Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Verelor 07-25-06, 10:15 PM	If you, like me, are one of the people that understands that alignment is as much a quintessential, authentic, valid, useful, hallmark, and fun element of the total Dungeons & Dragons game experience as half-orcs, d20's, beholders, ability scores, scimitar-wielding drow rebels, balor ta'nari, 20-level classes, armor class, and +1 vorpal falchions, then you have a new place to express yourself! To be a member of the Alliance, simply include the exact words "I recognize the alignment system as a valid and useful part of the Dungeons & Dragons game experience" somewhere in your post, and you will be added to the member total. Maybe we will get 100 members. Maybe even more, who knows? Let us just keep it fun. As a side note, this isn't really a discussion topic, as that may quickly turn sentiments sour. There are limitless other places to discuss the validity of the alignment system. You can do it here, but keep it to a minimum if possible.
fefnir 07-25-06, 10:50 PM	im with you. Its in my sig all ready.
a_psh 07-25-06, 11:44 PM	Err, didn't the WizO's come out and say "no 'foundation' threads" a while back? (No, really, that's a question - I don't remember whether they did or not.)
Zheon 07-25-06, 11:52 PM	officially in. sigged. nuff said. ..damn "chaotic was meant to destroy society" idiots.. Edit** oh yeah.. you cant make a Vorpal spiked chain. its piercing, not slashing :tongue:
Verelor 07-26-06, 12:29 AM	officially in. sigged. nuff said. ..damn "chaotic was meant to destroy society" idiots.. Edit** oh yeah.. you cant make a Vorpal spiked chain. its piercing, not slashing :tongue: Dually noted, friend. I changed it to +1 vorpal falchion, which I think you'll agree is just about equally D&D-ish. So that's 3 members already. :)
Zheon 07-26-06, 12:32 AM	Dually noted, friend. I changed it to +1 vorpal halberd, which I think you'll agree is just about equally D&D-ish. So that's 3 members already. :) hahaha.. much agreed. :).. keep em coming! we need members who are not morons! woo! heheh.
Raistlin_05 07-26-06, 12:54 AM	I'll become a member of your club, I'll post the message in my sig also.
Nerf_Samurai 07-26-06, 01:17 AM	I recognize tha alignment system as a valid and usefull part of the Dungeons and Dragons experience.
Verelor 07-26-06, 03:39 PM	Seven members of the Alliance already. Great news. Though you certainly don't have to place it in your signature if you don't want to; just your post. ;)
Mana Elf 07-26-06, 04:37 PM	"I recognize the alignment system as a valid and useful part of the Dungeons & Dragons game experience". Well at least from the days when I still played D&D. Playing your allignment well is what makes a character a character instead of a bunch of hack & slash stats. But I refuse to join your alliance on manners of general principle.
Earthworm Jim 07-26-06, 06:19 PM	I'm sticking with Exalted. No silly alignment system there.
Verelor 07-26-06, 08:55 PM	I'm sticking with Exalted. No silly alignment system there. Exalted is like, inherantly silly. It is like Dragonball Z on a high fantasy acid trip.
WizO_Sith 07-26-06, 09:40 PM	Moved to the guild house. bamf
Sssargoth 07-26-06, 09:59 PM	Err, didn't the WizO's come out and say "no 'foundation' threads" a while back? (No, really, that's a question - I don't remember whether they did or not.) Well, you have been 'Bamf'd' to the one place where that rule doesnt apply. I am one of the 3 GMs here, and I bid you all welcome. I am the Red Dragon tyrant here, and Im sure the others will welcome you in the next few days. Edit** oh yeah.. you cant make a Vorpal spiked chain. its piercing, not slashing :tongue: Thats what the skewring encantment is for. :D
Stormbrand 07-27-06, 03:24 AM	"I recognize the alignment system as a valid and useful part of the Dungeons & Dragons game experience" Hows that? And more importantly, now what?
Earthworm Jim 07-27-06, 01:26 PM	Exalted is like, inherantly silly. It is like Dragonball Z on a high fantasy acid trip. How many flying Solars do you know?
Tenzhi 07-27-06, 11:54 PM	If you, like me, are one of the people that understands that alignment is as much a quintessential, authentic, valid, useful, hallmark, and fun element of the total Dungeons & Dragons game experience I believe the phrase is "sacred cow." The alignment system is intrinsically linked to the "Great Wheel" outer planes set-up, which I enjoy, and thus I also enjoy the alignment system - as long as it's not too strictly enforced. Actually, if it's too strictly enforced inconsistencies and arguments inevitably arise. Best to treat alignments as loose ideas that blur into each other rather than rigid ideas that border each other.
Verelor 07-28-06, 03:21 PM	Ok, 9 members now. The Alliance grows quickly. But I don't think my phrase was a sacred cow, as there is nothing sacred about the alignment system. You join the Alliance because it is in your opinion that alignment is fun and helps the game.
Tenzhi 07-29-06, 12:23 AM	It's as "sacred" as rolling a d20 to hit, levels, Hit Dice, and classes. It's an element of the game that will probably never be removed from the core rules because it is, in fact, a "sacred cow."
necrodude16 07-29-06, 02:43 AM	How many flying Solars do you know? 7... but anyway Welcome to the Guildhouse!
Earthworm Jim 07-30-06, 02:24 AM	7... but anyway Welcome to the Guildhouse! Seriously? I suppose there could be some sort of first age artefact, but I don't know of any charms that do that. I don't think I get to join the guild since I disagree with its founding principle.
Verelor 08-02-06, 07:24 PM	Seriously? I suppose there could be some sort of first age artefact, but I don't know of any charms that do that. I don't think I get to join the guild since I disagree with its founding principle. And exactly how do you disagree with the founding principle (which happens to be that alignment is fun)?
jagggar 08-03-06, 11:41 AM	I thought the thing you had to agree with to join was that it was, "valid and useful". Using alignment as a straight-jacket invalidates it and makes it useless. But alignment isn't supposed to be a staight-jacket. If the themes of your campaign focus on things other than alignment, then you shouldn't strangle the character's with it. If your campaign focuses on alignment, then you should make sure that everyone playing understands what definitions of alignment are used (because not everyone is going to interpert the PHB definitions the same way).
Earthworm Jim 08-04-06, 08:22 AM	It isn't useful. A brief summary of a persons moral system would be better for judging role play quality. A lawful evil character in a society where murder is absolutely forbidden may feel that they shouldn't kill even after leaving, where as a character with the same alignment from a society which as codified rules for extrajudicial slayings would not. For it to be valid there would have to be intrinsic good and evil in the game. I've never liked that sort of thing in fiction, but my knowledge of D&D background isn't good enough to argue that point.
Astron the Wizard 08-04-06, 10:45 AM	It isn't useful. A brief summary of a persons moral system would be better for judging role play quality. A lawful evil character in a society where murder is absolutely forbidden may feel that they shouldn't kill even after leaving, where as a character with the same alignment from a society which as codified rules for extrajudicial slayings would not. For it to be valid there would have to be intrinsic good and evil in the game. I've never liked that sort of thing in fiction, but my knowledge of D&D background isn't good enough to argue that point. Bah! Alignment=excellent alignment+bad GM=thpppt! I recognize the alignment system as vailid and useful (although I do believe that Gms take it too far if they stretch it to a written in stone rule.)
Earthworm Jim 08-04-06, 06:13 PM	Bah! Alignment=excellent alignment+bad GM=thpppt! Care to expand on the first? As for the second; bad GM=thpppt!
Verelor 08-05-06, 08:02 PM	Welcome to the Alliance, Astron! :) Bad GM always equals thpppt (whatever that really means), but bad GM handling alignment is probably even worse. There are few things I like seeing more in the game than alignment handled well.
Earthworm Jim 08-07-06, 06:54 PM	What about the game doesn't work if the GM says "You can define your character's moral system in two words if you want, but as far as I'm concerned it won't affect anything"?
Dnjscott 08-07-06, 11:13 PM	I recognize the alignment system as vailid and useful... it's cartoony at times, but it works.
Verelor 08-08-06, 08:44 PM	What about the game doesn't work if the GM says "You can define your character's moral system in two words if you want, but as far as I'm concerned it won't affect anything"? Absolutely nothing. That works without a hitch. ;)
Tenzhi 08-09-06, 12:56 AM	For it to be valid there would have to be intrinsic good and evil in the game. Not at all - you can just have intrinsic Chaos/Order. Good/Evil didn't exist in the original D&D alignment system, which is the better way to go IMO. Chaos/Order can be more objectively defined, whereas Good/Evil are largely subjective. It isn't useful. A brief summary of a persons moral system would be better for judging role play quality. I disagree fervently. Alignment shouldn't be used to judge roleplaying, nor should we create roleplaying guidelines to have our characters live by. Alignment should be defined by roleplaying, not the other way around. Care to expand on the first? Alignment is good because it allows the mechanic of Smite Evil to exist. Without alignment it would be Smite Whatever Disagrees With Me or Smite What I Don't Like - both a bit overpowered. There are similarly useful mechanics spread across the system that rely on alignment to work properly. Alignment can also allow for a clear moral measuring stick, which is useful for games that don't need moral ambiguity. Conversely, alignment can make moral ambiguities particularly fretful - violent conflict between two factions with opposing ideals is even more poignant when both sides *know* the other is Lawful Good; it's much easier when you can just paint the other guys as Evil.
jagggar 08-09-06, 09:38 AM	Alignment is good because it allows the mechanic of Smite Evil to exist. Without alignment it would be Smite Whatever Disagrees With Me or Smite What I Don't Like - both a bit overpowered. There are similarly useful mechanics spread across the system that rely on alignment to work properly. Alignment can also allow for a clear moral measuring stick, which is useful for games that don't need moral ambiguity. Conversely, alignment can make moral ambiguities particularly fretful - violent conflict between two factions with opposing ideals is even more poignant when both sides *know* the other is Lawful Good; it's much easier when you can just paint the other guys as Evil. :bow: :bow: :bow: Tenzhi (or others), Could you expand on the old school Choas/Order? Western society focuses pirmarly on Good/Evil, so the only Choas/Order I'm remotely familiar with is the worldview crafted by the Romantics. While a lot of the time people say Law/Chaos is easier to define in D&D than Good/Evil, I disagree. I do believe in Good and Evil, so posts complaining about D&D adding a fictional alignment/moral system which noone believes in irk me. I'd like to think facing such a world every day helps me define Good and Evil for the game, but as I said above, Western world doesn't focus on Law/Chaos. I can draw the line between someone claiming to be good while being evil or similar setups, but I sort of see this point at which Law and Chaos meet and intertwine. Of course, part of this probably comes from envisioning 'tainted' Law and Chaos tinged with Good and Evil as necsessary (again, Western focus. . .).
Tenzhi 08-10-06, 12:56 AM	Tenzhi (or others), Could you expand on the old school Choas/Order? Western society focuses pirmarly on Good/Evil, so the only Choas/Order I'm remotely familiar with is the worldview crafted by the Romantics. Read Moorcock's Elric stories. I believe that's where the original game got the alignment inspiration from in the first place. While a lot of the time people say Law/Chaos is easier to define in D&D than Good/Evil, I disagree. Nevertheless, most alignment arguments are about the definitions of Good versus Evil rather than Law versus Chaos. This is because it is easier to understand and accept the latter definitions. I do believe in Good and Evil, so posts complaining about D&D adding a fictional alignment/moral system which noone believes in irk me. I'd like to think facing such a world every day helps me define Good and Evil for the game, but as I said above, Western world doesn't focus on Law/Chaos. And therein lies the problem. It does help you define Good and Evil as such applies to your paradigm. What's Good for you isn't necessarily Good for me, however, as such is largely rooted in culture/environment/upbringing. This is why so many arguments about the definitions of Good/Evil arise. A simple notion such as animating dead becomes a controversial argument about Good/Evil when you have someone brought up believing that the rotting flesh is sacrosanct versus someone who believes that the soul has departed and the discarded shell is refuse. I can draw the line between someone claiming to be good while being evil or similar setups, but I sort of see this point at which Law and Chaos meet and intertwine. Good and Evil also intertwine. Between the absolutes lies a vast area of Neutrality, after all. Incidentally, anyone *really* interested in tracking alignment should find a used copy of the Hackmaster book. One of the semi-useful things in it is the Alignment Wheel and the rules for tracking players' progressions on it.
Earthworm Jim 08-10-06, 03:46 AM	Anyone here familiar with the moral mechanics of Vampire: the Masquerade? Each character has a Humanity/Path stat, and when they violate one of their moral tenants they roll to see whether or not they degenerate. A character with a low humanity would probably count as evil in a selfish, unfeeling kind of way. Characters on a path of enlightenment have a moral system completely at odds with humanity. In such a game it would be possible to have a Smite Evil spell, maybe causing four levels of aggravated damage against anyone with a humanity of 4 or less or any path. Surely if you have an alignment you would have to role play that alignment? If it says lawful good on your character sheet and you go around murdering watchmen something is a bit screwy.
Tenzhi 08-10-06, 05:05 AM	Anyone here familiar with the moral mechanics of Vampire: the Masquerade? I'm familiar with the Humanity system, which starts as a morality system and then moves past morality into animalism. It becomes instinct versus higher brain function. Morality is just a protective veneer for the latter in the higher ratings. (In Cyberpunk it's a similar thing, but instead of becoming animalistic you slowly turn into a cold, unfeeling machine.) Hackmaster's system is similar in tracking function, but better in that it actually tracks morality (not to mention specifically the dual-axis kind measured in D&D). And in that your character doesn't become a slavering inhuman beast/NPC when it turns "evil." In such a game it would be possible to have a Smite Evil spell, maybe causing four levels of aggravated damage against anyone with a humanity of 4 or less or any path. In any case, substituting one alignment system for another doesn't make an argument against alignment - quite the opposite actually. Surely if you have an alignment you would have to role play that alignment? Not at all. Your roleplaying dictates your alignment, not the other way around. A character sheet that says Lawful Good today may say Lawful Neutral tomorrow. Going back to Vampire (many WoD settings shared similar issues), one of the things I always hated was Nature/Demeanor. They forced you to play your character a certain way (that you dictate at character creation before you even necessarily know how the character will play) or else you wouldn't regain Willpower. These traits were set in stone. If it says lawful good on your character sheet and you go around murdering watchmen something is a bit screwy. That depends on the watchmen you're "murdering" - LG characters go around murdering the watchmen of goblins all the time. This goes back to the subjectivity of Good versus Evil.
Earthworm Jim 08-11-06, 06:41 PM	In Vampire moral degeneration is one of the ways your character can cease to be due to the vampire’s bestial nature. That particular aspect probably wouldn't be appropriate for other races. The Path of Humanity is supposed to be a more or less universal guide to levels of moral behaviour. A human who isn't particularly moral could exist quite happily at lower levels with their own personal set of moral rules; a vampire doesn't have that luxury. If you didn't want a character to work a certain way you should have picked a different nature or demeanour or created your own. A good Storyteller should allow you to change after a particularly life changing event. I don't know much about D&D classes. Is Smite Evil a clerical spell or a magical one? If it is a clerical one then it could affect whatever the clerics god regarded as evil, assuming they had such a concept. I suppose that the gods usually regarded as evil wouldn't bother with the concept.
jagggar 08-11-06, 07:55 PM	I don't know much about D&D classes. Is Smite Evil a clerical spell or a magical one? If it is a clerical one then it could affect whatever the clerics god regarded as evil, assuming they had such a concept. I suppose that the gods usually regarded as evil wouldn't bother with the concept. Smite Evil is one of the most notable class features of the Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm). Smite Evil (Su) Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 5th level, and at every five levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: The Paladin, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level.Unearthed Arcana introduced three variant paladins of the other three exteme alignments (Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil). Dragon 310, I believe, introduced Paladin variants of other alignments. There are spells that have effects based on alignment. Some detect creatures of said alignment, some keep the creatures at bay, some deal varying amounts of damage (more damage the further away from your alignment the target's alignment is). The problem with targeting those the cleric's god "deems evil" is that divine casters do not have to worship a god. I'll do some actual thinking later.
Tenzhi 08-11-06, 11:21 PM	In Vampire moral degeneration is one of the ways your character can cease to be due to the vampire’s bestial nature. That particular aspect probably wouldn't be appropriate for other races. So you say, yet it was used for humans as well, complete with being unplayable at the lowest levels. Humans moved less on the scale, as I recall, due to not having to make so many humanity rolls. Of course, I don't know how it works in their newer, more expensive, even more multi-book dependent system. I absolutely detest dice pools, I've found, so I avoid the ST system. If you didn't want a character to work a certain way you should have picked a different nature or demeanour or created your own. I'm never quite sure how my characters are going to act until I play them. Anything I say about their personality before then is purely hypothetical. I don't know much about D&D classes. Is Smite Evil a clerical spell or a magical one? Neither, it is a special class ability largely (but not wholly) associated with Paladins. If it is a clerical one then it could affect whatever the clerics god regarded as evil, assuming they had such a concept. I suppose that the gods usually regarded as evil wouldn't bother with the concept. The evil side has Smite Good and similar abilities. And thus it quickly degenerates (as I said before) into the unbalanced Smite Everything I Don't Like ability without alignment. If the gods decide what is good and evil, there's still alignment it's just more arbitrary. Not that alignment-dependent effects (or Clerics/Paladins for that matter) need be involved with gods in any way.
Earthworm Jim 08-12-06, 03:19 AM	If the evil paladins have smite good and the good paladins have smite evil, how is it not smite people I don't like?
Tenzhi 08-12-06, 04:20 AM	If the evil paladins have smite good and the good paladins have smite evil, how is it not smite people I don't like? Because the Paladins might "not like" the Chaotic Good Barbarian, or even more likely a whole slew of Neutral folk and critters. And the "evil Paladins" almost certainly have a list of evil folk they don't like and would like to smite. I thought that was pretty obvious and brooked no explanation. Surely you don't think all Good folk get along with each other without having wars and the like at any time? Elves and Dwarves (Chaotic Good and Lawful Good by nature, respectively) go at each other all the time. And Evil, by its very nature, turns on itself.
Mid-Boss 08-12-06, 07:40 PM	This has to be the most creativly humours guild title I have ever read. I havent laughed so hard in ages.
Earthworm Jim 08-13-06, 09:53 AM	What counts as good and evil in D&D morality? If I had a character who practised enlightened self interest would they be evil because they were completely self centred or good because in most of their deeds were beneficial to the group? Does Smite People represent an innate magic ability or just the paladin getting their rage on?
jagggar 08-13-06, 11:23 PM	Does Smite People represent an innate magic ability or just the paladin getting their rage on? I'm not sure "innate" would be the word, but it is magical. Innate probably wouldn't be the word because it is possible to fall from being a paladin and lose the ability to smite.
Dyne 08-14-06, 01:37 AM	Does Smite People represent an innate magic ability or just the paladin getting their rage on? It represents divine favor granted by the paladin's deity.
Earthworm Jim 08-14-06, 03:54 AM	It could come from the paladin’s faith in their own moral system; if they break their own moral code they might no longer consider themselves worthy. So do paladins have to serve a particular god?
jagggar 08-14-06, 11:40 AM	No character is required to serve a god by the core rules. Religion: A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity--devotion to righteousndss is enough. Those paladins who do align themselves with particular religions prefer Heironeous (god of valor) over all others, but some paladins follow Pelor (god of the sun). Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religous duties and are welcome in every associated temple. The gods refered to there are part of the Greyhawk pantheon which is sometimes considered the "Core Pantheon" because they included it in the Core Rulebooks. If you do have a god as a divine caster, you have to remain within one step of their alignment or you lose your ability to cast spells (until you atone or switch deities). If you play in the Forgotten Realms, every character must worship a deity. Dying without one means you become part of this wall of the faithless or something. In Eberron, alignments are "looser". You don't have to stay within one step of your deity's alignment to cast spells, and creatures in the monster manual listed as "Always Good" or "Always Evil" aren't always. There is no definitive answer as to whether divine power comes from faith or from the gods or from the powers of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos themselves. It depends on the campaignsetting and on what the DM decides.
jagggar 08-15-06, 12:09 PM	Read Moorcock's Elric stories. I believe that's where the original game got the alignment inspiration from in the first place. Went to the library and checked out Elric: Song of the Black Sword. We'll see how much I can get done (I'm two chapters in so far.) Nevertheless, most alignment arguments are about the definitions of Good versus Evil rather than Law versus Chaos. This is because it is easier to understand and accept the latter definitions. And therein lies the problem. It does help you define Good and Evil as such applies to your paradigm. What's Good for you isn't necessarily Good for me, however, as such is largely rooted in culture/environment/upbringing. This is why so many arguments about the definitions of Good/Evil arise. A simple notion such as animating dead becomes a controversial argument about Good/Evil when you have someone brought up believing that the rotting flesh is sacrosanct versus someone who believes that the soul has departed and the discarded shell is refuse. I almost think I'm disagreeing just to disagree here. I'm sticking with my "Silly Westerners" point. Fights about Good and Evil pop up all the time because you can go to most any person on the street and get an opinion from them on Good and Evil. Ask the same person about Law and Chaos and you're probably going to get an answer that has something to do with the laws of the country and multiple 3-6 year olds full of sugar. Good and Evil also intertwine. Between the absolutes lies a vast area of Neutrality, after all. Incidentally, anyone *really* interested in tracking alignment should find a used copy of the Hackmaster book. One of the semi-useful things in it is the Alignment Wheel and the rules for tracking players' progressions on it. I mean I can see someone cutting out the alignment chart and turning it into the cylinder by joining the Law and Chaos with a thin strip of overly in addition to the patch of neutral in the center. I cannot really see the same thing done with Good and Evil. Checked the used store, but couldn't find it. I'll keep looking whenever I go though. And I'm annoyed right now because I want to go into the "Law vs Chaos covers too much" rant even though I don't think it actually answers the questions at all.
Tenzhi 08-16-06, 12:27 AM	What counts as good and evil in D&D morality? That's a question many debates have covered to no avail. If I had a character who practised enlightened self interest would they be evil because they were completely self centred or good because in most of their deeds were beneficial to the group? Most likely neutral, but it's hard to say with so little information. Does Smite People represent an innate magic ability or just the paladin getting their rage on? It is a supernatural effect that's essentially the Paladin striking Evil with the pure force of Good. I almost think I'm disagreeing just to disagree here. I'm sticking with my "Silly Westerners" point. Fights about Good and Evil pop up all the time because you can go to most any person on the street and get an opinion from them on Good and Evil. Ask the same person about Law and Chaos and you're probably going to get an answer that has something to do with the laws of the country and multiple 3-6 year olds full of sugar. We're not talking about getting freeform opinions, though, we're talking about handing several people the supposed definition and then asking them whether an action is "Good" or "Evil" and getting several different answers. The same doesn't happen nearly as much when the question is Law versus Chaos with those definitions in hand. This is because we can more easily understand and accept the definitions of Law and Chaos.
Astron the Wizard 08-16-06, 05:45 PM	What really gets on my nerves is that you can't be a chaotic monk. What's wrong with that you ask? I'll tell you. A monk is some kind of martial arts master, so the rule's logic is that you need lots of focus and training to become a monk, so you have to be lawful. But if you say that, why don't you say that a fighter has to be lawful because he has to be super disciplined to become a fighter. Picking locks take such a great amount of skill that you can't be a rouge unless you're lawful. What ever's next? Clerics that have to be good? Sorcerors that have to be chaotic? It's absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 12:34 AM	I can see that being a monk would require a measure of internal harmony unachievable by those who are naturally discordant. But that's no reason to bar neutral characters, IMO. Monks should be the counterpart to the Barbarian IMO - only non-chaotic alignments allowed.
Earthworm Jim 08-17-06, 07:32 AM	That's a question many debates have covered to no avail. So does this mean that it isn't stated in any of the source books what counts as good or evil as far as D&D is concerned? Most likely neutral, but it's hard to say with so little information. Then let me rephrase. Is it what a character does that is important, or what their motive is? It is a supernatural effect that's essentially the Paladin striking Evil with the pure force of Good. Or the reverse if they are evil aligned? But if there is no definition of what either good or evil is given in the books and the ability doesn't represent divine power since not all paladins are religious, that only leaves their view of good and evil as being the limiting factor.
jagggar 08-17-06, 10:12 AM	http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Description.rtfGood Vs. Evil Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. 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. Troubles in interpertation tend to occur when faced with the young of evil races.
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 10:14 AM	So does this mean that it isn't stated in any of the source books what counts as good or evil as far as D&D is concerned? It's broadly stated in the books in such a way that no two people can completely agree on specifically what constitutes Evil or Good. A lot of it becomes coloured by personal beliefs about Good and Evil. Of course, it's debatable whether specific definition really helps, either. Palladium does that but I've seen and been a part of some rousing arguments about their alignments as well. Good and Evil are far too subjective to satisfactorily give a universal definition. That's at the root of the problem. Then let me rephrase. Is it what a character does that is important, or what their motive is? This is something else that comes up in alignment debates without satisfactory answer. ;) Is the road to hell paved with good intentions? Is accidental evil really Evil? Or the reverse if they are evil aligned? But if there is no definition of what either good or evil is given in the books and the ability doesn't represent divine power since not all paladins are religious, that only leaves their view of good and evil as being the limiting factor. If there were no alignment *then* it would only leave their views as the limiting factor. Since there *is* alignment, and alignment is part of any given NPC's/Monster's stat block, we know that Smite Good will work on anything that has an Evil alignment (or the Evil subtype - but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax). Which goes back to where this part of the conversation started - alignment is useful because it allows Smite Evil to work without it devolving into Smite Everything I Don't Like.
Tenzhi 08-17-06, 10:15 AM	http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Description.rtfTroubles in interpertation tend to occur when faced with the young of evil races. Among other things - like animating the dead.
Dyne 08-20-06, 02:38 AM	Is accidental evil really Evil? "Ignorance of the law excuses no man" (or anything else that possesses sentient thought). Non-sentient creatures, however, are not considered Evil because they can not understand morality. However, I would still say that zombies/skeletons show up on a Detect Evil spell simply because they are reanimated/empowered by Evil. Which is what the Evil alignment represents. Same thing for unholy items and sites; they may lack sentience, but they still have an Evil aura.
Tenzhi 08-20-06, 03:17 AM	"Ignorance of the law excuses no man" (or anything else that possesses sentient thought). What about "following the law and inadvertently breaking the law because of following it." That's what we're talking about with "accidental evil" here - doing good and causing evil because of it. However, I would still say that zombies/skeletons show up on a Detect Evil spell simply because they are reanimated/empowered by Evil. Negative energy is an elemental force that is no more Good or Evil than Fire.
Dyne 08-20-06, 04:08 AM	What about "following the law and inadvertently breaking the law because of following it." That's what we're talking about with "accidental evil" here - doing good and causing evil because of it. You can't. You might be trying to follow it, but because you're too stupid to fully understand it, you end up breaking it. Hence "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." However, it is impossible to do both Good and Evil; there are always clear-cut divisions between the two, but we are not always wise enough to see it. Negative energy is an elemental force that is no more Good or Evil than Fire. Not talking about the negative energy. Creating an undead creature is inherently evil for several reasons: 1.) You are defaming/dishonoring the creature's body by forcing it to live a "false life" when it is already dead. 2.) You are violating the creature's will. 3.) You are altering the creature, distorting its perception of morals (if it is sentient) and dominating it with homocidal instincts. You will notice that there are many non-Evil spells that provide similar effects to those listed above; Resurrect, for example, could be seen as "forcing it to live a false life"; Dominate Person also violates the creature's will. The difference, however, is the purpose behind the spell: Animate Dead's explicit purpose is to create homocidal maniacs from corpses, that's what it is designed to do. If there was a spell called "Inspire Murder," and it's sole purpose and design was to force someone to go out and butcher people, you know it would have Evil slapped on it. Spells are labeled as "Evil" because the action of casting it is itself an Evil act; Animate Dead definitely falls under this category.
Tenzhi 08-20-06, 04:44 AM	You can't. You might be trying to follow it, but because you're too stupid to fully understand it, you end up breaking it. Hence "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." However, it is impossible to do both Good and Evil; there are always clear-cut divisions between the two, but we are not always wise enough to see it. Unless you are a god who is capable of objectively seeing this mythical clear cut division you speak of, your point is moot. For we are speaking of humans adjudicating Good/Evil in a game. And from that point of view there are times when good leads to evil and nothing short of omniscience could have told the doer of the deed otherwise. Not talking about the negative energy. They are reanimated and empowered by Negative Energy, which you referred to as "Evil." 1.) You are defaming/dishonoring the creature's body by forcing it to live a "false life" when it is already dead. No more than you are defaming the body of a tree when you carve a puppet. Or use animate object on the very same corpse, for that matter. 2.) You are violating the creature's will. No you're not. The creature has departed this plane. It no longer has any will or concern involving its ex-body. 3.) You are altering the creature, distorting its perception of morals (if it is sentient) and dominating it with homocidal instincts. Ah yes, the homicidal instincts that cause it to... stand there quietly without any sentience and thus without any malice until ordered to do something. Animate Dead's explicit purpose is to create homocidal maniacs from corpses, that's what it is designed to do. No, animate dead creates zombies and skeletons, which are neither homicidal nor maniacal. Create Undead is a different story, but no one mentioned it.
Dyne 08-20-06, 05:40 AM	Unless you are a god who is capable of objectively seeing this mythical clear cut division you speak of, your point is moot. For we are speaking of humans adjudicating Good/Evil in a game. And from that point of view there are times when good leads to evil and nothing short of omniscience could have told the doer of the deed otherwise. That is my point exactly: "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." Even if you think what you're doing is right. Even if you don't know better. Even if you are not a god who is capable of objectively seeing this mythical clear cut division I speak of. Regardless of what you know or are capable of understanding, you are responsible for your own actions. Whether or not you realize that what you are doing is Evil is completely irrelevent. They are reanimated and empowered by Negative Energy, which you referred to as "Evil." I did not even mention negative energy. I said: "I would still say that zombies/skeletons show up on a Detect Evil spell simply because they are reanimated/empowered by Evil." Animate Dead just happens to be an Evil spell that utilizes Negative Energy to achieve its ends. Negative Energy =/= Evil. No more than you are defaming the body of a tree when you carve a puppet. Or use animate object on the very same corpse, for that matter. Carving a puppet from a tree is not defaming it; it is very acceptable to use plants and animals as sources of tools and food (I suppose a puppet could be considered a tool for entertainment). Now, if you were trying to carve a person into a puppet, that would be a different matter entirely. No you're not. The creature has departed this plane. It no longer has any will or concern involving its ex-body. A creature is more than merely its spirit. Body and spirit are two parts of a whole, and together they combine and are the creature's soul; its united, whole self. The spirit represents the creature's mental part, while the body is its physical part; without both, the creature is not truly complete. Ah yes, the homicidal instincts that cause it to... stand there quietly without any sentience and thus without any malice until ordered to do something. Ah yes, I forgot that D&D's zombies/skeletons are more like constructs than undead. In my games, all undead are homocidal maniacs; that's part of what being undead is about, and it's why animate dead is an Evil spell. Now, if there was a spell that turned corpses into constructs (AKA turned them into mindless [but not malicious] servants, AKA D&D's animate dead spell as written), I would say it is neutral. No, animate dead creates zombies and skeletons, which are neither homicidal nor maniacal. See above. Create Undead is a different story, but no one mentioned it. Assume I am talking about create undead. Animate dead is a load of rubbish.
Tenzhi 08-20-06, 06:40 AM	That is my point exactly: "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." Even if you think what you're doing is right. Even if you don't know better. Even if you are not a god who is capable of objectively seeing this mythical clear cut division I speak of. Regardless of what you know or are capable of understanding, you are responsible for your own actions. Whether or not you realize that what you are doing is Evil is completely irrelevent. Ah, but at the time, by the rules of the game and those who play it (who are incapable of seeing the future, after all), it was Good. And for the purposes of this discussion that's what matters. Because it is by that which the action shall be adjudicated. And it is why Good/Evil doesn't work very well in the game. I did not even mention negative energy. I said: "I would still say that zombies/skeletons show up on a Detect Evil spell simply because they are reanimated/empowered by Evil." But they are animated by negative energy. Ergo saying they are animated by Evil is saying that Negative Energy is Evil. Evil is not, in fact, an animative force on its own. Now, if you were trying to carve a person into a puppet, that would be a different matter entirely. Cultural bias. The corpse is no longer a person. It is garbage. Salvageable junk. A creature is more than merely its spirit. Body and spirit are two parts of a whole, and together they combine and are the creature's soul; its united, whole self. The spirit represents the creature's mental part, while the body is its physical part; without both, the creature is not truly complete. Only while they're alive. At death the spirit departs this plane. Whether you properly burn the body or reanimate it has no bearing on the soul at that point. Ah yes, I forgot that D&D's zombies/skeletons are more like constructs than undead. In my games, all undead are homocidal maniacs; that's part of what being undead is about, and it's why animate dead is an Evil spell. So then you use Animate Object on the corpse to the same ends as Animate Dead is *supposed* to work. And with the same supposed ethical issues (that are really based in nonsensical cultural biases over the treatment of garbage). Now, if there was a spell that turned corpses into constructs (AKA turned them into mindless [but not malicious] servants, AKA D&D's animate dead spell as written), I would say it is neutral. Animate Object can be used to the same ends. Assume I am talking about create undead. Animate dead is a load of rubbish. I'm more of the mind that Create Undead is a load of rubbish. Much of what it can create are undead that should not, IMO, be createable by spell.
Dyne 08-20-06, 03:38 PM	Ah, but at the time, by the rules of the game and those who play it (who are incapable of seeing the future, after all), it was Good. And for the purposes of this discussion that's what matters. Because it is by that which the action shall be adjudicated. And it is why Good/Evil doesn't work very well in the game. You're saying Good/Evil doesn't work very well in the game because we're all too stupid to tell the difference between the two? Give me an example. Theories are worthless if they do not work in practice. But they are animated by negative energy. Ergo saying they are animated by Evil is saying that Negative Energy is Evil. Evil is not, in fact, an animative force on its own. They are animated by both Negative Energy and Evil. Cultural bias. The corpse is no longer a person. It is garbage. Salvageable junk. No, it's not. The corpse is still just as much a part of the creature as its spirit. Only while they're alive. At death the spirit departs this plane. Whether you properly burn the body or reanimate it has no bearing on the soul at that point. Depends on the setting. In some sources, animating a corpse disturbs its spirit and does not allow it rest until the undead is destroyed. Spectres and Ghosts are literally the spirit of the deceased projecting itself from the Ethereal Plane. Vampires, ghouls, and all the other intelligent undead are the reanimated body and spirit, but they are altered by the magic, corrupted by the Negative Energy. In other sources, all undead are merely Negative Energy "copies" of the original spirit. Spectres and Ghosts are not the actual creature's spirit, but merely a reflection of it. Vampires, mummies, wights, and other intelligent undead are animated with a Negative Energy "spirit" that is an almost duplicate of the original creature, including mostly the same intelligence, personality, and memories. So then you use Animate Object on the corpse to the same ends as Animate Dead is *supposed* to work. And with the same supposed ethical issues (that are really based in nonsensical cultural biases over the treatment of garbage). Fine. Using Animate Object on a corpse is not "Evil". It's distasteful, it's dishonorable, but it's not Evil. A body is not garbage. A creature is not complete without both its body and spirit. In the afterlife, each spirit is restored to a new body by its deity, a new form that represents the virtues it has dedicated to live by. Animate Object can be used to the same ends. Exactly. See above. I'm more of the mind that Create Undead is a load of rubbish. Much of what it can create are undead that should not, IMO, be createable by spell. They're both rubbish. Animate dead for being considered Evil when all it does is create mindless automatons, and create undead for creating undead that should not be created by spell, but rather by the undead's "reproducing".
Earthworm Jim 08-20-06, 04:34 PM	Would animate dead -or whatever the spell is called- still be evil in a culture where there was an accepted legal mechanism for coming to own a corpse and where the reanimation thereof was considered normal? The necromancer would have no reason to think of themselves as evil, would not be regarded as evil by their countrymen, and would not be dehumanised as so more likely to do 'evil'... would they be evil?
Dyne 08-20-06, 04:39 PM	Would animate dead -or whatever the spell is called- still be evil in a culture where there was an accepted legal mechanism for coming to own a corpse and where the reanimation thereof was considered normal? The necromancer would have no reason to think of themselves as evil, would not be regarded as evil by their countrymen, and would not be dehumanised as so more likely to do 'evil'... would they be evil? Animate dead, as written, should not be Evil. Same with zombies and skeletons.
Tenzhi 08-21-06, 01:01 AM	You're saying Good/Evil doesn't work very well in the game because we're all too stupid to tell the difference between the two? Give me an example. Theories are worthless if they do not work in practice. Character stops evil being. Greater evil happens because of it. Or... Character saves someone from evil. That someone goes on to commit evil - which they wouldn't have been able to do if the character hadn't saved them. They are animated by both Negative Energy and Evil. Nope, with the animation it's just negative energy. No, it's not. The corpse is still just as much a part of the creature as its spirit. Not by the rules. By the rules the two are independent of each other after death. You can completely destroy one (Sphere of Annihlation, or certain deific powers can accomplish this with the soul) without affecting the other. The silver thread that once connected them is no more. Even if you don't do anything to the body, time will. Depends on the setting. Core D&D. Because when everything becomes "it ain't that way in *my* game" there can be no meaningful discussion about it. A body is not garbage. A creature is not complete without both its body and spirit. In the afterlife, each spirit is restored to a new body by its deity, a new form that represents the virtues it has dedicated to live by. If they're in a new body, the old one has been discarded like rubbish - or, garbage as it were.
Earthworm Jim 08-21-06, 02:22 AM	Animate dead, as written, should not be Evil. Same with zombies and skeletons. Alright, but is it evil in the core book? Because if we start talking about house rules we're never going to get anywhere.
Dyne 08-21-06, 02:35 AM	Alright, but is it evil in the core book? Because if we start talking about house rules we're never going to get anywhere. Yes, but it doesn't really make sense for it to be. Character stops evil being. Greater evil happens because of it. Or... Character saves someone from evil. That someone goes on to commit evil - which they wouldn't have been able to do if the character hadn't saved them. You are not responsible for someone else's actions. Nope, with the animation it's just negative energy. If it has the "Evil" tag attached to it, it has Evil energy/aura. That's what the "Evil" subtype means. Not by the rules. By the rules the two are independent of each other after death. You can completely destroy one (Sphere of Annihlation, or certain deific powers can accomplish this with the soul) without affecting the other. The silver thread that once connected them is no more. Even if you don't do anything to the body, time will. Same exact thing can be said about the spirit. They are both equally a part of the creature. Core D&D. Because when everything becomes "it ain't that way in *my* game" there can be no meaningful discussion about it. Core D&D sucks. If they're in a new body, the old one has been discarded like rubbish - or, garbage as it were. Not if the "new" body is the old one. :evillaugh Actually, the old one should've been properly buried in an honorable fashion, not "discarded like garbage."
Tenzhi 08-21-06, 03:57 AM	You are not responsible for someone else's actions. Then you're not doing anything Evil by creating undead. You're not responsible for their actions if those undead eat people. And the mere act of creating them doesn't hurt anybody in itself. And if killing that Otyugh releases a plague that destroys the village, it's also not your fault. Ignorance of what would happen becomes your excuse in that case. Plausible deniability. If it has the "Evil" tag attached to it, it has Evil energy/aura. That's what the "Evil" subtype means. That's debatable and in fact has been argued before in numerous threads specifically about animate dead and the evil alignments of skeletons and zombies that were idiotically added between 3.5 and 3rd Ed. Part of the argument usually points out that Create Undead can actually create a Good-aligned creature. Someone then usually dredges up some forgotten Good/neutral aligned god that endorses undead. And then someone comes along and points out that undead are animated by a neutral force (Negative Energy), and thus their creation shouldn't be inherently evil and that it is in fact contradictory to make that act or the undead themselves inherently evil. It is then surmised by examination of the implementation that it wasn't done to make sense, but rather to (basically) allow paladins to Smite skeletons and zombies. Then someone wil try to say that using the corpse to create or animate undead prevents you from raising the person, which I will point out is technically incorrect as the rules say you cannot raise a creature that has been turned into an undead creature. And a corpse is not a creature, ergo turning it into an undead creature is not turning a creature into an undead creature - clearly, only naturally spawned undead qualify as preventing raising. Same exact thing can be said about the spirit. Actually, if you read, I was in fact saying it about both. They are both equally a part of the creature. Until death, at which point they are completely seperate by the book. Core D&D sucks. Nevertheless. Actually, the old one should've been properly buried in an honorable fashion, not "discarded like garbage." Properly buried. Like we do to garbage. Or burned in some cultures - like we do to garbage. Or eaten in yet more cultures, which is what scavengers do to garbage. The "properly buried" thing is a cultural/religious bias that has nothing to do with Good/Evil, by the way. You're proving my point about humans being unable to objectively adjudicate Good/Evil in the game nicely by advocating the notion, however. Of course, this whole conversation itself lends credence to what I was saying about Good/Evil being the main problem.
Dyne 08-21-06, 04:52 AM	Then you're not doing anything Evil by creating undead. You're not responsible for their actions if those undead eat people. And the mere act of creating them doesn't hurt anybody in itself. And if killing that Otyugh releases a plague that destroys the village, it's also not your fault. Ignorance of what would happen becomes your excuse in that case. Plausible deniability.[/QUOTE] Doesn't work that way. I made certain assumptions about your earlier examples, so let me clarify: "Character stops evil being. Greater evil happens because of it. Or... Character saves someone from evil. That someone goes on to commit evil - which they wouldn't have been able to do if the character hadn't saved them." In both these circumstances, you're implying the character is trying to do Good, however through his actions, Evils are allowed to be committed. In this situation, his intentions make all the difference. In the first situation, stopping the Evil being can be either Good or Evil. If you're doing it for the sake of preventing Evil, it is a Good action (despite the Greater Evil stuff that follows). If you're doing it to allow an even Greater Evil, it is an Evil action. Same thing with the second situation. If he saves them in an act of mercy, it is a Good action. If he saves them to allow even more Evil actions to be committed, it is an Evil action. Casting create undead, however, can have no Good intentions attached to it. The only purpose of the spell is to create homocidal beasts that will attack people every chance they get. That's debatable and in fact has been argued before in numerous threads specifically about animate dead and the evil alignments of skeletons and zombies that were idiotically added between 3.5 and 3rd Ed. Part of the argument usually points out that Create Undead can actually create a Good-aligned creature. Someone then usually dredges up some forgotten Good/neutral aligned god that endorses undead. And then someone comes along and points out that undead are animated by a neutral force (Negative Energy), and thus their creation shouldn't be inherently evil and that it is in fact contradictory to make that act or the undead themselves inherently evil. It is then surmised by examination of the implementation that it wasn't done to make sense, but rather to (basically) allow paladins to Smite skeletons and zombies. Then someone wil try to say that using the corpse to create or animate undead prevents you from raising the person, which I will point out is technically incorrect as the rules say you cannot raise a creature that has been turned into an undead creature. And a corpse is not a creature, ergo turning it into an undead creature is not turning a creature into an undead creature - clearly, only naturally spawned undead qualify as preventing raising. I don't recall it being possible to use create undead to make a Good creature. Either that shouldn't be possible, or the spell shouldn't be labeled as Evil. Actually, if you read, I was in fact saying it about both. You were saying the creature's spirit is just as much a worthless bit of garbage as its body? Until death, at which point they are completely seperate by the book. By-the-book, a dead spellcaster can return to life simply by plane shifting back to the material plane. Properly buried. Like we do to garbage. Or burned in some cultures - like we do to garbage. Or eaten in yet more cultures, which is what scavengers do to garbage. The "properly buried" thing is a cultural/religious bias that has nothing to do with Good/Evil, by the way. You're proving my point about humans being unable to objectively adjudicate Good/Evil in the game nicely by advocating the notion, however. Of course, this whole conversation itself lends credence to what I was saying about Good/Evil being the main problem. Your analogy of corpse = garbage can be applied to any living thing or spirit, so I don't see what you're getting at. Are you trying to say that the entire universe and everything in it are nothing better than a pile of garbage? If so, I would almost agree with you.
Tenzhi 08-21-06, 05:10 AM	In both these circumstances, you're implying the character is trying to do Good, however through his actions, Evils are allowed to be committed. In this situation, his intentions make all the difference. So if I *intend* to do good by committing genocide upon the elves, it is a good action. It doesn't work that way. If Good/Evil is to be objective, personal intent can't matter. Casting create undead, however, can have no Good intentions attached to it. The only purpose of the spell is to create homocidal beasts that will attack people every chance they get. Which you can control and unleash on an evil invading army without putting the living soldiers at risk. Any weapon can be wicked and they are all designed to destroy. Creating undead is no more inherently evil than casting fireball or forging a sword. I don't recall it being possible to use create undead to make a Good creature. Either that shouldn't be possible, or the spell shouldn't be labeled as Evil. You can create mummies, which can be good-aligned. You were saying the creature's spirit is just as much a worthless bit of garbage as its body? Not paying attention? "Not by the rules. By the rules the two are independent of each other after death. You can completely destroy one (Sphere of Annihlation, or certain deific powers can accomplish this with the soul) without affecting the other. The silver thread that once connected them is no more. Even if you don't do anything to the body, time will." That's what I said which you quoted and responded to with the 'same can be said about the spirit' comment. Nothing about garbage there, just a statement about the two being independent. By-the-book, a dead spellcaster can return to life simply by plane shifting back to the material plane. It's a long shot and depends on several assumptions, but I can see it as a possibility. Not sure what it's supposed to prove... Your analogy of corpse = garbage can be applied to any living thing or spirit, so I don't see what you're getting at. Are you trying to say that the entire universe and everything in it are nothing better than a pile of garbage? If so, I would almost agree with you. Except that it only becomes garbage when it is no longer living. The living use the non-living as resources (and we sentients raise non-sentient living things specifically to be killed and used as non-living resources as well). There's nothing evil about recycling.
Dyne 08-21-06, 05:41 AM	So if I *intend* to do good by committing genocide upon the elves, it is a good action. It doesn't work that way. If Good/Evil is to be objective, personal intent can't matter. What choice you make does matter. If you commit an act that indirectly leads to Evil, why you committed that act determines what choice you actually made. For example, let's say Joe the Stupid German saves Hitler's life in World War I. This action could be either Good or Evil. If Joe was just trying to save an innocent life, the action is Good (it doesn't matter if Hitler ends up bad later on, the fact is he's innocent now). But, if Joe somehow knows what will happen in the future, and he saves Hitler's life so he can grow up and kill millions of people, it is an Evil act. The difference is between giving a serial killer a knife so he can go kill people, and unwittingly leaving a knife out which the serial killer picks up and uses to kill people. They are both the same action (leaving the knife out on the counter), but they are two different choices. The difference is the intent (why you left the knife out on the counter). Which you can control and unleash on an evil invading army without putting the living soldiers at risk. Any weapon can be wicked and they are all designed to destroy. Creating undead is no more inherently evil than casting fireball or forging a sword. You can also summon demons to do the same thing. Yet doing so would still be Evil. You can create mummies, which can be good-aligned. Another oversight of the designers. Mummies shouldn't be part of Create Undead, they should have their own spell. Not paying attention? "Not by the rules. By the rules the two are independent of each other after death. You can completely destroy one (Sphere of Annihlation, or certain deific powers can accomplish this with the soul) without affecting the other. The silver thread that once connected them is no more. Even if you don't do anything to the body, time will." That's what I said which you quoted and responded to with the 'same can be said about the spirit' comment. Nothing about garbage there, just a statement about the two being independent. Them being independent really has nothing to do with it. The body is still just as much a part of the creature as the spirit is. Both can be destroyed, both are only two parts of the whole. When a creature dies, it is essentially split in half (body and spirit). The fact those two halves are separated does not mean one half is greater or more important than the other. It's a long shot and depends on several assumptions, but I can see it as a possibility. Not sure what it's supposed to prove... That the designers have seriously screwed up in some places. And that what happens after death is not clearly defined, and many assumptions must be made in regards to the RAW. Except that it only becomes garbage when it is no longer living. The living use the non-living as resources (and we sentients raise non-sentient living things specifically to be killed and used as non-living resources as well). There's nothing evil about recycling. Your point is moot. I've already agreed that turning a corpse into a mindless automaton is not an Evil act. Turn a corpse into an Evil homocidal creature is an Evil act.
Tenzhi 08-21-06, 06:39 AM	If the action can potentially be both Good and Evil (i.e. unwittingly saving a person who ends up turning bad), the deciding factor is intent. Doesn't work in-game. Because adjudication is via human, and humans cannot infallibly determine intent. Again, the human factor is the problem I've cited from the beginning. The difference is between giving a serial killer a knife so he can go kill people, and unwittingly leaving a knife out which the serial killer picks up and uses to kill people. They are both the same action (leaving the knife out on the counter), but the difference is the intent (why you left the knife out on the counter). But according to what you said earlier, ignorance of what will happen is not an excuse. If that is so, then the Objective Moral God of the Universe sees only that your action facilitated Evil and you've paved your own road to hell; if it's not so then ignorance is, in fact, an excuse. You can also summon demons to do the same thing. Yet doing so would still be Evil. The act of summoning a demon is not, in fact, inherently Evil. The spells to do so may be of Evil subtype, but that has no bearing on the act of casting them. Some people assume it means the *act* is Evil, but that has been proven wrong time and again in these debates. Indeed, even creatures with the Evil subtype aren't necessarily evil-aligned. Them being independent really has nothing to do with it. The body is still just as much a part of the creature as the spirit is. Both can be destroyed, both are only two parts of the whole. When a creature dies, it is essentially split in half (body and spirit). The fact those two halves are separated does not mean one half is greater or more important than the other. Obviously one "half" *is* greater, because it continues on while the other "half" disintegrates. The spirit is eternally alive, while the body is a temporary vessel, a vessel which is inarguably nothing more than rotting trash once the soul becomes seperated from it. The snake's shed skin is garbage, the discarded coccoon is garbage, and so it is with the mortal shell. Essential while in use, but once finished with nothing more than organic cast-off rubbish. That the designers have seriously screwed up in some places. And that what happens after death is not clearly defined, and many assumptions must be made in regards to the RAW. It's at the proper level to be a spell that can return one to life. I don't deny that there are screw-ups in the system, but this obscure usage of a spell isn't really one of them.
Dyne 08-21-06, 07:00 AM	Doesn't work in-game. Because adjudication is via human, and humans cannot infallibly determine intent. Again, the human factor is the problem I've cited from the beginning. Wait, you're saying people are too stupid to know why they make choices? But according to what you said earlier, ignorance of what will happen is not an excuse. If that is so, then the Objective Moral God of the Universe sees only that your action facilitated Evil and you've paved your own road to hell; if it's not so then ignorance is, in fact, an excuse. Actually, I said: "Ignorance of the law excuses no man." Evil choices are never excuseable. Good choices that indirectly lead to Evil being committed are never Evil choices to begin with; there was no violating of the law. If you choose to save Hitler during WWI, ignorant of what Hitler will become in the future, it is not an Evil choice; you are choosing to save an innocent man. If you save Hitler for the sole purpose of letting him commit the Holocaust, then it is an Evil choice; you are choosing to aid in the murder of millions of people. Same action, different choices (as opposed to same choice, different reasons). Instead, if you go out and kill someone for no reason, it's very cut and dry: you chose to kill someone without cause, which is an Evil choice. "Ignorance of the law excuses no man" applies to making an Evil choice. The examples you are giving are not Evil choices to begin with. The act of summoning a demon is not, in fact, inherently Evil. The spells to do so may be of Evil subtype, but that has no bearing on the act of casting them. Some people assume it means the *act* is Evil, but that has been proven wrong time and again in these debates. Indeed, even creatures with the Evil subtype aren't necessarily evil-aligned. No, I'm pretty sure casting an Evil spell is considered an Evil act, regardless of your reasons for doing so. What do you mean "even creatures with the Evil subtype aren't necessarily evil-aligned"? Is this another one of those errors in the development process? Obviously one "half" *is* greater, because it continues on while the other "half" disintegrates. The spirit is eternally alive, while the body is a temporary vessel, a vessel which is inarguably nothing more than rotting trash once the soul becomes seperated from it. The snake's shed skin is garbage, the discarded coccoon is garbage, and so it is with the mortal shell. Essential while in use, but once finished with nothing more than organic cast-off rubbish. Spirits are not eternally alive. They can be killed just as well as the body can. In that respect, the spirit is just as much a piece of garbage as the body is. It's at the proper level to be a spell that can return one to life. I don't deny that there are screw-ups in the system, but this obscure usage of a spell isn't really one of them. No, I'm pretty sure it's a screw up. You can die, plane shift back to your location, pick up your corpse, die again, do it again, and you're standing in front of two of your own bodies. Basically, when you die, you just shed your skin and teleport across the multi-verse.