife" energy, and useing such energy for whatever reason is an evil act, it may or may not be reason to change ones alignment but over a period of time doing evil makes one evil. Agian the treatment of cancer has nothing to do with using negative energy, the use of negative energy to kill cancer would still be evil, but treating cancer in general is not.
Viashino_wizard 01-18-05, 11:47 AM	I just thought the statement was very funny. And they do contradict each other. Radiation is the negative energy of the real world.
Viashino_wizard 01-18-05, 11:49 AM	Has it occured to asyone except me that this thread hasn't really been going anywhere? No matter how long you argue, it won't change most people's opinions.
Elthbert 01-18-05, 06:19 PM	I just thought the statement was very funny. And they do contradict each other. Radiation is the negative energy of the real world. NO they don't and as for the other statement, we disagree.
Arizal 01-18-05, 09:26 PM	I don't think so, I think that it's that I've played D&D too long, I can't imagine anyone even arguing this position 20 years ago, I didn't think the BoVD was anything new, it just seemed like a 1st edition treatment of evil, more graphic yes but not harsher. But where that the case I am not one of those whith a " It isn't core complex" since you want to stay with in the core-- in anycore book can you show me anywhere it says that Negative energy isn't evil, can you show many any creature which has a negative energy attack that isn't evil, anyone at all ( do not say characters as we are arguening that very point) I have cited a place where it says channelling negative energy is an evil act, if you are contending it isn't then cite something that says it isn't anywhere in the core books. I was looking at the Heirophant's Blast Infidel Power which channels negative energy spells to their maximum effect. This power is available for casters of all alignment. So a lawful good cleric can hit chaotic evil enemies for maximum damage with Inflict spells. From this core material, it seems that channeling negative energy is not always evil, and it many cases, it is a good act.
Elthbert 01-18-05, 09:49 PM	No it just means a good cleric can commit an evil act in service of a greater good. It is very utilitarian which is the direction 3rd edition was going and 3.5 has gone even further in that direction. It no where says the channeling of negative energy is okay and certianly doesn't say its good just that when doing it it is at maximum effect agianst members of opposing alignments.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-19-05, 12:34 AM	No where in any real books does it say its evil either. But that didn't stop you...
Elthbert 01-19-05, 12:39 AM	I already posted where it says it is evil. It says directly that channeling negative energy is an evil act. Look in the turning section.
Arizal 01-19-05, 02:29 AM	No it just means a good cleric can commit an evil act in service of a greater good In the D&D universe, that never happens. No good character ever commits and evil act in service of a greater good. And if they did, no good deity would ever grant them a special ability to do so. If a good diety is granting his cleric a negative energy attack to blast his foes with, it is without question a good act to use it. They could have granted any other energy attack and they would have if it meant avoiding committing an evil act in the name of good. Blast Infidel demonstrates how an unaligned energy can be used to serve all the nine alignments. About channelling, what is presented in the turning section is not enough to declare that all negative energy and its uses is evil. "Channelling" is a very specific term. It refers to rebuking undead and also various effects like using certain feats connected to rebuking. It is not related to casting inflict spells. The spells would have evil tags if they were. Good deities offer inflict spells to their clerics and allow their use. None of the core rules say that it is an evil act to cast Harm on a balor.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-19-05, 02:38 AM	I already posted where it says it is evil. It says directly that channeling negative energy is an evil act. Look in the turning section. Channeling negative energy to rebuke undead is an evil act. Fancy that, you left out the part that invalidates your argument. Good thing I caught that for ya.
Goldenbane 01-19-05, 04:04 AM	Here's my opinion, for what it's worth; Vampires: Vampires tend to be pretty selfish creatures. Depending how you run your game, they may be able to get their food source somewhere else...and that might change their outlook on their existance. Most vampires and vampire spawn who are enslaved to another vampire/vampire spawn are more than likely either evil or neutral. Why did the first vampire even create them? More than likely it's for an evil or selfish act. Rarely you may have a willing victim to a good vampire...which will make a "good aligned" vampire slave (a good vamp wouldn't enforce things on it's willing slaves...usually such beings are lovers, family, ect.) If a vampire's creator is killed, he/she has the right to choose their path as they wish. If they were created somehow by spells or such, they also may choose to act as they like. Mummys: As already covered in the Libris Mortis, mummys are probably the most likely the undead to have a different alignment. Some were created as punishment (like the movie version) others were created out of sacred religous ceremonies (like your average Pharo) and some were created to simply guard a tomb or crypt (others). Of course the punished are probably evil, while the rest may be of any alignment. Liches: Actually, unless the lich is a fairly new one...I think there are less evil liches than one might think. The way of becoming a lich is supposedly very evil...not many good creatures will do so, as with anything...there may be an alternitive "good" way of becoming a lich (if Paladins must have Blackguards and Druids must have Blighters, I'm sure the Lich has a good counterpart as well.). IMO, "successful" liches are actually more likely to be neutral or good rather than evil. Think of it...you've lived for like...25,000 years! You're powerful, you fear no one, you can beat ANYONE!! Why be evil? Why hurt people for "fun?" There is no fun anymore...you've been doing that crap for 25,000 years!!! You really just don't care anymore. If someone wants your stupid spell book, let them have it! You've read it and memorized it and copied it a bazillion times already. Such liches would (or should IMO) be very neutral aligned. Or, maybe some goofy mortal comes begging you for aid. They ask for some idiot artifact...you just don't really care! The thing is ancient...it's served it's purpose...who cares! You tell them to go ahead and take the damn thing! Later, they return and thank you...giving you some sort of gift...maybe something AWESOME!! Something you've never seen before! WOW!! That was great...you got rid of some boring hunk of junk, and got something even better in the process! Maybe you'll help out even more the next time someone asks for aid. These liches are probably now good aligned.
Andrew_980 01-19-05, 10:58 AM	to answer the original post it is an irrefutable fact that not all undead are evil! the majority are but it does not always make a pc evil to become undead! this ends the innane arguments about other topics, make a new thread if you want to argue about neg energy
Elthbert 01-19-05, 08:25 PM	Channeling negative energy to rebuke undead is an evil act. Fancy that, you left out the part that invalidates your argument. Good thing I caught that for ya. Funny I don't know what book you are readiing because that isn't what it says, it says Channelling Negative energy is an evil act, doesn't say to rebuke undead, it says channeling, funny how you are adding things thatarn't there, maybe you should get your eyes checked. Fora less fluffy look we can check the SRD:Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.
Meta_FR_DM 01-19-05, 08:57 PM	Yeah, being undead essentially means you're evil, so far as the average commoner or PC is concerned. Sure there are exceptions, as RMGCLF pointed out way back at the beginning. But exceptions are just that: exceptions. And those exceptions are really only important in an out of game context, as your average commoner won't be in a rush to head the sad pleadings of some good aligned lich to, "treat me as a friend, for I am not here to harm you!" Even good aligned PC's would be hard pressed to take such a creature at its word, even if it saved them from some peril. Good aligned priests and Paladins would (and should) find it even more difficult, regardless of whether the undead fail to show up on a Detect Evil attempt. So yeah, for all intents and purposes being undead means your evil, even if you're of a non-evil alignment, no matter what the built in flexibility of the rules says. Dave
Meshakhad 01-19-05, 09:02 PM	The reason undead are evil is this: Good clerics channel positive energy and evil clerics channel negative energy. Negative energy heals undead, and positive energy heals the living. It is that simple. I think we should simply create deathless versions of undead-making spells. Of course, the deceased gets a say. If they want their body left in peace, so be it. We should also create deathless skeletons and zombies and liches. I once wondered, what would be wrong in a good soldier arranging to be animated as an undead when he died of old age so that he could continue to fight for his country? Making deathless versions of the undead would solve a lot of problems. Don't be squeamish, this is the MONSTER forum, there is no better place to do this! I have to go now, so I can't actually make anything.
Arizal 01-19-05, 10:07 PM	Funny I don't know what book you are readiing because that isn't what it says, it says Channelling Negative energy is an evil act, doesn't say to rebuke undead, it says channeling, funny how you are adding things thatarn't there, maybe you should get your eyes checked. Fora less fluffy look we can check the SRD: Quote: Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil. Read the SRD a little more carefully. It can be kind of tricky. Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Channelling negative energy is rebuking undead. They are one and the same. When they say channelling, they mean rebuking. This is not the same as casting an inflict spell. To clarify, some clerics can turn creatures other than undead. For example, Fire clerics can turn water creatures or rebuke fire creatures. You could say that whenever they use this ability, they are channeling fire energy. Yet, this doesn't mean that when someone casts a fireball, they are channeling fire energy. That is a seperate thing.
Elthbert 01-19-05, 10:26 PM	Read the SRD a little more carefully. It can be kind of tricky. Channelling negative energy is rebuking undead. They are one and the same. When they say channelling, they mean rebuking. This is not the same as casting an inflict spell. To clarify, some clerics can turn creatures other than undead. For example, Fire clerics can turn water creatures or rebuke fire creatures. You could say that whenever they use this ability, they are channeling fire energy. Yet, this doesn't mean that when someone casts a fireball, they are channeling fire energy. That is a seperate thing. I don't think I am the one in need of a reading lesson; from the SRD : Heal Conjuration (Healing) Level: Clr 6, Drd 7, Healing 6 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level. Heal does not remove negative levels, restore permanently drained levels, or restore permanently drained ability score points. If used against an undead creature, heal instead acts like harm. Heal Channels positive energy, likewise harm channels negative energy. From the SRD: Inflict Light Wounds Necromancy Level: Clr 1, Destruction 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half Spell Resistance: Yes When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it. You are wrong just admit it and lets move on.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-19-05, 10:34 PM	Except... Inflict... isn't evil. Now is the time for pointing and laughing.
Elthbert 01-19-05, 10:39 PM	Except... Inflict... isn't evil. Now is the time for pointing and laughing. If it channels negative energy it is an evil act regardless of wether or not it is forbidden to good clerics( whichis the purpose of the evil discriptor). As I said before, D&D now allows a Utilitarian point of view and allows good Clerics to commit evil acts for the Greater good. The case is clear: The SRD says out right that channeling negative energy is an evil act, then it says inflict channels negative energy. Can you read?
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-19-05, 10:57 PM	Okay, you're incapable of comprehending the rules as written. I'm going to stop replying to you now, but next time you harass someone with that can you read crap, I'm reporting every single baiting post you've made here.
Elthbert 01-19-05, 11:00 PM	Oh I see so it is harassment to ask if you can read but not to say " now its time for pointing and laughing" Don't start it if you can't handle it. I understand the rules as written fine, you just don't like them, that is okay, just don't say that your view is the diffenitive one.
TheMoose 01-20-05, 01:25 AM	Since only negative energy is evil, using positive energy to animate dead bodies would be perfectly acceptable for a good wizard or cleric to do, even if it is the exact same idea. Plus, since it uses positive energy, animating dead bodies suddenly becomes a good act! According to what Elthbert said, the above is true 100% of the time. Since, afterall, it doesn't matter what you're doing, only what type of energy you use. Edit: Just in case someone says you can't animate undead using posititve energy, it says that it is entirely possible on page seven of Libris Mortis. It is located at the bottom of the left column.
Elthbert 01-20-05, 01:35 AM	Since only negative energy is evil, using positive energy to animate dead bodies would be perfectly acceptable for a good wizard or cleric to do, even if it is the exact same idea. Plus, since it uses positive energy, animating dead bodies suddenly becomes a good act! According to what Elthbert said, the above is true 100% of the time. Since, afterall, it doesn't matter what you're doing, only what type of energy you use. That is not exactly what I said, however as per the rules the actual channeling of the positive energy would be a good act, although one might pervert the act, itin itself would be good. Now this is sometihing I don't quite get, I realize the deathless templete brought it in but it doesn't really make sense to me-- Isn't positive energy "animating " the dead exactly what is happening during ressurection, positive energy is linked to life, if one infuses a thing with positive energy one brings it to life not a mockery of life, Now i do not have BoED so i don't know exactly how the deathless thing is phrased but are they " good undead" or do they simply not die. So TheMoose you sarcasm not withstanding, I would agree that animating dead body's with positive energy isa good act, it is Raising the Dead and restoringthem to life.
TheMoose 01-20-05, 01:44 AM	I am not talking about Ressurection, this is like the Ravid's ability to make anything around it animate (using posititve energy). The objects animated don't have a soul, just like the animated corpses in the scenario put forth in my previous post. The bodies are completely under the control of the caster of the spell and have no free will or the ability to make any type of decision. The bodies are not alive but simply have the ability to move due to positive energy infusing their being. It is basically the average undead with positive instead of negative energy. Edit: The Ravid is on page 213 of the Monster Manual
Arizal 01-20-05, 08:03 AM	As I said before, D&D now allows a Utilitarian point of view and allows good Clerics to commit evil acts for the Greater good. That is the complete opposite of D&D's point of view. Ask anybody, the ends never justify the means. Good clerics won't commit evil acts for the Greater Good. A good diety won't sanction it. And if so, then any spell with an Evil tag would be acceptable. But it's not. D&D isn't utilitarian about good and evil. If a cleric is granted negative energy power from a good god, this means that it was good to begin with. Casting Harm would be considered by the cleric's deity as simple as casting Flame Strike. If there was anything evil about it, those spells would be as forbidden as as the really Evil spells. And those spells can be plenty utilitarian themselves.
Elthbert 01-20-05, 09:15 AM	I am not talking about Ressurection, this is like the Ravid's ability to make anything around it animate (using posititve energy). The objects animated don't have a soul, just like the animated corpses in the scenario put forth in my previous post. The bodies are completely under the control of the caster of the spell and have no free will or the ability to make any type of decision. The bodies are not alive but simply have the ability to move due to positive energy infusing their being. It is basically the average undead with positive instead of negative energy. Edit: The Ravid is on page 213 of the Monster Manual objects where never alive, positive energy heals it restres life, it is "the life force " of creatures tobegin with, take a dead creature add positive energy get living creature.
Elthbert 01-20-05, 09:19 AM	That is the complete opposite of D&D's point of view. Ask anybody, the ends never justify the means. Good clerics won't commit evil acts for the Greater Good. A good diety won't sanction it. And if so, then any spell with an Evil tag would be acceptable. But it's not. D&D isn't utilitarian about good and evil. If a cleric is granted negative energy power from a good god, this means that it was good to begin with. Casting Harm would be considered by the cleric's deity as simple as casting Flame Strike. If there was anything evil about it, those spells would be as forbidden as as the really Evil spells. And those spells can be plenty utilitarian themselves. Obviously it now is, it did not use to be but now it is. Let look atthis from a simple logic point of view, a Syllogism, according to the rules as layed out in the SRD:A- channeling Negative energy is an evil act B -- inflict spells and Harm channel negative energy C-- therefore casting inflict or harm spells is an evil act It is simply taking the rules and applying them in a logical manner rather than arbitrarly which is how most people seem to do.
Gilean 01-20-05, 11:39 AM	A- channeling Negative energy is an evil act B -- inflict spells and Harm channel negative energy C-- therefore casting inflict or harm spells is an evil act You forgot one: D--inflict and harm spells are not evil therefore one of the following are wrong: A, B, C, D Which one is it?
Callahan 01-20-05, 12:40 PM	--
lord_faust6979 01-20-05, 12:54 PM	And I thought this threads purpose was to debate wether or not be undead is evil! I never new it was about spells be evil or not! Seriously this thread has gone way off topic and I'm surprised that the Admin. hasn't locked this thread!
Ogre4Hire 01-20-05, 01:09 PM	And I thought this threads purpose was to debate wether or not be undead is evil! I never new it was about spells be evil or not! Seriously this thread has gone way off topic and I'm surprised that the Admin. hasn't locked this thread! Yeah, I know.
WizO_Sith 01-20-05, 03:36 PM	This thread is too far off topic to be allowed to continue. This thread will be locked. Do Not restart it. *Click*