Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Quirriff 03-17-05, 02:14 AM	One of the only things I liked about the Book of Exhaulted Deeds is the deathless Monster type (Good version of Undead). Problem with that was ther wasn't very many deathless creatures, I was wondering if their was any more?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-05, 02:26 AM	There are more Undead Lite in MM3 and Ebberron.
Quirriff 03-17-05, 05:34 AM	Undead are evil and powered by negative energy. Deathless are good and powered by positive energy. If you don't have the BoED then it's hard for you to answer my question.
Gilean 03-17-05, 10:38 AM	:banghead: That is the only reaction to BoED one should have. They are a fart in serious game desing. Use good undead.
Evil Wizard 03-17-05, 10:44 AM	Actually Vaalingrade did answer your question, he just threw in an editorial with his answer. Undead are just dead things powered by negative energy. That's all. They are not all Evil. Creatures powered by positive energy are alive things, not dead things who are Good. But I hate just about everything from the Book of Exalted Deeds. But if you insist on using them, there's also more deathless to be found in the Eberron campaign setting, though they're somewhat setting specific. Presumably, there will be more deathless in the inevitable Monsters of Eberron as well.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 03-17-05, 12:10 PM	I like the concept of deathless too, though I would have prefered it as a subtype rather than a whole new type (the changes to the undead type really aren't significant). Though I'll note that it is entirely possible to have evil deathless and good undead. Anyway, the only other source of deathless monsters is the ECS, there are none in the MM3.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-05, 02:06 PM	:banghead: That is the only reaction to All 'good' substitutes to neutralgame elements from the BoED one should have. They are a fart in serious game desing. Use good undead. Fixed. As yes, Quirriff, I answered your question, so cut the sass. MM3 reprinted a couple of the Eberron Undead Lite if I recall. Like that elf warrior thing.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 03-17-05, 03:17 PM	MM3 reprinted a couple of the Eberron Undead Lite if I recall. Like that elf warrior thing. Nope, it didn't. You might be thinking of the warforged or shifters, they were the only monsters reprinted from the ECS.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-05, 03:38 PM	My mistake. I've been paging through the ECS a lot lately.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-17-05, 06:25 PM	*gives a soft snarl while picking her teeth with something white-hot and sharp* http://arcanofox.foxpaws.net/shemmymiffed.gif Conceptually speaking, Deathless are idiocy incarnate. Undead aren't some monolithic evil. Sure they're empowered by negative energy, but negative energy is a morally neutral concept. There's no alignment attached to negative energy, nor is there an alignment attached to positive energy. Sure you can do harm by using negative energy to level drain an innocent person, but I can also cause you to incinerate with positive energy. You can heal someone of an injury with positive energy, but I can also disable a person in a drunken rage with a negative energy powered stat draining spell rather than just killing them. By themselves they are morally neutral and it's moronic to suddenly try to make them good or evil, putting all undead as bad and all deathless as good. WTF. Ooooooh, they're exactly like undead, but.... they're all good and sparkly and glowing with most holy positive energy, dur hurr hurr... :rolleyes: Do as you will in your home games, but it's an excercise in stupidity to attach alignment to pos or neg energy by their definition/origin in DnD. They're cyclical, natural, elemental forces. They have their proper place and they can be used and/or abused by anyone with the proper tools. It's like saying that a handgun is the epitome of evil, rather than the fool who used it to kill some innocent person.
ManTimeForgot 03-17-05, 08:38 PM	As I explained in the "why are zombies evil" thread undead are NOT evil because of an association between positive and negative energy. They are evil because they are constructed in a way which is in opposition to the principles of good. They do not consist of evil like a fiend. They do not choose evil (necessarily) like a living being. But that does not preclude the third possibility for alignment: that of symbolic representation. Those of you (excepting Ashland who is aware but detests the system) arguing against undead being evil fail to understand how the alignment system functions. The system functions due to the existence of an association between a set of principles and the forces of morality in the D&D universe. When something is in violation of principle whether it be by composition, action, or by virtue of their existence said thing becomes aligned with the opposing force. Undead violate the principles of good and therefore are evil. Deathless monsters would have to be a special type of creature which is born undying, and not created, because otherwise they are in the same boat as undead. I do not remember if deathless are or not, but suffice to say I never really liked the idea of something which was like a mummy, but not, but sorta, but isn't. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Shemeska the Marauder 03-17-05, 08:43 PM	Undead violate the principles of good and therefore are evil. Then enlighten me oh wise one because I'm certainly not going to trawl through another 4 page thread. Undead don't have to violate any principal of good at all, and a few cases immediately spring to mind in which becoming undead would be not only beneficial, but viewed as a personal sacrifice of the utmost good.
KhanJackalMoreau 03-17-05, 10:46 PM	To toss some water on this, and probably earn a punch in the face. *cough* Undead only exist in D&D. They're whatever the D&D guys say they are. If they say they're powered by bunnies, we either accept it, or go to a "whatever your opinion is, is just as valid as mine" position by denying the managers of the game. The BOED says undead are inherently evil. If you toss it out, what other source is higher or lower than personal bias?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-05, 10:59 PM	Except the BoED was non-core crap of the lowest caliber.
ManTimeForgot 03-17-05, 11:11 PM	Then enlighten me oh wise one because I'm certainly not going to trawl through another 4 page thread. Undead don't have to violate any principal of good at all, and a few cases immediately spring to mind in which becoming undead would be not only beneficial, but viewed as a personal sacrifice of the utmost good. For starters alignment =/ morality. Alignment acts as a guage of how in tune with a force a creature is. Certain moral principles undergird each force, and it is this association that results in alignment. For those beings without a subtype or for whom their very existence is defined by one force or another merely acting in accordance with those principles is enough to achieve alignment other than neutral (which is D&D's default for "normal" creatures). The planar matter composing the hells in D&D can never be anything except evil. The planar matter never did anything evil, but it is nonetheless evil. It is the same way with undead. Another thing that seems to be confusing you. In D&D good and evil are NOT adjectives describing one's morality. They are forces which are a part of the fundamental units of construction in the multiverse (note the outer planes). The alignment section details those principles which are associated with which force. Proof: One of the basic tenets of good is respect for life (alignment section). Creating a creature which is not living by warping and twisting a living being (or formerly living being) shows great disrespect for the value of life (premise). Ergo undead's very existence (with the exception of a ghost that is not created in a manner consistent with the second premise; consequently the ghost does not have an evil alignment) represent the antithesis of one of the basic tenets of good in D&D (conclusion). Conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. It's irrelevant whether or not undead can be used for good. A fiend can be used for good, but that will never change the fact that it will always possess the evil descriptor, and hence radiate evil. Its irrelevant whether or not an undead could do good. Their very existence is evil. An undead capable of moral thought could probably achieve a non-evil alignment (you will note the always X alignment entry in the MM is subject to the condition that some exceptions exist) if it engaged in enough good aligned actions to counter balance the effects its very existence has on its alignment. Even those undead which become good will continue to register under detect evil because they represent a fundamental perversion of life, and thus they are very similar in that respect to fiends with the evil descriptor (the only thing missing from undead is the evil descriptor). Oh and by the way is that going to be "oh wise one" from now on, or was that only a one time deal? :) Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-05, 11:26 PM	For starters alignment =/ morality. Alignment acts as a guage of how in tune with a force a creature is. Please cite in the Core please.
Shemeska the Marauder 03-17-05, 11:49 PM	Oh and by the way is that going to be "oh wise one" from now on, or was that only a one time deal? :) After reading that screed, yeah, most definately a one time deal. Another thing that seems to be confusing you. In D&D good and evil are NOT adjectives describing one's morality. They are forces which are a part of the fundamental units of construction in the multiverse (note the outer planes). The alignment section details those principles which are associated with which force. The planar matter composing the hells in D&D can never be anything except evil. The planar matter never did anything evil, but it is nonetheless evil. It is the same way with undead. You'd think that I'd be aware of that, being one of the writers for Planewalker. *pat pat* Outer Planes: the raw expressions of mortal belief and alignment. Through their belief in life and the raw stuff of good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality that suffuses their souls in death, mortals give rise to the outer planes. Their beliefs give rise to gods, and the raw stuff of their alignments give rise to the fiends, celestials, etc. The Gray Waste isn't an evil place, it's the base expression of EVIL taken form. That's not in dispute. However the negative and positive energy planes are on the fraggin opposite side of the multiverse from them. Negative energy and positive energy are the raw substance of their respective planes. The two energy planes are part of the inner planes. The inner planes are the planes of substance or their archetypal expressions. The positive energy plane is the raw expression of growth, life, creation, etc. It's also as hostile as the core of a burning star if you're exposed to it more than a fraction of a second. Are deathless automatically good somehow because they're powered by this? There's no alignment attached to positive energy, and none should be attached to them either. Similarly the negative energy plane is the raw substance of decay, destruction, and entropy. All things fall apart, collapse and fall into disrepair. It's a natural cycle of birth and death, growth and decay, that falls under the sway of postive and negative energy. The raw stuff of the plane is also a destructive void that obliterates most everything it touches. Undead are simply an unintentional side effect of that touch, an inversion of that 'natural order'. But negative energy isn't evil, it's not one of the outer planes, and therefor undead which are powered by negative energy are no more good or evil than the people they were before they had their natural life snuffed for whatever reason. Proof: One of the basic tenets of good is respect for life (alignment section). Seems reasonable enough. You're confusing life with being good though. What is undeath but just a different form of 'life'. A living being is just powered by positive energy and an undead being is just powered by negative energy. They're both 'alive' in the original sense of the word, just powered by different things. You're making a baseless, subjective value judgement on their nature at the same time that you're trying to prove the value of their nature. It's circular logic. A better way of saying this would be that one of the basic tenets of good is a respect for a being's existence regardless of what it's powered by. By stating it in this more appropriate manner, your argument falls flat on its face since it doesn't have those assumptions built into it. What about a self aware construct that isn't empowered by either positive or negative energy? Since it's not 'alive' in the sense that you're using the word, is it ok for me to go around chopping it in half? Of course not. Creating a creature which is not living by warping and twisting a living being (or formerly living being) shows great disrespect for the value of life (premise). Out of what unlit place did you pull that one from? The method of creation of an undead being doesn't force any alignment upon the created being, just the person who created them. And the way undead are created doesn't have to be a forced, painful, or even evil thing. What about a man who voluntarily becomes undead in order to prolong his life so that he can save the lives of others by protecting them from some evil enemy, or so he can remain to finish researching a cure for a disease. Is he evil for this? Is simply choosing to continue his 'life' in a new, albeit different form, make him and all other undead inherently evil? That's garbage. You're leaping from a very broad premise and trying to paint every case when the logic doesn't support it in all of those cases. Just because using drugs shows callous disrespect for the function of your body and your life in general, someone using the same drugs to relieve pain from radiation therapy for cancer is hardly going to fit the same presumption that all drug users are abusing their body and therefore evil. Same situation here. Ergo undead's very existence (with the exception of a ghost that is not created in a manner consistent with the second premise; consequently the ghost does not have an evil alignment) represent the antithesis of one of the basic tenets of good in D&D (conclusion). BS. That's a massively broad conclusion that isn't supported by anything that you've said. I'm honestly boggled how in the hell you could reach that opinion except by some warped interpretation of the rules that simply escape my sphere of understanding. *following is the sound of mocking fiendish laughter* http://arcanofox.foxpaws.net/shemmysmile.gif
Melpomene 03-18-05, 12:06 AM	::carapace turns white as I offer dissent against the Planeswalker:: ...as I have mentioned in countless other threads, I believe undead are intriniscally evil. I know well that the negative energy which fuels thier souls is not intrisically evil. However, it is the use of the energy in the creation of being which causes the discrepency... Those bourne of negative souls know only the desire to negate life. Thier negative souls feel the pull of life. Thier souls want (as an object up high 'wants' to fall) to snuff out the positive energy which infuses life. Soul against anti-soul. Thus, they "live" with eternally wracked hatred against all that lives. Sentience can counter this primal urge, of course. ::skitters away::
robertliguori 03-18-05, 12:26 AM	::carapace turns white as I offer dissent against the Planeswalker:: ...as I have mentioned in countless other threads, I believe undead are intriniscally evil. I know well that the negative energy which fuels thier souls is not intrisically evil. However, it is the use of the energy in the creation of being which causes the discrepency... Those bourne of negative souls know only the desire to negate life. Thier negative souls feel the pull of life. Thier souls want (as an object up high 'wants' to fall) to snuff out the positive energy which infuses life. Soul against anti-soul. Thus, they "live" with eternally wracked hatred against all that lives. Sentience can counter this primal urge, of course. ::skitters away:: Similarly, a tiger wants to eat, and if halflings are around, it will eat them. This does not make it evil. Creating something that will kill sentients if given half a chance is not evil; animals do it all the time.
green_yawgmoth 03-18-05, 01:16 AM	I like how MTF says that alignment has nothing to do with morality, when the good/evil axis is called the moral alignment axis. I think it's cute. :) One of these days I'm going to make a ranger with favored enemy: deathless and supernatural crit. who goes on a holy war against the deathless. He'll hook up with a good necromancer who sees deathless as an affront to his life's work, a lawful bard, and a warlock with a fey bloodline. And it shall be the party of anti-stereotypes. :plotting: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Melpomene 03-18-05, 08:52 AM	Similarly, a tiger wants to eat, and if halflings are around, it will eat them. This does not make it evil. Creating something that will kill sentients if given half a chance is not evil; animals do it all the time. True enough, but the tiger hungers for flesh. Undead wish to snuff souls. Thier 'desire' is to put out the flame of life, to rip apart the positive threads which bind the creature to the material plane. This is not the hunger of an animal, this is and evil thirst to end all life it can.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-18-05, 03:21 PM	Undead wish to snuff souls. Thier 'desire' is to put out the flame of life, to rip apart the positive threads which bind the creature to the material plane. This is not the hunger of an animal, this is and evil thirst to end all life it can. Stop making crap up!
d_nychus 03-18-05, 03:24 PM	Stop making crap up! Okay, so never post original ideas again. Got it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-18-05, 03:29 PM	Not in a discussion on the Core Rules, no.
Yak of Darkness 03-18-05, 04:05 PM	I do not remember if deathless are or not, but suffice to say I never really liked the idea of something which was like a mummy, but not, but sorta, but isn't. Heh, at least there's a little bit of common ground for us here. Neither side of the "are undead evil?" debate like deathless creatures. ;)
Shemeska the Marauder 03-18-05, 04:34 PM	True enough, but the tiger hungers for flesh. Undead wish to snuff souls. Thier 'desire' is to put out the flame of life, to rip apart the positive threads which bind the creature to the material plane. This is not the hunger of an animal, this is and evil thirst to end all life it can. Original ideas are fine and cool. But it's misleading at the very least to not make it apparent when it's your own ideas that you're talking about, and not something from the actual published material. It'd be just as disingenuous for me to insert, without a disclaimer, original material from the few hundred pages of material I've written on the Yugoloths in my spare time for kicks into a discussion of the canon nature of the fiends of the Gray Waste.
ManTimeForgot 03-18-05, 05:35 PM	Green Yawgmoth: I like how you fail to understand what I was arguing. I never said there wasn't a connection, just that they were not equivalent. Game, Set, Match. Ashland: From the SRD: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment" You will note that alignment is only a representation of one's beliefs and attitudes. Alignment does not equate with morality as it is only a guage of it. You will note that alignment only guages morality in creatures (things without intelligence may still possess alignment). Things without morality still possess alignment, and they do so by possessing some sort of affinity with the principles which good, evil, law, and choas establish as "their own." "While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states" In D&D good and evil are objective states accomplished by way of engaging in behavior associated with the two. This is how alignment acts as a representation of moral behavior. Objects which are associated with the principles of a given force take on an alignment just as a creature does, but do not do so through moral action. They do so by either being composed of stuff saturated with the force in question or by being a representation of one of the ideals associated with said force. Marauder: Honestly don't care what people do in their private lives, as long as it doesn't interfere with how they interact with other people on the boards. If you want to be demeaning and call other people's work monotonous and unncessary, then I suggest you start being more correct. Honestly it does not matter how you explain the formation of the universe as long as the basic precepts of D&D cosmology remain intact. Certainly your theory of how the multiverse functions could be consistent with D&D's notion that Good and Evil exist as constructual forces in the universe, and that as one acts in accordance with what is associated with good one becomes more suffused with the substance of "good." But what you say at the beginning of your argument is absolutely 100% irrelevant. Undead are NOT evil because they are composed of negative energy. I have never once said that here, and I won't because it simply isn't true. I am well aware of the fact that positive and negative energy are unaligned. They are quite simply the stuff of "life" and the stuff of "death." I think you are confused about what I am arguing. I am talking about respecting life. Life is a state in D&D, and undead are not included in that definition. Undead have no consitution score. All living creatures by definition have a Con score. From the SRD: "Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." You will note in the previous sentence from the description of the undeadd subtype that it says undead can be turned back into the LIVING creatures they were before becoming undead. Undead are a warped reflection of life, and that is my whole point. Respecting life in D&D is a good thing. Whether this respect takes the form of respecting your ancestors, taking good care of your neighbor, or refusing to take life as a mantra. But this isn't the sum of what respect for life represents. Life is something more than just a "living creature." It is a state of being. Undead are a warped reflection of that state. Since undead make a mockery of the state that is life, they represent the antihesis of the principle of good that is "respect life." The antithesis of good in D&D is evil, and hence undead are evil. Show me what undead creation act besides a ghost (which you will note is the only undead in the core rules that doesn't have an evil alignment) doesn't involve the warping of someone's essence or body (of course I don't think you can since that is by definition what undeath is about). You create a zombie by animating a corpse. You create a vampire by killing someone and they return as a pale husk of their former self. You create a shadow by draining someone to death and leaving them a shadow. Resurrection isn't evil since it returns people as they are, to a state of living. Undeath returns people as something... else. It's not garbage if you understand how the D&D alignment system functions. Doesn't matter if someone does something evil out of good intent. A paladin who commits murder in order to save the lives of countless thousands still falls. The paladin falls because he still did evil. Undead aren't evil because of what they do; they are evil because of what they represent. And thus a person who becomes undead in order to do good will still have to contend with the fact that undead are in and of themselves evil. If the weight of his alignment towards good outweighs the weight of his alignment toward evil as a result of becoming a symbol of evil, then the person in question should not be evil. But that is entirely a judgement call on the part of the DM, and it seems the D&D designers think that quite a lot of good would be required of the person in order to be non-evil such that it is largely a non-factor (kinda like how the fact that there are non-evil fiends in the universe, but the alignment entry still lists always evil because while some may exist they are a non-factor). Undead are listed as always evil because they (like fiends) are predominantly evil to the point that the exceptions are so far outweighed as to be largely a non-factor. Nope. Your drug example is way off base. Using drugs for recreation shows disrespect for your body. Using them as a means of medicinal treatment does not. Becoming undead is more akin to someone who likes slitting their wrists for fun. Almost no matter which way you spin it that ends up being disrespect for life. Yeah there might be someone out there who manages to do it in a way which doesn't really do injury, and derives sufficient benefit from it to justify the act, but such a person would be so rare as to be largely inconsequential. Same with undead. I think that should clarify my argument to the point that you should be able to address it directly. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Shemeska the Marauder 03-18-05, 06:12 PM	-lots of stuff snipped to save my eyes- Take a deep breath. Good. Now go back and reread everything that I previously wrote. When you've got a better understanding of it let's try this again. You're jumping to conclusions based on some precepts that you happily toss in there, and it's coloring your entire argument. You're spinning around in a circle of logic that's rolling around biting its own tail.
ManTimeForgot 03-18-05, 06:35 PM	Good and evil are constructual forces in D&D (fact). Good and evil are opposed forces in D&D (fact). Good and evil have principles associated with them (fact). Good and evil have opposite principles associated with them (fact). Respect for life is a principle associated with good (fact). Undead are a warped reflection of life (fact). A warped reflection of life is a symbol of disrespect for life (premise) Undead are a symbol of disrespect for life (conclusion) Since disrespect for life is an opposed principle to one of good's principles it makes it an evil principle. Ergo undead are aligned with evil. Your ONLY chance is to argue that undead as a warped reflection of life are not a symbol of disrespect for life. That is it. Now you and I can disagree on that, but the above is a perfectly valid line of reasoning for explaining why undead are evil and why the undead creation spells have the evil descriptor. As it is the game designers appear to agree with me. So I suggest you go back and reread my argument until it makes sense because saying it doesn't betrays a lack of understanding Aristotelian logic. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Shemeska the Marauder 03-18-05, 07:40 PM	Respect for life is a principle associated with good (fact). Undead are a warped reflection of life (fact). A warped reflection of life is a symbol of disrespect for life (premise) Undead are a symbol of disrespect for life (conclusion) Your premise is wrong. And therefore your conclusion, and I've been saying this from the start. You're making the mistake of assuming that life by default is automatically good. As I said before, there's more types of self aware creatures than 'alive' creatures. Constructs and undead are summarily excluded from your definition of what 'life' is. Intelligent constructs and good or neutral undead aren't worthy of respect for their continued existence? HUGE assumption pal. Your argument boils down that because undead are a different form of existence that they're somehow evil by default. I can't see how you even begin to form that premise since the energy that they're given 'life' by is a non aligned, neutral concept in the first place.
ManTimeForgot 03-18-05, 08:28 PM	First you need to understand what my argument is before you can critique it. Obviously you continue to fail to understand what my argument is, so I will continue to try and explain it to you. I am assuming nothing of the sort. That someone is living is not necessarily a good thing. The fact that Asmodeus lives is almost certainly a bad thing, but life is not just about a living creature; it is also a state of being. I am stating (not assuming) that respect for life is automatically good. This is definitional and cannot be contested as it is in the PHB. In D&D good creatures are concerned with the dignity of sentients, thus a good person will concern themselves with how self-aware creatures are being treated. I am not assuming that neutral undead or intelligent constructs are unworthy of dignity. That is NOT what I am saying at all. Obviously in the sense that all sentient beings deserve respect then sentient undead and sentient golems deserve respect. But undead are not evil because of what they do, and the minute you understand what I am trying to say is the minute you will stop trying to argue that I am claiming sentient undead don't deserve respect. Sentient undead deserve respect because they are sentient, but I do not have to respect their form of existence. In fact because their existence is UNlife I am quite literally dictated by the principles of good (respect life) to not respect it. Undead are evil because they make a mockery of life itself. They can do so in two possible ways, and the fact that you are ignoring this (which is the only real premise I am putting forward) speaks volumes of your lack of understanding. Undead are not just something different. They are alien. Druids hate them because they are unnatural. Golems are different; they are objects animated with the spirit of an elemental. Perhaps the creation of a golem is evil by virtue of enslaving an elemental (being unconcerned with the dignity of the elemental), but the process is entirely natural. Elementals can be made to animate objects; this is a part of nature. Nothing natural survives post death from old age; it is only by artificially altering the cycle of life that one achieves undeath. But it isn't just the fact that it is altering the cycle of life; it is also that undeath replaces the very soul of a person. Undead are by definition soulless. There might be intelligence; there might not, but all living beings are beings of positive energy (they possess souls that are positive energy based, even fiends possess such). You don't think replacing the soul with something unnatural makes the creature some kind of mockery of living existence? It is not just that undead are a mockery of the state of life; it's also what undeath does to a person. Undead are pale visages of their former selves. A mockery of their former existence. They take the corpses or essences of living beings and warp them into this something... else. A zombie is not the living being that it once was. It is a magical sham. The zombie is now a twisted representation of its former self. A shadow is quite literally just a shadow of their former self left after a shadow had drained the very last bit of strength from a creature's body. Now if you don't think respect for the dead has any connection to respect for life, then I really don't know what to say. Most philosophers conclude that how a society treats their dead speaks volumes about their respect for life, and I think D&D holds this to be true as well. However, even if you don't accept respect for the body as being relevant to respect for life, I don't know how you can disregard respect for the soul (which D&D assumes exists) as being relevant to respect for life since having a soul is by definition a part of being alive. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-18-05, 11:02 PM	MTF, i've got to agree with your conclusion. up to a point. the "mockery of life" is a important point about undead, but a) i only means that undead creatures made as a mockery of life should be evil, but that doesn't mean that the alignment should be set in stone. something to note- the evil (etc) subtypes don't require the creature to have that alignment (i know most of them do, BUT, it is stated that they don't have to have that alignment for the subtype. creatures with the chaotic subtype would be affected by magic as if they were chaotic, but they could even have the lawful alignment. therefore your argument is right- (most) undead should be inherently evil. because of the evil subtype. only intelligent undead should have an alignment other than true nuetral, and only intelligent undead should have the possiblility of an evil alignment (a zombie might kill things indescrimiently, but is that an active though process of KILL-ALL-SQUISHIES or an inherent set of instructions, like standing orders for sorldiers to shoot-to-kill in a warzone?). oh, and i like deathless. hah, i said it. deathless are a good idea (that was ruined by applying the good-vs-evil not to the whole equation). deathless as a subtype isn't a bad idea. applying alignment according to type is a bad one (though a subtypew is a great one- it act regardless of the creatures base alignment. dang it, neutral zombies with the evil subtype wouldn't even increase thier strength. how many low level characters have DR ?/evil ?!?)
Shemeska the Marauder 03-18-05, 11:06 PM	Undead are evil because they make a mockery of life itself. Your opinion only, and based on what you define as 'life' entirely. Golems are different; they are objects animated with the spirit of an elemental. Perhaps the creation of a golem is evil by virtue of enslaving an elemental (being unconcerned with the dignity of the elemental), but the process is entirely natural. I said construct, not golem. They're not the exact same. All golems are constructs, but not all constructs are golems. Nothing natural survives post death from old age; it is only by artificially altering the cycle of life that one achieves undeath. Morally neutral. Something being 'natural' or not, doesn't imply good or evil. But it isn't just the fact that it is altering the cycle of life; it is also that undeath replaces the very soul of a person. Undead are by definition soulless. Umm... no. You're just factually wrong here. Souls might originate on the positive energy plane, if we're to believe BoLS, but ghosts, specters etc -are- effectively the souls of the dead who linger on in the prime material or other plane by virtue of a tether to the negative energy plane, rather than the positive. It's not being replaced by anything. Similarly, lichs contain their souls in a phylactery and employ the same sort of negative energy tether to their souls. There might be intelligence; there might not, but all living beings are beings of positive energy (they possess souls that are positive energy based, even fiends possess such). You don't think replacing the soul with something unnatural makes the creature some kind of mockery of living existence? Not at all. You're just continually using 'living' when 'existing' is the only term that should garner respect as a property of 'good'. And having trudged through the zombie thread, it's amusing to see how few people are buying your argument there either. Jesus... :twitch:
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-18-05, 11:51 PM	if you care, you can check out the RE: creatures thread i just started. it lists the difference between creatures and "living creatures" as if that mattered when sentience is the issue. and marauder is right. golems are the worst examples of constructs, mindless, just like zombies. for a construct, you should compare the nimblewright (always Chaotic, note it's intellingent) or for that matter the Lemure (always Lawful Evil, mindless. BUT it has both alignment subtypes and is a baatezu, meaning with or without the alignment, it statistically wouldn't change vs any spell to remove those alignments). note- i'd make a bad lawyer. i like argueing both side, even if i've taken one.
Punkyojimbo 03-19-05, 12:21 PM	I dont want to take sides here but im just goint to point out that the undead spells are evil descriptor for the same reason the inflict spells are evil. Even if it is a morally neutral concept, using it seems to be tied to evil.
d_nychus 03-19-05, 01:31 PM	Not in a discussion on the Core Rules, no. Uh, no, this is a discussion on the UNLISTED FLAVOR behind the core rules. There is a difference in discussing how Cleave works in game mechanics, and how Cleave would work with, say, a spear in the game. Frankly, if we are going by the core rules, your side has a lot to make up for. All undead but one single template in the core rules has undead as evil. Every spell in the core that creates undead has the [Evil] descriptor. In fact, I find little evidence that undead are anything BUT evil in the core rules. The only thing that is lacking is a listing of evil in their type description, and only the animal type has an alignment in their type description. This is because animals are ALWAYS neutral, no matter what the case. This cannot be claimed for any other type, or subtype, in the game. Even subtypes based upon specific alignments are not utterly tied to that alignment. Thus, if a (Chaotic, Evil) Demon becomes Lawful Good, he still has the Chaotic and Evil subtype. Negative energy does not matter in the alignment of the undead; it is only used to animate them. Just as positive energy does not matter in the alignment of deathless. Negative and Positive energy have no listed alignment. However, what the game does show is that somehow, using negative energy to prolong life after death is an evil act. Why this is an evil act is not directly specified, but it certainly seems to be the case. Frankly, if we are going by the core RULES, it does not matter why. It happens because the rules say it happens, and that's final. One aside note: while negative and positive energy may not inherently be evil or good, they both clearly have certain applications that make them very useful to evil and good creatures. Turning/rebuking undead springs to mind, and the number of undead and evil creatures who use negative energy, or the number of good creatures who use some direct form of positive energy speak volumes to those effects. This does not imply an alignment on the energies, so much as certain energies seem to be more useful to certain alignments.
green_yawgmoth 03-19-05, 05:13 PM	Green Yawgmoth: I like how you fail to understand what I was arguing. I never said there wasn't a connection, just that they were not equivalent. Game, Set, Match.Because saying game, set, match means you win, and thus I cannot possibly come back from such an amazing rebuttal. :rolleyes: You said that alignment != morality, when the good/evil part of alignment is your moral component, and thus your basic moral setup. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, he shoots he scores, hat trick, home run. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Punkyojimbo 03-19-05, 09:46 PM	[QUOTE=green_yawgmoth]Because saying game, set, match means you win, and thus I cannot possibly come back from such an amazing rebuttal. :rolleyes: You said that alignment != morality, when the good/evil part of alignment is your moral component, and thus your basic moral setup. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, he shoots he scores, hat trick, home run. but that's not a hat trick, you only made one argument, so how couldyou score three goals?
Khalarak Ironclaw 03-21-05, 10:59 AM	I may just be ignorant and someone may already have mentioned this, but a lot of people are pointing out that this is a discussion of the core rules only. The core rules always struck me as incomplete in the first place: its a DM's job to streamline them and make the different components fit into his world. The core books are just the starting point; if you wanna change something, go right ahead, especially if its as simple as removing the [Evil] descriptor from animate dead. *shrug*
Gilean 03-21-05, 12:01 PM	I dont want to take sides here but im just goint to point out that the undead spells are evil descriptor for the same reason the inflict spells are evil. Even if it is a morally neutral concept, using it seems to be tied to evil.Inflict spells aren't evil. Ashland, thanks for correction. I'll edit the post. Wouldn't everyone just move happily to the other thread?
Melpomene 03-21-05, 02:40 PM	I'm sorry... I didn't intend to get broadsided. What I said doesn't *conflict* with RAW, and that is always my intent. If, for example, something such as deathless appears, I try to accomidate it into my understanding of the nature of things, rather than dismiss it out of hand. I suppose I'll head all of my posts "As it Relates to the Nature of the Wheel." ...or just sig it. ...or just go away forever...
Evil Wizard 03-21-05, 03:28 PM	Posted by ManTimeForgot Sentient undead deserve respect because they are sentient, but I do not have to respect their form of existence. In fact because their existence is UNlife I am quite literally dictated by the principles of good (respect life) to not respect it. Except, the precepts of Good actually say that you should respect all beings equally, with no qualifiers. You just said right there that, despite their sentience, you disprespect undead simply because of what they are. In many cases, an undead is in his current state through no fault of his own. If we're going to accept the argument that undead are mockeries of life by their mere existence, you first have to make the case that they're something more than fleshy androids powered by negative energy. How is an undead creature any more of a mockery of life than, say, an awakened tree? Or a chair enchanted by animate object? The spell even says it grants the semblance of life: From the SRD: You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate. And it's for violent purposes, no less! You're making this chair dance around like it was alive. That sounds like quite the mockery of life by your own standards. Yet, this is a neutral spell.