Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Blackskullgreymon 03-03-07, 04:17 PM	The kind of guy I want is a character that is good and neutral in alignment, but a necromancer. Or rather someone who specializes in death-based spells. My question is this: how does good and death mix? I mean, in my mind, it makes plenty sense, but when I put it into words, it sounds stupid. It's like, he would use his powers to fight evil beings and monsters the way a paladin would with a sword. What's the difference? I simply refuses to use his powers willy-nilly, you see? Have any of you seen or heard of such a being, or is this too out there? P.S.: I know nothing is too out there in DnD, but you know what I mean. In my game, we are sticking pretty close to realism, but are willing to stretch reality a little further than average.
hunterc311 03-03-07, 04:24 PM	You're thinking of what I commonly call the "white necromancer" (as compared to the standard "black necromancer"). It's perfectly viable and it's nice to see that someone else is trying to stamp out the negative stigma that necromancy often has attached to it. People tend to see necromancy as a black art that only the sketchy and skeevy types practice. IMO it's just another school of magic that anyone can put to use, good or evil. The way a paladin pursues evil is a good comparison for the way you intend to play your white necromancer. In standard FR settings, Kelemvor (the god of the dead) is Lawful Neutral, meaning that there is no strict interpretation of death as it pertains to good or evil. There's no reason you should limit necromancy to evil.
Cryofdragon 03-03-07, 04:32 PM	Ya, it wouldn't be too hard to make an exception. For example, see the Malinvoker, in Complete Scoundrel. It wouldn't be too hard to adapt some of the concepts of that class to a good aligned necromancer. I don't know if you'd want to go this way, but I've done it with insanity. Basically his concepts of good and evil were a little messed up (as far as necromancy), as he was locked in a tomb for 50 years. Basically he went around doing good acts, but using purely evil spells, because he thought they were good.
Karish 03-03-07, 05:17 PM	A good necromancer is easy. Death is not good or evil, it happens to everyone and is a neccesary part of living. Even the undead die, they just come back as new entities or revived souls in dead bodies. Basically, you could go one of three ways: 1. Undead Rights Activist These necromancers would be the PETA of the undead. They feel undead are just like people, and should be treated as such. That they are the "children" of necromancers, born and raised in their service, and should be given the same respect as a living person. These necromancers will fight undead the same way as any other combatant, but will react to them the same aswell. For many, ten ghouls walking into town would be an "Oh crap roll initiave" point. For these guys, they would just wave and then react if they were evil. 2. The Deanimator These necromancers are undead hunters, or more particularly, evil undead hunters. They use good-aligned and mindless dead to their advantage, and fight alongside them as companions and comerades instead of minions and tools. Those with sentience are given free will, and those who wish to accompany their creators fight alongside them. The Necromancer learns to use necromancy to aid their own dead, but also learns to fight the undead using other kinds of magic. 3. The White Lich This category of necromancer is exactly like the neutral or evil necromancer, who uses the undead as a tool, creates unintelligent undead, and uses sentient undead as followers. However, good ones would give their sentient dead a choice to leave or live as they would, and would not dominate them except to help them.
FrostWolf 03-03-07, 05:48 PM	Good uses for the undead -Things like searching disaster areas become safer if you use the undead. less chance of adding more casualties. -Mining is less hazardous, as gases won't effect them and a cave in is then just a realy deep grave -Sewer matanance. They won't mind the smell -Prison guards. Who's going to try to get past guards that don't eat, sleep, or take breaks. -Bucket brigades that can march into the heart of the inferno and drag out the survivors without care of their own safety. -Ghosts being used to find lost travelers and examine buildings for structureal integrity. -The poor being able to sell their bodies when they pass on. Makes a good chunk of cash to help the family get by, and THEN help out your comunity. -Most all physical labor. If it can swing an axe, it can swing a rake/hoe/shovel. I'm looking at YOU skeletons! -Used as a militia. If you can't stop the enemy, then this is the best way to preseve human lives, by throwning the dead in the way. -ghosts being able to testify against their killer, and in most cases, lead the guard righ tto them. -Well preserved undead working in hospitals wouldn't spread illnesses between patients. Basicly, there are tons of good uses for the undead. And it could lead to some wicked good plot hooks too.
RuckusFox 03-03-07, 07:11 PM	Ever since "Eberron" came along, you can pretty much make any character you want of any alignment you want. Evil monks, etc. etc. Though some of the things still persist. If you do something against your order, you could become an ex-Paladin, whatever, something like that. And clearly you can't go against your god if you're a Cleric. =3
Ty 03-03-07, 08:30 PM	Necromancy also includes a lot of "fatigue" or "exhaustion" spells. If your not into the whole "drain the life of my enemies thing" you could use these in a pacifist type of "attack."
drunkendrake 03-03-07, 09:09 PM	I also disagree with the alignment of Skeletons, Zombies etc. being Neutral Evil. They're mindless, right? Therefore, they should be Neutral, just like Constructs, Oozes, etc. They don't even need to be Evil for Detect Evil (I think, don't have the spell infront of me), because Undead show up on Detect spells according to just being undead, not alignment (Although Detect Neutrality would be one awesome spell). I'm currently running a campaign involving a community/civilization in which undead and living live in harmony, which I have a feeling will really confuse the PCs when they reach that area, :). Why can Vampires only be Evil, and Ghosts can be of any alignment? Neither of them need any 'unspeakably evil' rituals like the Lich. Just a few thoughts, -Drake-
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 09:17 PM	I'm with drunkendrake. Nothing about Undead suggests that they have an inherent alignment. I advise you to ask your DM to houserule the alignment descriptor off the spell Animate Dead (it wouldn't have much of an effect, either), since it only channels Negative Energy into a corpse. Pretty much the same goes for Create Undead and the greater version thereof. Undead can be lots of help, but be careful not to abuse your power over Intelligent ones, as that could eventually lead to an alignment shift.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 09:18 PM	Evil monks, etc. etc. Since when was that not possible, or even plausible? An Evil Monk doesn't sound outlandish to me at all.
Kradlo 03-03-07, 09:42 PM	I don't understand the problem here. All necromancers are good and pure of heart, and have only the best of motives. And after all, all Drow are dual scimitar wielders that just want to be liked and accepted in society. :tongue:
tombowings 03-04-07, 01:01 AM	Ive seen it done. He used his anti-undead spells to fight undead. he was something of a expert...Like the ranger but wizardlike
tombowings 03-04-07, 01:02 AM	Also, you could be a crazy doctor that does experiments with undead...(neutral)
FrostWolf 03-04-07, 01:12 AM	I also disagree with the alignment of Skeletons, Zombies etc. being Neutral Evil. They're mindless, right? Therefore, they should be Neutral, just like Constructs, Oozes, etc. They don't even need to be Evil for Detect Evil (I think, don't have the spell infront of me), because Undead show up on Detect spells according to just being undead, not alignment (Although Detect Neutrality would be one awesome spell). I'm currently running a campaign involving a community/civilization in which undead and living live in harmony, which I have a feeling will really confuse the PCs when they reach that area, :). Why can Vampires only be Evil, and Ghosts can be of any alignment? Neither of them need any 'unspeakably evil' rituals like the Lich. Just a few thoughts, -Drake- I can see it now! A vampire town doctor, who offers to turn termanily ill people untill a cleric can get to the town.
tombowings 03-04-07, 01:14 AM	I can see it now! A vampire town doctor, who offers to turn termanily ill people untill a cleric can get to the town. HAHAHAHA...I love it
FrostWolf 03-04-07, 01:19 AM	maybe make rules for temerarily turning someone to help them overcome the same illness or a wound. Hmm... Throw lycanthropes into the mix. A werewolf could find lost people rather quickly in a forest and be able to administer first aid, or find disaster survivors or drugs being smuggled on a ship quite well. (Think Terry Pratchet)
Leo 03-04-07, 11:20 AM	Yeah, it's just coincidence that most undeads burn when exposed to light, wich in D&D is a good thing(Pelor):rolleyes: . Hmm, okay, something's wrong here. Why does Pelor, the ultimate god of good, burns the poor undead if they are not evil? Oh, wait, they are evil. Corpses are not tools. How would you feel if, when your father/best friend/son/wife died, and then the local necromancer come by, turned it into a twisted version of his former self, and then send it to do heavy/dangreous work? And what is animating the corpse? Oh, yes NEGATIVE ENERGY. How come negative energy can be evil? After all, it is used to destroy and...And...And...Killing stuff? Yeah, really good. And who wields evil energy? Oh yeah, evil clerics. And who can control undeads? Oh, yes evil clerics. And you can't use the death is neutral argument. Because zombies and skeletons are not dead. They are undead. They are an insult to all rules of live and death, completely unnatural. When something dies it is suposed to stay dead and return to nature, not get up and start doing stuff. Necromancers break the natural cycle of death and life for their own power. And zombies think. Even if they don't have an int score, they are able to thnk. Like a vermin can learn tricks and acts by himself even tough he hasn't got int score, a zombie can think by itself if left alone. And it's toughts aren't really to help other people. They are more to kill everything that moves.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-04-07, 11:57 AM	Yeah, it's just coincidence that most undeads burn when exposed to light, wich in D&D is a good thing(Pelor):rolleyes: . Pelor may be Neutral Good, but there is also a goddess of waves that is Chaotic Evil. In short, Pelor doesn't determine the alignment of the sun. Hmm, okay, something's wrong here. Why does Pelor, the ultimate god of good, burns the poor undead if they are not evil? Oh, wait, they are evil. Morality is about choice. A Wight, for example, can just ignore its impulses and not drain people for no reason. A Vampire can do the same. Corpses are not tools. How would you feel if, when your father/best friend/son/wife died, and then the local necromancer come by, turned it into a twisted version of his former self, and then send it to do heavy/dangreous work? That's an Appeal to Emotion. My feelings aren't relevant. Then there is also that nothing suggests that the soul is called back into the body or anything to that effect. And what is animating the corpse? Oh, yes NEGATIVE ENERGY. How come negative energy can be evil? After all, it is used to destroy and...And...And...Killing stuff? It heals Trillochs and Xeg-Yi. It also heals Undead. Positive Energy also destroys in large amounts. Yeah, really good. And who wields evil energy? Oh yeah, evil clerics. And who can control undeads? Oh, yes evil clerics. So can Good Wizards. And you can't use the death is neutral argument. Because zombies and skeletons are not dead. They are undead. Death is more along the lines of Law. Not everybody dies in D&D. There are lots of creatures that are immortal and may never die from harm. Then there's crazy people that think everybody should die because it's natural. We call them Lawful Neutral Druids. They are an insult to all rules of live and death, completely unnatural. What about Allips? They spawn naturally. So do Ghouls. There are more Undead that spawn naturally that I could count up. When something dies it is suposed to stay dead and return to nature, not get up and start doing stuff. Resurrection. Appeal to nature is a fallacy (just because it's unnatural doesn't make it wrong or Evil). Also, the laws of nature are only applicable if you're someone that reveres nature. Necromancers break the natural cycle of death and life for their own power. There's no such thing as a natural cycle. And zombies think. Even if they don't have an int score, they are able to thnk. Like a vermin can learn tricks and acts by himself even tough he hasn't got int score, a zombie can think by itself if left alone. And it's toughts aren't really to help other people. They are more to kill everything that moves. Zombies don't think at all. Zombies are like Skeletons, they don't attack unless commanded. Hell, they don't do anything unless commanded to do it.
FrostWolf 03-04-07, 12:03 PM	Ventilatory_Threshold said it best. Libris Mortis. The undead monster classes. Any of them can be of a good alignment. Also we have Arcliches and Deathless in this relm.
stuporhero93 03-04-07, 12:17 PM	One spell... Awaken Undead you would be a hero. Someone in a town dies. You animate them. You awaken them. You use the many apperance altering spells. Permancy and Boom! Bob the farmer is back with his family and everyone is happy!:D
kyeudo 03-04-07, 01:07 PM	I always love a discussion of the morality of necromancy. I personaly see the morality of animating undead being based upon the corpses aquisition and use. If you animated the corpse of someone from a graveyard, its an evil act, as you have no claim to the corpse. Purchasing a corpse from the corpse's family and animating it, perfectly fine. Animating the corpse of an enemy that attacked you and you killed, perfectly fine, as he forfiets all right to his corpse on trying to kill you for no good reason. Animating an animal's or other beast's corpse? fine, as animals are there to be used. I mean, there's nothing wrong with eating a dead ox, so why not make it pull your plow? As the mindless undead don't do anything without being ordered too, anything the undead do is the necromancer's fault. The fact that you have undead isn't a problem. A fairly eloquent breakdown of the two points of view on Necromancy can be found in the Tome of Necromancy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=632562)
Perun 03-04-07, 01:32 PM	The kind of guy I want is a character that is good and neutral in alignment, but a necromancer. Or rather someone who specializes in death-based spells. My question is this: how does good and death mix? I mean, in my mind, it makes plenty sense, but when I put it into words, it sounds stupid. The 3e made things easy for you -- alignment descriptors. You can be a good necromancer, and use only those Necromancy spells that don't have the [Evil] descriptor (there are 41 Necromancy spells in the PH/SRD [39 + 2 cantrips], and of those, only six are labeled as Evil [Animate Dead, Contagion, Symbol of Pain, Create Undead, Eyebite, and Create greater undead]). Have any of you seen or heard of such a being, or is this too out there? It's definitely not "out there", a perfectly viable character theme. I could see even the dread necromancer played along those lines, although he couldn't be good (any non-good alignment is permitted), and he'd have to be careful with his rebuke/command undead class feature (channeling negative energy is considered an evil act in D&D). Regards.
Callista 03-04-07, 07:11 PM	Kyeudo--good call on the Tome of Necromancy. I'm reading it now.
NecroticBanana 03-05-07, 12:00 AM	i agree with the views on morality, but i belive presentation is also a huge part of it...dont be yer typical necro, draped in black and bones, be presentable, friendly, etc. also i played a game were the town was being overridden with goblinoids and such, and everyday they were killing the townsfolk, most of the garrison was already killed (the reason we were helping defend it) so we held a town meeting, were i presented the idea of animating the corpses of the fallen to honorably defend there homes and family one more time. (it took some major diplomacy checks BTW) and eventually i was givin access to the warehouses were the bodies had been stored, (the graveyard was already full and several miles away, on the other side of the goblins) the bodies were then prepped and cleaned and bleached so that the skeletons looked presentable, then donned in new gleaming armor and sent forth, ironic that the goblins acctually created there own demise by outnumbering themselves, i think it was 400 skeletons to 200 goblins. it took alot outta my character to animate them all...alot of gems too. afterwards the army was allowed to rest in honerable graves as heroes, not farmers slain in there own fields.
pyropetey9 03-05-07, 12:54 AM	Ventilatory Threshold, it sounds like you're fresh out of Intro to Logic. Note that I do not disagree. Libris Mortis,The Book of Exalted Deeds, and The Book of Vile Darkness all discuss this topic in varying depth. What they say is that manipulating the energies of undeath to create or control such creatures is inherently evil, thus the evil descriptor attached to many spells. The duration of purpose in using this power is irrelevant, again, according to the books. Some fine points have already been made, and I will not repeat them. Ultimately, the decision is up to your DM, as he or she has the final say in your game world. Personally, I think redemption is within the grasp of any creature, and if you sit down and discuss it beforehand, you should be able to avoid any major problems. Best of luck.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-05-07, 10:58 AM	Ventilatory Threshold, it sounds like you're fresh out of Intro to Logic. I've actually yet to take any logic courses. I consider every discussion I'm a part of to be a training excercise. It's like taking a martial arts student and throwing him into a dojo with more advanced student and making him fight them until he learns. I'm hoping to get better with time, and maybe slow down the accusations, as they are ad hominems themselves. Libris Mortis,The Book of Exalted Deeds, and The Book of Vile Darkness all discuss this topic in varying depth. What they say is that manipulating the energies of undeath to create or control such creatures is inherently evil, thus the evil descriptor attached to many spells. The duration of purpose in using this power is irrelevant, again, according to the books. The problem is that it is an almost inherently accepted premise that BoVD and BoED are not applicable in these discussions, because they are self-contradictory and they contradict Core (and don't specifically say they overrule it). They also have some bad mojo about them. I accept anything that comes out of Libris Mortis, even if it hurts my cases. "Ask your DM" is good advice.
Melpomene 03-05-07, 11:56 AM	- Necromacy =/= Evil - Undead = Evil - Healing = Conjuration - If you want healing, take Arcane Disciple (Healing) - If you want to boss around undead, don't be good.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-05-07, 12:12 PM	Undead = Evil Not inherently. If you want to boss around undead, don't be good. He can if he wants to.
Cromag 03-05-07, 01:20 PM	I've been toying with playing a good necromancer recently. I was planning on having him be a servant of Weejas -guardian of the dead He would primarily raise convicts or those that I had reason to believe were evil. An easy quote/rationalization would be "When a sin is too great to be atoned for in life, I shall give them that chance in death" In this method raising people as undead would be a method of redeeming them and have no evil connotations for him.
Elemental_Elf 03-05-07, 09:57 PM	I once had a Lawful / Good Wizard Necromancer named Khurn Tombwit. he was a lot of fun. I didn't get to play him enough as the campaign fell apart, but he was fun well it lasted. :D Anyways, it can be done but you have to make a lot of effort in aquiring your bodies as well as keeping your 'dirty little secret' away from the eyes of the lawful authorities, not to mention Good Churches, lol.
pyropetey9 03-06-07, 01:38 AM	I've actually yet to take any logic courses. I consider every discussion I'm a part of to be a training excercise. It's like taking a martial arts student and throwing him into a dojo with more advanced student and making him fight them until he learns. I'm hoping to get better with time, and maybe slow down the accusations, as they are ad hominems themselves. The problem is that it is an almost inherently accepted premise that BoVD and BoED are not applicable in these discussions, because they are self-contradictory and they contradict Core (and don't specifically say they overrule it). They also have some bad mojo about them. I accept anything that comes out of Libris Mortis, even if it hurts my cases. "Ask your DM" is good advice. as with any skill, this one will develop with use. you're already off to a fine start. i'm glad to see that you recognize the important of tone in making your arguments; most people lose sight of that. the books of morality are indeed holey, and have caused more headaches than i care to remember. some of the content has potential, but i don't think i'd recommend the purchase. Libris Mortis is considerably more useful in all respects.
mists_cloud 03-06-07, 06:55 PM	May I point out that when you create undead, you channel negative energy through you. this means that the alignment of the creater, such as CG, like I am, the undead creature shares the alignment of its creator, if you then look after the undead, it is not evil, using them heedlessly of their helath is evil, but constantly healing them after battle, looking after its needs, is not evil. Using Awaken Dead on the undead is considered, a large good deed, the very idea of giving up a partion of XP to give an undead the ability to be able to think independantly and give it an option, is the opposite of evil, and if the soul that you gave life to was from the goddless plane, isn't that all the better?
Melpomene 03-06-07, 08:04 PM	Not inherently. He can if he wants to. Undead are as prone to evil as chromatic dragons and, to a much lesser extent, fiends. Trafficing with any of these beings for prolonged periods of time, especially in a master/minion type situation, is unhealthy to any character's good alignment.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-06-07, 08:55 PM	Undead are as prone to evil as chromatic dragons and, to a much lesser extent, fiends. No, they're just fuelled by Negative Energy.
AngelofCthulhu 03-06-07, 09:00 PM	If you are saying that an all consuming hunger to annihilate anything fueled by positive/elemental energy is not evil, please explain.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-06-07, 09:05 PM	If you are saying that an all consuming hunger to annihilate anything fueled by positive/elemental energy is not evil, please explain. It's an Inner Plane (a plane of energy), not an Outer Plane (aligned plane). It pretty much kills anything (Trillochs and Xeg-Yi are examples of exceptions). Same goes for Positive Energy, in large enough doses. EDIT: Positive Energy doesn't equal Good. It heals fiends, for example.
freeholder 03-06-07, 10:04 PM	Necromancers suffer from the stigma that is simalar to that of the drow. What necrommancers(good) need to do is train one of there own to wield duel scimitars and get a good lawyer to defend themselves from the copywrite infringment laws
mists_cloud 03-07-07, 05:09 PM	If you are saying that an all consuming hunger to annihilate anything fueled by positive/elemental energy is not evil, please explain. Wolves have a consuming hunger, just like the other meat eating creatures, but they don't seem to be evil. ;)
RuckusFox 03-07-07, 10:10 PM	Since when was that not possible, or even plausible? An Evil Monk doesn't sound outlandish to me at all. Hrm? I believe in the Original Players Handbook it said something like Monks can't be Evil or have to be Good or something like that...or maybe it was Lawful...GAH! I hate not being the DM. e.e I don't get to keep the books... Anyway, that's beside the point. Since Eberron, anything is possible. I think zombies are classified as Evil because they are a "damned creature of the night." I played a Chaotic Good Shadow Dancer/Rogue Vampire once. And still, the DM allowed "Detect Evil" to work on me because I was a damned soul. Just because I do good things doesn't mean my soul is now repaired. ;) That's just my two bits notice...feel free to ignore me though.
Perun 03-08-07, 01:52 AM	Hrm? I believe in the Original Players Handbook it said something like Monks can't be Evil or have to be Good or something like that...or maybe it was Lawful...GAH! I hate not being the DM. e.e I don't get to keep the books... Yes, monks are restricted to any lawful alignment. SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) is your friend :) I think zombies are classified as Evil because they are a "damned creature of the night." I played a Chaotic Good Shadow Dancer/Rogue Vampire once. And still, the DM allowed "Detect Evil" to work on me because I was a damned soul. Just because I do good things doesn't mean my soul is now repaired. ;) That's just my two bits notice...feel free to ignore me though. Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) specifically detects undead, regardless of their alignment. I suppose it's because the continually "channel" negative energy or somesuch (channeling negative energy is considered an evil act, while negative energy itself is not evil).
Karish 03-08-07, 10:21 AM	Eh, I feel bored and I like the subject of a good necromancer, so I want to further display the concept using a character I had once. Zakrata Karakazhe (a recycled name I use) This guy was a real treat. He was a Wizard (Necromancer), CG, and had the Skeletal Minion variant to replace his familiar. When he was introduced at level 1 to a new group that had just been started, but hadn't done any adventuring yet, the DM pulled this: "While you get your things put together in the morning, a figure appears from out of the mists as he walks down the road. He is wrapped in a black hooded robe, and carries a white quarterstaff, which looks almost as if it were made from a collection of animal bones. Behind him, a second figure walks, also in a black robe, and appears to be unnaturally thin." The paladin in the group had his sword out before my character could even wave. You should have seen the level of shock when I ordered the skeleton I had, pre-commanded to defend me if threatened, to stand down and I introduced myself as a friend.
Melpomene 03-08-07, 04:27 PM	No, they're just fuelled by Negative Energy. Being fueled by negative energy is equitable to be fueled by (elemental) Evil as fiends are or having an evil magical heritage as chromatic dragons do.
mists_cloud 03-08-07, 06:16 PM	Being fueled by negative energy is equitable to be fueled by (elemental) Evil as fiends are or having an evil magical heritage as chromatic dragons do. But several beings are fueled by the same energy and are different alignments, take the princes of elements, there are the evil ones and the good ones.
Karish 03-08-07, 06:23 PM	If negative energy was evil, it would not matter if a PC in it was good or evil, things like entering the Neg Energy Plane will effect the PC the same regardless of that. This is the same with the Positive energy Plane. In fact, nomatter the energy or alignment, they'll kill you. Now last I checked, good things didn't cause good people to explode with energy and die. Pos Plane does that. So Positive energy must be evil!
Tavi the Spell-Weaver 03-08-07, 07:21 PM	I've thought about this concept a little myself. A good necromancer, being intimately familiar with death, would be in a position to offer great comfort to the dying and their families. They could remind them that death is not the end and that they would, in fact, meet again ((of course, this is all dependent on your DM's structure of the afterlife)). In addition, a good necromancer could help protect people from evil or unthinking undead. Looking at some of the arguments people have already posted against the good necromancer, it could admittedly take a little houseruling. Still, it's a good concept that I think is very workable.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-08-07, 07:48 PM	Being fueled by negative energy is equitable to be fueled by (elemental) Evil as fiends are or having an evil magical heritage as chromatic dragons do. No, it's the opposite of being fuelled by Positive Energy. Fiends and Chromatic Dragons are fuelled by Positive Energy, therefore they are Good. BTW, that was a deliberately told lie. Negative Energy has no alignment connotations. Says so in the books (DMG for one).
Melpomene 03-08-07, 08:48 PM	No, it's the opposite of being fuelled by Positive Energy. Fiends and Chromatic Dragons are fuelled by Positive Energy, therefore they are Good. BTW, that was a deliberately told lie. Negative Energy has no alignment connotations. Says so in the books (DMG for one). I do not attempt to say that negative energy is evil. I agree fully that the negative energy beings on thier home plane have a right to nuetrality (although, there are a substantially higher percentage of evil ones than good ones). However, to fuel or contruct a soul of negative energy is. I will also not begrudge you that these creatures can be redeemed, just as chromatic dragons and fiends may be. Arguement One: Even thier mindless incarnations, zombies and skeletons, are 'always evil.' It is possible for mindless things to have alignment. For example, Lemurs and Unholy weapons. Therefor, they are evil without mind, a mindless evil. Creating a thing so wicked that even without a mind that it acts evilly is an evil act. Arguement Two: More complex. The creation of the negative soul creates an insatiable hunger which results either in the devouring of the living (as in the case of ghouls or vampires) or the slow decay and torment of the creature. All undead, even mindless ones, are described as being hungry. Zombies will always crave brains. Argument Three: The book says so. It is a fact. It is data. A scientist doesn't say 'no, the facts are wrong.' A proper scientists says 'how can I consolidate this data with what I know? What will clear up the gaps?' And, convienantly enough, arguments one and two do.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-08-07, 09:14 PM	However, to fuel or contruct a soul of negative energy is. Where does it say that? I will also not begrudge you that these creatures can be redeemed, just as chromatic dragons and fiends may be. I don't know about Chromatic Dragons, but fiends can't be redeemed, as there is no Good in them to bring out. Arguement One: Even thier mindless incarnations, zombies and skeletons, are 'always evil.' It is possible for mindless things to have alignment. For example, Lemurs and Unholy weapons. Therefor, they are evil without mind, a mindless evil. Creating a thing so wicked that even without a mind that it acts evilly is an evil act. There is nothing Evil about Zombies or Skeletons. Their alignment should stay this way for maybe a moment (moment being defined as an infinitely small amount of time). Morality is about choice, or being suffused with an alignment. Lemures are created out of Evil, and have only Evil instincts (Fiendish Codex II says they know they have a shot at a promotion to a greater form if they perform well). Skeletons and Zombies don't do anything. They have no instincts and no will. Arguement Two: More complex. The creation of the negative soul creates an insatiable hunger which results either in the devouring of the living (as in the case of ghouls or vampires) or the slow decay and torment of the creature. All undead, even mindless ones, are described as being hungry. Zombies will always crave brains. Zombies don't crave anything. Argument Three: The book says so. It is a fact. It is data. A scientist doesn't say 'no, the facts are wrong.' A proper scientists says 'how can I consolidate this data with what I know? What will clear up the gaps?' And, convienantly enough, arguments one and two do. Funny you should bring up facts. With my help, blood_of_the_ancient consolidated these facts from various books. They concern Undead and alignment, but also answer many questions people might have. These are indisputable facts, BTW. They are rules, not opinions, not sophistry, rules. Z.A.P.L.E.R.! Zombies Against Pro-Living Engrained Racism! It seems I have found a fun topic, eh? Which argument for undead to use...? FACT: Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. FACT: Negative energy is a destructive force. FACT: Negative energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Positive energy is a constructive force. FACT: Positive energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Constructing something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are constructing. FACT: Destroying something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are destroying. OPINION: Some people think that if you put negative energy into a reality you are harming it. I have never seen this supported by rules. This opinion has further ramifications, such as healing a blackguard being a good act and possibly even killing a blackguard being an evil act... FACT: Living creatures are fuelled by positive energy. FACT (added by V_T): Trillochs and Xeg-Yi are the exceptions to this. FACT: Unliving creatures are fuelled by negative energy. FACT (added by V_T): Deathless are the exceptions to this (note that I hate to bring this creature type up, but it bore mentioning). FACT: The morality of a creature is determined by it's actions. FACT: All carnivorous entities must kill to survive. Murder is not evil inherently, or smite evil could not exist as a paladin ability (except perhaps to mock the pallys). OPINION: Undead are evil because they must kill the living to survive. See above FACT. STATEMENT: There is no evidence to support negative energy, and thus undead, being evil except the arbitrary statement (which is contradicted at other points) "Undead are evil, negative energy is evil." No evidence is offered, and evidence to the contrary is offered. CONCLUSION: Undead are evil or good dependant on their actions, just like their positive-energy-fuelled counterparts, the living beings. REQUEST: Prove me wrong. Fulfill our request.
Red12 03-08-07, 09:37 PM	Being a good necromancer was a lot more convenient in previous editions, when Healing spells were necromantic. Necromancy in 2e was the Magic of life/death. (cure spells, draining spells, etc) Necromancy in 3.x is the the magic of creepy/death. (fear, enervation, etc) Now, if you go with the former, Necromancy is certainly neutral. The latter, its neutral, bordering on the evil. (note, IMC, "somebody" took the positive energy spells off of the conjuration list and put them elsewhere ;) ) Basically, the crux of the undead=evil argument is the "soul" issue. Animate dead does not use souls. It is no different, in philosophy, than animating any other random object. If I used "animate object" to enliven a bag of femurs or assorted other bones, no one would object. But if it is in unified humanoid form, its evil? A little hypocritical and arbitrary, dontcha think?
Melpomene 03-08-07, 09:55 PM	FACT: Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. (True to a point. It has reciprical tendencies, but also has quite a bit in common with positive energy as opposed to say, Void.) FACT: Negative energy is a destructive force. (True.) FACT: Negative energy is a natural part of reality. (True. It can also be created or channeled artifically, though magic) FACT: Positive energy is a constructive force. (True.) FACT: Positive energy is a natural part of reality. (True, but see above.) FACT: Constructing something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are constructing. (Not true. How and why you build something is also an element. If you, say, made a soup from kittens to feed to orphans or something.) FACT: Destroying something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are destroying. (Not entirely true. Intent and methodology is important here, as well.) OPINION: Some people think that if you put negative energy into a reality you are harming it. I have never seen this supported by rules. This opinion has further ramifications, such as healing a blackguard being a good act and possibly even killing a blackguard being an evil act... (I won't argue against an oppinion) FACT: Living creatures are fuelled by positive energy. ('Fueled' is an ambigious term. I'll allow it for the time being.) FACT (added by V_T): Trillochs and Xeg-Yi are the exceptions to this. (Debatable, but as they are used in every one of these arguements, I'll let this point pass.) FACT: Unliving creatures are fuelled by negative energy. (See above.) FACT (added by V_T): Deathless are the exceptions to this (note that I hate to bring this creature type up, but it bore mentioning). (Deathless are goverened by a different set of rules. For the purposes of arguement, it is probably best to avoid them. I could defend them too, if you like.) FACT: The morality of a creature is determined by it's actions. (Morality, perhaps, but not alignment. Inanimate objects of all types, as well as mindless creatures, can have, and even exude strong auras of, alignments.) FACT: All carnivorous entities must kill to survive. Murder is not evil inherently, or smite evil could not exist as a paladin ability (except perhaps to mock the pallys). (I won't debate this here, but I will when you try to a make the jump to your next assertion) OPINION: Undead are evil because they must kill the living to survive. See above FACT. (Alright, here we go. Undead hunger, but they do not need food in the same way as living creatures do. They do not have a Con score and do not metabolize the food they consume in the same way as a living being. Most of them don't even kill to survive, they kill because they are compelled to by unholy hunger.) STATEMENT: There is no evidence to support negative energy, and thus undead, being evil except the arbitrary statement (which is contradicted at other points) "Undead are evil, negative energy is evil." No evidence is offered, and evidence to the contrary is offered. (False. Undead evil is not tied to the good or nuetrality of negative energy. As mentioned in this thread with fiends, positive energy doesn't make one good. The statement is false, as is the assumptions it makes.) CONCLUSION: Undead are evil or good dependant on their actions, just like their positive-energy-fuelled counterparts, the living beings. (Based upon flawed reasoning. See above.) REQUEST: Prove me wrong. (I did) (STATEMENT: As the RAW say that Animate Dead is evil, it is not my job to prove it is so. All I have to do it point to it. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of dissenters.)
Karish 03-08-07, 10:40 PM	FACT: The morality of a creature is determined by it's actions. (Morality, perhaps, but not alignment. Inanimate objects of all types, as well as mindless creatures, can have, and even exude strong auras of, alignments.) First, I have to say this. Last I checked, Morality is the definition of the Good/Evil axis, where Ethics are the definition of the Law/Chaos. Thus, Morality would be part of Alignment. In fact, the greater part of what we are talking about. And yes, something may have an aura of "evil". But not all of these things are. Tieflings, Half-Fiends, and other demon/devil descended entities do. But I do believe people will agree a good tiefling and at the very least a nonevil half-fiend can exist. Now, if something that is 50% that which is evil incarnate can be good, why can't something that is perhaps 25% POSSIBLY evil energy, 25% raw magical power, 25% the soul of the thing causing it to live, and 25% free will be good? --- But no matter. Regardless, my campaigns accept and work when a good necromancer is in place. After all, DM's rule is the final word, and if I'm running the game, I'm letting it happen.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 06:44 AM	True to a point. It has reciprical tendencies, but also has quite a bit in common with positive energy as opposed to say, Void. The point is that Negative Energy is just an energy type. Like fire. It has no alignment. It doesn't even lean towards an alignment. True. I'd like to add that it's not all that destructive. It's constructive for Trillochs, Xeg-Yi and Undead. True. It can also be created or channeled artifically, though magic Like fire. True. Except for the examples. Not true. How and why you build something is also an element. If you, say, made a soup from kittens to feed to orphans or something. Good point. It doesn't only depend on what you're constructing, but also for what purpose. This fact still doesn't affect the alignment of Undead. I won't argue against an oppinion It's more of a mislabeled fact. The PHB states that channeling Positive Energy is a Good act and that channeling Negative Energy is an Evil act. The wording leaves no room for other factors. It just says "If you channel Positive Energy (like, say, casting Cure Light Wounds), you're committing a Good-aligned act." Yet, last time I checked, healing a Demon let it keep on harming innocents. It's just contradictive and wrong (there, I said it, rules can be wrong). The other part (the "Negative Energy harmz teh realityz!" part) is a fact also. There is no evidence in any supplement that suggests that Negative Energy has a negative effect on the environment (Hell, looking at it from a logical point of view tells you that aging and wounds are caused by Negative Energy). 'Fueled' is an ambigious term. I'll allow it for the time being. We use the term to indicate that it suffuses their being. It keeps them alive and heals them. Debatable, but as they are used in every one of these arguements, I'll let this point pass. They just work the same way as most other living things do, just in reverse. Deathless are goverened by a different set of rules. For the purposes of arguement, it is probably best to avoid them. I could defend them too, if you like. Deathless are just reversed Undead. IMO, they don't even deserve their own type, just a subtype. That doesn't change the fact that they still exist and are admissible. I still don't like the hypocrisy they bring into the game. Morality, perhaps, but not alignment. Inanimate objects of all types, as well as mindless creatures, can have, and even exude strong auras of, alignments. Alignment doesn't determine morality, but morality determines alignment. That's how we can have Good Undead. They ping as Evil, but some are benevolent, and therefore Good. Alright, here we go. Undead hunger, but they do not need food in the same way as living creatures do. They do not have a Con score and do not metabolize the food they consume in the same way as a living being. Most of them don't even kill to survive, they kill because they are compelled to by unholy hunger. Yes, their killing makes them Evil, because it serves no other purpose than to satiate an addiction. If they don't kill, then they're not automatically Evil. False. Undead evil is not tied to the good or nuetrality of negative energy. As mentioned in this thread with fiends, positive energy doesn't make one good. The statement is false, as is the assumptions it makes. No, the statement is true. There is no evidence to support these assertions. We checked. It's not false, but it is irrelevant. This serves the purpose of dispelling the circular logic offered by many individuals that maintain that Undead are Evil. Their logic went something like: "Undead are Evil because the spells that animate them have the Evil descriptor. The spells that animate them are Evil because they bring Negative Energy into the world. Negative Energy is Evil because it kills people. Undead are Evil because they are made from Negative Energy, and, like previously stated, Negative Energy is Evil." It drove me crazy sometimes. Based upon flawed reasoning. See above. Everything is true in there. We scoured the entire library that is 3.5 Edition. I did No, all you did was point out a few flaws. No, logical ones, just failures to note relevant points. As the RAW say that Animate Dead is evil, it is not my job to prove it is so. It may have the [Evil]descriptor, but that doesn't make it an Evil act to cast them: [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. The bolded part explains it. All of the examples in there concern the target/s, not the caster. Since Animate Dead channels Negative Energy and not Evil, you do not become more Evil by casting it, same as you don't become more fiery by casting Fireball. All I have to do it point to it. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of dissenters. But because the rules don't justify it, and there's mountains of evidence to support otherwise, I'd go with the more logical conclusion.
Melpomene 03-09-07, 08:47 AM	Speaking of circular logic... Yes, I agree that negative energy is elemental. I will not debate that. However, you are playing with fire to say that nuetrality of an element makes it nuetral. Torturing someone with fire is evil. Burning a village to the ground with fire is evil. And making an undead creature with negative energy is evil. You have agreed that, with only the most minimal of exceptions, that negative energy is a destructive force. This, in and of itself is proof that the introdocution of it into a posititve energy system is detrimental to the environment. This is "proof that Negative Energy harmz teh realityz." Which, incidentally, is both slanderous and straw-manning. I'm trying to be civil. I will not argue that there can be good undead. I do argue that it is not part of thier nature to be so, nor are they blank-slate nuetral. They defaul to evil, which makes thier general creation evil. Cure and inflict spells do not have an alignment descriptor. Animate Dead does. Channeling the energy for turn or rebuke checks has an implied alignment (you cannot ask a good god to let you channel negative energy). *clears throat* I have made no assertions that killing people or negative energy are evil. I have simply asserted that it is evil to use it in this way. Your circular logic argument is a straw man. It has been previously debated if casting evil spells makes one evil. The line you yourself bolded does specifically specifically state that such spells do affect alignment, however. If you allow that the spells are (Evil) by admission of this, then argueing the point further is a matter of taste for you rather than facts. I cannot affect your oppinion, only present a case for the opposition. Furthermore, as general circumstantial evidence, I add a summery of the description of zombies and skelitons from the MM: "...that obay the orders of thier evil masters..." "...corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic." Logic of the rules I have given, and you have chosen to ignore them. There are similarly 'mountains of evidence' on the other side. There would be no debate in these threads if there was no support for one or the other oppinion. I assert my claim partially based on the fact the the end result, with the creation of undead being evil, is supported strongly by the RAW, as well as the implied rules. You can disagree with that statement, just like you can think that IRL a longbow should be able to fire 800 feet or that sheilds should offer more of an AC boost.
Sereno 03-09-07, 09:35 AM	This is my take on it. Normal, living creatures are not a balance of positive and negative energy, and dying is not "gaining" more negative energy. Negative energy *always* hurts living things. Even a tiny bit of it causes injury (and, presumably, pain). No matter how much hurting or "feeding" it does, it always wants more. Positive energy seeks *only* to create (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled good. Negative energy seeks *only* to destroy (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled evil. Using negative energy to power undead is "unnatural" in that you are creating a "mockery of life" using energy that's meant to destroy, not create. This is why mindless undead are actually Always Neutral Evil in alignment. They are powered by energy that exists only to destroy ... that has to rub off.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 09:49 AM	Yes, I agree that negative energy is elemental. I will not debate that. However, you are playing with fire to say that nuetrality of an element makes it nuetral. Torturing someone with fire is evil. Burning a village to the ground with fire is evil. And making an undead creature with negative energy is evil. The Neutrality of an element makes it default to Neutral. What you do with it affects the alignment of the act, not the element. You have agreed that, with only the most minimal of exceptions, that negative energy is a destructive force. Yes. This, in and of itself is proof that the introdocution of it into a posititve energy system is detrimental to the environment. Not really. Negative Energy is present on the Material Plane, as are all other energy types. Bringing in more is detrimental to many life forms (i.e. it hurts them). This is "proof that Negative Energy harmz teh realityz." No, it's proof that Negative Energy harms most life forms. I'm trying to be civil. Are you having a hard time staying that way? I will not argue that there can be good undead. I do argue that it is not part of thier nature to be so, nor are they blank-slate nuetral. They defaul to evil, which makes thier general creation evil. I don't think they default to anything. I think specific types of Undead generally have specific types of instincts that may not be necessary to their survival. Acting on those instincts might be Evil, thus causing the Undead to slip towards Evil. Whatever alignment specific Undead default to, doesn't make their creation an act of that alignment. Creating a Ghoul, which you in turn instruct to go around town, saving people, would be a Good act. Cure and inflict spells do not have an alignment descriptor. Animate Dead does. The difference is that the rules specifically state that channeling Positive Energy is a Good-aligned act and vice versa. The spells themselves specifically state that the caster channels the relevant type of energy when casting them. You can see the contradiction (you know, how they leave out all other factors). That's still irrelevant. Channeling the energy for turn or rebuke checks has an implied alignment (you cannot ask a good god to let you channel negative energy). That's the Gods' fault, not the fault of the alignments they represent. *clears throat* I have made no assertions that killing people or negative energy are evil. I have simply asserted that it is evil to use it in this way. Your circular logic argument is a straw man. No, it was irrelevant. I do this a lot. Just ignore anything that looks like a straw man. It has been previously debated if casting evil spells makes one evil. The line you yourself bolded does specifically specifically state that such spells do affect alignment, however. Everything else in that sentence talks about the target/s. Why should this have anything to do with the caster? When they talk about alignment, they are talking about the alignment of the target (for purposes of spells such as Holy Word). "...that obay the orders of thier evil masters..." Wow, the Evil of the Chaotic Good Necromancer is overwhelming. "...corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic." Shadowcasters cast dark and sinister magic. So do Necromancers. I know. Logic of the rules I have given, and you have chosen to ignore them. Yes, because they don't sound logical to me at all. There would be no debate in these threads if there was no support for one or the other oppinion. I've been a part of almost every Undead Alignment thread on these boards since June 2005 and I haven't ever seen much else than circular logic. It was the reason blood_of_the_ancient consolidated these facts. Seriously, that sentence I put there. Ridiculous as it sounds, it was usually what the opposing arguments boiled down to: selective reading, self-contradictive evidence, often followed by personal attacks. I assert my claim partially based on the fact the the end result, with the creation of undead being evil, is supported strongly by the RAW, as well as the implied rules. So is my argument for Undead getting to be whatever alignment they want (the strongest being that nearly all Undead have free will). You can disagree with that statement, just like you can think that IRL a longbow should be able to fire 800 feet or that sheilds should offer more of an AC boost. You make my arguments sound so ridiculous.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 09:52 AM	This is my take on it. Normal, living creatures are not a balance of positive and negative energy, and dying is not "gaining" more negative energy. Negative energy *always* hurts living things. Even a tiny bit of it causes injury (and, presumably, pain). No matter how much hurting or "feeding" it does, it always wants more. Positive energy seeks *only* to create (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled good. Negative energy seeks *only* to destroy (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled evil. Using negative energy to power undead is "unnatural" in that you are creating a "mockery of life" using energy that's meant to destroy, not create. This is why mindless undead are actually Always Neutral Evil in alignment. They are powered by energy that exists only to destroy ... that has to rub off. Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. Your premises don't follow RAW. And why do you think Undead = unnatural = bad = Evil? That I simply do not understand.
Melpomene 03-09-07, 11:34 AM	The Neutrality of an element makes it default to Neutral. What you do with it affects the alignment of the act, not the element. (True. However, within the context of the arguement, I am argueing that the act of using it in this way is evil) Not really. Negative Energy is present on the Material Plane, as are all other energy types. Bringing in more is detrimental to many life forms (i.e. it hurts them). ('Many' in this case being all but undead and a handful of beings from the NEP.) No, it's proof that Negative Energy harms most life forms. ('Most' in this case being all but undead and a handful of beings from the NEP.) Are you having a hard time staying that way? (I was simply referring to your use of l33t sp33k in a 'deedeedee' sort of manner.) I don't think they default to anything. I think specific types of Undead generally have specific types of instincts that may not be necessary to their survival. Acting on those instincts might be Evil, thus causing the Undead to slip towards Evil. (What you think is an oppinion. A natural predaliction towards evil makes them evil. Chromatic dragons have a similar natural/magically/inborn predeliction towards evil. Creating evil beings is evil.) Whatever alignment specific Undead default to, doesn't make their creation an act of that alignment. Creating a Ghoul, which you in turn instruct to go around town, saving people, would be a Good act. (No, it doesn't. Summouning a fiend and having it save a bunch of people is still evil.) The difference is that the rules specifically state that channeling Positive Energy is a Good-aligned act and vice versa. The spells themselves specifically state that the caster channels the relevant type of energy when casting them. You can see the contradiction You know, how they leave out all other factors. (The difference between the two is that channeling only affects undead. They're a special case. This seeming contradiction is only a further strength of undead evil.) That's the Gods' fault, not the fault of the alignments they represent. (Forgive me that I don't have all of thier names, but the gods and demigods of death in Greyhawk are Vecna, Nerul, Wee Jas, The Ghoul King, Orcus, the Eternal Lover, and The Blood God. They are NE, NE, debatably LN, CE, CE, NN, and NE. Furthermore, the gods with the Sun domain, which directly opposes undead and encourages thier destruction, are Pelor and Elehonna, NG and NG, respectively.) Everything else in that sentence talks about the target/s. Why should this have anything to do with the caster? When they talk about alignment, they are talking about the alignment of the target, such as for purposes of spells such as Holy Word. (The snip you've taken refers to the spell itself more than the target. If you can stand up and say 'We show no conclusive link between the casting of Evil spells and an Evil alignment' then there starts to be a problem. There is a reason why good clerics don't cast evil spells: because they're evil.) Wow, the Evil of the Chaotic Good Necromancer is overwhelming. (It would be, if he cast a number of Evil spells.) Shadowcasters cast dark and sinister magic. So do Necromancers. (Dark perhaps in the case of the Shadowcaster, sinister depends on what spells the caster casts.) Yes, because they don't sound logical to me at all. (::Moonanite:: Sounds like a personal problem. :P ) I've been a part of almost every Undead Alignment thread on these boards since June 2005 and I haven't ever seen much else than circular logic. It was the reason blood_of_the_ancient consolidated these facts. (I try to avoid the threads because the arguements are always the same, and it does devolve into a brawl after about a page. Still, I fealt like my brain needed the excercize and I do feel strongly about this issue. As internetters are not paragons of logic, there will be flawed arguements on both sides, as well as the usual pointless bickering, slander, and logical falacies.) So is my argument for Undead getting to be whatever alignment they want, the strongest being that nearly all Undead have free will. (Free will, or the lack thereof, does not free one from alignment predaliction. Fiends, for instance, have intellegence, wisdom and charisma. Yet if you can tell me that they are baselined neutral because of free will, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you.) You make my arguments sound so ridiculous. (For that I appologise. I was simply refferencing a few other threads that I had visited recently.)
Blackskullgreymon 03-09-07, 11:38 AM	I've thought about this concept a little myself. A good necromancer, being intimately familiar with death, would be in a position to offer great comfort to the dying and their families. They could remind them that death is not the end and that they would, in fact, meet again ((of course, this is all dependent on your DM's structure of the afterlife)). In addition, a good necromancer could help protect people from evil or unthinking undead. Looking at some of the arguments people have already posted against the good necromancer, it could admittedly take a little houseruling. Still, it's a good concept that I think is very workable. That's sort of what I was thinking. Really, though, the spells I like most from the necromancer's list aren't ones that deal with controlling undead. Instead, I like the ones that deal death to the living. So if Zombies are evil in your eyes, don't use any zombie spells. You know?
Sereno 03-09-07, 12:39 PM	Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. Your premises don't follow RAW. Ummm, which part doesn't follow RAW? In the entire DnD multiverse, I think there's *two* _living_ monsters that Negative Energy won't hurt. Two ... out of thousands. Quote from the DMG: "The Negative Energy Plane is a barren, empty place, a void without end, and a place of empty, endless night. Worse, it is a needy, greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything that is vulnerable. Heat, fire, and life itself are all drawn into the maw of this plane, which always hungers for more." The Planar Handbook/Manual of the Planes is even more strongly worded, I believe it uses the terms "malign" and "brooding." And why do you think Undead = unnatural = bad = Evil? That I simply do not understand. However, if you carefully re-read my last sentence, that's not my argument. The fact that it's unnatural to power a "living" thing with negative energy is not the reason they default to evil. The reason they default to evil is that the energy that's powering them seeks nothing but destruction. Something that craves *only* destruction is evil because Evil is defined as hurting, killing or oppressing others and complete destruction covers all of them. Also, the spells that create undead are all [evil] and from the Eberron campaign (the most "liberal" of all campaigns where alignment is concerned) it clearly states: "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments."
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 02:44 PM	True. However, within the context of the arguement, I am argueing that the act of using it in this way is evil And I am arguing that it isn't, since the alignment of creation is dependent on what you're creating and for what purpose. Undead are objects animated by Negative Energy. Nothing more. Golems are elemental spirits bound withing a heap of crap. Are they Evil? No! 'Many' in this case being all but undead and a handful of beings from the NEP. I don't care if they're in a minority. They still count. 'Most' in this case being all but undead and a handful of beings from the NEP. Again, I don't care which side has a larger quantity of moving things. They still count equally. What you think is an oppinion. No, it isn't, because I've brought up evidence to support my theory. A natural predaliction towards evil makes them evil. So because most Undead are Evil, all Undead are Evil? That's the feeling I've been getting from all of your arguments. Is that your opinion? Chromatic dragons have a similar natural/magically/inborn predeliction towards evil. Chromatic Dragons have little to nothing in common with Undead. For one, Chromatic Dragons are pretty much the offspring of Tiamat, an Evil deity (more specifically, an Outsider with the (Evil) subtype). Undead are dead spirits or bodies animated by Negative Energy, that often have the quality of being constantly hungry/murderous/whatever. They are not all that way, and they clearly have no inherent alignment (because the instincts reside in individual Undead, not the type). Creating evil beings is evil. And Undead aren't necessarily Evil. No, it doesn't. Summouning a fiend and having it save a bunch of people is still evil. Fiends have even less in common with Undead than dragons (smaller HD, more skill points, and the fact that fiends are utterly irredeemable, suffused with Positive Energy and are very much alive). The difference between the two is that channeling only affects undead. They're a special case. This seeming contradiction is only a further strength of undead evil. Channeling either energy doesn't only affect Undead. See: Cure Light Wounds, Mass ... You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature. Like other cure spells, mass cure light wounds deals damage to undead in its area rather than curing them. Each affected undead may attempt a Will save for half damage. Cast it enough on your demonic posse and you'll have a sure way into the celestial spheres. Forgive me that I don't have all of thier names, but the gods and demigods of death in Greyhawk are Vecna, Nerul, Wee Jas, The Ghoul King, Orcus, the Eternal Lover, and The Blood God. They are NE, NE, debatably LN, CE, CE, NN, and NE. Furthermore, the gods with the Sun domain, which directly opposes undead and encourages thier destruction, are Pelor and Elehonna, NG and NG, respectively. I don't care. Gods don't determine alignment. It's the other way around. The snip you've taken refers to the spell itself more than the target. Funny, that's not how I see it. There is a reason why good clerics don't cast evil spells: because they're evil. No, it's because their gods are Good and won't grant the spells to them. ::Moonanite:: Sounds like a personal problem. :P No, if the rules don't follow logic and contradict themselves, then they aren't rules; they're guidelines. Nothing more. So is my argument for Undead getting to be whatever alignment they want, the strongest being that nearly all Undead have free will. Free will, or the lack thereof, does not free one from alignment predaliction. No, but it does in the case of Undead. Fiends, for instance, have intellegence, wisdom and charisma. Yet if you can tell me that they are baselined neutral because of free will, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. Well, fiends, unlike Undead are pure Evil. There is nothing about them that is remotely Good-aligned. Undead are not spawned from an Evil-aligned plane, they almost never have the (Evil) subtype, and they are not made from Evil. For that I appologise. You don't need to. Playing dirty (if you can call this that; it was pretty tame compared to what I've seen used against me) is a natural part of debates. Isn't it? Ummm, which part doesn't follow RAW? Nearly all of it. In the entire DnD multiverse, I think there's *two* _living_ monsters that Negative Energy won't hurt. Two ... out of thousands. That doesn't matter. They still exist, and you'd do better to not minimize their existence. Quote from the DMG: "The Negative Energy Plane is a barren, empty place, a void without end, and a place of empty, endless night. Worse, it is a needy, greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything that is vulnerable. Heat, fire, and life itself are all drawn into the maw of this plane, which always hungers for more." And if you stay on the Positive Energy Plane long enough, you explode. What's your point? It's the same way that ice absorbs heat. No different. The Planar Handbook/Manual of the Planes is even more strongly worded, I believe it uses the terms "malign" and "brooding." I went over this once. Malign and brooding towards what? Life? Life isn't inherently Good-aligned. Positive Energy isn't inherently Good-aligned, and with Negative Energy being its opposite, Negative Energy can't be Evil. The fact that it's unnatural to power a "living" thing with negative energy is not the reason they default to evil. It's not unnatural. If you maintain that position, I will question your neutrality on the issue like so: "You're alive. In terms of D&D, you'd be fuelled by Positive Energy. Can I trust that you're not biased?" The reason they default to evil is that the energy that's powering them seeks nothing but destruction. Destruction isn't inherently Evil. It means that things don't exist anymore. That includes fiends. Sounds pretty Neutral to me. Something that craves *only* destruction is evil because Evil is defined as hurting, killing or oppressing others and complete destruction covers all of them. Fire burns all things down to ash. It can't do anything else. Is fire Evil? No, because like Negative Energy, it has no intelligence. It serves to counter a type of energy and that's what it does. A further expansion on the destruction issue: If everything is destroyed, is there some Evil entity that wins? Does Evil triumph if Negative Energy consumes everything? Didn't think so. Also, the spells that create undead are all [evil] and from the Eberron campaign (the most "liberal" of all campaigns where alignment is concerned) it clearly states: "A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments." That's all well and good in Eberron. Eberron doesn't overrule Core.
Sereno 03-09-07, 03:14 PM	Nearly all of it. You're gonna have to do better than that. That doesn't matter. They still exist, and you'd do better to not minimize their existence. No ... I think you've got that backwards ... you'd do better not try to frame the entire argument in terms of two extremely rare oddball creatures. For 99.999% of everything in the DnD multiverse, Negative Energy hurts or kills. And if you stay on the Positive Energy Plane long enough, you explode. What's your point? Exactly this: a little bit of positive energy *doesn't* hurt. A little bit of negative energy *does* hurt. It's the same way that ice absorbs heat. No different. Not exactly. When whatever the ice is cooling reaches the ice's temperature, it stops cooling. Negative energy can't ever be stopped. It "always hungers for more." The only time it will stop is when there's nothing left. Nothing. went over this once. Malign and brooding towards what? Life? Life isn't inherently Good-aligned. Positive Energy isn't inherently Good-aligned, and with Negative Energy being its opposite, Negative Energy can't be Evil. No, life isn't inherently Good. However, the definition of Evil is hurting, killing or oppressing ... things which can only be done to living things. You can't hurt or oppress a rock. The *energy* itself is not Evil ... putting it into a creature or using it (to hurt, kill or oppress) is Evil. Creating a creature that is powered by the force of destruction is Evil. It's not unnatural. If you maintain that position, I will question your neutrality on the issue like so: "You're alive. In terms of D&D, you'd be fuelled by Positive Energy. Can I trust that you're not biased?" If you're going to make an argument that silly, I'm outta here.... Negative energy powering "living" things is *absolutely* unnatural ... aside from those two oddballs, every other living thing in existence needs positive energy. Destruction isn't inherently Evil. It means that things don't exist anymore. That includes fiends. Sounds pretty Neutral to me. Again, you're falling back on *use* but failing to see the issue. Using negative energy, like a weapon, to kill a fiend could certainly be a good act, essentially, no different than using a sword. We aren't actually discussing this use. It's the actual act of animating a creature with pure destruction that is evil, not the energy itself. It's the effects of the energy upon a "living" creature that turns it's alignment to Evil. A further expansion on the destruction issue: If everything is destroyed, is there some Evil entity that wins? Does Evil triumph if Negative Energy consumes everything? Didn't think so. If you don't consider the Death of Everything evil, I guess we're done, here....
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 03:50 PM	You're gonna have to do better than that. Okay: This is my take on it. Normal, living creatures are not a balance of positive and negative energy, and dying is not "gaining" more negative energy. Negative energy *always* hurts living things. Even a tiny bit of it causes injury (and, presumably, pain). No matter how much hurting or "feeding" it does, it always wants more. Positive energy seeks *only* to create (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled good. Negative energy seeks *only* to destroy (that is its actual purpose), so it has been labeled evil. Using negative energy to power undead is "unnatural" in that you are creating a "mockery of life" using energy that's meant to destroy, not create. This is why mindless undead are actually Always Neutral Evil in alignment. They are powered by energy that exists only to destroy ... that has to rub off. O bolded the parts that aren't right in a cosmological sense. No ... I think you've got that backwards ... you'd do better not try to frame the entire argument in terms of two extremely rare oddball creatures. And all Undead. For 99.999% of everything in the DnD multiverse, Negative Energy hurts or kills. 99.999 % =/= 100%. Exactly this: a little bit of positive energy *doesn't* hurt. A little bit of negative energy *does* hurt. A bit of Positive Energy hurts Undead. And those two "oddball" creatures (Xeg-Yi aren't oddballs, actually). Not exactly. When whatever the ice is cooling reaches the ice's temperature, it stops cooling. Does it do that in D&D? I mean, fire and ice are constantly feeding upon each other in D&D. Since there's (theoretically) an endless amount if ice in the multiverse, it will never stop consuming the fire. The same principle is probably in effect with the Negative Energy Plane (given that it is also infinite in size). Negative energy can't ever be stopped. It "always hungers for more." The only time it will stop is when there's nothing left. Nothing. So, say a drop of Negative Energy could theoretically only absorb a drop of Positive Energy, right? Lends support to my theory concerning the amount it can consume. No, life isn't inherently Good. However, the definition of Evil is hurting, killing or oppressing ... things which can only be done to living things. You can't hurt or oppress a rock. No, but you can hurt or oppress an Undead. The *energy* itself is not Evil ... putting it into a creature or using it (to hurt, kill or oppress) is Evil. Same as with fire. Creating a creature that is powered by the force of destruction is Evil. So creating a golem (an elemental spirit bound with in a material body) is Evil if you use fire to create it? If you're going to make an argument that silly, I'm outta here.... Hey, if you want to discuss rules, then you'd better be prepared for the opponent putting you into the weirdest positions. Negative energy powering "living" things is *absolutely* unnatural ... aside from those two oddballs, every other living thing in existence needs positive energy. Those oddballs prove that Negative Energy is not purely a force of destruction. It can create too. And, BTW, if you want to claim something is unnatural in D&D, the burden of proof falls on you. It's the effects of the energy upon a "living" creature that turns it's alignment to Evil. Are living creatures the first-class citizens when it comes to morality? If you don't consider the Death of Everything evil, I guess we're done, here.... I don't consider the death of everything Evil, because alignment is reciprocal. If every creature of every alignment dies, it all breaks evil. What we will have as a void. Pure stagnation, no Evil, no Good, no Law and no Chaos. If you think that's Evil, then I can't help but think that you have an extremely warped idea of D&D morality. If Negative Energy consumes everything, it's no more different than a small town being wiped out by an avalanche (it's just on a latger scale).
Sereno 03-09-07, 04:19 PM	O bolded the parts that aren't right in a cosmological sense. You're going to have to provide a reference if you think that dying is "gaining negative energy" ... I've never seen anything like it in *any* published book; old living humans (elves/orcs/goblins/etc.) don't have any negative energy in them. OK, always hurts everything powered by positive energy; which really is just about everything that exists. The descriptions of what positive and negative energy do, what they're "for," and what the planes are all about is right in the DMG. The last two statements are my opinion, based on my understanding of RAW (see above) and my explanation for why skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil; which they are, by RAW. 99.999 % =/= 100%. So what? Does it do that in D&D? I mean, fire and ice are constantly feeding upon each other in D&D. Since there's (theoretically) an endless amount if ice in the multiverse, it will never stop consuming the fire. The same principle is probably in effect with the Negative Energy Plane (given that it is also infinite in size). I've never seen any reference that it is. The elemental planes are not pitted against one another, consuming each other eternally ... they have no contact, per RAW, that I've ever seen. So, say a drop of Negative Energy could theoretically only absorb a drop of Positive Energy, right? Lends support to my theory concerning the amount it can consume. Unfortunately for you, there's no evidence in any book, that I've ever seen, that your theory is correct. There's no evidence that 1 gram of negative energy can only absorb 1 gram of positive energy (possibly translated into the large amount a matter that 1 gram of PE could represent). So creating a golem (an elemental spirit bound with in a material body) is Evil if you use fire to create it? Nope. Fire doesn't exist to destroy, it exists to heat. That fire CAN destroy is not it's "purpose" ... the purpose of Negative Energy is to destroy, and nothing else. Those oddballs prove that Negative Energy is not purely a force of destruction. It can create too. I disagree. We have no explanation, in the RAW, as to how those creatures come about, where they come from, or how they're made. This flies in the face of the DMG entry about what the Negative Energy plane is all about. What was that you were saying about Core trumping other material? And, BTW, if you want to claim something is unnatural in D&D, the burden of proof falls on you. That's what I'm doing ... you just don't agree with me. Are living creatures the first-class citizens when it comes to morality? Absolutely! If they weren't, there'd be no point to any alignment at all. Nothing would be immoral or evil. Kill a thousand people, who care. Kill a million, no big deal. It's because life has value (to the living, who are most of everything that can even conceive of the concept of good or evil) that taking it away is (usually) evil. I don't consider the death of everything Evil, because alignment is reciprocal. If every creature of every alignment dies, it all breaks evil. What we will have as a void. Pure stagnation, no Evil, no Good, no Law and no Chaos. If you think that's Evil, then I can't help but think that you have an extremely warped idea of D&D morality. If Negative Energy consumes everything, it's no more different than a small town being wiped out by an avalanche (it's just on a latger scale). It's really hard to continue discussing this issue with someone who doesn't think that bringing about the End of All Existence isn't Evil.... If the BBEG in a campaign were going to wipe out Everything, I can't really see how *everyone* wouldn't consider him Evil. I can't imagine anyone just sitting back and saying, "Oh, he's going to wipe out *everything* ... well, that's OK, then ... that's not evil at all because nothing will be left to care! Let's go get a beer!" Concerning the town ... it depends on *how* negative energy were to consume the entire town, exactly the same with the avalanche. Under normal DnD circumstances, and by RAW, Negative Energy doesn't ever just wipe things out on it's own. The same way the everything isn't drowned by the plane of Water or burned by the plane of Fire ... it takes an action to bring any of the energies into play.
Red12 03-10-07, 04:32 PM	Unfortunately for you, there's no evidence in any book, that I've ever seen, that your theory is correct. There's no evidence that 1 gram of negative energy can only absorb 1 gram of positive energy (possibly translated into the large amount a matter that 1 gram of PE could represent). I think that the various inflict spells exemplify this (PHB). When you "inflict moderate wounds", you are channeling an amount of Negative energy into the world. Upon feeding upon the "positive energy" (i.e. HP) of the creature targeted, its neutralized and dissipates. Otherwise, a 1st level cleric who casts inflict minor wounds for a whopping 1 hp damage will destroy the universe. It's really hard to continue discussing this issue with someone who doesn't think that bringing about the End of All Existence isn't Evil.... Not evil, insane. Evil =/= insane. Evil people want to continue on living in some fashion (whether it be at the right hand of their deity, ruler of a kingdom (undead/fiendish/otherwise), or just enjoys killing for fun). Evil people have as much to loose in an "End of existence" scenario as Good does.
mists_cloud 03-10-07, 04:55 PM	You would never believe what i found in wikipedia, it goes like this: In the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, the Good lich is an undead. It is well known among D&D players that Liches are generally evil power-hungry mages which tried to cheat death by turning themselves into undead. The majority of these beings are evil. But not all of them are. At least in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, a very small number of Liches are of good alignment. They either sought undeath or had it forced upon them to serve a noble cause, protect a loved being or place, or to pursue a lofty goal. Aside from the alignment, there is little difference between Good liches and regular liches. They have much the same abilities and characteristics, although a few have additional abilities. Good liches are, of course, any alignment of good. Hmmm...isn't THAT interesting, but according to the 'rules' you can't have a good undead, maybe, that's just the people who actually WROTE the games fault, oh wait....it's THEIR game, that would make it THEIR rules, so I guess you can have good undead.... Oh and by the way, you need negative energy to balance positive energy, without destruction there can be no creation. Oh, and casting awaken undead, gives it a thinking pattern, that is linked to the alignment of its creator, which if you're a CG it would be....wait for it....CG!:D ps, this is not an aggressive thingo, it just seems like it, in reality...I love you guys!! By the way, instead of arguing, lets, go back to the point, what are the reason WHY they would be GOOD, not EVIL... I mean com'on, we're only making enemies of each other, it's designed to help, not hinder, so...try to be helpful...:D
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-10-07, 05:28 PM	You're going to have to provide a reference if you think that dying is "gaining negative energy" ... If you get cut with a sword, you get a a gaping wound. Channel Positive Energy into the wound and it disappears. OK, always hurts everything powered by positive energy; which really is just about everything that exists. There's a lot of Undead out there. The descriptions of what positive and negative energy do, what they're "for," and what the planes are all about is right in the DMG. They don't seem to serve a purpose, actually. The last two statements are my opinion, based on my understanding of RAW (see above) and my explanation for why skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil; which they are, by RAW. They will be for a moment. Then the fact that they can't think and can't act without command turns them Neutral. So what? So stop saying "all". I've never seen any reference that it is. The elemental planes are not pitted against one another, consuming each other eternally ... they have no contact, per RAW, that I've ever seen. Fire burns eternally and ice freezes eternally. Both meet on the material plane and dispel each other (a spellcasting example). Unfortunately for you, there's no evidence in any book, that I've ever seen, that your theory is correct. There's no evidence that 1 gram of negative energy can only absorb 1 gram of positive energy (possibly translated into the large amount a matter that 1 gram of PE could represent). Red12 has my theory. The rules allow for a great deal of theorizing, and applying some physics (you can apply too much, though) can make the multiverse make sense. Nope. Fire doesn't exist to destroy, it exists to heat. That fire CAN destroy is not it's "purpose" ... the purpose of Negative Energy is to destroy, and nothing else. Fire doesn't have a purpose. Some creatures can give it a purpose (like the humanocentric one you gave as an example), but that purpose is not innate. Fire just burns endlessly, feeding on material, which it burns and turns to ash. What I theorize if any of the Elemental Planes were destroyed (not relevant, but makes for some great philosophical thoughts): Fire: Everything (all of the planes) goes underwater and freezes into a large chunk. Water: Everything burns to ash. Air: Everything collapses in on itself, creating a massive chunk of earth. Earth: Everything dissolves into a mist. Negative Energy: Everything explodes. Positive Energy: Everything becomes nothing. Look at the multiverse in a Taoistic sense (because it is fundamentally Taoistic in nature, all about balance), and it will make sense to you. I disagree. We have no explanation, in the RAW, as to how those creatures come about, where they come from, or how they're made. This flies in the face of the DMG entry about what the Negative Energy plane is all about. How would you explain it? I mean, Negative Energy can animate objects (like Positive Energy does with Deathless). What was that you were saying about Core trumping other material? Well, these creatures seem to exist. WotC cleared them. I'd say they work about the same as Undead, except they're alive. That's what I'm doing ... you just don't agree with me. Explain to me the natural order of the multiverse and how Undead are breaking it. I have only seen you try to prove that they're Evil (not going well, what with all the exceptions, and the fact that a creature's alignment is defined by its actions, not it's nature (except for fiends, which Undead are decidedly not)). Absolutely! If they weren't, there'd be no point to any alignment at all. Nothing would be immoral or evil. Kill a thousand people, who care. Kill a million, no big deal. It's because life has value (to the living, who are most of everything that can even conceive of the concept of good or evil) that taking it away is (usually) evil. I kind of asked, because of the Necropolitan template. Necropolitans are normal people who have willingly undergone a transformation to become Undead. Nowhere are their alignments described as Evil, or even leaning towards that alignment. The example Necropolitan is Neutral-aligned. In fact, the template specifically says they retain their own alignment, and that the ritual to become one is not Evil-aligned. Furthermore, there are said to be cities inhabited almost exclusively by Necropolitans. Now I ask you, is choosing between destroying a city of innocent Necropolitans and destroying a city of normal innocents not a catch-22 situation? Sure looks that way to me. It's really hard to continue discussing this issue with someone who doesn't think that bringing about the End of All Existence isn't Evil.... There is a difference between bringing it about, and it coming about naturally. Like Red12 said, Evil gains nothing from it. Not Evil people, not fiends, nobody gains from it. Evil people want to live and enjoy what they're doing. Somebody trying this is a fine example of an insane Neutral person. If the BBEG in a campaign were going to wipe out Everything, I can't really see how *everyone* wouldn't consider him Evil. That's also the great thing about D&D morality; "people" don't determine morality. Morality itself does. Good doesn't oppose Negative Energy because it's what kills their opponents. I can't imagine anyone just sitting back and saying, "Oh, he's going to wipe out *everything* ... well, that's OK, then ... that's not evil at all because nothing will be left to care! Let's go get a beer!" That's a straw man. I'm not saying that. People will try to stop him because they want to live, not because he's Evil. They may not like him for trying to destroy everything, but it doesn't make him Evil. He might be Evil, but that would be because of other factors. The best reason why he isn't Good is because Good tends to cling to the live-and-let-live credo. Concerning the town ... it depends on *how* negative energy were to consume the entire town, exactly the same with the avalanche. Let's assume some kind of rift. Under normal DnD circumstances, and by RAW, Negative Energy doesn't ever just wipe things out on it's own. The same way the everything isn't drowned by the plane of Water or burned by the plane of Fire ... it takes an action to bring any of the energies into play. The Planar Handbook explains things called Planar Rifts. Basically, they're weakened boundaries between planes that tear and the essence of each plane pour into the other.
calronmoonflower 03-12-07, 02:33 AM	Well lets try to get back on track. To be a good necromancer is possible as not all necromancy spells have a evil descriptor, but it would require a bit (maybe allot) of work. 1. You could have your character be a guardian of the dead. Laying to rest restless undead and opposing other necromancers. 2. if you have a book that features the deathless type (Book of Exalted Deeds and Eberron Campaign Setting you can create deathless version of the Create Undead spells. You could even create a spell that temporary restores a dead creature to live with the deathless type. but I think the creature would have a choice as it would be wrong to force anyone into a second false life. The corpse and skeleton creature templates can provide a start. 3. You could modify the Dread Necromancer from heroes of Horror into a class that creates a deathless lich. The Charnel touch could be replaced with a ability that uses positive energy to damage undead, heal deathless, and provide temp Hp for living creatures. Or you can replace it with the Lay On Hands ability like a paladin. Spells- Switch out any that have the (evil) descriptor or make a good version of these spells. you may also want to change inflict spells to curing spells. Rebuke Undead- Replace with turn Undead. Negative Energy burst to Positive Energy Burst Fear Aura- Rename Aura of Awe Scabrous Touch- Change to remove Disease. Summon Familiar- Replace with a celestial creature instead of a fiend. Undead Mastery- Change to Deathless Mastery or replace with your Turn Undead with Greater Turning. Enervating Touch- Not sure what to replace this with. maybe add the Sacred, Sacred Burst, or Holy property on all your weapons. Lich Transformation- You become a deathless lich instead of a undead lich. If you replace the class features as i have (or use your own changes) you should be 9/Th's the way there. 4. That would be allot of work. So you could just use necromancy spells that do not have the evil descriptor.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-12-07, 03:56 AM	He can still cast Animate Undead and not have his alignment suffer for it, though.
Sereno 03-12-07, 09:23 AM	If you get cut with a sword, you get a a gaping wound. Channel Positive Energy into the wound and it disappears. Because positive energy creates ... and, when healing, it creates new flesh. There's absolutely NO evidence that a normal sword cuts because it's inflicting negative energy on a person, or that a wound is in any way related to negative energy. They will be for a moment. Then the fact that they can't think and can't act without command turns them Neutral. Except that by RAW, they are. If you're going to argue that two creatures out of all the books makes a major case, why the problem with this particular element of RAW? Fire doesn't have a purpose. Some creatures can give it a purpose (like the humanocentric one you gave as an example), but that purpose is not innate. Fire just burns endlessly, feeding on material, which it burns and turns to ash. What I theorize if any of the Elemental Planes were destroyed (not relevant, but makes for some great philosophical thoughts): Fire: Everything (all of the planes) goes underwater and freezes into a large chunk. Water: Everything burns to ash. Air: Everything collapses in on itself, creating a massive chunk of earth. Earth: Everything dissolves into a mist. Negative Energy: Everything explodes. Positive Energy: Everything becomes nothing. Look at the multiverse in a Taoistic sense (because it is fundamentally Taoistic in nature, all about balance), and it will make sense to you. That's all well and good in your own campaign ... but it's all house-rules. There's no indication that the material plane is affected by the elemental planes that way. It's just as likely that the elemental planes exist as an infinite extension of the material. How would you explain it? I mean, Negative Energy can animate objects (like Positive Energy does with Deathless). Well, these creatures seem to exist. WotC cleared them. I'd say they work about the same as Undead, except they're alive. I'm not trying to explain it. I'm simply stating that their existence doesn't necessarily change the nature of positive/negative energy. Explain to me the natural order of the multiverse and how Undead are breaking it. I have only seen you try to prove that they're Evil (not going well, what with all the exceptions, and the fact that a creature's alignment is defined by its actions, not it's nature (except for fiends, which Undead are decidedly not)). I don't *have* to prove that they're evil ... they ARE, by RAW. I'm explaining *why* I believe they are evil, and why I agree that they should be evil. My reasons for believing them to be unnatural is the fact that unlike 99.999% of everything in existence (that's NOT made by [evil] spells), they're powered by Negative Energy ... the force of destruction and not positive energy, the force of creation. The only time undead occur "naturally" is in a few cases were someone dies in misery/agony/insanity or with unfinished business (ghosts). Otherwise, someone is using [evil] spells to *make* them. I kind of asked, because of the Necropolitan template. Necropolitans are normal people who have willingly undergone a transformation to become Undead. Nowhere are their alignments described as Evil, or even leaning towards that alignment. The example Necropolitan is Neutral-aligned. In fact, the template specifically says they retain their own alignment, and that the ritual to become one is not Evil-aligned. Furthermore, there are said to be cities inhabited almost exclusively by Necropolitans. Now I ask you, is choosing between destroying a city of innocent Necropolitans and destroying a city of normal innocents not a catch-22 situation? Sure looks that way to me. Destroying innocents is evil, regardless of what "race" they are. Free-willed undead can choose other alignment even though most of them are Always Evil. Like Red12 said, Evil gains nothing from it. Not Evil people, not fiends, nobody gains from it. Evil people want to live and enjoy what they're doing. Somebody trying this is a fine example of an insane Neutral person. Nope, it's still Evil to want to kill everything. That's what Evil is; hurting, KILLING, or oppressing others. It doesn't matter if "other" means "elves" or "everything in existence" ... if you want to kill everything, you're EVIL! And, before you even go there: devils aren't good when they kill other devils because they're doing it for their own selfish reasons (fun, power). The fact that neither side "wins" is irrelevant ... if you want to kill everything and attempt it, you're Evil. No question. By RAW and by reality, too. The Planar Handbook explains things called Planar Rifts. Basically, they're weakened boundaries between planes that tear and the essence of each plane pour into the other. Fine, if a natural rift opened up and swallowed a town it's no different that a natural avalanche burying the same town. What does that have to do with USING negative energy (or tons and tons of snow)?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-12-07, 11:09 AM	Because positive energy creates ... and, when healing, it creates new flesh. There's absolutely NO evidence that a normal sword cuts because it's inflicting negative energy on a person, or that a wound is in any way related to negative energy. The sword hacks at the flesh, destroying it. Channeling Positive Energy into the wound fixes it, it doesn't really create anything new. Except that by RAW, they are. If you're going to argue that two creatures out of all the books makes a major case, why the problem with this particular element of RAW? No, I'm saying that by RAW, they should be Neutral. The MM states that any creature with an Intelligence score of 2 or less or that doesn't have one can only be Neutral. That's all well and good in your own campaign ... but it's all house-rules. There's no indication that the material plane is affected by the elemental planes that way. It's just as likely that the elemental planes exist as an infinite extension of the material. Planar Handbook actually says something to that effect, IIRC. If I'm correct, then it isn't houserules. I'm not trying to explain it. I'm simply stating that their existence doesn't necessarily change the nature of positive/negative energy. And I'm saying that it does in this case. Regardless of the nature of Negative Energy, it clearly shows some ability to create, same as Positive Energy can destroy (it kills these creatures, doesn't it?). I forgot one category that is fuelled by Negative Energy: Creatures that have taken the Tomb-Tainted Soul feat. I don't *have* to prove that they're evil ... they ARE, by RAW. No, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that they aren't. Not inherently, at least. And that's all I'm trying to prove. The only time undead occur "naturally" is in a few cases were someone dies in misery/agony/insanity or with unfinished business (ghosts). Those are what I call natural Undead. Free-willed undead can choose other alignment even though most of them are Always Evil. That's all I needed to hear from you. Nope, it's still Evil to want to kill everything. That's what Evil is; hurting, KILLING, or oppressing others. It doesn't matter if "other" means "elves" or "everything in existence" ... if you want to kill everything, you're EVIL! Maybe, but you won't be all that popular with anyone. And, before you even go there: devils aren't good when they kill other devils because they're doing it for their own selfish reasons (fun, power). Never was going to say anything of the sort. If there's one thing I understand, it's the nature of fiends.
Khatoblepas 03-12-07, 12:37 PM	Undead are evil because undead are traditionally evil. They're the smitables. Imagine a good cleric of Pelor turning and turning these undead. If they were neutral, Magic Circle against Evil would make him overrun with the living dead. =( It's a game balance thing, I assure you. Maybe mindless undead should be either True Neutral or Neutral Evil, depending on the creator? (Nonevil necromancers create neutral undead, evil ones create evil undead) I've made a class especially for those people who want to be good necromancers. It's kinda an exalted one, though. =) Ahem, Good Necromancer. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=758196)
Sereno 03-12-07, 12:59 PM	The sword hacks at the flesh, destroying it. Channeling Positive Energy into the wound fixes it, it doesn't really create anything new. Sure it does, new muscle, bone, blood and skin cells. If it wasn't creating new flesh, you'd not actually heal. If you physically visit the PE plane, you completely heal and then start to build up "extra energy" ... then you explode; but, first, you heal. No, I'm saying that by RAW, they should be Neutral. The MM states that any creature with an Intelligence score of 2 or less or that doesn't have one can only be Neutral. Planar Handbook actually says something to that effect, IIRC. If I'm correct, then it isn't houserules. And I'm saying that it does in this case. Regardless of the nature of Negative Energy, it clearly shows some ability to create, same as Positive Energy can destroy (it kills these creatures, doesn't it?). I forgot one category that is fuelled by Negative Energy: Creatures that have taken the Tomb-Tainted Soul feat. No, we have plenty of evidence to suggest that they aren't. Not inherently, at least. And that's all I'm trying to prove. The simple fact is they are Evil by RAW. You can argue that RAW is wrong all you want, but it's still RAW. Further, the Planar Handbook is an optional book for one *version* of DnD cosmology, and it doesn't trump the DMG unless the DM decides. It doesn't even apply to Eberron. And, IIRC, the Planar Handbook is even more blatant about using "evil" terminology when describing the Negative Energy plane than the DMG.... I happen to think they got it right, and I have my reasons for believing it. Note the bolded word, above .... by most common uses, Tainted means unnatural, as well. If milk has been tainted, it's not the natural milk from a cow, it's got something else in it. Also, gaining Taint, using the optional rules, is not a good thing. It means you're becoming corrupted and evil. Those are what I call natural Undead. That's still not natural ... what's natural in DnD is that when you die, your spirit goes to the proper plane. Becoming an undead, hungering for the life-force of the living, is definitely NOT natural. It may be *spontaneous* but that doesn't make it natural. Maybe, but you won't be all that popular with anyone. Not sure what you mean by this. Going back to the original topic. Yes, I believe a necromancer could be good (or at least not evil), but not if they start actually animating the dead. To animate the dead, they're casting [evil] spells and bringing evil creatures into the world to do their bidding ... you can't keep doing that and remain good forever. Even if you're using the undead for good purposes, you're still bringing more evil and negative energy into the world.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-12-07, 01:45 PM	The simple fact is they are Evil by RAW. You can argue that RAW is wrong all you want, but it's still RAW. Point me to the part in the rules where it says that they're Evil. It should be easy for you, considering that you know it this well. Further, the Planar Handbook is an optional book for one *version* of DnD cosmology, and it doesn't trump the DMG unless the DM decides. It doesn't need to trump the DMG because it doesn't contradict anything. That's what we call an expansion. Also, the fact that it's official makes it canon. And, IIRC, the Planar Handbook is even more blatant about using "evil" terminology when describing the Negative Energy plane than the DMG.... It doesn't state it outright. The plane has no Evil-leaning tendencies and it eats life. Well, it helps Undead and the other creatures I mentioned (which you still haven't proven to be Evil). I happen to think they got it right, and I have my reasons for believing it. And I don't respect your opinion because you seem to be bringing your own morals into the debate (not necessarily using them as arguments, but arguing according to them). Note the bolded word, above .... by most common uses, Tainted means unnatural, as well. If milk has been tainted, it's not the natural milk from a cow, it's got something else in it. You're reading too much into it. Tainted means contaminated. Contamination can imply a lot of things (even Positive Energy... or, hell, Fire!). That's still not natural ... what's natural in DnD is that when you die, your spirit goes to the proper plane. No, we have Outsiders and other creatures that are immortal, and as such might never die. Ever. Then we have resurrective magic. That part of the concept "natural order" doesn't mean jack. Becoming an undead, hungering for the life-force of the living, is definitely NOT natural. So say you. That don't make it so. It may be *spontaneous* but that doesn't make it natural. That's exactly what it means in this case. Something dies and something is born of it. Not sure what you mean by this. If you want to kill everyone, then everyone will hate you. To animate the dead, they're casting [evil] spells and bringing evil creatures into the world to do their bidding ... you can't keep doing that and remain good forever. Alignment is reciprocal. You animate some Undead (not an Evil act, BTW), make them do Good stuff. You should break out more than even. Even if you're using the undead for good purposes, you're still bringing more evil and negative energy into the world. No, you're bringing Negative Energy into the world. It causes an imbalance of energies, but then again so does casting Fireball. I'd like to note that you already conceded to my primary case: Undead are not inherently Evil (you said that when you said free-willed Undead could choose their own alignment).
Sereno 03-12-07, 02:35 PM	Point me to the part in the rules where it says that they're Evil. It should be easy for you, considering that you know it this well. It's right there in the MM: Skeleton Alignment: Always neutral evil Zombie Alignment: Always neutral evil And I don't respect your opinion because you seem to be bringing your own morals into the debate (not necessarily using them as arguments, but arguing according to them). I'm done. I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone who doesn't bother to have any respect for my opinion. I'd like to note that you already conceded to my primary case: Undead are not inherently Evil (you said that when you said free-willed Undead could choose their own alignment). But, I'll add this. I didn't concede anything ... just because you can choose your own alignment doesn't mean your race (or creature type) doesn't have a tendency towards evil. Fighting against your inner evil is the hallmark of the "redeemed vampire" story.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-12-07, 03:30 PM	It's right there in the MM: Skeleton Alignment: Always neutral evil Zombie Alignment: Always neutral evil But that conflicts with the rules. By RAW, they're not allowed to have this alignment unless they have the [Evil] subtype. I'm done. I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone who doesn't bother to have any respect for my opinion. Note thet I didn't say I didn't respect you as a person. But your opinion conflicts too much with my own for me to respect it. In fact, you can see that I don't respect it. I always come back to argue some more, don't I? That's what it means to disrespect other people's opinions. But, I'll add this. I didn't concede anything ... just because you can choose your own alignment doesn't mean your race (or creature type) doesn't have a tendency towards evil. Undead aren't a race, they are a type. A type that has no alignment tendencies whatsoever. Individual Undead "species" have alignment tendencies, but that is not due to their being full of Negative Energy or Evil. It's because of something else, say, hunger or hatred for life. Some Undead overcome these instincts (they have an easy time doing it, too, if you buy RAW) and start doing something else. What we call inherently Evil are creatures with the [Evil] subtype. They are in large part made from Evil. Of a million of these creatures, there should theoretically be one or two non-Evil individuals. Fiends go even further; they're pure Evil. If you take the Fiendish Codices' words for it (which you should, since they both specifically state that they overrule all other supplements in regards to the creatures they cover), there would be none in such a group of fiends.
Nephlite 03-12-07, 10:04 PM	Undead aren't a race, they are a type. A type that has no alignment tendencies whatsoever. Individual Undead "species" have alignment tendencies, but that is not due to their being full of Negative Energy or Evil. It's because of something else, say, hunger or hatred for life. Some Undead overcome these instincts (they have an easy time doing it, too, if you buy RAW) and start doing something else. Not all dead hunger or hate life. Zombies and skeletons don't. They are mindless and obedient. They can't do anythung unless ordered. Most modules have undead (S & Z) ordered to guard an area (which is why they attack adventurers) What we call inherently Evil are creatures with the [Evil] subtype. They are in large part made from Evil. Of a million of these creatures, there should theoretically be one or two non-Evil individuals. Fiends go even further; they're pure Evil. If you take the Fiendish Codices' words for it (which you should, since they both specifically state that they overrule all other supplements in regards to the creatures they cover), there would be none in such a group of fiends. Really, most people arguing for Z's and S's are evil describe them as if they had evil subtype (would be cool way to make it make sense). Even better they could be Neurtal with Evil subtype so Smite evil would still work on them.
Traevanon 03-13-07, 08:10 AM	If you think that the [Evil] descriptor in a spell, plane or alignment is just a rules tool to indicate how it interacts with other spells, planes or creatures you would be wrong. First, let me quote the relevant sections:Alignment This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole. Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.Furthermore: Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.And lastly:Alignment Traits Some planes have a predisposition to a certain alignment. Most of the inhabitants of these planes also have the plane’s particular alignment, even powerful creatures such as deities. In addition, creatures of alignments contrary to the plane have a tougher time dealing with its natives and situations. The alignment trait of a plane affects social interactions there. Characters who follow other alignments than most of the inhabitants do may find life more difficult. Alignment traits have multiple components. First are the moral (good or evil) and ethical (lawful or chaotic) components; a plane can have either a moral component, an ethical component, or one of each. Second, the specific alignment trait indicates whether each moral or ethical component is mildly or strongly evident. Good-Aligned/Evil-Aligned: These planes have chosen a side in the battle of good versus evil. No plane can be both good-aligned and evil-aligned.So, if a creature has an alignment indicator that says "Always Evil" every creature of that type is evil unless specifically excepted by the DM. [Evil] spells: These are associated with the alignment "Evil". Its not just some weird mathematical equivalent of the [Fire] descriptor. Its evil to do evil... deal with it. No amount of logic will allow you to escape your moral obligations. The Undead type: Undead are almost universally evil, but not enough to make the assumption just from the type. They also are not animated by negative energy, but instead are animated by a spiritual or supernatural force. You can assume that that supernatural force is negative energy, but it is not clear from the rules if that is the case. The Negative Energy Plane and Negative Energy: Its not evil. There is a descriptor indicating which planes are evil. The Negative Energy Plane is not one of them, and this would indicate to me that forces originating from that plane are not inherently evil. Thanks for listening...
Melpomene 03-18-07, 06:34 PM	But that conflicts with the rules. By RAW, they're not allowed to have this alignment unless they have the [Evil] subtype. (The MM is the RAW.) Undead aren't a race, they are a type. A type that has no alignment tendencies whatsoever. (Undead carry an implied alignment.) Individual Undead "species" have alignment tendencies, but that is not due to their being full of Negative Energy or Evil. It's because of something else, say, hunger or hatred for life. Some Undead overcome these instincts (they have an easy time doing it, too, if you buy RAW) and start doing something else. (You have not, however, provided an example of even one undead creature that tends towards even neutrality as written without bringing up a special case. Of course intellengent creatures can fight natural tendancies, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.) [You leave for a week and... I actually expected this thread to be further along.]
navar100 03-18-07, 06:44 PM	By D&D rules, animating undead is an evil act. It is inherently evil. It doesn't matter one wants to use skeletons to till the fields to feed a hungry nation, animating undead is evil. Good and evil are absolutes. For a specific campaign world this might not necessarily be so. This is matter of different DMs different campaigns. It is possible such a campaign would accept animating the skeletons of executed murderers to till the fields to feed a hungry nation. Regardless, just because you are Necromancer does mean you must create undead. A good Necromancer can use Vampiric Touch, Enervation, Chill Touch, etc., without a problem. Those spells are not inherently evil. There is no law of Necromancy which says you must use undead or else you are not a Necromancer. It still may be a wise tactic for a good Necromancer to learn Animate Dead and the Create Undead spells and prepare them. It would be a good thing to use those spells to counterspell someone else casting those spells.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 07:14 PM	The MM is the RAW. So is the passage that states that creatures cannot have any other alignment than Neutral if they have an Intelligence score of 2 or less or none at all. Undead carry an implied alignment. Prove it. You have not, however, provided an example of even one undead creature that tends towards even neutrality as written without bringing up a special case. That's all I need to do to prove that they have no inherent alignment. That's exactly what I'm doing. Of course intellengent creatures can fight natural tendancies, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. By RAW, they don't need to do anything. It says Ghouls hunger, but that's fluff. Rules say that Ghouls don't have to eat at all. By D&D rules, animating undead is an evil act. It is inherently evil. See, reading comprehension tells you that sentences are not supposed change their subjects. The sentence addresses targets in the beginning, so why not at the end? You may plead shoddy editing, but as-is, my interpretation is just as correct as yours (actually, a bit more). It still may be a wise tactic for a good Necromancer to learn Animate Dead and the Create Undead spells and prepare them. It would be a good thing to use those spells to counterspell someone else casting those spells. Even if it were an Evil act to cast these spells, a Good Necromancer can still cast them because he is not prohibited from doing so.
Voldar_Mecorthio 03-18-07, 07:40 PM	I support the good necromancer quite a bit. Negitive energy is no more evil than fire; both can destroy, both can make life easier. (fire provides light and heat, skeletons and zombies can help with mundane chores). Mindless undead are not evil; they have no free will. They do what they are told, nothing else. They are essentially a varient of golems and should be treated as such; there's no explaination of why a skeleton should be any alignment other than neutral. Death is nessary, if nothing ever died we would have thousands of old people complaining about how they had to walk three miles in the snow to get to school and how young people today are all spoiled.
Melpomene 03-18-07, 07:53 PM	Starting list. I got interrupted. Will be editted later. Allip : Always NE Bodak : Always CE Devourer: Always NE Ghost: No prefference Ghoul/Ghast : Always CE Lich : Any Evil Mohrg : Always CE Mummy : Usually LE Nightshade (All) : Always CE Shadow : Always CE Skeleton : Always NE Spectre : Always LE Vampire/Spawn : Any Evil Wight : Always LE Wraith : Always LE Zombie : Always NE Angell of Decay : Always CE Atropal Scion : Always CE Blaspheme : Always NE Bleakborne : Always NE Blood Amniote : Always NN Bloodmote Cloud : Always NE Bonerat Swarm : Always NE Boneyard : Always CE Brain inna Jar : Usually NE Cindrespawn : Always CE Corpse Rat Swarm : Always NE Crypt Chanter : Always CE Deathlock : Usually NE Dessicator : Always NE Dream Vestige : Always CE Entomber : Always LE Entropic Reaper : Always CE Forsaken Shell : Always CE Ghost Brute : Usually NN Gravetouched Ghoul : NN Half-Vampire : Usually CE Hulking Corpse : Always CE Mumified Creature: Always LE Murk : Always CE Necromental : Always NE Necropolitan : NN Plague Blight : Always Evil (any) Quell : Always LE Raiment: Usually CE Revived Fossil : Always NE Skin Kite : Always NE Skirr : Always NE Skulking Cyst : Always CE Slaughter Wight : Always CE Slaymate : Always LE Specteral Lyracist : Always CE Swarm-Shifter : Usually NE Tomb Mote : Always CE Umberal Creature : Always CE Visage : Always CE Voidwraith : Always NE Wheep : Always LE Aspect of Vecna : Always NE Cursed Spirit : Always CE Gravehound : Always NE Banshee : Usually NE Bone Naga : Always LE Corpse Gatherer : Usually NN Crimson Death : Always NE Death Bringer : Usally NE Effigy : Always CE Famine Spirit : Always NE Gravecrawler : Always NN
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 08:08 PM	The fact that the Ghost and Necropolitans have no preference proves my point that Undead have no inherent alignment. Therefore their alignment tendencies are based on race, not type. Undead are a type, Ghouls are a race. Ghouls kill to feed, even though they don't need to, therefore Ghouls are Chaotic Evil. This has no bearing on the alignments of Wights, Ghosts or Allips, which are also races.
Maekrix_Waere 03-18-07, 11:03 PM	The Libris Mortis has rules for Good-Aligned Liches, just FYI. If I remember correctly it also has rules for good-aligned undead as well, so someone could just use those.
calronmoonflower 03-19-07, 12:48 AM	Mindless undead are not evil; they have no free will. They do what they are told, nothing else. They are essentially a varient of golems and should be treated as such; there's no explaination of why a skeleton should be any alignment other than neutral. How about zombies that arise do to taint. They are not controlled and act freely of their own instincts. Also what undead created in excess that a necromancer can control. Do they just stand there like statues. Zombies and skeletons don't have an actual alignment because they are mindless, but they are created by evil spells and effects, so they are tainted by that creation. That would be the reason Circle of Protection From Evil works on undead.
Traevanon 03-19-07, 09:29 AM	Zombies and Skeletons are Neutral Evil, it says so in the Monster Manual. Arguing lack of intelligence based on the alignment entries in the Player's Handbook is pointless. There has been plenty of opportunity for errata and none have been forthcoming. I think it is possible that you are interpreting the Player's Handbook in a manner favorable to your case. If Undead as an entire subtype are not necessarily evil what does it prove? Those rarer instances of undead that are neutral are not the types that a good necromancer will be animating. To me what it says is that if you decide to play a Good Necromancer you will always be walking a fine line. Its also the type of fine line that doesnt tranfer very well to the D&D Roleplaying format. You might wind up constantly wondering if the DM is picking on you or if the townsfolk are really that stupid. You'll probably be back here several times pleading with us to prove that you didnt actually do evil in specific cases, which we will debate endlessly long after you have left. Some of us will defend you and call your DM a moron and the others will defend your DM and try to explain in a nice way why your DM is right. In the end, you're probably best just slaying monsters, gathering treasure, exploring dungeons and leveling up instead of turning it into a big morality play.
wonlee76 03-19-07, 11:18 AM	As a DM, a good necromancer could be possible but there would be some restrictions on spells they can use. I would never allow a good "dread necromancer" though due to the fact that a DM eventually becomes a lich and I'm a bit miffed at the whole concept of a "good aligned" lich. The only spells I would probably not allow a good aligned necromancer from using is the Create/Animate line of spells and possibly the Summon Undead line of spells. The creation of undead ties the soul to the undead preventing it from completing its journey to the afterlife (Can't raise, ress or true ress someone that has been animated or turned into an undead creature until that undead creature is destroyed/killed). Keeping a soul bound after death is a neutral/evilish act in my opinion.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-19-07, 11:21 AM	How about zombies that arise do to taint. They are not controlled and act freely of their own instincts. In that case, the Taint is their master. Also what undead created in excess that a necromancer can control. Do they just stand there like statues. If they're Zombies or Skeletons. Zombies and skeletons don't have an actual alignment because they are mindless, but they are created by evil spells and effects, so they are tainted by that creation. That would be the reason Circle of Protection From Evil works on undead. And there we have the beginning of a circular case. Why is the spell Evil? I'd like to note that the text that says Zombies and Skeletons can only be Neutral is in the MM, not PHB.
Traevanon 03-19-07, 12:39 PM	Quote please? Or at least page # so we can check it out?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-19-07, 12:51 PM	Quote please? Or at least page # so we can check it out? My mistake, it was in the PHB, page 104: 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. Zombies and Skeletons are incapable of any actions. That includes moral ones. Commanding them to do Evil is the same as commanding a Golem to do Evil, it makes neither the Undead nor the Golem Evil. Furthermore, official WotC policy dictates that text trumps table. A stat block constitutes a table, so Skeletons and Zombies do have a Neutral alignment.
Melpomene 03-19-07, 01:29 PM	The fact that the Ghost and Necropolitans have no preference proves my point that Undead have no inherent alignment. Therefore their alignment tendencies are based on race, not type. Undead are a type, Ghouls are a race. Ghouls kill to feed, even though they don't need to, therefore Ghouls are Chaotic Evil. This has no bearing on the alignments of Wights, Ghosts or Allips, which are also races. The breakdown of the list I posted (which is all of MM, half of MM2, and the LM), the numbers are 67 evil, 7 neutral or no prefference, and no good. That's more than 9.5 evil undead for every one neutral one. Ten to one is a not just a slight tendancy, it's an overwhelming prefference.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-19-07, 01:32 PM	The breakdown of the list I posted (which is all of MM, half of MM2, and the LM), the numbers are 67 evil, 7 neutral or no prefference, and no good. That's more than 9.5 evil undead for every one neutral one. Ten to one is a not just a slight tendancy, it's an overwhelming prefference. But it resides in individual species. Therefore, the type is not inherently Evil.
Melpomene 03-19-07, 03:07 PM	But it resides in individual species. Therefore, the type is not inherently Evil. You could show one redeemed feind or a good chromatic dragon and you still couldn't say that they don't have a prefference. One cannot look at the exceptions as evidence. The numbers show that there is a very strong (10:1:0) trend towards undead being evil.
EvilIdiot 03-19-07, 03:39 PM	There are other mindless evil creatures in MM: retrievers. Extraplanars mindless constructs with E AL. Rules exists. Exceptions as well. Rules can be interpreted, and ,therefore, you can find something as an exception, or as a simple matter of fact. Rules and Exceptions are written in the same books, and they're equally important. Let's take an example: prime numbers. Rule:all the even numbers can't be prime Exceptions: number two or, in other way: Rule: all the even numbers, excepts two, aren't prime. now, coming back in topic: Rule:all the mindless creatures must be NN Exceptions: undead,fiends and other creatures are evil Exceptions: retrievers are always evil. Exceptions are pretty logical and acceptable, there's no reason for not allowing exceptions in rules, is it? So, your problem is just that you find undeath being evil illogical, let's focus on it. DeD is based on common fantasy ideas and arts, so 1)they chose to make undeath evil, following those ideas. You can't demonstrate that an idea about art and fantasy is better than another, unless you can tell me whether chocolate is better than vanilla Taste is beyond strict logic... 2)Reasons for this are pretty known: -undeath is something unnatural, because ,except quite rare non-undead creatures, all the living things aren't healed by neg. energy, and undeath, to exist, always needs something which is natural, a corpse or soul from a once living creature -undeath tampers with evil magic, as a consequence, undeath-related spells have evil desc. -undeath is something immoral: non evil normal creatures, i.e. not monsters, are the side from which someone should analyse DeD morality, otherwise we would have always evil gnomes and LG kobolds... Therefore, tampering with dead creatures' corpse is immoral, because their body represents their last trace on the world,according to common believes ...etc... Training with undeath is morally troublesome: given the fact that conscious undeads are evil because they're twisted and powered with evil magic (see above)which traps souls (it's written in Cdiv and MM), someone, in order not to be evil, could use mindless undeads only to study undeath. At low levels, you would have few ways to get corspe: - killing innocent people: evil - buying dead corpse: well, a dead corspe market is something evil. everyone who relies on such means to gain money, and thus survive, would eventually do something evil to gain more money, maybe because he needs it, or because he just wants to get a good amount of it, as any poor mortal would do. Furthermore, where does the seller take those corpse? let's assume from willing people, who may get their relatives to be paid for that service, or ,simply,they want to help undeath studies. The former situation is still evil: paying people for corpses leads them to search for more corpses, especially if they're in bad situations. The latter is just unlikely to happen: to give someone your corpse you must die, either by aging, something really hard to justify/happen in such a way to allow all the necromancers to have their own corpses, or suicide/illness accidents , and, in this case, you would base your training on other people's suffering...still evil Yes, we could argue that there's a chance to have such a market with normal earnings, which would employ only naturally dead people corpses, which were willingly to...but would this fit the entire world? No. - digging in graveyards: something evil 'cos people want their relatives to be buried, as a form of respect - killing foes: basing your undeath training on your next foes is just foolish. Whenever you want to train on something, you just don't begin thinking that your experience and power will increase thanks to other people's death, unless...you're evil. At high levels mindless undeads are useless, unless you're seeking bigger corpses of bigger creatures. What would you do if your foes aren't bigger nor strong? You're look for those creatures, just to kill them. Why? because you want to train on undeath? because you need someone to do housekeeping? because creating constructs costs too much? I can't find any non-evil reason to justify this undeath. Thus, tampering with undeath leads you to evilness, so undeath it's evil. Coming in topic: best way to create a good necromacer is to make him an enfeebler: fear, enfeeble... with a good focus on abjuration as well. Good feats could be fell weaken and fell fear from carc Making an undead hunter is a bit more difficult, good prcs could be celestial mystic, in BoED, or the one in "Hollowfaust:city of Necromancer", from "Scattered Lands" IIRC. Good feats could be banemagic(undead), consacrated spell(cdiv), energized spell(carc) or transdimensional spell(but I should check about this one). What about being an archivist? you could cast cure spells as well, being still similar to standard wizard, or a truenamer...
chimp man 03-19-07, 05:27 PM	This argument can be sumed up in two rules rule 0: the dm can do whatever he wants rule 1: the dm is always right your dm wants necromancers to be evil so be it if he wants to let them be able to be good they can be good. dm is all powerful :king: :bravo:
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-19-07, 07:41 PM	You could show one redeemed feind or a good chromatic dragon and you still couldn't say that they don't have a prefference. I don't care about preferences. You can throw around all the examples of preferences you want, but that does NOT change the fact that Undead have no INHERENT alignment. Fiends have an inherent alignment, Chromatic Dragons have a really, really strong tendency, but not totally unbreakable, but they are the Children of Tiamat, so I'll grant you this one. There are other mindless evil creatures in MM: retrievers. Extraplanars mindless constructs with E AL. Yes, so by the rules, they can't have that alignment. The best justification I could see for a mindless creature having an alignment is the Lemure. Not only because of their alignment subtypes, but also because in Fiendish Codex II, they are noted to know one thing: They have a possibility of a promotion if they behave well. And, of course, the only good behavior of a Devil is Lawful Evil. now, coming back in topic: Rule:all the mindless creatures must be NN Exceptions: undead,fiends and other creatures are evil Exceptions: retrievers are always evil. Please do not compare Undead to fiends. So, your problem is just that you find undeath being evil illogical, let's focus on it. Indeed, let's. 1)they chose to make undeath evil, following those ideas. You can't demonstrate that an idea about art and fantasy is better than another, unless you can tell me whether chocolate is better than vanilla But the fact is that they never did. Even in Core, there is a distinct possibility of all kinds of Good-aligned Undead. Furthermore, Libris Mortis has rules for players to play Undead. Good Undead are even allowed, though they may be rare. -undeath is something unnatural, because ,except quite rare non-undead creatures, all the living things aren't healed by neg. energy, and undeath, to exist, always needs something which is natural, a corpse or soul from a living But does that make Undeath unnatural? I'd say it would make Undeath about as unnatural as, say, left-handedness or homosexuality. It's not common, maybe even rare, but it does exist, so it must be respected as such (by Good-aligned people, at least). -undeath tampers with evil magic, as a consequence, undeath-related spells have evil desc. But why is the magic Evil, when no other factor is Evil? Animate Dead channels Negative Energy, same as Fireball channels Fire. I don't see the connection. -undeath is something immoral: non evil normal creatures, i.e. not monsters, are the side from which someone should analyse DeD morality, otherwise we would have always evil gnomes and LG kobolds... We could theoretically have entire nations of Evil Gnomes or Good Kobolds. They're rare, though. Therefore, tampering with dead creatures' corpse is immoral, because their body represents their last trace on the world By RAW, corpses are objects. They are comparable to end tables. Training with undeath is morally troublesome: given the fact that conscious undeads are evil because they're twisted and powered with evil magic (see above)which traps souls (it's written in Cdiv and MM), someone, in order not to be evil, could use mindless undeads only for his undeath studies. Does RAW even address the connection between Undead and souls? I don't remember seeing anything like that suggested. - killing innocent people: evil Agreed. - buying dead corpse: well, a dead corspe market is something evil. everyone who relies on such means to gain money, and thus survive, would eventually do something evil to gain more money, maybe because he really needs it, or because he just wants to get a good amount of it, as any poor mortal would do. We could have a corpse-dealing business. They could be grave robbers. The latter is just unlikely to happen: to give someone your corpse you must die, either by aging, something really hard to justify/happen in such a way to allow all the necromancers to have their own corpses, or suicide/illness accidents , and, in this case, you would base your training on other people's suffering...still evil Necromancers that specialize in raising Undead base their profession mostly around death. They need to acquire corpses. There are already two ways to do that without slipping to Evil: Killing in self-defense (applies to monsters, too) and corpse-dealing (including graverobbing). - digging in graveyards: something evil 'cos people want their relatives to be buried, as a form of respect People's opinions don't matter. Alignments and morality are absolute in D&D. Showing disrespect for tradition sounds Chaotic. - killing foes: basing your undeath training on your next foes is just foolish. Not if you're good (not the lack of a capital G to denote skill). Whenever you want to train on something, you just don't begin thinking that your experience and power will increase thanks to other people's death, unless...you're evil. Fighter base their experience and power on others' deaths (not only people's). So do most Wizards, Rogues and Clerics. What would you do if your foes aren't bigger nor strong? You seek them, so you're looking for creatures just to killing them. Like adventurers do! Why? because you want to train on undeath? because you need someone to do housekeeping? because creating constructs costs too much? Adventurers kill for money. I can't find any non-evil reason to justify this undeath. Killing someone, say, in self-defense and then raising him sends a certain message about people messing with you. Thus, tampering with undeath leads you to evilness, so undeath it's evil. Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. The means you use to attain a goal has no bearing on the nature of said goal.
celtredleg 03-19-07, 08:27 PM	No, it's the opposite of being fuelled by Positive Energy. Fiends and Chromatic Dragons are fuelled by Positive Energy, therefore they are Good. BTW, that was a deliberately told lie. Negative Energy has no alignment connotations. Says so in the books (DMG for one). You are trying to use the core as a source when it suits you, and not when it doesnt. No alignment in energy is fine, but undead are evil is not. Make up your mind, are the core books correct or not? Mind, I dont care how you run it in your game. I find the idea of somne necros being good to be interesting. I even buy into good vamps, as in Saberhagens Holmes-Dracula books. I just dont try to justify it by quotes from the book. I just say it is in my game and let it go at that. Otherwise, it sounds like your are atempting to justify it, when it is clearly against the RAW.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-19-07, 08:36 PM	You are trying to use the core as a source when it suits you, and not when it doesnt. No, I'm using Core when it addresses and issue, but if it doesn't I find something else that will help my case. Some sourcebooks expand on Core, and are usable as long as they don't contradict Core. No alignment in energy is fine, but undead are evil is not. Make up your mind, are the core books correct or not? "First you didn't want a pony and now you want to get rid of it. Make up your mind, Marge!" I can get it both ways because both cases you cited from me are mutually exclusive. I don't have to choose between them, so why should I? Otherwise, it sounds like your are atempting to justify it, when it is clearly against the RAW. I am justifying it, and it isn't against RAW.
Traevanon 03-19-07, 10:19 PM	My mistake, it was in the PHB, page 104: Zombies and Skeletons are incapable of any actions. That includes moral ones. Commanding them to do Evil is the same as commanding a Golem to do Evil, it makes neither the Undead nor the Golem Evil. Furthermore, official WotC policy dictates that text trumps table. A stat block constitutes a table, so Skeletons and Zombies do have a Neutral alignment. No problem on the mistake. It happens, there are lots of rules and more interpretations. However, you are drawing a conclusion that isnt explicitly stated when you include anything in particular as "...and other creatures..." You can go back and forth on this issue, but its not stated anywhere in that passage that lack of intelligence = lack of alignment. My personal feeling is that Wisdom is or should really be the defining trait of morality, but that's just drawn from the description of Wisdom, rather than anything explicit. IMO what it boils down to is this: If qualifying for and continuing in the actual class, be it arcane (wizard specializing in necromancy) or clerical (having Death or something similar as a domain), is what makes someone a Necromancer then yes it is possible to be a good Necromancer. All this mumbo jumbo about the alignment of mindless undead is a sidetrack from the topic. However, depending on your DM you may or may not be prevented from using some of your class abilities if you want to retain your alignment.
celtredleg 03-19-07, 10:39 PM	No, I'm using Core when it addresses and issue, but if it doesn't I find something else that will help my case. Some sourcebooks expand on Core, and are usable as long as they don't contradict Core. "First you didn't want a pony and now you want to get rid of it. Make up your mind, Marge!" I can get it both ways because both cases you cited from me are mutually exclusive. I don't have to choose between them, so why should I? I am justifying it, and it isn't against RAW. No you are not. Or rather you are doing it for yourself, but not others. So you are saying "core is right, except where I dont want it to be." Either the MM is right, or it is not. You are claiming it is not.
celtredleg 03-19-07, 10:46 PM	How about answering this one then. I have never gotten more than a handwaveium answer from the progood undead camp. In every culture I am aware off, there are rites to handle thier honarable dead. None of them include getting turned into a zombie. In eveery culture desicrateing dead is also a crime. Of course what constitues desicration differs a lot. So makeing all of those zombies is damgeing to the family and society of the body, but thats OK, because good undead are so cool. Now of course, a DM can make a society where its OK to becopme a zombie, and I have seen those games. But that is not what you are argueing. YTou are saying it is by RAW that they can be good. So even if it is the most abhorent thaing that can happen to someone, its still good because they are mindless. Interesting morality you have.
Maekrix_Waere 03-20-07, 12:35 AM	I will say that, if you ONLY USE RAW, then making a necromantic character is Evil, even though I agree it should not be (much like I do not think that the assassin PrC should have the Evil Alignment Prerequisite), but that is the way WotC designed it, however flawed the reasoning may be. If you use the Libris Mortis, it is possible to create a Good-Aligned Necromancer, because you can create Good-Aligned undead. Without the LM, then, no, you cannot make a Good-Aligned Necromancer, however stupid that may be. Note-Ventilatory:I agree with many of the point you make, and I would support you 100% if not for the RAW's contradictions of itself. Sadly, these contradictions prove you both right and wrong. Both sides of this can pick and choose facts to use as they want to support their own arguement and denounce the other, but it comes down to the fact that RAW contradicts itself inumerable times when it comes down to the morality (or lack thereof) of Necromancy. None of you are 100% right, none of you are 100% wrong. I do not believe that the act of Necromancy, if you take out RAW and just look at the action from a morality standpoint, not a rules standpoint, is always going to be evil, though commonly the allure for power over death, without the consideration of the consequences of your actions, will lead many down a much darker path. If you get an Amulet of Speak with Dead and use it to ASK the spirit before you Animate it's corpse if it would be willing to let its remains fight for the side of righteousness, then, morally, there is nothing evil about that act because the soul has given you permission to do so.
calronmoonflower 03-20-07, 02:58 AM	And there we have the beginning of a circular case. Why is the spell Evil? Because it has the Evil descriptor. If you ask whether it should that is a different question.
Myzery78 03-20-07, 09:41 AM	With regards to spells and their relevant descriptors its been said that casting an evil spell does not make you evil much as casting a fire spell doesn't make your fiery, and while that argument does a fine job of glossing over the issue it does not resolve it. I think we can all agree that spells have descriptors for a reason. A spell with the Fire descriptor is most certainly related to Fire. A spell with the Cold descriptor is most certainly in some way related to Cold. More importantly it is almost always the single defining characteristic of those spells. So if the Fire descriptor makes the spell fiery, what does the Evil descriptor make a spell? The most(and as far as I can see, only) logical explanation is that it makes the spell Evil. Also with regards to the question of why Gods do not allow clerics to cast spells whose alignment descriptors appose their own, I think its important to note that clerics who follow no God and receive their powers directly from the cosmic force that is good or evil are bound by the same restrictions. As for the original topic, a good necromancer is certainly possible. A good necromancer who makes frequent use of Evil spells however, is not. Much as a fire spell increases(briefly) the amount of fire in the world, so too does an evil spell increase the amount of evil in the world. Also, since D&D is the only realm in which my Ethics course has any practical application I think a few things need to be covered, some of those go back pages. Killing is not always evil, murder is. The fact that mindless creatures managed to acquire an alignment should speak to how powerfully evil they are. By examining the detect evil spell we can see just how true that is. HD being equal, an undead creature is two to five times more evil than its human counterpart. Also, detect undead stuns only good clerics if the undead creature detected is far more powerful than the cleric. While that is certainly not solid evidence, it does indicate that undead have some inherent connection to evil regardless of alignment. The D&D system of ethics operates on universally valid moral principles. Your assertion that animating an undead creature to save people would be a good act could be true under certain systems of ethics(those that believe serving the greater good is the priority). However D&D does not fall into that category. It tends to focus on intent over outcome, and doing evil to do good possesses an inherent contradiction that ensures it is not the right(good) thing to do. Murdering one person to save ten or ten thousand is evil in D&D. Ends to not justify means.
EvilIdiot 03-20-07, 12:28 PM	I don't care about preferences. You can throw around all the examples of preferences you want, but that does NOT change the fact that Undead have no INHERENT alignment. Fiends have an inherent alignment, Chromatic Dragons have a really, really strong tendency, but not totally unbreakable, but they are the Children of Tiamat, so I'll grant you this one. hmm....you weren't answering me here, but, anyway, may I ask you why chromatic dragons can be defined as evil ,following a fantasy-related idea from WoTc books, while undeath can't? Yes, so by the rules, they can't have that alignment. Please do not compare Undead to fiends. Do you think exceptions are less important than rules? If not, there can be mindless creatures with E al, where stated. I didn't compare fiends and undead, I said that mindless creatures of their subtype could have E alignment, and they may be considered as exceptions But the fact is that they never did. Even in Core, there is a distinct possibility of all kinds of Good-aligned Undead. Furthermore, Libris Mortis has rules for players to play Undead. Good Undead are even allowed, though they may be rare. possibility doesn't mean they're the norm. Redeemed creatures may exist, as may exist retired balor farmers... You found an exception,which doesn't invalidate the general rule, as the fact that having some good chromatic dragons doesn't imply their relatives aren't evil anymore But does that make Undeath unnatural? I'd say it would make Undeath about as unnatural as, say, left-handedness or homosexuality. It's not common, maybe even rare, but it does exist, so it must be respected as such (by Good-aligned people, at least). Take it easy, we're not talking about real world's dilemmas. If you assume that a proper idea from fantasy art can be applied to ded, then these are its assumptions, its common ideas. My reasoning follow this schema: DeD assumes undeath is evil. what possible explanation could someone give? the ones I wrote before:undeath is unnatural,undeath magic is evil, common folks find digging corpses out to train in undeath something evil... Do they demonstrate that undeath is evil from a strict objective/logic pov? No. Is it important? Not at all, because DeD already assumes undeath is evil. But why is the magic Evil, when no other factor is Evil? Animate Dead channels Negative Energy, same as Fireball channels Fire. I don't see the connection. A spell defined as evil would imply evilness in the imaginary world of ded. Who defines spells?realworld-authors of Wotc ,according to a common idea from fantasy stuff. Lots of spells aren't described in a way that would let you deduce whether they're evil or not, but ,if they have a moral subtype, you're sure they imply that morality before,during and after being cast. We could theoretically have entire nations of Evil Gnomes or Good Kobolds. They're rare, though. So you can easily assume the fact that kobolds are very evil and gnomes aren't is more probable than vice versa, by far as well. By RAW, corpses are objects. They are comparable to end tables. Ok, tampering with them to train with undeath, by RAW, is evil. Does RAW even address the connection between Undead and souls? I don't remember seeing anything like that suggested. Ghoul, wraith,bodak....there's their description, and there's something about in cdiv We could have a corpse-dealing business. They could be grave robbers. In fact I said that this would lead the dealer to seek more and more corspe, leading him to evilness, killing other people to get their corpse... Anyway, this wouldn't allow all the undeath-nerds to get enough corpses they need to train and adventure. We could make a slave market in Ded as well, where slaves are masochist people, but this would not mean that slavery isn't evil... Necromancers that specialize in raising Undead base their profession mostly around death. They need to acquire corpses. There are already two ways to do that without slipping to Evil: Killing in self-defense (applies to monsters, too) and corpse-dealing (including graverobbing). In ded it is assumed that graverobbing is generally evil. People's opinions don't matter. Alignments and morality are absolute in D&D. Showing disrespect for tradition sounds Chaotic. Na. this is relativism, which doesn't work in ded. Check the srd as well: graverobbing is evil because you hurt people, who'd like to have their loved buried properly underground. Digging out corpses and using them for your own advantage is morally evil, because it is so in common fantasy. Now, you could say that's not true, that I'm appealing to ded, without quoting its rules, true. However my explanation agrees with rules... - killing foes: basing your undeath training on your next foes is just foolish. Not if you're good (not the lack of a capital G to denote skill). Quote: Whenever you want to train on something, you just don't begin thinking that your experience and power will increase thanks to other people's death, unless...you're evil. Fighter base their experience and power on others' deaths (not only people's). So do most Wizards, Rogues and Clerics. Quote: What would you do if your foes aren't bigger nor strong? You seek them, so you're looking for creatures just to killing them. Like adventurers do! Quote: Why? because you want to train on undeath? because you need someone to do housekeeping? because creating constructs costs too much? Adventurers kill for money. Only if you were 100%PP, 50%metagamer and 0%RP. XP and treasures are a mechanical way to deal with defeated foes and challenges. No pc knows or believes that actually killing someone makes him stronger, unless he's evil; he knows that challenges, whatever they are, make him stronger, there's a difference. It is said in DMG as well, or are you saying that DeD is only and always a "enter-kill anyone-grab money-get XP-level up" game? While adventuring you may fight foes. While fighting, you could kill someone, but you don't have to, in some circustances, you may bring them unconscius. When you adventure, you don't seek other foes just to kill them, that's not your purpose, you have other ones, unless you're evil, take Heritnul as example. A necromancer who practise with undeaths needs dead people, in advance Any other kind of spellcaster who practise with his spells seeks training, he doesn't have to burn people alive to try fireball, ..... Anyway, again, what would you do if you need corpses of particular creatures who aren't your foes? Would you search for them? Your conclusion doesn't follow your premises. The means you use to attain a goal has no bearing on the nature of said goal. Not in ded, which is based on some fantasy stuff. I'd like to highlight two issues: - I said that whenever you need dead bodies to increase your power, you will eventually try to kill other people/creatures, just because you need their corpses, can you say that the vast majority of necromancers(undead makers) can avoid this situation? that their corpsedealers* won't hurt people to get their corpse or the ones of their buried relatives? that undeath is generally non-evil? I don't believe so, you can prove ,at least, that there could be rare situations where it could be so, but that would not be significant, at least because you're saying that tampering with corpses to make undeath can't be defined morally wrong, which is yet to be proved -Rules say undeath is evil, and so related behaviours, there are good reasons to this, but they're not something strictly logic, something that needs to be proved, it's just an assumption. I can't mathematically demonstrate whether it is correct, nor you, because it's a choice authors simply decide to make. *actually, when you talk about a kind of job, you should consider both the poor dealer, who sells 2-3 corpse a year, and the big dealer, who sells tons of corpse, and that you may have lots of corpsedealers, if they get good earnings. Where do they get all those corpses? and how?
Melpomene 03-20-07, 12:37 PM	::smiles:: As it relates to graverobbing, that just reminded me of my favourite indie cult flick, Re-Animator. ::maniacal laughter:: And killing people is a non-aligned act in D&D. Good kills just as readily as evil. As stated before, only murder is evil.
LittleCarp04 03-20-07, 03:12 PM	I once played a Hell-bred DN, my DM said it would be ok to bypass the non-good alignment, and with the Hell-bred you can cast any evil spell or use evil items without worry of going against your alignment or whatever.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-20-07, 03:54 PM	You can go back and forth on this issue, but its not stated anywhere in that passage that lack of intelligence = lack of alignment. No, but Vermin have the exact same text as Animals do in the description of their types. Basically, it says that they always have a Neutral alignment because they're not governed by a human sense of morality. I'd assume this is because of their lack of intelligence. No you are not. Or rather you are doing it for yourself, but not others. So you are saying "core is right, except where I dont want it to be." Either the MM is right, or it is not. You are claiming it is not. No, dude, I'm saying that Core is right, but there are some issues it doesn't address. If those issues are later addressed in a non-contradictory manner, then we have no basis but to assume that they are right, too. And, by the way, I'm not claiming that the MM is wrong. I'm saying that it, like all other supplements, has typoes and contradictions (and the one in the Zombie and Skeleton stat blocks is overruled by the alignment descriptions in the PHB). In every culture I am aware off, there are rites to handle thier honarable dead. None of them include getting turned into a zombie. In eveery culture desicrateing dead is also a crime. Of course what constitues desicration differs a lot. And this is relevant to D&D, how? YTou are saying it is by RAW that they can be good. So even if it is the most abhorent thaing that can happen to someone, its still good because they are mindless. Interesting morality you have. I'm saying that it can still be Good because societies do not determine morality. D&D morality is absolute. I will say that, if you ONLY USE RAW, then making a necromantic character is Evil, even though I agree it should not be The RAW does actually agree with you. Even if you rule that casting Evil-aligned spells is an Evil-aligned act, Good-aligned Wizards are still not prohibited from casting them and may do it as much as they want. It's what they do with their Undead that would define their alignments. Because it has the Evil descriptor. If you ask whether it should that is a different question. That's not what I meant by the question. Why does it have the Evil descriptor? hmm....you weren't answering me here, but, anyway, may I ask you why chromatic dragons can be defined as evil ,following a fantasy-related idea from WoTc books, while undeath can't? Because Tiamat is the mother and goddess of Chromatic Dragons. She's an Outsider with the Evil subtype. The Chromatic Dragons are her children, and Draconomicon states that dragon hatchlings inherit their parents' memories and personalities. In other words: They're born Evil, but they can change their alignments on their own accord. Do you think exceptions are less important than rules? If not, there can be mindless creatures with E al, where stated. No, but I don't think this is an exception because text trumps table in D&D, and the Zombie/Skeleton stat blocks are tables, whereas the alignment descriptions are not. possibility doesn't mean they're the norm. Neither does left-handedness. But the fact that left-handed people exist means that mankind isn't inherently right-handed. Same goes for Undead, not only for which hand they prefer to use, but also their morality. Redeemed creatures may exist, as may exist retired balor farmers... Ghosts can be Good from the beginning. So can Liches (Libris Mortis states as much). Libris Mortis even has rules for playing Undead characters, including Ghouls and Wights (Wights are described as hating everything that's alive), yet no alignment restrictions are mentioned, only that they're rarely Good-aligned. You found an exception,which doesn't invalidate the general rule, as the fact that having some good chromatic dragons doesn't imply their relatives aren't evil anymore The fact that Good Undead exist proves what I'm arguing: Undead are not inherently Evil. Sure, individual species may have tendencies, but the type itself has no inherent alignment. Otherwise it would have been stated in the type description. *Checks* No, it doesn't mention anything about alignment. Take it easy, we're not talking about real world's dilemmas. No, but they can be applied in a logical sense to D&D. Just as humans aren't inherently right-handed, Undead aren't inherently Evil. DeD assumes undeath is evil. The fact is that it doesn't. Nowhere. undeath is unnatural Even if it was, that's appeal to nature: Being unnatural doesn't mean it's bad or Evil. common folks find digging corpses out to train in undeath something evil... That's why common folk don't get to decide what's Evil and what isn't. Do they demonstrate that undeath is evil from a strict objective/logic pov? No. It is important, because D&D assumes no alignment for Undeath at all, then goes on to give evidence that it has no alignment and then goes on to give the (Evil) descriptors to arbitrarily chosen spells that animate Undead. Who defines spells?realworld-authors of Wotc ,according to a common idea from fantasy stuff. I've already sent them e-mails and told them to straighten this out by following logic and handing out errata. They haven't done it. I hate them for it. Illogical bastards. So you can easily assume the fact that kobolds are very evil and gnomes aren't is more probable than vice versa, by far as well. Yes, because of tendencies. But tendencies have no bearing on hereditary morality (which Undead do not have). Ok, tampering with them to train with undeath, by RAW, is evil. Show me where the rules state that. Ghoul, wraith,bodak....there's their description, and there's something about in cdiv I'd say they're unlucky individuals. Ghouls (though not described as having a soul), are victims of a disease. Diseases have no alignments in D&D unless otherwise noted. Wraiths and Bodaks are unfortunate people that got in the way of a Create Undead spell. Harming or trapping a soul isn't inherently Evil. It's illogical. If that were a rule, it would be Evil to even slap a Demon because they are incarnate souls. In fact I said that this would lead the dealer to seek more and more corspe, leading him to evilness, killing other people to get their corpse... Can you say that for sure? What if he has standards? Maybe even morals about how the body is acquired? We don't know all of the factors, so we can't assume that everyone will be lead to murder without exception. We could make a slave market in Ded as well, where slaves are masochist people, but this would not mean that slavery isn't evil... Slavery isn't inherently Evil. It's how you treat your slaves that determines the alignment. In ded it is assumed that graverobbing is generally evil. Nope. Na. this is relativism, which doesn't work in ded. Fair enough. Check the srd as well: graverobbing is evil because you hurt people, who'd like to have their loved buried properly underground. I'm pretty sure that only applies to actual physical damage (or grave mental/emotional damage, such as damge inflicted by psychological torture). Otherwise dumping your girlfriend would be Evil, and so would be cheating on her. Digging out corpses and using them for your own advantage is morally evil, because it is so in common fantasy. But it isn't in D&D. However my explanation agrees with rules... Not as much as mine. No pc knows or believes that actually killing someone makes him stronger, unless he's evil; he knows that challenges, whatever they are, make him stronger, there's a difference. He could actually. A Fighter makes his living fighting other things. As he fights on, he gathers experience (represented by XP) and eventually perfects certain techniques. Same goes for all other classes: They gather combat abilities by fighting. It is said in DMG as well, or are you saying that DeD is only and always a "enter-kill anyone-grab money-get XP-level up" game? I'm saying that XP is an integral part of the game, whether metagame or not. While fighting, you could kill someone, but you don't have to, in some circustances, you may bring them unconscius. When you adventure, you don't seek other foes just to kill them, that's not your purpose, you have other ones, unless you're evil, take Heritnul as example. Good adventurers kill just as readily as Evil ones. All that matters is who they kill and for what purpose. A necromancer who practise with undeaths needs dead people, in advance And creatures that attack him are ripe for the taking. Any other kind of spellcaster who practise with his spells seeks training, he doesn't have to burn people alive to try fireball, ..... But he does because it's most effective tactic, thereby making him less likely to die than if using less powerful spells. - I said that whenever you need dead bodies to increase your power, you will eventually try to kill other people/creatures, just because you need their corpses, can you say that the vast majority of necromancers(undead makers) can avoid this situation? I'm saying that Good-aligned Necromancer can decide who they use for raising. Not that it matters, because they're only using their bodies, their souls have already passed on. that their corpsedealers* won't hurt people to get their corpse or the ones of their buried relatives? that undeath is generally non-evil? They could rob graves. I don't believe so, you can prove ,at least, that there could be rare situations where it could be so, but that would not be significant, at least because you're saying that tampering with corpses to make undeath can't be defined morally wrong, which is yet to be proved I proved it with the fact that none of the books address this issue. And I think we'd both agree that this would bear mentioning, if anything does, in the rules of alignment. -Rules say undeath is evil, and so related behaviours, there are good reasons to this, but they're not something strictly logic, something that needs to be proved, it's just an assumption. The rules say nothing of the sort. Where do they get all those corpses? and how? Depends on whether they have standards. If they do, grave-robbing and/or willing donors. If they don't, murder (along with grave-robbing and donors, making these the largest-scale dealers). EDIT: Damn that was a long post! I'm tired now, so read this over and over. And preferably respond in short sentences. :P
celtredleg 03-20-07, 04:20 PM	Nice gloss over VT. I know you are not that dense, so you must be tired. Which DnD cultue is cool with you stealing the bodies of thier dead?? Of course, your own argument about absolute morality kills your arguement that undead are good. Part of that cast in stone morality is that undead are evil. I realize you will dance around this, just as always happens. I had hoped you could explain how stealing something important to most people is a good act, but instead, out come the tap shoes.
Melpomene 03-20-07, 04:33 PM	Furthermore, the act of cannibalism is considered to be evil under all circumstances in D&D (again, there are entire threads dedicated to that, as well). The same principles apply here. Dealing with the bodies of the dead, using corpses, no matter who/what they are or what your plans are for them, is evil. The Vow of Purity(?) implies the evil nature of dealing with corpses at all, to say nothing of the magic used to animate them. It is a detestable act at worst or a weakness to be avoided at best; similar to materialism, violence, and sex. These arguements are from the BoED, which has been argued ad nausium to its validity, but they are both points to strengthen the case against undeath.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-20-07, 06:44 PM	Which DnD cultue is cool with you stealing the bodies of thier dead?? Irrelevant, because culture doesn't determine morality. Of course, your own argument about absolute morality kills your arguement that undead are good. Part of that cast in stone morality is that undead are evil. Nowhere do the rules state that Undead are inherently Evil. I'm trying to argue that Undead aren't inherently Evil. I'm not saying anything about tendencies, preferences, instincts of individual races, but the type itself has no inherent alignment. Realize that inherent means something like possessing the (Evil) subtype. Outsider (Evil) is the only type that has an inherent alignment. I had hoped you could explain how stealing something important to most people is a good act, but instead, out come the tap shoes. I'm not saying anything about the morality of the act itself, but why is the body the property of the family? Who gave them that? Society? Well, society doesn't get to decide what's Evil and what isn't. This doesn't directly damage the family (as stealing food does), so it has no alignment unless there are other factors to consider. Furthermore, the act of cannibalism is considered to be evil under all circumstances in D&D (again, there are entire threads dedicated to that, as well). No, cannibalism is not considered Evil in D&D either unless you show me the quote or point to a book and page number (I'd prefer it if the page number was relevant to the book). The same principles apply here. Dealing with the bodies of the dead, using corpses, no matter who/what they are or what your plans are for them, is evil. Corpses, by RAW are objects: Does the speak with dead spell work on destroyed undead? For example, can my cleric kill a zombie and then use speak with dead on it to learn who created it? The spell description implies the one-time act of becoming undead ruins any chance the spell will have of working against a creature ever again, even after it is “dead” again. Speak with dead doesn’t work on undead creatures, only on corpses. An undead creature is not alive, but it’s also not a corpse—a corpse is an object. (The undead creature might have been made from a corpse, but it has transformed into something else, mainly a creature). If you destroy an undead creature, it ceases being a creature and becomes an object again. They're objects, so the same principle applies to them as other objects. The Vow of Purity(?) implies the evil nature of dealing with corpses at all, to say nothing of the magic used to animate them. 1) The Book of Exalted Deeds is full of blatant self-contradictions and makes numerous mistakes when it comes to alignments, 2) Vows are inherently Lawful. Swearing to obey a code has nothing to do with Good and I could just as well see a Devil taking one of these feats, 3) Exalted characters are known for hypocrisy and self-destructive behavior and paranoia that rivals that of Dispater. I'd prefer it if you left the book out of the equation, not only because it goes against Core on many counts (including this one), but it's not reliable. It is a detestable act at worst or a weakness to be avoided at best; similar to materialism, violence, and sex. I hope you're joking. Sex? Sex has Good-aligned tendencies because it bumps the self-image and makes you feel good. This is one of the blatant idiocies of BoED. Materialism has no alignment in and of itself. It's what you do with your wealth that determines your alignment. Same goes for violence. but they are both points to strengthen the case against undeath. No, they actually weaken it because of you having to resort to using that book.
celtredleg 03-20-07, 08:31 PM	"I'm not saying anything about the morality of the act itself, but why is the body the property of the family? Who gave them that? Society? Well, society doesn't get to decide what's Evil and what isn't. This doesn't directly damage the family (as stealing food does), so it has no alignment unless there are other factors to consider." So you can steal anything a group does not need to survive?? And inflicting mental anguish is just fine, as long as you dont physicaly harm someone?? Are you listening to yourself??
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-20-07, 09:45 PM	So you can steal anything a group does not need to survive?? You can, but you'll **** them off. And inflicting mental anguish is just fine, as long as you dont physicaly harm someone?? No, deliberately inflicting emotional/mental trauma (psychological torture) is Evil. Stealing a corpse isn't. If it were, by that logic, breaking up with your girlfriend would be an Evil act, especially if she didn't want to break up with you. Are you listening to yourself?? Yes. Are you? Because to me it sounds like your idea of Good consists a goody-goody two-shoes that is too much of a doormat to even end a relationship.
Maekrix_Waere 03-20-07, 11:26 PM	Yes. Are you? Because to me it sounds like your idea of Good consists a goody-goody two-shoes that is too much of a doormat to even end a relationship. That is pretty much the summary of the Lawful Good Alignment. Also, Ventilatory, please, stop arguing. This discussion is over, with RAW ONLY, no Good-Aligned Undead Variant from the Libris Mortis, then Necromancers are Evil, with modern society's comprehension of Good and Evil which WotC based D&D morality off of being Lawful Good (a bad idea on their part). We can argue all we want about if it was wrong or not (it was), but that doesn't change the fact that that was the way the rules were (mis)designed. This discussion is over. Ventilatory, you and I know our side is right from a purely morality standpoint, but we have to realize that we lose when it comes to a purely rules standpoint, and I would like to request that this thread be locked...the OP's question has been answered long ago, and if we want to discuss the foundations of the rules, lets make a seperate thread for that in the D&D General Forum.
darkone7141981 03-21-07, 12:04 AM	Hey everyone, I just wanted to direct everyone to read and consider a really interesting (and fun) series of posts in "Regdar's Repository" on Necromancy. Everyone is posting in character (I am using the voice of one of my favorite creations, a Warlock-Lich named Geoff, the Dark One), and so please respect that by continuing in the same mode. I plan to read everyone's posts soon (I got to skim everything, and I am excited about the opportunity to contribute too). For my brief opinion, I think that Necromancy as a school of magic is not inherently evil, and that therefore characters using it (even specializing in it) need not be evil. On the other hand, while I think that Negative Energy is itself amoral (not imoral, but simply without morals) as it is mindless and unaware, the use of it generally constitutes an evil action. The vast majority of uses for negative energy, undead, and undeath is pretty much going to be evil by extension. That being said, Geoff disagrees. Enjoy. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=789351 DarkOne7141981
EvilIdiot 03-21-07, 04:52 AM	I will say that, if you ONLY USE RAW, then making a necromantic character is Evil, even though I agree it should not be (much like I do not think that the assassin PrC should have the Evil Alignment Prerequisite), but that is the way WotC designed it, however flawed the reasoning may be. just to be clear: do you mean necromancers or undead-makers? @VT: I have already heard about "logic". Listen to me: logic is a mean, a tool, not the goal. You can analyse something with logic, but you won't demonstrate that thing is correct or wrong in any context , you would demonstrate that's so only by use of strict logic and literal interpretation of texts, which is a foolish way to analyse things. Otherwise I ask you: what is good and what isn't? Can you answer with your logic? Sure, throw your logic away, we're talking about a fantasy product, and logic itself is fallacious: they invented fuzzy logic as well, which approximate real world, it doesn't try to say that something is always true or always false, as some logician would do. The fact that standard logic believes in T or F doesn't mean that real world and human products can be described only by such descriptors Then, DeD is heavily based on real world cultures, because it is based on fantasy, it was meant to be so, and they said undeath is evil, corrupting, therefore they stated that animating undead and following issues are evil. What rules say so? Spell descriptors, descriptive text in PHB, alignment of undeads.... You're asking why. That's a silly question, because it is mainly a matter of taste, not logic. You're putting DeD out of context, considering only what you would be able to compute with logic, which isn't the way authors wrote DeD rules with Do you really believe that rules agree with you? then why are you saying they're wrong? :confused: I already said that, broadly speaking, imaging a way to create mindless undeads without hurting people would be quite difficult, hard to implement in campaigns, just because you need dead people to do so. Adventurers do not need dead people, it's not a necessity. Undeads makers do need dead people, it's their necessity, unless they quit their career and begin to cook pizzas. Your points are: - graverobbing isn't evil, because there could be someone who thinks so - corpses have no value, even for people who decide they have, because there's someone else who may think so (evil undead makers for instance?) - undeads shouldn't have evil descriptor because there are some ones which could be no-evil, even if the vast majority of such creatures is evil - a spell with evil descriptor isn't evil, because authors haven't brought any proof of that, except rules and the fact that it's an imaginary world, where they say people can fly and there are creatures as owlbears and mindfliers... I may see some (strict boolean) logic (useful for automatons) in these ideas, but they're poor in common sense, I believe. cheers
Maekrix_Waere 03-21-07, 10:56 AM	Your points are: - graverobbing isn't evil, because there could be someone who thinks so You are assuming that graverobbing/murder is the only way to get corpses....it isn't... - undeads shouldn't have evil descriptor because there are some ones which could be no-evil, even if the vast majority of such creatures is evil. Some Undead shouldn't be evil, but most are Evil, not because of what they are, but because of what they choose to be. Unintelligent Undead are more like golems than anything else. - a spell with evil descriptor isn't evil, because authors haven't brought any proof of that, except rules and the fact that it's an imaginary world, where they say people can fly and there are creatures as owlbears and mindfliers... They ARE Evil because of the rules, but we can't find any reason for why those rules are there.
EvilIdiot 03-21-07, 11:53 AM	You are assuming that graverobbing/murder is the only way to get corpses....it isn't... I was considering the opportunity of getting corpses by graverobbing/murder on its own, in that specific phrase. Some Undead shouldn't be evil, but most are Evil, not because of what they are, but because of what they choose to be. Unintelligent Undead are more like golems than anything else. In DeD they imagined undeath is corrupting and evil, thus, usually, undead creatures are evil, because they're corrupted. Undeads aren't like golems, because you need necessarily an evil spell to create them. Why did they choose so? because they wanted undeath to be evil. I could not be able to demonstrate they should be evil in absolute way, especially if I don't take in account that DeD assumes undeath is evil per se, and you can't do the opposite either, because the fact that undeath is evil and corrupting, as I already said, is an axiom, in DeD. Being an axiom, it doesn't have to be true in any possible context we could imagine, using a general pov, we just need to take it as it is. Undeath being evil isn't universally correct, or wrong, but in standard ded, they decided so. In eberron,for example, undeath isn't evil as it is in ded. Can you demonstrate it is the correct decision? I don't think so, I can't demonstrate it is wrong,as well, but I would agree with eberron rules, while playing in eberron.
BloodDragon 03-21-07, 12:09 PM	Indeed! Had character concept of a wizard which went around form town to town. When ever some one was murdered wrongfully, he'd ressurrect the dead in question and help them on they're quest for revenge or rightousness. The Vengeful animated dead may be evil, however the Necromancer himself is doing nothing more then what a Paladin would. You killed someone wrongfully, now you will pay from you crimes. The Necromancer could tell his raise minion to wait and see if the murder/wrong doer attones for his sins ofcourse, but you get the idea. Simply because he is casting "Animate undead" his character type switchs to evil? Why?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-21-07, 12:58 PM	Also, Ventilatory, please, stop arguing. This discussion is over, with RAW ONLY, no Good-Aligned Undead Variant from the Libris Mortis, then Necromancers are Evil That's the beauty of it: The rules don't address the issue so we have to look at other rules that concern the ideas. You say an Undead-making Necromancer can't be Good, but the rules say that Good characters can commit Evil actions all they want. So even if it was an Evil act to animate Undead, the Necromancer still has lots of opportunities to bring the Undead to good use (both in the moral and descriptive sense). you would demonstrate that's so only by use of strict logic and literal interpretation of texts, which is a foolish way to analyse things. I analyze the text, interpret it and come to my own conclusions. From my reading of the rules, combined with my knowledge of grammar and sentence structure, and some applications of the dictionary for the possibility of multiple possible interpretations, I've drawn the conclusion that though individual Undead species may have strong alignment tendencies, that that has no bearing on the inherent alignment of the type. And to understand my argument, you HAVE to know the difference between an inherent alignment and alignment tendencies. Otherwise we end up with something like this: People arguing against something they think I'm saying, but not getting anywhere, so they resort to accusing me of dancing around the issue. I'm not. I'm using the rules, quoting texts where needed. I haven't seen any of you do the same, except maybe to a small extent. Otherwise I ask you: what is good and what isn't? Can you answer with your logic? I can answer it with the rules and applying logic where necessary. For example: The alignment definitions seem incomplete to some, but I choose to treat it as a sudoku puzzle. From that, I can get different reasons for Good killing, Lawful killing and Chaotic Killing. Same goes for theft. I've found that torture can never be Good-aligned and altruism cannot be Evil-aligned (because it needs to be done with the intent of altruism), but it can be Lawful to an extent. The fact that standard logic believes in T or F doesn't mean that real world and human products can be described only by such descriptors Never said anything of the sort. Then, DeD is heavily based on real world cultures, because it is based on fantasy, it was meant to be so, and they said undeath is evil, corrupting, therefore they stated that animating undead and following issues are evil. THEY NEVER SAID UNDEATH WAS EVIL. NEVER. THIS IS WRITTEN IN ALL-CAPS TO MAKE YOU NOTICE WHAT I AM SAYING: I AM SAYING THAT YOU JUST ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE WRITERS WERE THINKING WHEN YOU DON'T, YOU ASSUME THAT THEY SAID SOMETHING THEY NEVER SAID. Spell descriptors, descriptive text in PHB, alignment of undeads.... I've already refuted the first one. The two latter are simply not true. You're putting DeD out of context, considering only what you would be able to compute with logic, which isn't the way authors wrote DeD rules with But they have to accept that people apply it anyway. If they want to make Undead Evil, they have to make sure that they actually say what they mean to say. Do you really believe that rules agree with you? then why are you saying they're wrong? :confused: I'm saying that they contradict themselves (stat block vs. alignment definitions). The stat block is a table and the alignment definitions are text. Text trumps table. I already said that, broadly speaking, imaging a way to create mindless undeads without hurting people would be quite difficult, hard to implement in campaigns, just because you need dead people to do so. Grave-robbing. Killing monsters is what adventurers do. A Necromancer just puts them to even better use than just a source of income. It's efficiency, baby! Adventurers do not need dead people, it's not a necessity. Undeads makers do need dead people, it's their necessity, unless they quit their career and begin to cook pizzas. Adventurers kill. That's pretty much their profession, or at least it comes with it. The Necromancer, instead of skinning the monsters and selling them for fur, animates them as Undead. Your points are: Yes, let's look at what you think I'm saying. - graverobbing isn't evil, because there could be someone who thinks so No, graverobbing isn't Evil because corpses are objects, and the same rules apply to them as every other object. May sound callous, but that's the way it is. - corpses have no value, even for people who decide they have, because there's someone else who may think so (evil undead makers for instance?) Corpses only have emotional value. But you forget that they're also buried and of no use to the family. The Necromancer can put it to good use, and the family will likely never know. That clearly doesn't hurt them. They experience no loss and no pain. Bam! That's Neutrality right there. - undeads shouldn't have evil descriptor because there are some ones which could be no-evil, even if the vast majority of such creatures is evil Undead don't have the (Evil subtype). They have no inherent alignment, and that's BY THE RULES AS WRITTEN. I don't even know why I even bother arguing with some people here. They just bring relativism (which I adhere to in real life, but I understand that D&D works differently), sentimentalism and don't even bother to know the rules or supply quotes. - a spell with evil descriptor isn't evil, because authors haven't brought any proof of that, except rules and the fact that it's an imaginary world, where they say people can fly and there are creatures as owlbears and mindfliers... They still haven't justified it, and all other rules clearly point to that this is wrong. This point is moot, because the sentence structure in the sentence regarding descriptors has no other meaningful interpretation (you can interpret it differently, but that means bending grammar rules). but they're poor in common sense, I believe. My common sense tells me to apply logic. I think that if I just apply enough of it, the rules eventually start to make sense. Of course, they don't... yet.
EvilIdiot 03-21-07, 04:32 PM	. You say an Undead-making Necromancer can't be Good, but the rules say that Good characters can commit Evil actions all they want. No,they can't. Doing evil acts all the day all the years makes your char. switch to evil. They may cast evil spells ,just some times... I can answer it with the rules and applying logic where necessary. I'm really sorry, I may have misunderstood your previous posts..ok, your logic is fine, and I have used wrong words to adress my thoughts :tiphat: When I wrote this The fact that standard logic believes in T or F doesn't mean that real world and human products can be described only by such descriptors I meant that finding exceptions to rules doesn't necessarily invalidate them, because something doesn't have to be always true to be valid... THEY NEVER SAID UNDEATH WAS EVIL. NEVER A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions. This means that a X spells is associated to X alignment, as behaviours are. Then, any undeath-spell has evil descriptor, so, to create undeads you must perform something evil; the evilness of that action remains after being cast as well. Undeads are evil because they're described in this way in MM. Any deity which strongly supports undeads is evil, neutral deity generally do not support undeath. There's other stuff against undeath: “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. In common fantasy and culture, as libris mortis says in introduction, considering other people's corspe as object , and thus using them for their business,means lacking of respect to life and sentient beings, so it is immoral. In other non-core books, as cdiv, they specify that undeath is immoral. Maybe we misunderstood each other: - you can find good reasons to make undeads and undeath not evil - I can find good reasons for the opposite idea Authors agree with my ideas, not because they're mine, but because they say that "undeath being evil" is reasonable, they decided so for standard ded. In eberron they changed idea. Since it's only a matter of taste, I strongly believe no one can argue that's absolutely (ie without considering variable campaign contexts) wrong or correct, otherwise I could say that in eberron they're wrong, and in Hollowfaust too... Undead don't have the (Evil subtype). They have no inherent alignment, and that's BY THE RULES AS WRITTEN. I used the wrong term, my apologizes; anyway all them have E alignment I don't even know why I even bother arguing with some people here. They just bring relativism (which I adhere to in real life, but I understand that D&D works differently), sentimentalism and don't even bother to know the rules or supply quotes. I believe you should consider that "sentimentalism" as "considering descriptions". Good clerics and majority of non evil clerics of neutral deities turn undeads right? I never found anything to adress that graverobbing isn't evil, I found the opposite instead. I never found anything to adress that undeath isn't evil, I found the opposite instead. Finally, we could have two situations: - DeD writers created something wrong, which is impossible to understand and accept, but ,strangely, it agrees with standard fantasy stuff - DeD writers created something which can be easily understood and ruled, but they didn't wrote 1 single clear rule for that, they left its definition to further rules, the one you refuse, about undeads at least, it doesn't take a rule to say that cannibalism is evil, IMO I agree with you, they should have stated it more clearly, but accepting it it's not as difficult or wrong as it could seem
Midnight_v 03-21-07, 05:49 PM	I hate to quote the holy trinity here but... didnt' The ranger from LotR enlist a bunch of spectres to fight against the evil dudes in the last movie? Necromacy as a tool... This is an unwinable argument. Its even devolved into a sub-argument about undeath. When really necromacy is more than that. The master debuffer is necromacy too. Basically, you've fallen into the "guns are evil" argument with animated dead instead of glock 9's. Thats not an argument that gets solved in real life either. Are nuclear bombs evil? Maybe, if they used to kill millions, not so much if we're using them to save the human populace from approching "planet killing meteors" And thats maybe because, well killing is nessecary even on are large sweeping scale... This places me firmly in the "Good Necromancers are possible camp" that necromacy is a tool. Of course this varies from world to world and Dm to Dm so check first what the stace of the party and dm are. Ray of enfeeblement, Ray of exaustion, clumsiness... blindness... etc... even enervation... phah! Fear? Not inherently evil... (unless your enervervating children for your sick pleasure...) By the way, EvilIdiot, all undead aren't evil... nor are they all even usualy evil. I won't argue with you what the authors agree or disagree with in your post about because well since it doesn't say Wiz_ next to our names chances are we dont' know personally. But I try to argue unless stated otherwise from the Rules as Written
EvilIdiot 03-21-07, 06:34 PM	I never said necromancy is evil , only undeath, according to ded standards. I suggested prc and feats for G necromancers as well When really necromacy is more than that. The master debuffer is necromacy too. Agree . I played a LN necromancer devoted to Pelor once, no problem at all didnt' The ranger from LotR enlist a bunch of spectres to fight against the evil dudes in the last movie? It seems this isn't the norm in ded, where commanding undeads happens only by casting evil spells, or rebuking, which is still evil. Aragorn could do it once,though he would not have used "evil" tagged means to do so in LotR, but we're arguing if it could be the norm in DeD. Is undeath (almost always) evil? According to ded standard rules, yes, and it is reasonable, though it isn't absolutely correct in a universal and strictly logical way, it depends on contexts, and standard ded is a context. Thats not an argument that gets solved in real life either. DeD simplifies real life, IMO. Are nuclear bombs evil? Maybe, if they used to kill millions, not so much if we're using them to save the human populace from approching "planet killing meteors" And thats maybe because, well killing is nessecary even on are large sweeping scale... In ded evil means are still tied to evilness,though. This places me firmly in the "Good Necromancers are possible camp" Sure, I believe it too that necromacy is a tool. Magic is a tool in general, but casting aligned spells has a moral weight, by rules Ray of enfeeblement, Ray of exaustion, clumsiness... blindness... etc... even enervation... phah! Fear? Not inherently evil... (unless your enervervating children for your sick pleasure...) Agree By the way, EvilIdiot, all undead aren't evil... nor are they all even usualy evil. But if they wouldn't have been to be evil ,why did authors give them E alignment? I won't argue with you what the authors agree or disagree with in your post about because well since it doesn't say Wiz_ next to our names chances are we dont' know personally. Sure, I didn't mean that, my nickname doesn't even suite for that role :P I just said that you could find good reasons to justify undeath being evil as rules say, or the opposite, because it's just a matter of taste and art. Then, saying that undeath being evil is impossible/illogical by rules or standard ded, isn't correct, since authors made it so. I think I agree with authors, or, equally, to the rules, not viceversa , and ded was meant to be so, except where stated:reformed liches, eberron... To be clear: I find both "undeath=evil" and "undeath=/=evil" correct, but I do not believe the latter is standard ded.
Midnight_v 03-21-07, 06:43 PM	Actually they have good liches in Faerun too...monsters of faerun... I see the disagreement is about the rules as intended. I don't think undead are meant to be universaly evil in the eyes of the authors but there are so many that they may have conflicting veiws to. Interesting I will ponder this...
malignor 03-21-07, 07:21 PM	I had a character concept of a good wizard, specializing in necromancy. The only things he would animate are the discarded dead, or the corpses of evil beings. Then he would talk to them like normal people, and "cut them a deal": My necromancer will get them a well-deserved rest in comfort, and they'll help him on his travels until the opportunity to provide that rest comes. For example, he would be travelling along a road and see the remaining carnage of some bandits on a caravan. He would look at the dead caravaneers and say "What are you doing, lying about when your murderers are still at large? Here, let me help you up." and he would animate them, track down the bandits and give them an ultimatum: apologize and return the stolen goods, and repay society with 10 years of selfless labour while among the living, or apologize and return the stolen goods, and repay society with 10 years of selfless labour while among the dead. 90% of the time he would have to dispatch the bandits (with the help of the undead caravaneers) and animate them. Then he would take his undead procession to town, locate the families & friends of the undead caravaneers, make sure the families & friends get the belongings and keepsakes of their departed family member, and then he would return the undead caravaneer back to dead and help with a proper funeral. All with the assistance of the (living or undead) bandits, of course. One major problem I found with this was the HD limit. so I figured he would travel on a wagon, and in the back of that wagon would be a large cage, with a thick cloth draped over it to conceal the contents. He would store the undead in there, and control those he took out for whatever task was needed. He would spend skills on Profession - Mortician and Craft - Taxedermist, so he could spend the time making his undead "employees" resistant to the rigors of decay. He would also have a sizable satchel filled with contracts he has with his undead, so he can keep track of their time of service, (like the Bandits' 10 years). Once a contract terminates, he puts the undead to rest with a proper funeral, complete with headstone and an engraved record of conduct. As for animals, he understands the cycle of life and death, so he would only use them for up to 1 year before returning them to their "natural state". Supernatural beings, however, were good for long term use, though he generally releases them after a year or two as well. After all, there always seems to be more corpses.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-21-07, 07:55 PM	No,they can't. They can. Doing evil acts all the day all the years makes your char. switch to evil. You have to consider scale. Even if you rule that casting Animate Dead is an Evil act, it's still on a much smaller scale than using those Undead to help people. Furthermore, you don't have to animate Zombies or Skeletons all the time. Once or twice a month should suffice. They may cast evil spells ,just some times... No, any time they want. This means that a X spells is associated to X alignment, as behaviours are. Yes, association means correlation. But correlation doesn't imply causation. Undeads are evil because they're described in this way in MM. No, they are not. Concede this point already, as you have nothing in the rules to support it. Any deity which strongly supports undeads is evil, neutral deity generally do not support undeath. No, but deities aren't the paragons of alignment, they are manifestations of it. The fact that they don't grant Evil spells is their own issue. In common fantasy and culture, as libris mortis says in introduction, considering other people's corspe as object , and thus using them for their business,means lacking of respect to life and sentient beings, so it is immoral. But corpses are objects. No amount of sohpistry can change that. And since they are objects, and nothing is specified about them, you can do anything to them without the act being Evil. I'd like to add: Define immoral in D&D. Demons are very adamant about Archons being immoral, as their ideologies clash. In other non-core books, as cdiv, they specify that undeath is immoral. Where? Point me to the exact quote. - I can find good reasons for the opposite idea Authors agree with my ideas, not because they're mine, but because they say that "undeath being evil" is reasonable, they decided so for standard ded. You are putting words in the designers' mouths. You don't know what they are thinking when they wrote the material. Arguing Rules as Intended is pointless because everyone can just pull an interpretation of the designer's intent out of their asses. I used the wrong term, my apologizes; anyway all them have E alignment No, not "all of them have E alignment". I believe you should consider that "sentimentalism" as "considering descriptions". I don't. I think it's snuffing out the little hope you have at winning this debate. Good clerics and majority of non evil clerics of neutral deities turn undeads right? Not necessarily the majority. I never found anything to adress that graverobbing isn't evil, I found the opposite instead. You don't look for the rules to say what isn't, you look for them to say what is. D&D rules are in the positive sense. They say what you can, what is. Only in specific instances, particularly those where it would seem counterintuitive to state so, is it stated when you can't do something. I never found anything to adress that undeath isn't evil, I found the opposite instead. See above. - DeD writers created something wrong, which is impossible to understand and accept, but ,strangely, it agrees with standard fantasy stuff I've had enough of your "fantasy stuff". When "fantasy stuff" doesn't agree with the rules of D&D, you stop referencing it as rules. Period. it doesn't take a rule to say that cannibalism is evil, IMO It does. Cannibalism is NOT Evil unless you're eating an alive and dissenting victim. I agree with you, they should have stated it more clearly, but accepting it it's not as difficult or wrong as it could seem It is when all of the rules point in the other direction. I never said necromancy is evil , only undeath, according to ded standards. What the hell are those standards? Are they standards you made up? Standards you interpreted from the writers? As long as they're not rules, they're inadmissible in a discussion about D&D rules. It seems this isn't the norm in ded, where commanding undeads happens only by casting evil spells, or rebuking, which is still evil. Point me to the rules that support your case. Is undeath (almost always) evil? According to ded standard rules, yes, and it is reasonable It isn't, and I don't see the reasoning in it. Undead are creatures like you and me. They may not be alive, and most may even be murderous, but we have individuals (even in Core) that ARE Good-aligned. Should they not be respected as such? Yes. If a Paladin destroyed (via Turning) a Good-aligned Ghost, he'd be committing an Evil-aligned act, because he's killing an innocent. In ded evil means are still tied to evilness,though. Agreed, but many Good-aligned people can be tempted to let minor Evil acts slip in favor of larger Good ones. Magic is a tool in general, but casting aligned spells has a moral weight, by rules Just like casting Fireball has no influence on your soul, neither does casting Animate Dead. Both channel different kinds of energy, neither of which has any alignment tendencies. But if they wouldn't have been to be evil ,why did authors give them E alignment? They didn't! Then, saying that undeath being evil is impossible/illogical by rules or standard ded, isn't correct, since authors made it so. No, they just wrote a bunch of self-contradictive rules. Luckily, the right rules seem to always overrule the wrong ones, so it turns out okay in the end.
Tequila_Sunrise 03-21-07, 08:31 PM	How long do you think it's been since the OP stopped paying attention?
Maekrix_Waere 03-21-07, 11:33 PM	How long do you think it's been since the OP stopped paying attention? First or second day.
Traevanon 03-22-07, 09:05 AM	You have to consider scale. Even if you rule that casting Animate Dead is an Evil act, it's still on a much smaller scale than using those Undead to help people. Furthermore, you don't have to animate Zombies or Skeletons all the time. Once or twice a month should suffice. This and most of the rest of the above is opinion. Interestingly I feel the opposite, that animating the dead can in no way be "made up for" by whatever acts the dead are forced to do. There is a basic disconnect between our two philosophies. You see the corpse as an object and a tool and the animating force as an energy without alignment, the same as light or fire at the same time ignoring that the spell itself and the resulting creature *are* both evil. I see the ressurectable remains of a creature affected by an evil spell that brings a malevolent spirit from another plane to inhabit the body and reduce it to a mere tool. I imagine a complete campaign world would also have both philosphies represented in character. Perhaps we could give these two separate philosophies names. We need short names that are easy to pronounce. I suggest "good" and "evil". In character it occurs to me that a person who is evil may not want others to see them as evil, especially if they are physically weak, even if they know it themselves. So obviously to me, listening to a character proclaim themselves (or their player proclaim for them) as "not evil" seems hollow. Who are they to judge when so clear a conflict of interests is apparent? When your character is created you choose an alignment for him. You are responsible for making sure that the alignment continues to fit. Alignments aren't stretchy, they are absolute and unflinching. If your character is solidly within that alignment you dont need to justify it to others, this is a paladin (and blackguard's) path. If you are kinda-sorta hoping that you represent that alignment then you might have to justify it from time to time, this is the path of the "good necromancer". The good alignment stands for and against certain things and the evil alignment stands for and against things and if you ask someone who represents either that does not fear death they will tell you. One of the very clear items that good stands against is undeath. Good clerics and paladins are granted access to a pool of energy and mandate to destroy these beings, be they mindless or clever. Spells that create the undead are given the [evil] descriptor, indicating their association with evil. Shall I go on? I am sorry that some of your character's tools are evil, but in fact they are. If he cant handle questions resulting from a questionable alignment, perhaps he should rethink either his alignment or his profession because they are at odds. However, just as clear-minded and zealous characters exist in the world, so also do unclear and at-odds characters. Just dont be surprised when you are asked to take a side.
EvilIdiot 03-22-07, 09:12 AM	They can. You have to consider scale. Even if you rule that casting Animate Dead is an Evil act, it's still on a much smaller scale than using those Undead to help people. Furthermore, you don't have to animate Zombies or Skeletons all the time. Once or twice a month should suffice. No, any time they want. I said, in fact, that, since casting evil spells is an evil act, as I quoted from SRD, you can't commit evil acts all the day long, without switching to evil. Yes, association means correlation. But correlation doesn't imply causation. you're arguing semantics, and I know why: rules are not so clear No, they are not. Concede this point already, as you have nothing in the rules to support it. The fact that alignment stated in MM is a rule, supports it per se. Please ,reread previous post: no one can't prove whether such rules are wrong or not, we can only give good reasons for both sides. Authors choose to put undeath related stuff as evil, because it suits ded, as it would do the opposite in ebberron ,according to their books No, but deities aren't the paragons of alignment, they are manifestations of it. The fact that they don't grant Evil spells is their own issue. Still semantics But corpses are objects. No amount of sohpistry can change that. And since they are objects, and nothing is specified about them, you can do anything to them without the act being Evil. You should look to "stric rules" and "sophistry" in a equal way; ded has something more than rules in SDR I'd like to add: Define immoral in D&D. Demons are very adamant about Archons being immoral, as their ideologies clash. Didn't you said that morality was absolute, that it didn't depend on societies? I believe, from what I understand from manuals, in DeD pov which morality is intended with belongs to Archons and similars. Where? Point me to the exact quote. Introduction to LM, the "afterlife" paragraph in Cdiv, and "What is Evil" chapter in BoVD. You are putting words in the designers' mouths. You don't know what they are thinking when they wrote the material. Arguing Rules as Intended is pointless because everyone can just pull an interpretation of the designer's intent out of their asses. They wrote Evil in undead's alignments and related spells,though. It should mean something,isn't it? No, not "all of them have E alignment". ... Not necessarily the majority. Do you remember discussion about good chromatic dragons and their kind? I don't. I think it's snuffing out the little hope you have at winning this debate. I don't need hope, I'm just discussing :D You don't look for the rules to say what isn't, you look for them to say what is. D&D rules are in the positive sense. They say what you can, what is. Only in specific instances, particularly those where it would seem counterintuitive to state so, is it stated when you can't do something. Wouldn't be counter-intuitive having undead non evil while spells and alignments are? I've had enough of your "fantasy stuff". When "fantasy stuff" doesn't agree with the rules of D&D, you stop referencing it as rules. Period. I didn't say that all the fantasy stuff is in ded, only those items authors put actually into ded; as you may note "fantasy stuff" in ded differs from the one in eberron It is when all of the rules point in the other direction. As you said: not all, what does make you refute some rules instead of others? Point me to the rules that support your case. Rebuking undead is considered evi, commanding undead spells have evil descriptors Should they not be respected as such? Maybe, do you think in ded they are? Yes. If a Paladin destroyed (via Turning) a Good-aligned Ghost, he'd be committing an Evil-aligned act, because he's killing an innocent. True, you may find exceptions to rules, as I already said, the point is whether they invalidate the general rule or not. Agreed, but many Good-aligned people can be tempted to let minor Evil acts slip in favor of larger Good ones. Hmm, they already answered to you in previous posts about this. Just like casting Fireball has no influence on your soul, neither does casting Animate Dead. Both channel different kinds of energy, neither of which has any alignment tendencies. see about spells and ALs They didn't! It does seem to me that undeads have evil in their alignment, and related spells seem to have the E descriptor No, they just wrote a bunch of self-contradictive rules. Luckily, the right rules seem to always overrule the wrong ones, so it turns out okay in the end. I can accept them, am I wrong? I already said that's only a matter of taste, look at what they did in eberron, and compare it to core Well, I 'll stop, since I feel to be too Off topic, and I said all that I knew. Nice debate VT! :duel: see ya :tiphat: PS: have a happy and healthful :P birthday !
Traevanon 03-22-07, 09:43 AM	Just like casting Fireball has no influence on your soul, neither does casting Animate Dead. Both channel different kinds of energy, neither of which has any alignment tendencies. A faulty correlation. Fireball has an influence on the target's temperature, just as animate dead has an influence on the target's alignment. It might be just my own opinion, but actually causing something as alignmentless as an object to have the evil alignment might be an act that is aligned with Evil. It is not my opinion though that your (possibly non-evil) character has used an evil spell to create an evil creature. It is fact. What that does to his soul is mostly up to the DM.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-22-07, 10:49 AM	A faulty correlation. Fireball has an influence on the target's temperature, just as animate dead has an influence on the target's alignment. Correction: Animate Dead has an influence on the target's state. Its life force, if you will. D&D has a state that exists between Life and Death. Animate Dead brings a dead subject to this state. I'll keep it short today. I'ma celebrate mah birthday today, tomorrow and for the early part of Saturday. If you're lucky, I'll stumble to my desk and write you a drunk post.
Kyaran 03-23-07, 06:51 AM	Disclaimer: My personal viewpoint is that it should be an option to count negative energy (and by extension the undead, and many forms of necromancy) as evil. I would prefer negative energy to be a non-aligned elemental force. In my opinion, giving all undead the (Evil) subtype would fix all of the mechanical questions about the designers' intent. Regarding the Issue The problem, as I see it, is that the rules do not explicitly state that animating/creating undead is an evil act, nor that undead are inherently evil. There are many places where it is implied, possibly due to the intent of the writers, holdovers from previous versions, or simply the generally accepted belief evinced by many on this thread. It seems to me that the intent of the designers can be seen by taking all of the implications together, to form a composite across multiple books, writers, and editors. Regarding Intent There is the interplay of inarguably evil spells with the undead spells: "The desecrate spell doubles [this] limit [on the number of undead you create with a single casting of animate dead]." Unhallow directly synergizes with evil clerics (who are the only ones capable of cooperation with undead) and contains magic circle against good. Both of these indicate the designers' intent. There are simple flavorings that imply evilness to today's society: "[Create undead] must be cast at night." Nothing is evil about nighttime or darkness, but modern society tends to associate these together. Again, intent or perspective from the writers. Although this is less solid, there are no similar statements implying goodness is possible. The section on clerics and aligned spells states that good deities will not grant access to [Evil] spells because the spells are actually opposed to the gods' alignment. The phrasing "spells of an alignment" indicates that the writer of this section understood the alignment descriptors to link those spells with that alignment. The only statement I know of close to declaring an [Alignment] spell to be an action of that alignment is "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, ... alignment, and so on." This is a somewhat tenuous link, but is the only one we have. Under Reading a Template in the MM, the Alignment section says "Usually the same as the base creature, unless the template is associated with a certain alignment (such as the celestial and fiendish templates, and any template that changes a creatures type to undead)." Clearly, the writer of that passage believes that all undead templates force the creature to a specific alignment. As undead are diverse in their ethical bent and relatively consistent in their moral, one can safely assume that the writer expects this to be evil. Just as any "always lawful" race can have exceptions, enabled by intelligence and personal choice, any "change to evil" template can as well. Regarding Missing Declarative Rules The vast majority of undead are always/usually/often evil aligned, as indicated by their stat blocks, but none of them have the (Evil) subtype. As the writers have expressed a direct link between negative energy and evil, and between negative energy and undeath, this could be expected. This seems like the single easiest fix to resolve this debate. I cannot find text that directly indicates that creatures with an Intelligence score of 1, 2, or – must have a neutral alignment. The section on ability scores does not mention that a low or missing Intelligence score has any impact on alignment. Animal traits contain "Int 1 or 2" and "Always neutral" but do not relate the two. Animals are not governed by morality, but by instinct and survival. Regarding The Books The BoVD and BoED are both generally maligned for having simplistic and internally contradictory viewpoints on alignment. In my opinion, one was intended to placate parents and religious types and the other was a nose-thumbing at the over-stereotyping done in the 80s. The Libris Mortis, OTOH, presents several more-reasonable variants, all of which share a bias towards viewing undeath as evil. All of the text in this book links negative energy closely with inherent evilness. The writers, via fluff primarily, assert that a negative energy motive force is an instinct for destruction or evil. This can be seen clearly in the Origins of Undeath section. The various "theories" here amount to: evil acts bring evil animating spirits and may either mimic or pervert the original spirit, negative energy is evil blood, undead are a conduit to the negative energy plane's vacuum of life (this is the closest to neutral), undeath is a curse or disease (and a "sick parody of life's method"), and the ever-popular bumper-sticker: Liches Do It For Eternity. A note: this passage also compares golems and their elemental spirits to undead and their evil spirits, directly linking undeath to evil. Regarding Player Options All of the options for undead PCs in LM's chapter on Character Options say "X is traditionally evil, though this can be relaxed in a campaign that features undead player characters." Every prestige class in the book that isn't directly anti-undead requires either a nongood alignment or the Undead type (which the writers assume to be evil?). Every new creature has an evil alignment or, failing that, has an Intelligence of animal level or –. (Except the sample Gravetouched Ghoul, whose entry conflicts with the template's "alignment changes to chaotic evil.") The lone exception to this panoply of evil creatures is the Necropolitan, with its neutral alignment. In my opinion, this is intended to give a single viable option to players with "but it says always evil" DMs. The entire description of becoming a Necropolitan is infused with evil flavor with "cursed nails," "excruciating pain," "evil powers and gods," and a ritual that anyone with even limited knowledge of Judeo-Christian beliefs should recognize as a parody. The evil powers are called upon to link to the Negative Energy Plane, again making a direct link between undeath, negative energy, and evil. Regarding The One Rule Detect Evil. Undead detect as evil. Period. Regarding My Thoughts I must conclude that the designers believe undeath to be an inherently evil state, so much so that they do not see the need to explicitly apply the (Evil) subtype or to state "Undead are evil, yo!" I suggest a few minor fixes to give a Neutral Undeath option. Removing the [Evil] descriptor from the Undead family of spells and applying it only when the undead created is actually evil. Forcing all mindless undead to Neutral alignment. Limiting clerics based on a new [Positive]/[Negative] axis that relates to their deity's position on life (which can be inferred from various domains: Good, Family, Death, Slaughter, etc.) Or, as an option, creation of a parallel family of "nonliving" spells that use positive energy to power... err.. see Deathless in BoED. :D If I have misorganized any paragraphs, forgive me. It's 3:30 AM. Hope your birthday was a good one, VT. :)
Tonio 03-23-07, 04:13 PM	All these discussions of the inherent alignment (or lack of one) of Undead are excellent. I'd originally started out with the idea that undead were inherently evil, but am now shifting towards the no-inherent-alignment camp. Nevertheless, the original discussion was about a good-aligned necromancer. In general terms, it seems it's a completely valid option. The only catch are those [Evil] spells. VT (I believe... please correct me if wrong) claims casting an [Evil] spell isn't an evil act; in fact, I believe the claim was that an [Evil] spell is not an evil spell. I'd ask, then, what, exactly, does the [Evil] descriptor mean, on a spell. I can think of a couple of possibilities: The spell is evil (i.e. casting it comprises an evil act) The spell is only castable by evil characters The spell's target is affected by evil Evil is "part" of the spell: a motive force, an intention, a side effect, etc. Of these, the second one is clearly right out, since (with the arguable exception of clerics) any spellcaster can cast any spell on their list, although there might be side effects. The first one would have the good-aligned necromancer avoiding animating or creating undead, since they'd be evil acts. A CG necromancer would be more prone to it, especially if the undead he creates are likely to last a while. A LG necromancer would rarely, if ever, do it. The third one would imply that either undead are inherently evil, or that creating/animating them is evil (either you commit a non-aligned action to infuse the dead with evil, creating undead, or you "throw" evil at them, to make them undead). You are either creating evil creatures, or committing an evil act. Finally, the last item, which might be seen as more of a generalization of the first and third, has the caster dealing with evil forces, and not in opposition to them (at least, not trying to eliminate them). While it can be argued that negative energy is not inherently evil (as I believe), it's clear that "evil" is, obviously. Channeling, manipulating, or otherwise dealing with evil must be an evil act. As far as I can tell, the only option that would permit creating undead as a non-evil act would be the first part of the third option (that the undead you create are evil). It would not be an evil act to create evil creatures as your thralls and put them to non-evil use, especially if said alignment can be changed through actions. It's akin to having criminals do community service, with the notable caveat that you're actually creating these evil creatures (you're bringing evil into the world). But that'd mean undead are inherently evil...
Kyaran 03-23-07, 04:50 PM	Yes, regarding the good necromancer... using the obvious intent of the rules, this is problematic. Can a good thaumaturgist summon devils and bind them to performing good acts for him? Yes. Are the summon spells still evil? Yes. I believe the same goes for necromancers under the current system. As long as the character can justify adding the evil (negative energy) to the world, it's possible. Having positive/good undead available would make this a much more attractive prospect, however. What, exactly, does the [Evil] descriptor mean, on a spell? * The spell is evil (i.e. casting it comprises an evil act) I believe this is the intent of the designers. * The spell is only castable by evil characters As you say, this is unpossible. * The spell's target is affected by evil * Evil is "part" of the spell: a motive force, an intention, a side effect, etc. As the designers appear to equate negative energy with evil, this is generally true. I haven't hand-verified, but I believe all [Evil] spells deal with negative energy. The third one would imply that either undead are inherently evil, or that creating/animating them is evil (either you commit a non-aligned action to infuse the dead with evil, creating undead, or you "throw" evil at them, to make them undead). You are either creating evil creatures, or committing an evil act.The various linkages in the texts show that the writer expects undead to be evil, the energy used to create them to be evil, and the act of creating them to be evil. Finally, the last item, which might be seen as more of a generalization of the first and third, has the caster dealing with evil forces, and not in opposition to them (at least, not trying to eliminate them). While it can be argued that negative energy is not inherently evil (as I believe), it's clear that "evil" is, obviously. Channeling, manipulating, or otherwise dealing with evil must be an evil act. This is mostly true. As the designers are treating negative energy as concentrated evil, using it would be evil. Handling it may or may not be, but according to the strict morality of D&D, directly applying evil as a tool (using evil creatures as tools is a different matter) counts as an evil act. This is aside from wanting negative energy to be an elemental force. As far as I can tell, the only option that would permit creating undead as a non-evil act would be the first part of the third option (that the undead you create are evil). It would not be an evil act to create evil creatures as your thralls and put them to non-evil use, especially if said alignment can be changed through actions. It's akin to having criminals do community service, with the notable caveat that you're actually creating these evil creatures (you're bringing evil into the world). If undead are inherently evil, as appears to be the designers' intent, then creating them is an evil act. One would have to use them to perform good acts in order to balance the alignment, but good (especially lawful) characters would have difficulty justifying this. But that'd mean undead are inherently evil...I refer you again to detect evil. I think it's clear that this is the intent of the designers. I still want some happy chipmunk undead to be my tireless minions of light and happiness, though. (If you object to my declarations of the designers' intent, please see my above post for justifications.)
Tonio 03-23-07, 05:15 PM	Yes, regarding the good necromancer... using the obvious intent of the rules, this is problematic. Can a good thaumaturgist summon devils and bind them to performing good acts for him? Yes. Are the summon spells still evil? Yes. This is my standing on it. As the designers appear to equate negative energy with evil, this is generally true. I haven't hand-verified, but I believe all [Evil] spells deal with negative energy. I disagree, I don't think negative energy is evil. I think most of the uses for it are evil. The various linkages in the texts show that the writer expects undead to be evil, the energy used to create them to be evil, and the act of creating them to be evil. I do believe the writer(s?) expect undead to be evil, and I understand they've expressly stated the act of creating them to be evil (as per the [Evil] descriptor to the spells), but I don't believe the energy used to create them is evil. It's simply negative energy (which is almost always used for evil, but isn't evil itself). I refer you again to detect evil. I think it's clear that this is the intent of the designers. I still want some happy chipmunk undead to be my tireless minions of light and happiness, though. Well, the Protection from Evil spell wards against effects that might not necessarily be evil (for example, a good cleric trying to Command his acrophobic friend to cross the bridge so they can get away from the evil ghouls). The Detect Evil spell might work the same way. Or, probably, the spell draws from the descriptions in the MM of most undead, which are listed as evil. But there's a difference between being evil and being inherently evil. The spell would detect an evil human fighter, but not because humans (or fighters) are inherently evil, but because that specific one is. The descriptor for Skeletons mentions skeletons obeying the orders of their evil masters. What if the master isn't evil? Or would that mean only evil characters can be masters of skeletons? I dunno... if it were my campaign, I'd probably rule skeletons (and all other undead listed in the MM) had their listed alignment (NE, in the case of skeletons), and a good necromancer controlling them is just doing so against their nature, and whether it's a good or evil act depends on what the necromancer is making them do. Creating them, though, is still an evil act. Chipmunks are evil, though. They just WANT you to think they're happy, chipper, carefree little furry balls of joy.
Kyaran 03-23-07, 06:32 PM	Well, the Protection from Evil spell wards against effects that might not necessarily be evil (for example, a good cleric trying to Command his acrophobic friend to cross the bridge so they can get away from the evil ghouls). The Detect Evil spell might work the same way. All of the protection from [alignment] spells ward against mind controlling effects, and state "This effect works regardless of alignment." Detect evil states "You can sense the presence of evil." not "You can sense the presence of evil and undead." I also believe that negative energy should be unaligned, elemental energy, but the designers have made it clear that they don't view it that way. Our agreement is irrelevant to what they have presented. There are too many passages that treat negative energy as evil - and none implying that it is good (or even neutral) - for us to attribute any other perspective to them. Chipmunks are only evil until you kill them horribly and infuse their corpses with positive energy. Just like chickens. :chicken:
Tonio 03-23-07, 06:42 PM	All of the protection from [alignment] spells ward against mind controlling effects, and state "This effect works regardless of alignment." Detect evil states "You can sense the presence of evil." not "You can sense the presence of evil and undead." Yeah, I wasn't very convinced with that argument. Was just throwing it in there for discussion's sake. I also believe that negative energy should be unaligned, elemental energy, but the designers have made it clear that they don't view it that way. Our agreement is irrelevant to what they have presented. There are too many passages that treat negative energy as evil - and none implying that it is good (or even neutral) - for us to attribute any other perspective to them. Well, we might be seeing narrowly-scoped passages. Most of the text regarding, say, barbarians assumes big, strong, hulking brutes, but you can very well make a dextrous halfling barbarian. Likewise, most of the text involving negative energy could be assuming it's being used for an evil purpose, as is likely, but it might not be necessarily inherently evil. That possibility, plus the inconsistency that negative energy should be the only "aligned" energy, leads me to believe the original intent was not to have negative energy be evil, but rather that no good use was expressed, so the general perception came to be that it was evil, and subsequent text played on that. Chipmunks are only evil until you kill them horribly and infuse their corpses with positive energy. Just like chickens. :chicken: I've always wanted to play a were-chicken lycanthrope. :twitch:
Kyaran 03-23-07, 07:06 PM	I'ma quote a few things from my earlier post: There is the interplay of inarguably evil spells with the undead spells: "The desecrate spell doubles [this] limit [on the number of undead you create with a single casting of animate dead]." Unhallow directly synergizes with evil clerics (who are the only ones capable of cooperation with undead) and contains magic circle against good. Under Reading a Template in the MM, the Alignment section says "Usually the same as the base creature, unless the template is associated with a certain alignment (such as the celestial and fiendish templates, and any template that changes a creatures type to undead)." Clearly, the writer of that passage believes that all undead templates force the creature to a specific alignment. As undead are diverse in their ethical bent and relatively consistent in their moral, one can safely assume that the writer expects this to be evil. Just as any "always lawful" race can have exceptions, enabled by intelligence and personal choice, any "change to evil" template can as well. All of the text in [Libris Mortis] links negative energy closely with inherent evilness. The writers, via fluff primarily, assert that a negative energy motive force is an instinct for destruction or evil. This can be seen clearly in the Origins of Undeath section. The various "theories" here amount to: evil acts bring evil animating spirits and may either mimic or pervert the original spirit, negative energy is evil blood, undead are a conduit to the negative energy plane's vacuum of life (this is the closest to neutral), undeath is a curse or disease (and a "sick parody of life's method"), and the ever-popular bumper-sticker: Liches Do It For Eternity. A note: this passage also compares golems and their elemental spirits to undead and their evil spirits, directly linking undeath to evil.I get a very distinct picture that negative energy is evil, and undead are evil because they are powered by negative energy. Positive energy is associated with goodness just as strongly. The Deathless (good undead from BoED) run on positive energy, healing is primarily positive energy, and detect good has to specifically mention that "Healing potions, antidotes, and similar beneficial items are not good" to prevent us from assuming that their tiny amount of positive energy counts as good. There is a strong indication that the designers understand that negative energy is evil so thoroughly that they don't see the need to state it. It would be analogous to stating "evil creatures are evil." I'm glad I can finally banter about were-chickens and chipmohrgs.
Tonio 03-23-07, 08:10 PM	I'ma quote a few things from my earlier post: I get a very distinct picture that negative energy is evil, and undead are evil because they are powered by negative energy. Positive energy is associated with goodness just as strongly. The Deathless (good undead from BoED) run on positive energy, healing is primarily positive energy, and detect good has to specifically mention that "Healing potions, antidotes, and similar beneficial items are not good" to prevent us from assuming that their tiny amount of positive energy counts as good. There is a strong indication that the designers understand that negative energy is evil so thoroughly that they don't see the need to state it. It would be analogous to stating "evil creatures are evil." I'm glad I can finally banter about were-chickens and chipmohrgs. Hrmph... I must've glossed over your earlier post, regrettably. Granted, I haven't read the LM, and I don't trust the BoED, but the spell entries you mentioned (from the PHB), and the entry in the MM are very strong evidence supporting the inherent evilness of Undead. Chipmohrgs! *evil cackle*
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-23-07, 09:54 PM	Pernsonaluy, I don't care aboutr the writern's intent. You can all tryuw to guefg what they menat but I can yoo. Who's rihgt? You or me-? Iv'e already done my best to refuter youthe pints about cating iet being EVil. I us reu my skilds in sentegce structure to notr that senttcences don't change sbjetse in1
Tequila_Sunrise 03-23-07, 10:02 PM	Pernsonaluy, I don't care aboutr the writern's intent. You can all tryuw to guefg what they menat but I can yoo. Who's rihgt? You or me-? Iv'e already done my best to refuter youthe pints about cating iet being EVil. I us reu my skilds in sentegce structure to notr that senttcences don't change sbjetse in1 Glad to see that you finally admitted to being wrong!
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-23-07, 10:05 PM	Glad to see that you finally admitted to being wrong! What! No! I'mse like totally not backninhg down! Ever!
Kyaran 03-23-07, 10:23 PM	Sounds like he's having a good birthday. :D
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-23-07, 11:11 PM	Iðm but-ayh unk-drau. But I thin f uis jusy loiks likle vad grammar. Which makes nme loj-ok liek an ifiot. EDIT: I'mf goung to sleep. Responsiblity to yonher folk an sall. EDIT": Damily frindly meansd gaimly fridely. I'm nit familt ferinely frignt nowþ
calronmoonflower 03-24-07, 02:59 AM	If an undead creature is listed as "evil" in their stats in the Monster Manual then THEY ARE EVIL. As far as I know the Evil subtype is only added to outsiders, so undead not having it is not a valid argument for saying undead are not inherently evil. WOTC posted stats for a succubus paladin, but that doesn't means demons are not inherently evil. A few exception doesn't redeem a whole monster type. Even though the Players Handbook may say otherwise the stats block form the Monster Manual is the primary source and there for trumps any secondary source. As for making a good aligned necromancer that creates undead I have though of a possible solution. Change the malconvoker from the Complete Scoundrel around a bit to allow you to cast Create Undead instead of summon fiends.
Kyaran 03-24-07, 03:18 AM	The discussion is about why they are listed as evil, and in some cases if they should be at all. If there is text stating that un-/non-intelligent creatures cannot have an alignment other than neutral, then the stat blocks in the MM would actually be in error according to WoTC policy. A tweaked version of Malconvoker would indeed allow for good aligned necromancy. VT wants that to not be necessary, I believe. I can agree, as I don't want a houseruled version of a trickery-based prestige class to be the only option for this.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-24-07, 11:58 AM	As far as I know the Evil subtype is only added to outsiders, so undead not having it is not a valid argument for saying undead are not inherently evil. If an alignment subtype doesn't determine a hereditary alignment, then nothing does. WOTC posted stats for a succubus paladin, but that doesn't means demons are not inherently evil. A few exception doesn't redeem a whole monster type. Those stats got overruled by Fiendish Codex I, which overrules anything concerning Demons (including Core) when there's a contradiction. Fiendish Codex I states that Demons are irredeemable and made from raw Chaos and pure Evil. So, no, as far as D&D canon goes, Eludecia doesn't exist. Even though the Players Handbook may say otherwise the stats block form the Monster Manual is the primary source and there for trumps any secondary source. Text trumps table. Always. Official WotC policy dicates this. EDIT: I'm sober now, if you couldn't tell. :P
calronmoonflower 03-24-07, 03:29 PM	Text trumps table. Always. Official WotC policy dicates this. It's listed in the text as well as the table. As for the axact policy it's Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
Kyaran 03-24-07, 04:26 PM	This text vs. table thing is moot without text. Moot I say! I could not find a passage indicating that mindless creatures or those of animal intelligence must be neutral.
Templetroll 03-24-07, 07:43 PM	The problem is labor. Animate Dead allows the person commanding the undead to order them to attack, follow or guard an area. There is nothing about digging ditches, washing dishes or cooking food. In the spell Unseen Servant it mentions the force you summon can perform simple tasks at your command. If Animated Dead could do that then that spell would specifiy that in the same way as Unseen Servant spells text does. In regards to the OP, you can certainly have a good (whatever) for story purposes; the typical evil of undead makes them superb for the odd good undead being found. There has been the TV show Forever Knight as a vampire trying to fight his need for blood both by drinking the blood of something other than a human and the scientific (alchemical?) method of coming up with a blood substitute. Fred Saberhagen also wrote a series of stories about Dracula as a force for good protecting the decendents of Mina. That Dracula was not good to those outside the family, and that added to the story in how the family dealt with this protector. When I first saw this thread I thought of a character like Grissom, from the CSI TV show. I'd create the character as a druid (interest in bugs and the natural effects of death) and Necromancy (the original meaning was telling the future by speaking with the dead), he learns things through his use of the various necromantic spells. I would not see him creating undead, though. I had a character concept of a good wizard, specializing in necromancy. The only things he would animate are the discarded dead, or the corpses of evil beings. Then he would talk to them like normal people, and "cut them a deal": My necromancer will get them a well-deserved rest in comfort, and they'll help him on his travels until the opportunity to provide that rest comes. For example, he would be travelling along a road and see the remaining carnage of some bandits on a caravan. He would look at the dead caravaneers and say "What are you doing, lying about when your murderers are still at large? Here, let me help you up." and he would animate them, track down the bandits and give them an ultimatum: apologize and return the stolen goods, and repay society with 10 years of selfless labour while among the living, or apologize and return the stolen goods, and repay society with 10 years of selfless labour while among the dead. 90% of the time he would have to dispatch the bandits (with the help of the undead caravaneers) and animate them. Then he would take his undead procession to town, locate the families & friends of the undead caravaneers, make sure the families & friends get the belongings and keepsakes of their departed family member, and then he would return the undead caravaneer back to dead and help with a proper funeral. All with the assistance of the (living or undead) bandits, of course. One major problem I found with this was the HD limit. so I figured he would travel on a wagon, and in the back of that wagon would be a large cage, with a thick cloth draped over it to conceal the contents. He would store the undead in there, and control those he took out for whatever task was needed. He would spend skills on Profession - Mortician and Craft - Taxedermist, so he could spend the time making his undead "employees" resistant to the rigors of decay. He would also have a sizable satchel filled with contracts he has with his undead, so he can keep track of their time of service, (like the Bandits' 10 years). Once a contract terminates, he puts the undead to rest with a proper funeral, complete with headstone and an engraved record of conduct. As for animals, he understands the cycle of life and death, so he would only use them for up to 1 year before returning them to their "natural state". Supernatural beings, however, were good for long term use, though he generally releases them after a year or two as well. After all, there always seems to be more corpses.
Templetroll 03-24-07, 08:12 PM	Iðm but-ayh unk-drau. But I thin f uis jusy loiks likle vad grammar. Which makes nme loj-ok liek an ifiot. EDIT: I'mf goung to sleep. Responsiblity to yonher folk an sall. EDIT": Damily frindly meansd gaimly fridely. I'm nit familt ferinely frignt nowþ Friends don't let their friends post drunk. :)
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-24-07, 09:21 PM	I could not find a passage indicating that mindless creatures or those of animal intelligence must be neutral. 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. I'm assuming it's not because of their types that they can't tell Good from Evil. Vermin have the same clause in their entry regarding alignment as Animals do.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-24-07, 09:22 PM	Friends don't let their friends post drunk. :) A friend of mine, who was also drunk posted on another forum. It was classic mob mentality... in a small package. :P
Kyaran 03-25-07, 01:21 AM	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.This is all well and good, but it doesn't state that this is because of lack of intelligence or even intelligence score. One must infer that 'incapable of moral action' means 'not intelligent enough to know better', as this is not explicit. I don't disagree with this interpretation, but it is an interpretation. An animal or vermin is unintelligent, but is also not related to any kind of extraplanar force. Lacking the 'capacity for morally right or wrong behavior' would be completely invalidated by inherent evilness. Lemures are mindless, but are not neutral. Is that because they have the evil subtype? Is it because they come from an evil plane? I believe they are evil because of the evil involved in their creation, and have the subtype because of their plane. Undead don't have the evil subtype - I can only assume because they are not outsiders native to an evil plane - but I think there is a strong case for them being inherently evil. I have shown that the designers' perspective is that negative energy has inherent evilness, and have seen no refutation of that point. As undead are created using negative energy (which I purport is intended to be an elemental manifestation of evil) they share the same evil creation trait as lemures. Only creatures with enough intelligence to make moral decisions can overcome inherent alignment tendencies. Mindless undead, as written, are always evil, while those with an intelligence score (greater than animals?) are capable of changing their alignment as a conscious choice.
Perun 03-25-07, 02:49 AM	I'm assuming it's not because of their types that they can't tell Good from Evil. Vermin have the same clause in their entry regarding alignment as Animals do. The vermin introductory blurb (on p. 284) lists vermin alignment as always neutral (thanks, Kyaran!), but the type description in Monster manual (p. 317) and various other accessories (MM4, p. 220; SRD Vermin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#verminType) type description; D&D Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_vermintype&alpha=V)) lists no alignment (or alignment preference). The alignment preference is also not mentioned in other (usually) mindless type descriptions (constructs, oozes). (Unless I, once again, failed to see it :P) Regards.
Kyaran 03-25-07, 03:28 AM	They do both have the same phrasing in their sections in the MM, though. On pgs 268 & 284 under Alignment, each says "Always neutral. X are not governed by a human sense of morality."
Perun 03-25-07, 04:25 AM	They do both have the same phrasing in their sections in the MM, though. On pgs 268 & 284 under Alignment, each says "Always neutral. X are not governed by a human sense of morality." I actually missed that bit! Thanks for pointing it out; I edited my original post. Regards.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 03:33 PM	Lemures are mindless, but are not neutral. Is that because they have the evil subtype? Is it because they come from an evil plane? I believe they are evil because of the evil involved in their creation, and have the subtype because of their plane. They are Evil because despite their lack of Intelligence, they still now how the Hellish hierarchy works and understand that if they act in the right way, they have a chance of promotion. Source: Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, page 9. Undead don't have the evil subtype - I can only assume because they are not outsiders native to an evil plane - but I think there is a strong case for them being inherently evil. They aren't inherently Evil because there are Undead with no alignment preference at all. Therefore alignment tendencies lie in individuals species, NOT the type itself. I have shown that the designers' perspective is that negative energy has inherent evilness, and have seen no refutation of that point. The planar description for the Negative Energy Plane lists no alignment tendency. Not even a tendency. It also kills fiends. It's the opposite of Positive Energy, which heals fiends. Also, you haven't shown me the intent the writers had. They have also written all of these rules where Negative Energy has no alignment tendency. I'll need to see the report from your casting of Detect Thoughts. As undead are created using negative energy (which I purport is intended to be an elemental manifestation of evil) they share the same evil creation trait as lemures. Umm... no. Lemures are created from souls that are tortured horribly and have their personalities siphoned out to the point that they are empty shells (source: Fiendish Codex II, page 9). Zombies are pumped with Negative Energy. Only creatures with enough intelligence to make moral decisions can overcome inherent alignment tendencies. Demons and Devils sure can't. Libris Mortis tells us that all intelligent Undead can overcome their tendencies. Mindless undead, as written, are always evil, while those with an intelligence score (greater than animals?) are capable of changing their alignment as a conscious choice. Did you know that Zombies and Skeletons are of the same nature as Golems. Actually, they're the lesser of two Evils. See, Golems are elemental spirits (read: souls) bound in an inanimate body, while Zombies and Skeletons are just dead bodies infused with Negative Energy. EDIT: Sorry to turn on you, man. But it bothers me that Undeath bothers people.
Blackskullgreymon 03-25-07, 06:54 PM	The way I see it is that some necromancy spells are more evil than others. In order to have a good necromancer, you'd have to cut off some within judgement. I think using spells that deal death are acceptable, but things like Animate Dead are misuse of other's bodies and under most circumstances evil. So, with my guy, I just really limit his spells which not only makes him more interesting, but also a lot simpler for a beginner like me ;)
Traevanon 03-25-07, 10:28 PM	Did you know that Zombies and Skeletons are of the same nature as Golems. Actually, they're the lesser of two Evils. See, Golems are elemental spirits (read: souls) bound in an inanimate body, while Zombies and Skeletons are just dead bodies infused with Negative Energy.This is simply not true. Please stop spreading this misinformation. Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.Can you show me where it states that Zombies and Skeletons are simply infused with Negative Energy, rather than a spirit or soemthing else entirely? I would love it because if you can prove that then you come alot closer to proving that Negative Energy itself is evil. So once again, page # and book please?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 10:43 PM	So once again, page # and book please? Libris Mortis, page 7. Various explanations given for Undeath, and none of them say it's Evil in nature. Furthermore, Negative Energy as a Supportive Force explains that ALL Undead are suffused with Negative Energy. They use some negatively biased words to describe it, but I asume it's because they (the authors) are freaked out at the notion of dead people walking around. I'm not. To link these words to Evil is to become guilty of sentimentalism and is not supported by RAW. On page 9, Skeletons and Zombies are described as having no urges, cravings or diets. They don't need to feed, nor do they want to. On page 12, under Sentience, mindless Undead are described as having no will whatsoever, no ability to make choices (let alone moral ones) and, well, the way they're described they're just golems. On page 17, we have a Neutral deity that is strongly linked to Undeath. And then there's the fact that if the rules don't say it's Evil, it isn't Evil.
Raynx 03-25-07, 11:19 PM	I would like you all to know that this thread--this discussion--ties in greatly with my Theory of Knowledge class and the chapter on Ethics. Even though it wasn't meant to accomplish this purpose, I would like to thank you all for this commentary. Its quite enlightening.
Traevanon 03-26-07, 08:58 AM	Undead, as a group, dont have to have an alignment. Individuals have alignment.And then there's the fact that if the rules don't say it's Evil, it isn't Evil.The rules dont explicitly say its (Negative Energy) good or neutral either, so if there is evidence to prove it is associated with a particular alignment it would be important. Please go back through your own arguments and realize that you have strayed from facts at this point and ventured into your own bias. There is nothing except errata that can change Zombie's and Skeleton's alignment. It is fact. Primary source fact. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant. This is D&D where dragons breath fire and wizards stop time. However, I do appreciate your taking the time to support your arguments with actual citations. "Negative Energy as a Supporting Force" is part of a chapter named Origins of Undeath which begins: "Numerous theories exist regarding the nature of Undeath, and although some hypothesis compete or contradict..." I fail to see how any of the following passages can be considered fact when they are labeled hypothesis and theory by the very chapter they reside in. However, gathering what we may from the section to indicate what my be factual, we find: "Just as blood suffuses living creatures, negative energy suffuses undead providing them with all their abilities, from mobility to sentience, from flesh-eating to soul devouring." If you had gone on a bit further you would have found some surprising text in that same section. "However as similar as a flesh golem (or any other construct) may appear to a zombie, constructs and undead remain separate entities for two main reasons. First, negative energy is not a requisite power for any common construct, including Flesh Golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs, nor does negative energy play a part in the methods by which constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits. By some people's estimation, this similarity is too close for comfort, but most feel that the difference is great enough to warrant a clear separation of type." So is the sentience only Negative Energy or is there also an evil spirit at work? That question is not sufficiently answered in my mind. If it were, and a previously non-evil object suddenly registered as Evil while it existed within the object, then Negative Energy could undoubtably be proven to be itself Evil. Edit: I almost cant help but come to the conclusion, from the above, that Negative Energy is composed of actual evil spirits, and that they are one and the same thing. I'll check into the planar handbook next time and see what that says on the matter.
EvilIdiot 03-26-07, 11:50 AM	just a little thing :D ... I almost cant help but come to the conclusion, from the above, that Negative Energy is composed of actual evil spirits, and that they are one and the same thing. I'll check into the planar handbook next time and see what that says on the matter IIRC that's wrong, PlanHB says it's a neutral type of energy. I really agree with you, but ,as for Neg. Energy, I would just consider this: Negative Energy is a natural (ie it exist within creation)destructive force(thus a potential weapon), which can't be used for nothing but destroy. The fact that you destroy something in a evil way or for evil reasons, doesn't imply the tool you use is inherently evil,but it certainly can be ,of course. So, you could say guns aren't evil per se, even if their primary use it's killing people and destroying objects, however someone who use them heavily and freely is ,probably, mad or evil. In the same way, undeads "like" negative energy because they're evil, and evil casters use it carelessly because they're evil. So, evil "likes" negative energy, not vice versa, IMO. Same thing for night: evil kin like night and darkness, not viceversa, in fact not all the people who live in darkness (dwarves,gnomes) and tamper with it( shadowcasters and illusionists) are inherently evil.
Raynx 03-26-07, 12:12 PM	I agree with EvilIdiot; I've played in a campaign where the BBEG used positive energy to kill people. His victims exploded, just like the effect of staying on the Plane of Positive Energy too long. You heal so much that you die. Pretty interesting twist on the DM's part, really. The party's potions of "Cure...Wounds" aren't really going to help in this fight. They actually had to cast scrolled "Inflict...Wounds" to help keep the fighters alive. It all became very confusing as the battle progressed.
Raynx 03-26-07, 12:20 PM	just a little thing :D ... IIRC that's wrong, PlanHB says it's a neutral type of energy. I agree with you, but ,as for Neg. Energy, I would just consider this: Negative Energy is a natural (ie it exist within creation)destructive force(thus a potential weapon), which can't be used for nothing but destroy. ...Except for this part, that is. I completely believe that Negative Energy is a natural destructive force, but it can be used for more than destruction. The obvious application is bolstering undead, but I see a spell in Tome & Blood called "False Life", which is described as a Necromancy spell. While it does not come right out and say that it uses Negative Energy, I assume so. If not, then Positive Energy being channeled expresses the point made in my last post. Upon casting this spell, the caster receives 1d10 temporary HP, +1 point per level (max 1d10 +10).
Raynx 03-26-07, 12:30 PM	So, in my belief, negative and positive energies are both neutral forces that can be used for either creation or destruction, however different applications exist for either. A good example of how the two forces blend can be seen in PH2, in the Character Rebuild Quest called "The Necrotic Cradle": The central spiral is a vein of flowing energy, made from the blending of pure negative and positive energy. Inside the cradle, with the exception of the spiral, the characters either take damage from the negative energy, or recover damage from positive energy. Once the characters make it to the spiral, however, they take 10 damage every round they remain in contact with it, regardless of which energy type they are being struck by. The characters are trying to kill themselves, so that the energies combined will remake their bodies--such is the goal of a character rebuild quest. So, the uses for negative energy (necromancy) may be seen as 'evil' or 'unjust', but the energy used in so doing may not.
EvilIdiot 03-26-07, 12:42 PM	Hmm... in spell description it doesn't state it uses neg.energy, however it says "power of unlife", ONTH living creatures never get healed by negative energy IIRC...dunno. Virtue does use positive energy,though. I agree, more or less, anyway
Raynx 03-26-07, 12:52 PM	Hmm... in spell description it doesn't state it uses neg.energy, however it says "power of unlife", ONTH living creatures never get healed by negative energy IIRC...dunno. Virtue does use positive energy,though. I agree, more or less, anyway Thank you. Oh, but where do you the "power of unlife"? I can't find that description. Does anyone know if False Life was reprinted somewhere? I'm sure it must be in Spell Compendium, and that book does give Spell descriptors to more spells, so perhaps we can find if it channels negative, positive, or some unknown energy there. I don't have SC, so can someone else check?
EvilIdiot 03-26-07, 01:12 PM	I already have checked, they did not reprint it. I found "power of unlife" in PHB 3.5, can't you find it?:confused:
Tonio 03-26-07, 01:39 PM	"However as similar as a flesh golem (or any other construct) may appear to a zombie, constructs and undead remain separate entities for two main reasons. First, negative energy is not a requisite power for any common construct, including Flesh Golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs, nor does negative energy play a part in the methods by which constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits. By some people's estimation, this similarity is too close for comfort, but most feel that the difference is great enough to warrant a clear separation of type." So is the sentience only Negative Energy or is there also an evil spirit at work? That question is not sufficiently answered in my mind. If it were, and a previously non-evil object suddenly registered as Evil while it existed within the object, then Negative Energy could undoubtably be proven to be itself Evil. Edit: I almost cant help but come to the conclusion, from the above, that Negative Energy is composed of actual evil spirits, and that they are one and the same thing. I'll check into the planar handbook next time and see what that says on the matter. Well, upon first reading, I thought so as well, or thought it might've been a mistake. On the other hand, re-reading it, it says (well, implies, really) Negative Energy energizes undead, while evil spirits animate them. They could be drawing a difference between "energizing" and "animating". "Energizing" seems to be what makes them go, so to speak, while "animating" is what gives them individuality, sentience, etc. From my understanding and extrapolating of that passage, an undead without negative energy to energize it would be unable to move, while one without an evil spirit would be unable to follow instructions (at the mindless level) or make decisions (at the sentient level).
Raynx 03-26-07, 02:22 PM	I already have checked, they did not reprint it. I found "power of unlife" in PHB 3.5, can't you find it?:confused: Sorry, I didn't even check to look there! I see it now, though. Its not in SC? Darn. That might have helped. Is there anything similar? Can someone find a spell that channels negative energy to heal non-undead creatures? Or perhaps any Necromancy school spell that does the same? False Life can't be the only one.
EvilIdiot 03-26-07, 02:56 PM	Personally, I doubt false life uses negative energy ,as something "healing" at least, it would be an exception, but that's not stated clearly so...:blink:
Raynx 03-26-07, 03:39 PM	Point taken. As I expressed earlier, it doesn't say that it uses negative energy...I just assumed it did. Adhering to the subject at hand, it is still a necromantic effect meant to heal a living thing, showing that Necromancy can be used for good. So long as healing is considered good... For that matter, though, it just says that the subject gains Hit Points. It doesn't heal...So this spell could apply to undead... I guess its a very neutral aligned healing, then. It not only heals subjects that can only heal through positive energy, but also ones who do so through negative energy.
Raynx 03-27-07, 07:09 PM	Guys...I just came across this in the forum FAQs... "Q: Is animating undead evil? A: Yes. from the PHB, pg. 87: Good and evil are NOT philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos. D&D is based upon absolute ethics, so what you intend to do with the undead is irrelevant. Spells with the descriptor [Evil] are, well, evil." ...Though I'm up for the neutrality of the forces of positive and negative energy through their association with healing and resurrection versus harming and undead creation, it appears that the official ruling was written right under our faces... Necromancy...is...evil... ...As much as I hate to admit it... ...Sorry...
Kyaran 03-27-07, 07:35 PM	Sadly, the forum FAQ is not rules. Neither does PHB page 87 have any text on it relating to alignment of anything, as it deals solely with feats. Presuming that was a reference to the 3.0 PHB, I checked the current section on alignments. It contains the same text about good and evil, but nothing about spell descriptors. That said, it's still the intention of the designers that creating undead and casting [Evil] spells be evil. Using undead for any purpose does not have to be evil, but doing so as a cleric (rebuke/command) is, while doing so as a wizard (command undead) is not.
Treymordin 03-28-07, 07:56 AM	Good necromancers are rare. I do not see them raising the dead as zombies whatsoever. To distrurb the dead is not a good action especially to animate them. A GOOD necromancer would go about using his necromancy spells to kill the undead not create them.
Raynx 07-11-07, 04:31 PM	(I just felt like reviving this thread for the wonderful debate it entails...) What about specific situations? *A necromancer is traveling through the wilderness when he finds a dead body. He recognizes the corpse as belonging to a member of the nearby town that went missing a week ago. He is aware that the clerics of the town can restore life. He is also aware of the woodland creatures in need of a meal. Naturally, he can't just leave him there to go get help; it would be a week later by the time help arrives, and by then the body would be gone again. He is likewise not physically capable of moving someone that weighs so much. He decides to animate the corpse as a zombie, then use control undead to bring it back to town. After calming the villagers, he kills it again himself, then seeks out the clerics for a happy ending* See? Necromancy can be used for good.
Devil Gnasher 07-11-07, 07:21 PM	You would never believe what i found in wikipedia, it goes like this: Hmmm...isn't THAT interesting, but according to the 'rules' you can't have a good undead, maybe, that's just the people who actually WROTE the games fault, oh wait....it's THEIR game, that would make it THEIR rules, so I guess you can have good undead.... Oh and by the way, you need negative energy to balance positive energy, without destruction there can be no creation. Oh, and casting awaken undead, gives it a thinking pattern, that is linked to the alignment of its creator, which if you're a CG it would be....wait for it....CG!:D ps, this is not an aggressive thingo, it just seems like it, in reality...I love you guys!! By the way, instead of arguing, lets, go back to the point, what are the reason WHY they would be GOOD, not EVIL... I mean com'on, we're only making enemies of each other, it's designed to help, not hinder, so...try to be helpful...:D Good-aligned undead were around since First Edition. What form of energy powered them? Negative Energy of course! In fact Osiris was listed as a Lawful Good god of Negative Energy in First Edition because of his undead status. Also paladins and Good-aligned clerics could cast Animate Dead without being corrupted by it. They just couldn't cast the spell for personal gain, treat the undead as redshirts, violate the dead in any way or commit Evil acts to procure the material components for this spell, which were a tablespoon bone powder, a cubic inch of flesh and one ounce of blood. Preferbly your own if you're Good.
Blackhound 07-12-07, 02:00 AM	Libris Mortis,The Book of Exalted Deeds, and The Book of Vile Darkness all discuss this topic in varying depth. What they say is that manipulating the energies of undeath to create or control such creatures is inherently evil, thus the evil descriptor attached to many spells. The duration of purpose in using this power is irrelevant, again, according to the books. I'd like to stress this. Not all forms of Necromancy are evil, indeed, not all Necromancy school spells carry the evil descriptor. However, bringing Negative Energy into the world is evil. This is a statement made by the official books that specifically set out to define what is Good and what is Evil in D&D. Creating mindless undead by channeling negative energy into an empty corpse is *evil*. Deathless and risen are not created by channeling negative energy, the original soul has returned to the corpse and animates it. It is no more evil to have Deathless than bringing someone back from the dead with a Resurrection spell. To repeat myself, channeling Negative Energy into the world is an evil action. Channeling Negative Energy into corpses to create mindless undead is an evil action. Necromancy is not evil, using Negative Energy is. Edit: Another thing - every moral issue and stance people have brought up in this thread concerning ethics, means for an end, intent, whether or not channeling Negative Energy is evil or not, has been covered in The Book of Exalted Deeds and The Book of Vile Darkness. The official word is laid down in these books, so there shouldn't need to be any discussion on the matters if we wish to stick strictly to the ground rules laid out by official sources. That being said, FACT - Channeling Negative Energy is evil. This does not mean it makes the user evil with one or two uses, but continued use can. (BoVD pg. 8) FACT - An evil act, no matter how small, no matter the greater good it serves, is still evil. (BoED pg. 9) FACT - Not all undead are evil (Libris Mortis), but the creation of mindless, soulless undead through the channeling of Negative Energy is. (BoVD pg. 8) FACT - 'Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like.' (BoVD pg. 7) FACT - Killing an irredeemably evil creature is not evil. It is also not good. (BoVD pg. 7) I can make a longer list but I'd rather you guys buy the books and give WotC their dues.
Templetroll 07-12-07, 02:27 AM	(I just felt like reviving this thread for the wonderful debate it entails...) What about specific situations? *A necromancer is traveling through the wilderness when he finds a dead body. He recognizes the corpse as belonging to a member of the nearby town that went missing a week ago. He is aware that the clerics of the town can restore life. He is also aware of the woodland creatures in need of a meal. Naturally, he can't just leave him there to go get help; it would be a week later by the time help arrives, and by then the body would be gone again. He is likewise not physically capable of moving someone that weighs so much. He decides to animate the corpse as a zombie, then use control undead to bring it back to town. After calming the villagers, he kills it again himself, then seeks out the clerics for a happy ending* See? Necromancy can be used for good. Necromancy can be used for a purportedly good purpose, but that does not make Necromantic animation of the dead a good act. In the case you suggested, my character would have buried the body with stones on top of it to keep animals from getting to it; it's typical old burial custom. Then, go to town, tell them where he is buried and either they say, it is good he is well buried or they go to move him to a site closer to town. No need for magic, let alone Necromancy. So you know I'm not knee-jerk against the use of Necromancy in certain situations I'll describe how one of my character's handled it. I had an LG cleric, sole concious member of a party and he was exhausted moving the bodies of his unconcious friends into a safe room. He could not get them both out of the place for certain safely so he decided to stay the night in that room. What he did was animate a corpse of an orc to stand guard for the night and attack anything that came in the door. He figured the noise would wake him up and he could adjust the order if there was a need to or aid the thing in battle. The night was quiet so in the morning he destroyed the zombie. He prayed for spells, got them but also had a bad feeling so after he and his friends got back to town he did an atonement , anyway. Necromancy to animate the zombie was an Evil act, but the use was beneficial and not likely to be repeated by that cleric! The god gave notice in the bad feelings during prayer but also granted spells and permitted the wisdom of the character to determine the need for an Atonement. The other players thought that only a character who had been that 'good' previously would have been able to have done that. The DM thought it was an interesting way to handle the problem.
Saric 07-12-07, 07:39 AM	*A necromancer is traveling through the wilderness when he finds a dead body. He recognizes the corpse as belonging to a member of the nearby town that went missing a week ago. He is aware that the clerics of the town can restore life. He is also aware of the woodland creatures in need of a meal. Naturally, he can't just leave him there to go get help; it would be a week later by the time help arrives, and by then the body would be gone again. He is likewise not physically capable of moving someone that weighs so much. He decides to animate the corpse as a zombie, then use control undead to bring it back to town. After calming the villagers, he kills it again himself, then seeks out the clerics for a happy ending* See? Necromancy can be used for good. Yeah but by animating him as undead he made the price of raising him from the dead 5,000 gp higher. Sounds great to me. :P
Raynx 07-12-07, 11:41 AM	Yeah but by animating him as undead he made the price of raising him from the dead 5,000 gp higher. Sounds great to me. :P ...not his money...
Raynx 07-12-07, 11:41 AM	Necromancy can be used for a purportedly good purpose, but that does not make Necromantic animation of the dead a good act. In the case you suggested, my character would have buried the body with stones on top of it to keep animals from getting to it; it's typical old burial custom. Then, go to town, tell them where he is buried and either they say, it is good he is well buried or they go to move him to a site closer to town. No need for magic, let alone Necromancy. So you know I'm not knee-jerk against the use of Necromancy in certain situations I'll describe how one of my character's handled it. I had an LG cleric, sole concious member of a party and he was exhausted moving the bodies of his unconcious friends into a safe room. He could not get them both out of the place for certain safely so he decided to stay the night in that room. What he did was animate a corpse of an orc to stand guard for the night and attack anything that came in the door. He figured the noise would wake him up and he could adjust the order if there was a need to or aid the thing in battle. The night was quiet so in the morning he destroyed the zombie. He prayed for spells, got them but also had a bad feeling so after he and his friends got back to town he did an atonement , anyway. Necromancy to animate the zombie was an Evil act, but the use was beneficial and not likely to be repeated by that cleric! The god gave notice in the bad feelings during prayer but also granted spells and permitted the wisdom of the character to determine the need for an Atonement. The other players thought that only a character who had been that 'good' previously would have been able to have done that. The DM thought it was an interesting way to handle the problem. That is a nice way to handle that sort of scenario. I like it.
rulerofDarkness 07-12-07, 08:58 PM	I do not think animating the dead is evil or creating undead in fact I have "Edited" my D&D books to match my belifs..for example Skeletons and Zombies are no longer evil in my campgin here's the basis for my beleifs. I have however left a few undead evil for example Boneclaws creating one of them is evil quite evil. Why is animating the dead evil sure it uses negative energy which is last I check not a neccsarly evil energy. I think what it boils down to is the motives of the animater heres an example Imgaine an army low one resources and with an evil tyrants army about to attack, They are hoplessly outnumbered 25 to 1 in fact however they happen to be near the site of a mass buril, They ahve two options 1.Die fighting a brave but hopless fight and allow the land to fall under the tyrant grip 2. Animate the dead to aid in the fight and stop the tyrant from taking the land I think its clear which option is better don't you? Here's anthour agrument How is a skeleton evil? It dosen't activly seek to invade villages and kill..it only does that when ordered to, nor does the skeleton activly seek to do good but it will when ordered to. I think it's pretty clear what alignment the skeleton should have. the same goes for zombies. That my :twocents:
calronmoonflower 07-13-07, 02:42 AM	You can house rule otherwise but spells that create undead have the evil descriptor and that's what makes them an evil act to cast, not that they use negative energy. As for undead being evil, I think they added that for the mechanical effects.
affin-0-matic 07-13-07, 03:13 AM	Necromancy is hardly evil. It's often mistaken for evil because it is misunderstood. Necromancy does play around with the balance between life and death, but so do good clerics. They just go about it in different ways. In raising the dead, what have they done wrong? The body wasn't going to be used for anything else anyways. It's not like it was about to get up and walk away before it was animated. It's like calling a Good Cleric evil because he uses his weapon as he pleases, beating the enemies with it. Necromancers use the undead as they please, beating enemies with them. Further actions might make them evil. Desecrating the bodies, using his undead to terrorize a town. But that's the same for any character.
runestar 07-13-07, 03:19 AM	Necromancy is hardly evil. It's often mistaken for evil because it is misunderstood. Yeah. We blame it on bad press.:(
EvilIdiot 07-13-07, 04:24 AM	Necromancy doesn't tamper necessarily with undeath, what you're talking about is, in fact, just undeath :rolleyes:. @rayinx:watch out, you're stretching credulity :P Your example may work if: - no animal approached the corpse before the arrive of the wizard - animating was the only mean to protect the corpse - the wizard was travelling completely alone - the wizard studied animate dead and other spells, and , to be learnt, he must have experimented with that... So he's using a spell he would never used, but he had learnt in fact, and without any practice;PHB says you develop your spells through practice and study, so this has little sense. And he has, what a case, a black onyx of proper value. -the [evil] descriptor was just a label, but it isn't, it implies you do something evil to cast that spell, even singing Celine Dion's songs in corpse's ear. anyway you can find 1,2 or even 10 stretched examples where undeath is not evil, but saying undeath is not evil would open a big can of worms, like saying LSD is not always lethal and dangerous and, thus, it could be legalized... Finally, the fact undeath is described as evil and corrupting implies it inexorably makes its users evil, mad. Why is it corrupting? authors decided so. Further actions might make them evil. Desecrating the bodies actually desecrating the bodies comes before using the animated undead:to animate you must desecrate first or,in other words, animating is desecrating a corpse in D&D In raising the dead, what have they done wrong? The body wasn't going to be used for anything else anyways. It's not like it was about to get up and walk away before it was animated. That's not the point/intent of authors, unless you're saying I can kill old and ill people 'cos they're of no use It's like calling a Good Cleric evil because he uses his weapon as he pleases, beating the enemies with it. Necromancers use the undead as they please, beating enemies with them. Wrong, a cleric uses his weapon as his deity pleases. A undeath-necromancer uses (dead) people as he please.
Leo 07-13-07, 07:37 AM	It would be expected that after centuries of people performing complex rituals to assure thier deads final rest that it would be understood that every society sees using the dead bodies for any purpose whatsoever as evil. "Ends justify the means" is also a quite evil way of thinking. The deities state that animating dead is evil. It's not your right to question them. And I have yet to see any records of "Jozan the brave and how he leaded his army of skeletons to victory against the evil tyrant". Did you ever saw any fantasy setting where animating dead people was good?(no, Lotr doesn't count, those were cursed people, not undeads. They never actualy died so they could never be reanimated. And cursing isn't evil.)
J_Vhad 07-13-07, 11:09 AM	Well I have two reasons for believing it is evil. A.) You are blatantly desecrating the body of the person. How is this different than ressurection and the like? In the cases of resurrection the person has a choice in whether he and his body come back. With animate dead you are merely stealing his body without the chance of refusal. I'd put it in more detail, but I feel that would only be suitable on the mature boards. B.) It's an issue dealing largely with souls. You are raising the creature without it's previous soul. Most people tend to take a scientific approach toward reasoning whether or not this is evil, but that is not the only way to view it. Many believe that everything has a soul, elements, objects, and living beings. The characteristics of the soul are often influenced by "matter" that makes up the object, element, person, ect. Following this line, it isn't a stretch to feel that the soul of a corpse is influenced by the undeath toward evil. For more on this line of belief search for Animism.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-14-07, 12:09 AM	Whew! Good novel! Now what if the character-to-be-animated agrees to the process? This isn't just a stupid question (yeah, I meant to phrase it that way :D); when there's an organ donation in the real world, that's agreed upon & that's not evil (OK. Matter of opinion, but in general agreement). What if I, as a neutral good dwarven wizard, approach my chaotic good necromancer friend and say to him: "Laddie, it's not easy for me to say this, but, if I die, I want you to animate me, Laddie...and don't tell the elf." Is it then still a bad act? Taking another example, what if a lawful good gold dragon, knowing it's old enough to start investing in a 50' x 150' plot of prime lawn real-estate, approaches a group of paladin and asks them to forge holy things from it corpse once it goes? Is the saint's fingerbone a holy relic or a vile desecration?
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 12:23 AM	Well it's two completely different things. One is the desecration of a body in a vile form of magic. The other is using ones body to forge weapons. The animate dead spell has the evil descriptor, which to me means that it's evil to cast it. This doesn't necessarily mean that the result is what is evil (although according to RAW it is as well) but what it takes to pull the spell off is also evil. Whatever you are doing in the process of raising the person as a mindless undead is so vile that nothing makes it good, or even neutral for that matter. Forging the weapons merely requires one to harvest the organs and craft the items, neither of which is considered evil by D&D standards. Basically the dragon example would be like organ donors today. The second one in my opinion would be more like microwaving orphan children because no one wants them. Doesn't matter if population is overcrowded or not or if the parents give you permission microwaving babies is an evil act and hence carries the [evil] descriptor.
gimby 07-14-07, 12:38 AM	One point that I often see raised is the "But I can use undead to do farming/whatever" Oddly enough, no you can't. Mechanically, if you are going to farm or whatever then you will need to make Profession:Farmer checks. Profession cannot be used untrained. Zombies and Skeletons have no skills. Ergo, they cannot make profession checks and so cannot contribute usefully to these activities. Note: As to the "untrained" note on Profession- if you use this to assume that the 1sp represents the worth of the product generated by the labourer and hence they can contribute, this means that in order to replace one average human farmer (Wis 10, 4 ranks in Prof:Farmer, Skill Focus: Prof:Farmer) you will need 12.1 skeletons or zombies. Even though they can work 24 hours a day. Even though they don't need to eat. They are just really rubbish farmers (or miners or whatever).
Perun 07-14-07, 01:01 AM	One point that I often see raised is the "But I can use undead to do farming/whatever" Oddly enough, no you can't. Mechanically, if you are going to farm or whatever then you will need to make Profession:Farmer checks. Profession cannot be used untrained. Zombies and Skeletons have no skills. Ergo, they cannot make profession checks and so cannot contribute usefully to these activities. Note: As to the "untrained" note on Profession- if you use this to assume that the 1sp represents the worth of the product generated by the labourer and hence they can contribute, this means that in order to replace one average human farmer (Wis 10, 4 ranks in Prof:Farmer, Skill Focus: Prof:Farmer) you will need 8.5 skeletons or zombies. Even though they can work 24 hours a day. Even though they don't need to eat. They are just really rubbish farmers (or miners or whatever). Not only that, but you'd also need someone to constantly supervise their work. They're not merely non-intelligent, they're utterly mindless. A lizard is able to understand more than a skeleton. If you tell a skeleton to make a furrow in the field (provided that isn't already stretching it), you'd have to go after it, telling it when to turn. If you tell your zombie miner to dig,it'll continue digging until the shaft collapses (or till it digs a shaft leading to the other side of the planet ;)) They can be useful as simple tools, but there are usually cheaper and more efficient methods for achieving the same results. About the only situation where they can be handy is warfare (and even then, against 'plain' humanoid species). They're about as competent in direct, toe-to-toe mass combat style as the regular humanoid Warrior 1, and, more importantly they look scary and don't require payment or supplies. On the negative side, they require support in the form of evil clerics (or neutral clerics of evil deities) or (preferably) dread necromancers, who probably require a (significantly) greater pay then a regular soldier would and they do need supplies...
EvilIdiot 07-14-07, 08:23 AM	What if I, as a neutral good dwarven wizard, approach my chaotic good necromancer friend and say to him: "Laddie, it's not easy for me to say this, but, if I die, I want you to animate me, Laddie...and don't tell the elf." Is it then still a bad act? According to d&d he would be a maniac, he's asking to desecrate his own corpse, by using vile magic, creating something his fellow must control, to avoid innocents' death, and that is damaged by most types of holy magic... Like a catholic asking to be buried with a satanic ritual... we can stay here until tomorrow asking why in D&D undeath is evil, the answer is simple: because authors decided so, because modern culture and most of fantasy cultures see undeath as evil. Is it unreasonable? No ,there are plenty of examples/scenarios...where undeath implies evilness instead . Can someone find an example where undeath is not inherently evil? yes, but that would not decrease the reasonableness of authors' choice. It's like asking why celestial creatures are the exemplar of goodness, when Milton's Paradise Lost seems to suggest they're evil or close-minded morons... finally ,about organs donation: can your lungs wander timelessly in an area attacking anything approaches them?mindless undeads do so. has the surgeon had to study nazi experimental surgery on Jewish people before taking away your lungs?no. undeath-necromancers have to study something vile though.
shadzar 07-14-07, 09:16 AM	i look at necromancy as a forbidden art type of thing. when early stages of anatomy were in developement, people looked down on exhume bodies, or jsut cutitng them up to see what was inside. likewise bringing back the dead or using them for current purposes without restoring their soul is looked down upon. also it takes a certain mindset to want to play around with the dead. what good aligned person would want to animted corpses rather than ressurecting them?
rulerofDarkness 07-14-07, 11:57 AM	According to d&d he would be a maniac, he's asking to desecrate his own corpse, by using vile magic, creating something his fellow must control, to avoid innocents' death, and that is damaged by most types of holy magic... Like a catholic asking to be buried with a satanic ritual... we can stay here until tomorrow asking why in D&D undeath is evil, the answer is simple: because authors decided so, because modern culture and most of fantasy cultures see undeath as evil. Is it unreasonable? No ,there are plenty of examples/scenarios...where undeath implies evilness instead . Can someone find an example where undeath is not inherently evil? yes, but that would not decrease the reasonableness of authors' choice. It's like asking why celestial creatures are the exemplar of goodness, when Milton's Paradise Lost seems to suggest they're evil or close-minded morons... finally ,about organs donation: can your lungs wander timelessly in an area attacking anything approaches them?mindless undeads do so. has the surgeon had to study nazi experimental surgery on Jewish people before taking away your lungs?no. undeath-necromancers have to study something vile though. How exactly is necromancy vile? and FYI prove that mindless undead attack without being ordered to do so..last I heard mindless uncontroled undead continue on with there last order whether it "Kill everything" or "Guard this village" is up to the necromancer.
Dial_Up_Dragon 07-14-07, 05:41 PM	According to d&d he would be a maniac, he's asking to desecrate his own corpse, by using vile magic, creating something his fellow must control, to avoid innocents' death, and that is damaged by most types of holy magic... Like a catholic asking to be buried with a satanic ritual...How about if I asked to be turned deathless?
calronmoonflower 07-14-07, 09:35 PM	Well I have two reasons for believing it is evil. In the end the only real factor in determining if a spell is always evil to cast is if it has the evil descriptor.
Mula 07-15-07, 12:24 AM	Necromancy is always evil. Duh. Ray of enfeeblement, waves of fatigue... even the names just ooze wickedness. It's much more exalted to burn your enemies to death with fireballs.
Devil Gnasher 07-15-07, 12:46 AM	See here (http://gctm.free.fr/add/necromant/necromancers.html#New%20Necromancer%20Wi zard%20Kits) and here (http://gctm.free.fr/add/necromant/dark%20art.html#18) on how necromancy was handled in Second Edition. I don't agree with all of it (like the idea that spells such as ghoul touch and chill were inherently evil) but it can give you some ideas on how a necromancer can be Good aligned and still practice his or her craft.
EvilIdiot 07-15-07, 07:48 AM	How exactly is necromancy vile? necromancy is not undeath-magic, undeath-magic falls into necromancy so ,in D&D, undeath magic is vile, necromancy isn't (aligned). prove that mindless undead attack without being ordered to do so..last I heard mindless uncontroled undead continue on with there last order whether it "Kill everything" or "Guard this village" is up to the necromancer. The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.) ...you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number...any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) what happens to an uncontrolled skeleton? How about if I asked to be turned deathless? How?:blink: Necromancy is always evil. Duh. Ray of enfeeblement, waves of fatigue... even the names just ooze wickedness. It's much more exalted to burn your enemies to death with fireballs. Highly questionable, I believe most of "undeath is evil" supporters won't agree with this at all. Make your BBEG fall on his knees due to his big sword's weight, then beat him until he falls unconscious with energy substit. (non lethal damage). In the end the only real factor in determining if a spell is always evil to cast is if it has the evil descriptor. True, :tie: I think J_Vhad gave good reasons for that though .
FoolForThought 07-15-07, 09:03 AM	Necromancy Good or Evil. This can only be determined by the DM and the player in a given game. Very few Necromancy spells actualy have the evil descriptor. In addion raising dead is only evil depending on the campain setting. Most will say raising of the dead is evil. However campains such as The Scared Lands which has a city-state where raising the dead is not only common but is considered an honor to the individual raised. Please just remember core, or any d&d book is simply a guidline and nothing more. If you like the idea run with it and remember its all about having fun.:D
EvilIdiot 07-15-07, 01:16 PM	Please just remember core, or any d&d book is simply a guidline and nothing more. If you like the idea run with it and remember its all about having fun.:D And those guidelines say necromancy has no alignment, while undeath (spell/items/creatures) has ;).
Mula 07-16-07, 01:00 AM	Highly questionable, I believe most of "undeath is evil" supporters won't agree with this at all. Make your BBEG fall on his knees due to his big sword's weight, then beat him until he falls unconscious with energy substit. (non lethal damage).Well, yeah, I was being sarcastic. If you want to make a wizard or a sorcerer who prefers nonviolent solutions, turn to the two schools that are often viewed as either questionable or downright evil: necromancy and enchantment. These two schools offer loads of excellent spells that will let you defeat your enemy without actually burning or charring them to death. Also, insta death spells are a lot more merciful than spells that slowly (and painfully) lower your hp.