Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Morbid 01-18-06, 03:25 AM	I love alignments. I know most people fight against them, but I love them. Some will say "It doesn't make sense. You detect evil, and find the zombie is evil. Well in his mind he is doing the natural thing of feeding." Which I agree. But I see the fact that he IS doing as he is programmed to do. But it is YOUR spell, and if YOU see what he's doing or what his intent is, as being evil, then he's evil. Another problem I have (I'm full of them) are the people who tell me that characters actions dictate what the alignment is. I understand this, but all characters are different, and if you put your alignment as "Chaotic Evil" I want you to act in this manner, because thats how you want your charcter to be. As I've said before, your character sheet says it, thats why you play your character like that. I'll allow people to switch alignments of they so choose, but don't try to do something completely unlike your alignment and try to keep your scat free shine. I've had paladins being lawful good trying to partake in robbing a commoner for fast cash. It's a no-no, and I had to teach him, "You lose your holiness if you do it", but people don't get it. I end my rant now, and hope to not have offended anyone.
DragonLord101 01-18-06, 04:00 AM	I agree with you. In my realm all mindless undead are Neutral... they have been programmed to kill by their creator (generally speaking), and I guess in some respects its some of the creators evil (most are) has rubbed off. But still, they do not understand what they doing, so they shall stay Neutral in my realm. Unless I GM/DMing a Living Greyhawk campaign. With players, a lot of people just don't get how to roleplay I find... warn a pally once if they do something stupid, and then remove their powers when they fall from grace. Don't muck around with them...
Reis 01-18-06, 04:00 AM	to me the idea of alignment in d&d is that good, evil, law, and chaos are real forces that exist as an integral part of the cosmos. A zombie is evil not because of its actions or outlook but because it draws the energy it needs to exist from the negative energy plane, which is an evil act no matter what alignment you are (same for clerics channeling energy) with regard to your example-- its unnaceptable for a lawful good paladin to kill a good or even neutral commoner and take his money for seemingly no good reason. However, in a universe in which a judgement of "evil" alignment is an absolute rather than relative distinction, If a paladin comes across a commoner who has an evil alignment (say he grows ingredients for poison in his fields and is a lay worshiper in a evil cult or something), he can kill this commoner on the spot and take whatever he wants from his corpse without violating the good aspect of his alignment (although in many cases he may very well violate the lawful aspect by doing this, unless its somehow sanctioned by a higher authority figure) the nature of good and evil in the d&d cosmology is that good is not a peaceful, moderating moral view, because unlike in the real world, evil exists in actuality in the form of demons, devils, and the like vs. just the evil that exists in the hearts of men. When such is the case good ceases to be a moderating, peaceful force and takes up arms in righteous defense against evil...this is not a war for hearts and minds but rather a battle in which ultimate victory can only be had when the other side is completely and utterly annihilated. while there is some room for redeeming evil mortals, such is a dangerous business, and doing so seems to be more a personal preference rather than a moral quandary in the d&d cosmology...shoot first and Speak with Dead later is just as good where my good characters are concerned.
DragonLord101 01-18-06, 04:17 AM	A zombie is evil not because of its actions or outlook but because it draws the energy it needs to exist from the negative energy plane, which is an evil act no matter what alignment you are (same for clerics channeling energy) This is the only part of your post I do disagree with. If a sentient creature decides to draw from the negative plane and become undead (Lich), I could understand them being evil... but the zombie (and similar creatures) do not draw from the plane because they want to, but because thats what their creator made them do. They have no choice.
Yak of Darkness 01-18-06, 04:33 AM	to me the idea of alignment in d&d is that good, evil, law, and chaos are real forces that exist as an integral part of the cosmos. A zombie is evil not because of its actions or outlook but because it draws the energy it needs to exist from the negative energy plane, which is an evil act no matter what alignment you are (same for clerics channeling energy) :banghead: Okay, just real quick and I'll have said my peace--you think mindless undead are evil, like that 3.5 change, and work it that way in your games, cool. But don't say it's because of the negative energy, because there is nothing evil about negative energy. It's a neutral energy. Hell, go with what (in my opinion) WotC did with making mindless undead evil, and turning to the "icky and creepy = evil" system of morality, because at least that makes a little bit of pretend sense. Zombies are both icky and creepy, and there is no inner plane of icky and creepy energy that's explicitly neutral in the D&D cosmology. = As for the OP's post, I'm a little confused with your zombie/detect evil example. You say that you rule that the zombie detects as evil, not necessarily because it actually is, but because the caster subjectively sees the zombie's act of feeding as evil? It doesn't seem to jibe with your "love" of the alignment system, which goes in the completely opposite direction. A paladin detecting evil on, say, the local, corrupt, murderous official, will always see him as evil, even if said official was just walking down the street, whistling a happy tune, and donating coins to beggars at the time. D&D deals with alignment as an absolute universal, objective force, which changes neither due to a person's individual beliefs or the context of any given situation. An evil person will detect as evil even to a trusted friend, and even if the caster is detecting when said evil person is currently doing good. They're still evil, in the universal sense. Which also makes me wonder how you handle certain spells/abilities. Does the paladin's Smite Evil work on anyone he sees as doing "evil," even if their absolute alignment would differ (a mindless zombie eating people was given as your example, but would, say, a lion also be detected/smited as evil upon eating a person? . . . lions are, after all, more intelligent than zombies)? Could an evil person who thinks he's doing good cast Holy Word and kill his enemies? If you use the rules and say that he couldn't prepare a [Good] divine spell while being evil, why would he ever use Blasphemy? Since he sees himself as good and his enemies as evil (and with perceptions dictating spell effects), Blasphemy would only harm his allies, and him, too, if he ever tried the Evil Domain/bead of karma trick. = I'm also a little squeamish with the "play your alignment, dammit!" concept, but at least you're open to letting PCs change their alignment. It seems, though, that you're saying that a person of a certain alignment cannot do any acts in opposition to that alignment . . . either without changing alignment, or at all. And while certain classes may be restricted in certain ways (paladins cannot perform a single evil act without losing their powers, for example . . . although there's no such restriction on chaotic acts), it's entirely possible both for a lawful good person to commit a chaotic or evil act, and to do so while remaining neutral. Of course, too many such acts (or few severe acts) may end up changing his alignment, through an established pattern of behavior/though/belief. But, still, I'd find it way too limiting in a game to have to play a character who always has to act in a way that follows his alignment to a T. Celestials, fiends, slaadi, and modrons are paragons of their alignment. Mortals are not nearly intended to be held to the same standards.
Reis 01-18-06, 04:38 AM	ya but consider this: the zombie does not have a soul in the sense that a living character does, instead, its very being is powered by the negative energy plane, by definition, this energy is a evil, corrupting force. Your argument says, "the zombie didn't choose to be evil", which is correct, but misses the point. Since a zombie doesn't have free will, it is naturally inclined to be evil because of its ties to the negative energy plane and cannot choose otherwise. let me quote from the book of exalted deeds in order to make my side of this point seema bit more clear, Good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as "always evil" are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied with evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try to convert them. zombies are evil because by existing, they make a mockery of life and are unavoidably drawn to destroy it, because of the nature of the negative energy plane. According to d&d lore (Bastion of Broken Souls) living souls are birthed on the positive energy plane in a preincarnate state and then birthed into prime material bodies. Thus, the undead are by their very existence aligned against the forces of life(an evil ideal), whether or not they choose to be evil. don't say it's because of the negative energy, because there is nothing evil about negative energy. It's a neutral energy. the negative energy plane does not have an evil-aligned trait. However, respect for life is a good value, and channeling or utilizing negative energy (even just to exist, as a zombie does) on the prime material plane is clearly an evil act because living souls are birthed on the positive energy plane (see bastion of broken souls!). Thus, the channeling of negative energy (particularly creation or existence of undead) is always an evil act or circumstance because negative energy, by it's nature, snuffs out the positive energy that creates life. also the core rules agree on this point...from the player's handbook (3.5), page 160, under "Neutral Clerics and undead": Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil
Silais 01-18-06, 05:54 AM	Well first off... Why in the world did you need to resurect the darn undead=evil issue??? We had almost gotten rid of it! Just kidding, I enjoy these arguments, so. The way I see the undead issue goes like this. -Skeleton's and Zombies are listed as Always Evil -Creatures with an int score of 1, 2 or must be neutral. These two obviously conflict and force you to draw one of two (well mabey three) conclutions: 1. The Monster stat block overrules the rule of thumb about alignments. And skeleton's and undead are always evil. The problem with this interpretation is that it begs the question of "why?" With mindless undead doing absolutly nothing without being instructed too, how can they always be evil. A small fix to this would be to say that they are not evil exactly, but do have the [evil] descriptor. This still begs to be asked why, but not so much. Intelligent undead If mindless undead are alway evil or have the [evil] descriptor, then one must figure out how intelligent undead fit into the mix. Intelligent undead (a lich for example) have the power of choice, and could theoreticaly do good in the world, yet they still have the always evil. So that means one of two things. A. This is false, and while inteligent undead are evil 98% of the time, they are not always evil. The only real flaw with this is that it can get confusing to the players. B. Their is something about the state that is undeath (exception:ghosts) that drives the mortal mind to evil. This is actualy one of my favorites. Although their is little way to enforce this should a player become undead (other then through roleplaying). It adds to the feel of undead as an evil corrupting force in the world. 2. The general rule overrules the stat block The problem of this enterpretation is that it sets the stage for grey zones in the intelligent undead camp (which may not be a problem if that's what your going for). It also prevents much of the parties traditional anti-undead weapons from working on them. So just for the heck of it, I'm going to write the way undead are handled within my setting. Oh, and note THE FOLLOWING IS NOT RAW, NOR DO I POTRAY IT AS SUCH! Undead are a force of evil and coruption second only to the residents of the lower planes. Mindless undead, while not evil, have the [evil] descriptor as they're very essence radiates evil. Intelligent undead are always evil, regardless of what they were in life. This is because the proccess that turns one undead magnifies the evil in ones soul as the evil energies wash through them. A person who has become an intelligent undead still will act much the same way (within the limits and requirements of the new form) as they did in life, the biggest difference will be there means. The most common symptoms of the change in their morality is that they lose total respect for life of any kind. It is imposible to raise an exalted character as an inteligent undead as their just isn't enough evil to magnify and as such the proccess will always fail. Non-evil character whom become intelligent undead and are later resurected often face a moral crisis (especaily if they we're good pre-undeath) as they suddenly find themselves no-longer with magnified evil, but still quite capable of remembering their past mentalities. The reason for all this? It is not because negitive energy the 'life' source of undeath is evil. For negitve energy is no more or less evil then fire energy, it simply reacts poorly with living organisims (much like fire energy). The reason is the force binding the negitive energy to the body is the elemental energy of evil. And willingly bringing evil energy into the world is always an evil act, as it corrupts the caster, and the world around him with the taint of evil. Well, the server is about to close for it's nightly bit, so I'd better post, but I'll continue this later. Damn, I love alignment threads.
Golden Zealot 01-18-06, 10:56 AM	this is too much brain work for me, i just scrap spell alignments, say everything without intelligence is neutral, and everything with intelligence is alligned based on motivations, like frankensteins monster. it wanted to be accepted, but people were afraid and attacked it, and it killed to defend itself, and became known as an evil monster, but it would have been neutral. later, however, it did delibrately kill to cause its creator suffering, so then it would be evil, but in my campaign your actions dont dictate your alignment, your intentions do.
Morbid 01-18-06, 01:16 PM	Thats kinda what I was going for. Your action at the moment might me fine, but your total intent on life is your basis. An Evil character wouldn't be found to be evil by his friends because they would agree with the "Dirty deeds" sort of jobs. Frankenstein is a good example. He's got low intelligence, but he's just trying to be accepted. He's a Good character. The villagers see him as Evil because he's misunderstood, and attack. He sees them as evil because they're attacking him. Anyone on his side would see him as good, and if there was a spell to detect alignment in Franky's world, the world would see him as a good character. Well at least before he started maiming. Also undead are raised for a purpose. Usually an evil purpose. Thus Evil.
jagggar 01-18-06, 01:37 PM	Some will say "It doesn't make sense. You detect evil, and find the zombie is evil. Well in his mind he is doing the natural thing of feeding." Which I agree. But I see the fact that he IS doing as he is programmed to do. But it is YOUR spell, and if YOU see what he's doing or what his intent is, as being evil, then he's evil. So if I were a cannibal, the zombie wouldn't pick up as evil?
YRM 01-18-06, 02:14 PM	Some will say "It doesn't make sense. You detect evil, and find the zombie is evil. Well in his mind he is doing the natural thing of feeding." Which I agree. But I see the fact that he IS doing as he is programmed to do. But it is YOUR spell, and if YOU see what he's doing or what his intent is, as being evil, then he's evil. There are degrees of evil. The shopkeeper who overcharges his poor customers might radiate a faint evil. Most undead, by the nature of existing, are evil. Even if Zombies are handing out Toys-For-Tots, the creation of undead, in D&D, is an evil act against the spirit of that person, and against nature. Evil Races in D&D aren't evil the way people from New Jersey are rude... they're far worse. It's nice that, every so often, an individual orc, drow, or goblin breaks that template, but, the race is such that an orc child, raised by kind and polite halfling parents, might still become homicidal. Of course, I don't condone Paladin's killing troglodyte babies and such, but it's far easier to accept alignment in D&D if you can think in these terms. Don't just think of every race or type as an ugly or pretty human. A baby Mind Flayer, raised by friendly wood nymphs, would likely still be an evil mind flayer and part of a hive mind at some point. They don't even think the way we do. Mindless Undead can always be considered evil automations. Spells that create undead ALWAYS have the "evil" descriptor, but not all necromatic spells are evil. Zombies are evil just for "being", whether they are eating brains, biting necks, or collecting for your favorite charity.
Morbid 01-18-06, 04:15 PM	Remember jagggar, I said it's intent, not actions. If you were from a tribe of cannibals, normal people would find you as evil, but the zombies would be fine with you because you were raised to believe it was fine, and they were the same (well kinda). But if you were some odd serial killer eating people for no other reason than craziness, they'd find you to be evil.
jagggar 01-18-06, 04:33 PM	As someone from a tribe of cannibals, would you allow my character to be a paladin? If no, then why? If yes, would 'normal people' paladins be able to smite my character?
DragonLord101 01-18-06, 04:35 PM	Most undead, by the nature of existing, are evil. Even if Zombies are handing out Toys-For-Tots, the creation of undead, in D&D, is an evil act against the spirit of that person, and against nature. Thats my point, yes, the creation of undead could be classed as an evil act (so the creator might have to be evil as HE or SHE is the one performing the act upon the spirit of the dead person), and yes, it may go against nature, but the zombie doesn't know any better, and unless its creator tells it to go and kill people, it will just stand around doing very little... Mindless Undead can always be considered evil automations. Spells that create undead ALWAYS have the "evil" descriptor, but not all necromatic spells are evil. Zombies are evil just for "being", whether they are eating brains, biting necks, or collecting for your favorite charity. Zombies in the monsterous manual do not say that they live to eat brains etc (unless you want to add that part in), they are automations, as you said... they just do what they are told, and since they know no better, I do not see how they can be classed as evil...
WarColonel 01-18-06, 05:11 PM	I consider all undead evil because the reanimation of a dead would be an affront to nature. Animate dead spells have an evil description because life is supposed to end at death, there is a cycle to it. In western society, at least, and most other belief systems, messing with a beings spirit has always been considered evil. The fact most (if not all) dieties that have anything to do with death, from Nerull to Hades to Hel, have all been catorized as evil. Even Anubis, from Egyptian mythology, is only LN, and has evil clerics. Disturbing the natural order of things is just considered an evil taboo to the 'Gods' of D&D. Of course, the deathless template was created in counterpart to undead to allow good zombies and skeletons. It is just that 'good' is usually concerned with preserving life (that may mean killing evil) while 'evil' is often concerned with subverting it.
Twitchkidd 01-18-06, 05:49 PM	Dnd is a fantasy game, which I think people need to remember. People are too complex to ever be labeled good or evil, even mostly so, in real life. In dnd though, a creature that tries to cause wonton destruction is definately evil, and unless the dm has circumstances in place already, that blaggart who just stole my wallet is definately evil.
Lao, Ninja of the Dragon 01-18-06, 07:41 PM	I consider all undead evil because the reanimation of a dead would be an affront to nature. Animate dead spells have an evil description because life is supposed to end at death, there is a cycle to it. In western society, at least, and most other belief systems, messing with a beings spirit has always been considered evil. The fact most (if not all) dieties that have anything to do with death, from Nerull to Hades to Hel, have all been catorized as evil. Even Anubis, from Egyptian mythology, is only LN, and has evil clerics. Disturbing the natural order of things is just considered an evil taboo to the 'Gods' of D&D. Of course, the deathless template was created in counterpart to undead to allow good zombies and skeletons. It is just that 'good' is usually concerned with preserving life (that may mean killing evil) while 'evil' is often concerned with subverting it. Do you allow good clerics to Raise or Ressurect someone? Because by your point of view that would be "breaking the natural order of things." See?
Treetrip Danglefoot 01-18-06, 07:59 PM	this is too much brain work for me, i just scrap spell alignments, say everything without intelligence is neutral, and everything with intelligence is alligned based on motivations, like frankensteins monster. it wanted to be accepted, but people were afraid and attacked it, and it killed to defend itself, and became known as an evil monster, but it would have been neutral. later, however, it did delibrately kill to cause its creator suffering, so then it would be evil, but in my campaign your actions dont dictate your alignment, your intentions do. Actually, interesting factoid. The Monster never killed anyone in self defence. It killed William as a proxy to hurting Victor, and by extension killed Justine in a unique manner of framing for a murder. It also killed Elizabeth as an act of revenge against Victor for the destruction of the Monter's intended mate. And prior to that Clerval fell to the monster's hands in another attempt to bring pain to Victor. Anytime the monster was set upon by people he made a hastey escape. In the beginning the village he stumbled onto threw stones at him and he fled. At Felix's house during his discovery he fled from the fury of Felix (only to come back after the family vacated and burn the house down.) The hunter that shot the Monster after rescuing the girl from the water, was not set upon by the Monster, rather the Monster fled from him as well. Frankenstein's monster never actually killed anyone except to cause Victor pain. Which makes one question whether or not there is honesty in his verbose attempts to call Victor into doing ihs bidding. He did have a rough time of it, but you have to concider the vast difference between his words and his actions. He consistantly claimed to desire peace and good and kindness. However the only facts we get are the actions we see him do, those towards Victor, all of which are violent and hateful. He does recite to us the story of saving the little girl, and providing for Felix. But at that point you have to question whether or not he is a realiable narrator. I am coming to believe parts of his story were dressed up so as to make himself look better. Where alignment comes in is that I do not think it is a reflection of action but of motivation. For example, bringing a wounded commoner food (good) so that he can gain you entrance into a soon to be victim's house (evil). Springing a trap before the plan was supposed to go off (chaotic) because you recognized a logical flaw in the plan and adjusted it appropriately (lawful). In my games at least Lawfulness has a distinct hard bound logic to it, where as Chaoticism has a spontanious creative intent. Evil results from the aim to cause undue hurt (of any form or fashion), while good results from the aim to maintain or create a benefit. But aside from decietful intent, your actions still define your alignment. But instead of taking simply the action into account, the motive power behind the action must also be noted. Cutting apart an innocent mother (evil) because you have good intelligence that she is the leader of a human-sacrificing cult (good). Turning yourself in for a crime (lawful) because you've always wanted to try and escape from jail (chaotic).
Golgomox 01-18-06, 09:15 PM	I think any being/entity that kills randomly and intentionally, without recourse, or attention to heroes or villians, just because that's its nature, is a force of evil, regardless if it has morals or not. In a way, "mindless undead" are actually MORE evil than an "intelligent undead" because the Lich or Vampire or Ghost justifies what it does, and, in its own mind, is doing what it deems necessary, right, and what it may even consider "good." The robotic drone killer, like a zombie or skeleton, on the other hand, only knows to eat people or slash up any whom it sees, and it is unquestionably evil without conscience or rationale. A brainless killing machine that cannot be reasoned with seems to be more "evil" than the being that can communicate and believes in its purpose.