(WARNING: Here there be fluff, rules-lawyers be fairly warned. I will note here that I do know the “official” rules, so perhaps this particular article might be best thought of as a big fluffy article of fluffiness.)
A point of contention is the inherent alignment and ethics of the use of negative energy and the construction of undead minions. All to often people tend to see undead creatures as evil beings simply because they are most often fashioned by those with ill intentions. However this relation is simply a stereotype, and not a rule.
Reasons for utilizing undead creatures are many, and certainly evil purposes cannot be excluded, as many encounters with these fell creatures originate from malcontent wizards and clerics. However it can be said that animating dead creatures can have their uses, as dead bodies are able to provide a valuable and ready resource of tireless, unswerving minions that can perform tasks without fail, question, and little if any required maintenance.
An animated steed can transport its rider over vast distances and never succumb to exhaustion, disease, or hunger. It will not trouble its rider in any way, not will it complain about traveling through certain terrain. Undead workers can perform simple tasks relentlessly, do not question directions or actions, and do not require pay or any compensation. An army of skeletons or zombies is a powerful force to be reckoned with and does not entail any risk to you or living citizens of a kingdom that would most likely be happy to be safe without need to endanger themselves. It is possible that cultures may animate their own dead for the purposes of good. A shamanistic society may animate slain warriors who defend the tribe. Those warriors may see it as an honor to continue their service to their families even after they fall on the field of battle.
Negative Energy
How do undead work? Generally a simple spell or incantation is all that is required to animate the simplest of undead creatures. Skeletons and zombies are easily conjured and ready to serve. However how does such magic function? To understand this first one must understand the machinations behind the purpose of negative energy.
Negative energy is the polar opposite of positive energy, the force of life. Mirroring its basic use, negative energy is the “anti-life”. By channeling it, one can effectively "snuff out" life in those still alive by using an equal amount to cancel the creature's life force out. As this process occurs one can clearly see the effects of negative energy take it's toll as the afflicted creature begins turning haggard and weak, and a lifeless, withered husk once the process is complete.
Dead matter however is fueled by negative energy, which provides an animating force for it. The corpse of a once living creature, empowered by negative energy, can be brought to a state of “un-life”, and by virtue of the magic, commanded by its creator. The undead creature has no memories, emotions, or even the ability to think. It is a soulless vessel that is in many ways identical to a golem, although much easier to create, control, and destroy.
Despite this, uncontrolled undead (those without masters) are often times compelled to assault living creatures. This is most likely due to the fact that a living creature possesses a tiny spark of positive energy, and they are beholden to eliminate such occurrences, but otherwise do not act on their own. This theory I called the Spark Theory. Perhaps this is why many different forms of undead are found near each other, seemingly unaware of the rest, rather than fighting amongst themselves. This also provides insight pertaining to reports from adventures and explorers that are accosted by otherwise mindless abominations.
One must understand that negative energy is not evil. It is simply a force, without any feelings or instincts of its own. It simply exists, and whether one uses it for good or evil is up to the one that wields it. It cannot control itself. It, like the undead, is simply a tool to be used. Its sole purpose is to be a parallel force to that of life and thus both positive and negative energy cancel each other out when both meet.
Necrology 101
Now that you can comprehend the nuances of negative energy, lets move on to undead themselves. The simplest form of undead is the skeleton. Skeletons are very basic creatures, composed entirely of the skeletal structure of a once living creature. As such only creatures that possessed a skeleton can be animated as one. An animate dead spell is ideal for this purpose, which channels a small amount of negative energy into the corpse to animate it. Any other flesh that remains is simply falls away from the bones as they animate, leaving nothing but bony remains.
Typically an onyx, obsidian, or similar "black" stone is used to properly channel negative energy during such rituals. Since the use of an animate dead spell is most commonly employed, many skeletons are encountered with onyx stones in their mouths, eye sockets, or the back of their skulls. Blunt weapons are best used when fighting skeletons, and even commoners can make short work of them if outnumbered.
The more advanced an undead becomes; the more energy is required to animate it. Zombies require more than a skeleton, and a mummy requires more than a zombie. Animation spells (such as animate dead) reflect this in their descriptions. This greater spark of negative energy is also why it takes a larger charge of positive energy, such as that applied by all curing spells, to decompose greater undead.
Since mindless undead lack the capacity to perform actions on their own (aside from the almost instinctual urge to lash out at creatures with positive energy sparks), they are not evil. Like machines or automatons, they lack the ability to think or to even consider the orders they have been given. Most intelligent forms of undead, such as vampires and wights, have a tendency to further use their abilities to pursue the courses of evil, whether by choice or control, however.
Natural Occurrence
As contrary as it may sound, not all undead are animated by evil wizards or clerics. Sometimes, the process simply happens due to “natural” causes (and in a world where dragons and magic are natural forces, I would think it absurd to discount the existence of negative energy as a natural force). Areas exposed to large amounts of negative energy (a sinkhole where the Prime Material meets with the Plane of Negative Energy) could give rise to rogue undead, who move about with no master at all. In most cases, they are hostile against living creatures, which further supports the Spark Theory.
Sometimes, in areas where there has been much death; a village wiped out during a raid, a vast battlefield, or cultist’s temple, undead may rise as well. It is theorized that when many creatures die in close proximity, it creates a sort of negative energy backlash, or an “echo” that causes negative energy to ripple outwards. This echo could fuel many slain creatures, causing them to arise as undead. In addition, the existence of undead could possibly create additional echoes, creating a chain reaction as more and more creatures become animated. This provides insight as to why battlefields are common havens for undead.
Of course, this is all theory, and it is doubtful one could find enough willing subjects to delve into the matter further.
The Spark Theory
The Spark Theory states that every living creature possesses a degree of either positive or negative energy. Even demons and elementals despite their sometimes alien biology and physiologies, possess this spark. It is because of this internal energy that creatures live, or continue animate after death. In the case of normal living beings, they possess a spark of positive energy. When countered with the application of negative energy, the spark is reduced. This reaction has notable causes to the recipient, which most often manifests as haggard, withered features. On the same token, when positive energy is channeled into a creature animated by negative energy, physical reactions are also apparent; the body begins smolder and crumble into dust or ash until little remains.
In comparison, most undead specimens of the same size tend to have a higher degree of negative energy. Body mass does not seem to be a sole determining factor. Many human-sized undead, such as vampires, are capable of enduring massive amounts of positive energy before succumbing to its effects. At this time it is not known what determines the capacity for an individual’s spark, and sages and scholars continue to debate this topic.
Good Undead?
Possible? Yes. Likely? Definitely. The existence of good aligned undead is very much a possibility. On Faerun it is documented that there are elven liches that possess a good alignment and spend their undead lives defending their kin. On Eberron, there are rumors of kind undead elven rulers. Even lawful good vampires have been encountered. Any undead that possesses sentience has the possibility to use its newfound state for the purposes of good, and instances are not limited to just the elven folk.
The possibility depends on the type of undead the person has become, the circumstances, and what the person was in its past life. A paladin mummy is more likely than an assassin wight to adopt the mantle of the hero, for example.
An animated steed can transport its rider over vast distances and never succumb to exhaustion, disease, or hunger. It will not trouble its rider in any way, not will it complain about traveling through certain terrain. Undead workers can perform simple tasks relentlessly, do not question directions or actions, and do not require pay or any compensation.
We must remember that an undead creature is a dead creature animated. A dead creature usually comes with tons of flies around and a great chance to contaminate many living animals or humans with any kind of disease.
Secondly, while it's possible that some barbaric culture might see honor in having their corpse animated, I think those cultures are mostly orcs, gnolls or other evil humanoids. Most cultures would see corpse animation as disrespect for the dead creature. Who knows what is the link between the creature's soul and her former corpse? The three letters we see on most tomb stones -R.I.P.- are not there for naught, it's a deep wish to see the dead one to Rest in Peace.
However, I agree it's possible to see good undead. The Book or Exalted Deeds talk of Deathless creatures. But those creatures should be used intelligently. A good drow walking in a common city is likely to be attacked on sight only because he's a drow; and drow are only evil creatures. Most commoners see undead not as an evil creature, but as a force of evil. A "good" undead would suffer even more ostracism.
Writing - Very well organized, I have no complaints. 5/5
Concept - Unique and original. Also very well thought out. 5/5
Grammar - No really impressive vocabulary, but it worked all the better. 5/5
Originality - I don't think I've seen a game with good zombies yet. 5/5
Final Score 20/20 A+
Joseph Heller has spoken.
Any reanimating spell lesser than Resurrection (Sp) actually creates ...
"Living Dead"
Type Undead (No con, retroactive d12 HD),
New Alignment = The Cleric's (Deity found/owns you) Energy Affiliation.
Otherwise you are, nearly, exactly the same. Somewhat more susceptible to clerical suggestion, however. ;)
I have also played with (not as) a "Good Lich" but the DM enforced the slow decline to evil that comes with the template, and he was a negative energy being the entire time.
As far as the prose, I feel almost like a student in an arcane workshop almost. Basically I feel uncertain about where I am. Am I a player reading this or a character? I like the references to the known worlds, but they seem to fallout of the bottom of the piece whereas they could be very supportive.
I would like to see this piece done with more or less suspense of disbelief. I want to know we are talking about a game, or feel like I'm in Dalamar's "Necromancy:323 Advanced Energy Mechanics" class eh?
As the note on barbaric cultures, I disagree that even most are savage races; in my current campaign we are currently in the northlands with no fewer than three different human barbarian tribes. Any one of them, or even some civilized societies, might have been taught early on that it is okay and respectable to do so. Really, it depends on the campaign, the culture, and the history.
I'll try to write up these articles as a kind of report or class assignment, something like Necrology 102 or somesuch, to try to get across the point that its more of a fluff thing that takes the RAW into consideration.
The undead creature has no memories, emotions, or even the ability to think. It is a soulless vessel that is in many ways identical to a golem, although much easier to create, control, and destroy.
The problem with this line of rhetoric is that you eliminate everything that isn't either a mindless spectral, skeletal or fleshy undead. In short, you lose the real high-end punch of the undeads: the liches, the vampires and the ghosts. Ghosts are especially unaccounted for in that they are not typically fully sentient (in most cases, in most systems) like the vampire/lich category, but rather have a remembrance of the life they left behind, and often feel a need to either avenge their death or torment those who live while they do not. In short, your system fails because it takes on only the most simplistic of undead and presumes to reduce all undead to that level of simplistic "destroy life" mentality. It's clever... but kind of falls short in usefulness as it's currently written.
The thing I don't get is why you don't just embrace the concept of negative energy being the opposite of life, but not necessarily the antithesis of sentient life. In short, liches and vampires choose the more stable, pliable and long-lasting unlife as superior to that of life and remolded their existence (either by sheer force of will and power of magic or by undertaking the vampiric embrace) into the undead terrors they become. That said, it should be noted that I believe there is a sect of elves in the FR universe that use a process of becoming liches and yet remain good... but it's been too long.
Anyways, my point is simply this: the "fluff" is entertaining writing, but it comes up a bit short of anything more than an interesting explanation for why mindless undead hate the living and yet remain mindless. I recommend you do some more work on it and expand it.
-Vengeful Cynic
I've been espousing exactly this ideal for years. Many are the arguments I've had in another hall here about this. The strict definable sense of our "reality" here may not "dictate" this theory's correctness, but certainly the feel and "flavor" of it are right, pardon the pun, dead on. Every Undead, regardless of their true moral affiliations (OoC: alignment), detects as evil to a Detect Evil spell. Some have argued that this is an artifact of the structure of the magic (or OoC: a badly written spell description); yet this seems to me grotesquely unlikely. The more sensible explanation is simply that Negative Planar Energies in and of themselves are simply perceived by living beings, and by the spells they construct to further manipulate or perceive their universe, as Evil as they are the inverse of themselves, that is to say, living, or Positively "charged".
Negative Energies ALWAYS affect a living being negatively. Positive Energies always have the reverse effect on an Undead being or one comprised directly of Negative Planar Energies. It's quite simple really.
C
"Old enough to know better, too young to care."
I should have clarified that that particular line pertains solely to mindless undead. In the case of intelligent undead, it depends on the individual type you are referring to. Vampires remember their pasts, as do liches. Both are still imbued with massive amounts of negative energy (which accounts for their deadly touch).
The thing I don't get is why you don't just embrace the concept of negative energy being the opposite of life, but not necessarily the antithesis of sentient life. In short, liches and vampires choose the more stable, pliable and long-lasting unlife as superior to that of life and remolded their existence (either by sheer force of will and power of magic or by undertaking the vampiric embrace) into the undead terrors they become. That said, it should be noted that I believe there is a sect of elves in the FR universe that use a process of becoming liches and yet remain good... but it's been too long.
I do believe it is the opposite of life, just not evil. Its simply there. As for liches and the like, I think that they can become such things while still remaining good.
As for the good elven liches, its there. Check Monsters of Faerun.
I've been espousing exactly this ideal for years. Many are the arguments I've had in another hall here about this. The strict definable sense of our "reality" here may not "dictate" this theory's correctness, but certainly the feel and "flavor" of it are right, pardon the pun, dead on. Every Undead, regardless of their true moral affiliations (OoC: alignment), detects as evil to a Detect Evil spell. Some have argued that this is an artifact of the structure of the magic (or OoC: a badly written spell description); yet this seems to me grotesquely unlikely. The more sensible explanation is simply that Negative Planar Energies in and of themselves are simply perceived by living beings, and by the spells they construct to further manipulate or perceive their universe, as Evil as they are the inverse of themselves, that is to say, living, or Positively "charged".
Negative Energies ALWAYS affect a living being negatively. Positive Energies always have the reverse effect on an Undead being or one comprised directly of Negative Planar Energies. It's quite simple really.
I find this postulate both interesting and yet problematic. If evil and the presence of negative energy are synonymous, then how do we account for the presence of evil deities and powerful evil entities. These register as heavily as great undeads with many HD in a "Detect Evil" spell and yet one simply has a great lot of negative energy and may be good while the other has a great lot of positive energy and yet is evil.
In fact, the more that I think about this, in conjunction with negative energy having a definitively evilly-defined nature as opposed to positive energy's definitive good, I think one would have some issues with the detect spells if negative and positive energy stopped being definitively good and evil. This is not to say that by this reasoning positive and negative energy must be relegated to the forums of good and evil, but rather that Detect Good and Detect Evil should either be detached from the realms of positive and negative energy in such a system (optimal) or allowed to detect both alignment and energy (sub-optimal), and best, the former solution in conjunction with Detect Energy that would detect positive and negative energy... perhaps in addition to psionic, arcane, and perhaps law and chaos. It's a thought.
-Vengeful Cynic
In fact, the more that I think about this, in conjunction with negative energy having a definitively evilly-defined nature as opposed to positive energy's definitive good, I think one would have some issues with the detect spells if negative and positive energy stopped being definitively good and evil. This is not to say that by this reasoning positive and negative energy must be relegated to the forums of good and evil, but rather that Detect Good and Detect Evil should either be detached from the realms of positive and negative energy in such a system (optimal) or allowed to detect both alignment and energy (sub-optimal), and best, the former solution in conjunction with Detect Energy that would detect positive and negative energy... perhaps in addition to psionic, arcane, and perhaps law and chaos. It's a thought.
I apologize for answering this for the writer, but I must butt in. If I am mistaken, Antioch, please correct me. First I would like to know why the detect alignment spells would have to be revamped. As I understand it, negative and positive energy have absolutely nothing to do with alignment. A creature who is lives off negative energy can be good or evil, am I correct? And, if so, then the spell Detect Evil could just as easily detect a creature who is evil and he is imbued with negative energy as he could one with positive energy. Even though I could have worded that better, you all should get my point.
Perhaps (and this is the way it is in my campaign) a person's behavior is affected by the concentration of certain types of energy within them. In this way, positive and negative energy are neither good nor evil, but cause good and evil in a sentient being. Beings with a concentration of positive energy in their blood tend to be concerned for others, behave kindly, etc..., and those with negative energies within them tend to act violently, disregard the lives of others, and kick puppies. This is why intelligent undead are evil. The concentration of negative energy quickly drives them insane
This could create some interesting roleplaying opportunities, such as a cleric who tries to do good with his skeleton army and has to fight against turning to the darker side of his own nature, or a spellcaster so determined to protect an ancient relic for all eternity that he is willing to commit the really really evil acts necessary to become a lich, and then struggles to remain true to his purpose rather than using said artifact for world domination.
This is of course, only one way of thinking about it. Whatever works for you is right for you. If Paladins start leading undead legions against the evil overlord's fortress instead of the other way around, the difference between good and evil as cosmic forces tends to blur. If you want it that way though, more power to ya.
One more problem - Although skeletons and zombies are mindless, they aren't necessarily soulless. It might be somewhat unpleasant for the soul involved to be forced into animating an old corpse. This brings up an interesting question though, as golems are essentially the same thing, only with an earth elemental rather than a person. Would that make them evil? It all depends on how the world works, but it's very interesting to think about.
More powerful magics can do more than merely detect and measure the presence of negative energy. An antipathy spell for example involves advanced magics which could properly asses the moral outlook of the targets. If the antipathy spell were set against LE targets, and an intelligent LG vampire were to approach, they would not trigger the antipathy effect. In short, detect evil will positively detect any undead, any spell of higher power (level) than detect evil, will act on the creatures true alignment.
As for cultures using undead, there are many documented (and usually isolated) cultures who make use of undead freely. A culture determines if a body must be laid to rest. A purely pragmatic society mist see no harm in putting corpses to use for something more useful than as fertilizer.
Lastly, I feel compelled to extrapolate on the nature of negative energy. Basically the functioning of negative energy to animate a corpse falls into one of two groups. One the one hand, there is some reason that a corpse is used. It seems counterintuitive that a creature ones healthily infused with positive energy would somehow be easy to infuse with negative energy and consequently animate. If only a corpse can be animated this easily, one has to wonder if there aren't some moral implications, the likes of which perhaps we cannot grasp. This theory is supported by the fact that one can animate dead with a 3rd or 4th level spell, while animate object is of very limited duration and is 6th level.
If on the other hand, there is no special reason to use a corpse than because they are usually easy to get ahold of, then the whole moral issue can be avoided by instead using some other fabricated frame. This type of animation is similar to the creation of a golem, except far less powerful, lacking any of the golems special spell immunities or special abilities. This has huge advantages in that specialized forms can be made, and different materials can be employed to deliver an even more hardy soldier/laborer/etc...
An animate dead spell can be replaced with an animate construct spell, which can be applied to a wood or metal frame of approximately humanlike dimensions.
Game Notes: Animate object is far higher level than animate dead, to balance this, the game assumes animate dead is generally considered evil, and frowned upon my most game societies. If you remove that, animate dead might need to be 5th or 6th level (which is was in previous versions).
Egoslayer1
Also, the argument that it’s frowned upon is really only a balancing factor is a few limited cases, and certainly not worth the difference in three spell levels (which translates into 6 wizard levels).
Oh? The townsfolk don’t like it when you raise dead? Fine, simply use relatively simple concealment methods and raise your army when you are already way into the dungeon. I'm sure your party doesn’t mind not having to risk their necks as you send in the shambling orc horde that you "acquired" from the last adventure.
The zero-level Sorceror/Wizard spell Disrupt Undead channels positive energy to harm undead. The positive energy is purely disruptive, that is, capable of harming undead but incapable of healing the living.
I was thinking--why is it that this is not further developed? Higher level disruptive positive energy spells capable of damaging undead without affecting (most) allies with burst or cone shapes would be huge.
Also, beside game balance, why are arcane casters incapable of channeling positive energy for healing? There are a profusion of damaging negative energy spells, but nearly none that heal. Though WoTC would rather *gasp* lower prices than do something like let wizards heal, I would see nothing wrong with allowing them into my campaign.
The way I would have done the spell is that it doesn’t transmit positive energy, but instead just begins to sever their tie to negative energy. The way it is, its rather strange that it cant be used to heal living creatures (it would be unbalanced if it could, however).
My fluff reasoning (aside from whatever game mechanic issues you might present) is that it can only be accessed through spiritual and/or divine mediums (bards can access it because their magic is derived from music and not traditional arcane methods; take it as you will).
Rogue mindless undead seek to destroy all living beings without compassion or sentience, simply a force of evil seeking to make it the dominant of the two.
Sentient undead have no emotions, no compassion, and usually helpless in sustaining themselves off the living. Ghouls seek out meat to live, and they see nothing wrong with eating a small child. A vampire doesn't feel remorse or pity when he feeds off a little girl looking for her mother. This is what makes them evil. Of course, it doesn't mean the vampire is stupid either, he will not recklessly slaughter people in open for that endangers his existence.
Animating undead to make them do an act of good, may be a good action but causing the necromantic energy to flow through you and putting your mind in contact with mental domination of undead begins corrupting you. Power corrupts, and the absolute power over death corrupts absolutely.
Yes, there are good undead. They are extremely rare and from certain settings and through special rituals where the persons soul is bound to their body with positive energy.
Negative energy is a corrupting, rotting, and destructive energy inherent in the material plane. Creatures of absolute negative energy are only capable of evil.
Positive energy is drawn from the (healing) descriptor, which is linked to the Conjuration school. I have no idea why they chose to have a necromancy spell utilize positive energy, especially as a wizard/sorcerer spell. I suppose you could set up higher level undead slaying-only spells in this trend, in that they can only be used to hurt the undead but are ineffective in any other application, including healing living creatures.
The way I would have done the spell is that it doesn’t transmit positive energy, but instead just begins to sever their tie to negative energy. The way it is, its rather strange that it cant be used to heal living creatures (it would be unbalanced if it could, however).
My fluff reasoning (aside from whatever game mechanic issues you might present) is that it can only be accessed through spiritual and/or divine mediums (bards can access it because their magic is derived from music and not traditional arcane methods; take it as you will).
Disrupt undead disrupts the flow of negative energy in a negative energy harming it. It doesn't actually blast it with positive energy. That would be using a cure light wound spell.
I had this argument with a few of my friends, but I eventually realized they were right saying that any act of animating/controlling undead is evil. I also came to the realization that almost all undead, and definitely the mindless ones are evil.
Not possible, at least according to the rules in the PH, though Wizards does a good job of later contradicting it. Refer to your PH and actually read the alignment section please; "animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral."
Since a mindless undead cannot act of its own accord, and also cannot think at all, it should be neutral and not evil. I'm sorry your friends somehow convinced you otherwise, but as of yet I have failed to see one good argument contrary to it.
Rogue mindless undead seek to destroy all living beings without compassion or sentience, simply a force of evil seeking to make it the dominant of the two.
By the rules in the MM there is no such thing as "rogue mindless undead". However, seeing as that many games and settings do feature random undead that for whatever reason try to kill the PCs, I managed to find a logical reason why a creature incapable of thought or otherwise unable to react to its surroundings in any way. Did you know that random skeletons actually wouldn’t attack you? Many don’t.
Sentient undead have no emotions, no compassion, and usually helpless in sustaining themselves off the living. Ghouls seek out meat to live, and they see nothing wrong with eating a small child. A vampire doesn't feel remorse or pity when he feeds off a little girl looking for her mother. This is what makes them evil. Of course, it doesn't mean the vampire is stupid either, he will not recklessly slaughter people in open for that endangers his existence.
Wow...you seem to have sentient and non-intelligent backwards. Undead with an Intelligence score actually can feel emotions, and sometimes do see the error of their ways (this is where you get good undead...yes, there is such thing as a good vampire, lich, or even ghoul).
Animating undead to make them do an act of good, may be a good action but causing the necromantic energy to flow through you and putting your mind in contact with mental domination of undead begins corrupting you. Power corrupts, and the absolute power over death corrupts absolutely.
Wrong, at least by the rules. Casting spells with an [Evil] descriptor does nothing for your alignment. It is only there for determining how certain spells might interact with eachother and for what spells a cleric might be able to cast. They do not alter your alignment the more you cast certain ones. Also, negative energy is neutral (Manual of the Planes, Planescape CS).
Yes, there are good undead. They are extremely rare and from certain settings and through special rituals where the persons soul is bound to their body with positive energy.
Wrong again...again. For one thing, FRCS features good-aligned elves that are not bound with positive energy (I'm also of the camp that thinks the deathless were a needless addition). The alignment line simply tells you the most likely alignment of a given creature, none are bound to it completely. There can be evil gold dragons, good red dragons, and good undead for that matter.
Negative energy is a corrupting, rotting, and destructive energy inherent in the material plane. Creatures of absolute negative energy are only capable of evil.
Wrong to the third power. Negative energy is simply the other side of positive energy. It is not evil; it cannot think. Positive energy is also neutral.
I'm sorry, I can not agree if you think that a creature is suffused by a neutral force that it for no valid reason must be evil than because the designer's contradicted themselves (or wanted to make the paladin's smite evil and protection from evil spells work on some of them :rolleyes
.If you could pour a cup full of positive energy, well, great. Now you have some positive energy in a cup. It wouldn't change the status of the cup. If the cup was an intelligent construct, it wouldn't change the cup's alignment. Its molecules would just be excited with positive energy. Inversely, if you filled a cup with negative energy, it would do the same thing; excite the cup's molecules, although again in a different fashion. You could probably blend them, but it would be bland and give you a mildly upset stomach, and you'd be hung-over in the morning.
Negative energy affects living creatures in the same way as vitamin deficiency, dehydration, and sleep deprivation at the same time. It makes you a grumpy, antisocial, irritated animal. If YOU were affronted with negative energy, don't you think you would do your best to stop up its source? The reason undead are so sensitive to the positive energy that living beings radiate is that the negative bonds that tie their joints and flesh together are primitive, fragile, and open to outside forces the same way that muscle tissue without skin would be.
When you affront them with positive energy, it is easy to agitate them to violence. You're basically cutting off the flow of negative energy through their system in the same manner as cutting off the circulation of a living creature's arm. Positive energy heals living creatures because their bodies know how to use it to regenerate itself. That's basically it. That's why a living evil creature can still be healed by a cure light wounds spell; their bodies know how to process it. The same can be said about negative energy to undead. It has nothing to do with the soul, which is the main determinant of alignment.
Negative energy affects living creatures in the same way as vitamin deficiency, dehydration, and sleep deprivation at the same time.
A bit wrong. Diseases, vitamin deficiencies or not, are caused by negative energy. As is fatigue. Negative effects of sleep deprivation come from too much negative energy in the body.
A bit wrong. Diseases, vitamin deficiencies or not, are caused by negative energy. As is fatigue. Negative effects of sleep deprivation come from too much negative energy in the body.
I might be under the wrong impression, but are diseases in D&D not caused by microbes and viral cells? Nonmagical diseases of course. Mummy Rot is fueled by negative energy, but filth fever sounds more like an infection than a negative energy infusion.
I can see what you're saying, but I can also see how those things can be consequences of reduced resources of positive energy, not necessarily negative energy. Then again, it would be easy for negative energy to build up where there used to be positive energy, so it would probably be a combination of the two.
[INDENT]*** This response is, in turn, fluffy fluff as well. As the original article here is aimed at 'arguing' away the 'Evil' descriptor on /arcane/ undead creation spells, this fluffy response is geared towards why some folks leave the 'evil' bit on there, regardless of negative or positive energy and its association with undead creation spells. Feel free to change the name of St. Cuthbert to match whatever lawful good religious organization/entity/deity exists in your game world.[/INDENT]
The sky blackened and I was stricken from my mount. The clouds parted and Saint Cuthbert appeared to me. My companions could not see the Lord, but they could hear the words he spoke to me. "My beloved Bethmeil, the power of life and death is granted to the gods alone. No living mortal shall take this power from the gods. Whoa to any soul who should touch upon divinity and disobey the will of the gods. For it is granted to the gods along that they may bless their faithful with the power of life and death. Any who should disobey this divine right does so with the breath of blasphemy. Their soul shall be cast into the abyss, to be feasted upon by dragon and demon alike. Do not associate with blasphemers, least you be tempted to their ways. Go now, with your companions, to Dorakaa. There such a blasphemous mortal gathers the dead about him, using wicked magic not granted by the gods to raise the dead around him for his own desire. He taunts the gods by claiming the divine right of life and death."
The miracle of life and rebirth are a divine privilege, granted alone to the gods. This is a divine miracle, the laws that govern the power of gods are beyond the comprehension of mortals. We mortals cannot comprehend the laws and nature of the gods, and we should not tempt these laws. It is said amongst the words of St. Cuthbert that anyone not of divinity who raises the dead does so at the peril of their soul. The elves have spoken in council amongst those of the allied faiths and they interpret the word of Corellian as agreeing with the word of St. Cuthbert. The power to give life is a divine gift, given to the gods and in turn, transferred to their faithful. Anyone who raises the dead through means other than divinity is of a corrupt soul.
Thus, any mortal blessed with the power to raise the dead should do so cautiously, least they anger their deity. One should only raise those faithful to their church and they should not raise those opposed to their faith. The Saint will look with disfavor upon the clergy with this gift who use it foolishly. Our Lord will cast out those of us who raise those who worship the Enemy. The power to raise the dead is an awesome gift granted to those the Saint trusts with this power. Those granted this power shall use it wisely least they face divine retribution by the gods.*** End Fluff ***
Check out the raise dead type spells. Clerical (divine) spells that bring things back to life have no good/evil descriptor associated with them while the magic (arcane) spells are evil. Just as we could use modern world morals to argue that necromancy should not be evil, we could also argue that in a world where deities are real and they display real world power, the deities are responsible for life and death and not mortals.
Lich would certainly be one of the most common varieties of positive undead that I would expect to see. In fact, I'm a tad shocked that they're not at least as common as evil undead.
However, good mummies and ghosts would be other likely examples. In fact, allow me to quote:
Ghost
Size and Type: The creature’s type changes to undead.
Alignment: Any
So, as you can see, undead can be any alignment. Now, most of these will be animated by negative energy even when good (e.g. someone trapped by their ties to the living would probably be animated by negative energy that they called out to without realizing it at the moment of their deaths).
A paladin who remains at the place of his death to warn others, however, is likely animated by positive energy. This would throw a wrinkle at any cleric that tried to interact with them, and as a DM I'd say that they don't respond to either turning or rebuking by default, but a cleric that understood their nature could probably do the opposite (e.g. good could rebuke and evil could turn) if they specifically asked their deity to intervene in that way.
I’m going to modify your spark theory slightly in suggesting that a “spark” is actually a container, even though it is a metaphysical one. It can be filled with either positive or negative energy. Adding the opposing energy to a spark drains it, and it is possible to have an “empty” spark. A second element is binding, which binds a spark to an organic object.
Skeletons and zombies are generally mindless undead, created with a crude but generally simple spark that holds a minimum amount or negative energy. Higher forms of undead tend to take the existing spark of a living being and corrupt it so that it becomes a container of negative energy tightly bound by that negative energy to the non living organic shell of its former body. (A third type of undead is unbound, shades being an example of undead with no real bonding to a material body.)
Since lower spells of returning people from the dead tend to require no significant exposure of the body to negative energies, one might be able to argue a simple “you shouldn’t do it” argument and in turn wrap that argument with an “evil” label. In practice, however, the argument fails for skeletons and zombies, especially for skeletons because you can really get to the point where skeletons are not unsightly, unsanitary things.
In one famous fantasy series, even skeletons had their sparks (or perhaps in this case souls is a better term) bound with them but unable to influence the animated corpse. This series also had those skeletons decay and the road of the necromantic city was literally paved with the tortured souls of the ancestors bound into the skeletons by unaware people who literally became ground over time into fine bone fragments; in the same way as many old roads and driveways in New England were covered with fragments of clam shells.
As for undead steeds, assuming that we are talking about the mindless ones, such as skeletons, they pose both good and bad features. Clearly their inability to tire is a good feature, but being mindless they would have less ability to navigate difficult terrain with a rider. Skeletal armies can be deployed in a manner easier than living armies, but of course are more easily defeated.
I would like to end with an odd example of the real world which concerns something similar to negative energy in that it is an energy that isn’t very compatible with living organisms. Madame Curie once had a highly radioactive rock on her desk. She would encourage people to hold it and see how “warm” it was. She herself would eventually die from the “negative” energy of the radioactive materials she worked with. It’s not in the rules as written but I think that both exposure and contamination effects of playing with negative energy should be explored by the DM as an alternate to making negative energy the perfect animating force.
I might be under the wrong impression, but are diseases in D&D not caused by microbes and viral cells? Nonmagical diseases of course. Mummy Rot is fueled by negative energy, but filth fever sounds more like an infection than a negative energy infusion.
All degeneration of life is caused by negative energy. How it works in specific cases doesn't change that. Still negative energy. That is the definition of negative energy, pretty much.
Filth fever comes from nasty humours that emanate from dirt. Humour might not be the exact word, but I don't remember better one now. Basically, read how diseases were viewed in the Dark Ages.
Rogue mindless undead seek to destroy all living beings without compassion or sentience, simply a force of evil seeking to make it the dominant of the two.
Except the text for skeletons says the exact opposite of this. So by RAW (Rules as Written) you are wrong. It says they just stand there unless ordered. They don't even take initiative to defend themselves unless ordered. You ask why do modules allow skels to hurt people then?
Maybe the creator ordered them to attack next person besides him that entered room.
This would make sense (adventurers do exist) and world fit the undead attacking theme of modules.
Animating undead to make them do an act of good, may be a good action but causing the necromantic energy to flow through you and putting your mind in contact with mental domination of undead begins corrupting you. Power corrupts, and the absolute power over death corrupts absolutely.
Not written anyway, but you mind, I bet. It doesn't corrupt because it isn't absolute power also. Remember: clerics are better Necromancers than Necromancers.
Negative energy is a corrupting, rotting, and destructive energy inherent in the material plane. Creatures of absolute negative energy are only capable of evil.
So is Positive energy. Too much positive will kill you (check out the planes). Absolute negative energy are not evil by default: their choices--like everyone else’s--make them evil.
I've always thought that mindless undead should be true neutral. Because well, they're mindless. I guess a mindless creature could potentially show chaos or law, but most defiantly not good or evil. Think about it, can an ant understand the concepts of good and evil? How about even something with animalistic intelligence like a lizard or even a monkey.
I wouldn't say true neutral, I would venture to chaotic neutral, never lawful. Being mindless they have no idea what law is. I would personally see mindless undead as chaotic evil. I’m not talking about taking over cities but because they have no thought, they have a higher potential to do evil, i.e. kill some one, instead of saving Timmy from the well.
Everything else, I totally agree. Undead are not evil, just misunderstood =). Most clerics, not all, see them as a mockery of life and abominations. I do agree there can be good undead, I believe in open games where almost anything is possible. Angels fall, fiends ascend, undead can most certainly be good aligned.
I wouldn't say true neutral, I would venture to chaotic neutral, never lawful. Being mindless they have no idea what law is. I would personally see mindless undead as chaotic evil. I’m not talking about taking over cities but because they have no thought, they have a higher potential to do evil, i.e. kill some one, instead of saving Timmy from the well.
Everything else, I totally agree. Undead are not evil, just misunderstood =). Most clerics, not all, see them as a mockery of life and abominations. I do agree there can be good undead, I believe in open games where almost anything is possible. Angels fall, fiends ascend, undead can most certainly be good aligned.
A mindless creature cannot exhibit the creativity and independent nature necessary to constitute a chaotic alignment any more than it can display the orderly, patterned behavior necessary for a lawful one. Likewise it doesn't have the forethought to be giving and self-sacrificing (good). It also can't truly behave selfishly or with greed in the same way or with the same fervor as someone truly evil. I'd definitely agree with labeling it neutral.
I would almost be tempted to offer the evil subtype, but negative and positive energy have no ties to alignment or subtype whatsoever so I can't find a sufficient justification. I'd agree that the mindless undead are like death itself: they simply are.
Most clerics, not all, see them as a mockery of life and abominations. I do agree there can be good undead, I believe in open games where almost anything is possible. Angels fall, fiends ascend, undead can most certainly be good aligned.
This is just it. The good undead, like the fallen angel/atoned fiend, makes for a good element to a game - no one would disagree. However, as soon as the association of evil with undead is rescinded, so to is the intriguing element of having good undead; without evil undead, there is no such thing as 'good' undead anymore as well. No player will touch trying to incorporate 'undead' into their character concept (whether playing as an undead race or playing a necromancer) because it is uninteresting because there is no association of evil/good; they can't walk the line so to speak, they can't play the 'blacksheep' of necromancers by doing good instead of doing evil. Just as if everyone is playing fallen angels or ascended fiends, it becomes utterly redundant an uninteresting.
Mindless creatures are (supposed to be) neutral in alignment (its in the PH). Having no mind as well as the complete inability to act means that they have no concepts of good, evil, chaos, or law. They dont even understand what a concept is. Heck, they cant even think!
Everything else, I totally agree. Undead are not evil, just misunderstood =). Most clerics, not all, see them as a mockery of life and abominations. I do agree there can be good undead, I believe in open games where almost anything is possible. Angels fall, fiends ascend, undead can most certainly be good aligned.
My main argument has been that they should be neutral in alignment (the mindless ones anyway), I dont really care about the ones that can actually think.
Now here is my opinion:
1) D&D is not the real world. Undead should be evil even if they could be used for good purposes, otherwise we should insert the concept of "relativism" and it wouldn't be easy to play, then.
2) However your idea is good; it's similar to the concepts inside my PrC. I thought that only evil clerics, more or less, have really destructive powers tied to negative energy. But what about neutral people?
3) Undead are in some way evil because they're against the concept of dignity after death. If, after death, you become only something that can be commanded by a stranger, there's no dignity. Moreover if undead are extremely useful it would be reasonable to produce more and more...in which way? Killing people? Avoiding giving cures to the ill?
4) Mindless undead are "mindless" but they seek to destroy life, since they must feed themselves, thus, they're evil.
4.1) If positive energy harms undead it's good because it protects us from destructive forces of undeath.
5) Undead of any kind can reasonably bring diseases to living people; in fact, some undead are born from illness.
6) On CDiv they say that undeads trap souls of dead people, especially shadows and specters. On PGTF Kelemvor, Lord of Death is venerated since he guarantees that people respect to one’s memory after death, and yet they find being risen as undead a negative concept.
7) Evil as spell descriptor is significant since non-evil clerics, especially good and neutral ones of good churches can't cast them.
Negative energy is a corrupting, rotting, and destructive energy inherent in the material plane. Creatures of absolute negative energy are only capable of evil.
I would have to disagree with this statement as well. That would be like saying all beings of positive energy are good, which we all know hey are not. *cough* fiends, devils *cough*.
I may be mistaken, but spells used to create undead have the evil type do they not? This makes using the spell an evil act. Therefore, they are always created, through the spell, through evil means. I could be wrong, don't have my PHB with me at work.
Then 3E came around, and it decided that clerics could spontaneously heal/inflect, based upon the moral alignment of their deity. Note that they can prepare either spell (cure, inflict), but they can only spontaneously cast (new to 3E) from a particular type. This was when the planes--and thus the energies--gained their quasi-moral alignment. By associating channeling of negative energy with evil deities and positive energy with good ones and by stating that a cleric of a neutral deity who channels negative tends to slide towards evil (this was actually stated in one of the books, might have been MotP), they forever altered the view of the energies.
But there was some confusion, for spells that channeled negative energy did not have the 'evil' subtype, nor did the results of such spells (such as animate dead). This was because these spells were neutral (as were the energies involved) in prior editions.
Now, in 3.5e, this has been changed to be in accord with the spontaneous casting rules for clerics (and they even spread the spontaneous casting around, now allowing druids to cast summons spells in such a way). Oddly enough, they left this out of the Inflict Wounds series, and they did not apply the 'good' subtype to Cure Wounds and similar positive energy channeling spells. I (do not) look forward to seeing such a change in 4e, although I suspect it might occur.
In my opinion, they should have given clerics 'Lay on Hands' rather than 'Spontaneous Casting'. They did it with the Paladin, after all. It would cut back on needing to prepare healing spells while still allowing the preparation of such spells when times of major healing would be needed.
Undead should not be considered Evil unless they are aligned evil, and mindless undead should not be considered aligned any more than mindless constructs, vermin, or objects. Despite what the prior poster stated, I do not think undead should receive CN as their alignment. After all, do mindless Constructs and Vermin have a chaotic alignment?
What you need to look at is what makes a spell evil. One good source is The Book of Vile Darkness, written by Monte Cook, one of the original authors of 3rd ed D&D. On page 77 is tells you what an evil spell is. If the spell has the evil descriptor it is evil, anything that spell does is evil. Even if you cast it on evil, the out come is evil. As Mr. Cook says, fireball is not evil, because it has many uses. Wither flesh, is ALWAYS evil, no matter how it is used. It is evil even if you just prepare it--it is an evil act.
How does this affect undead? Like I said, all spells used to create undead are evil. The outcome is evil, so you can easily say that mindless undead created from the spell is evil. Why else would it be an evil spell?
Another reason given is the powers the spell taps into. For instance, if you summon angels, it’s good, but fiends, it’s evil. All of that is because of the powers it taps into (PHB 286). So you can clearly see a summon spell can be evil because of the powers you contact.
As far as planes go, what lives there? Pretty much all evil. Name one good thing negative energy does? The plane itself is not evil, don't get me wrong, but only evil things I know of use negative energy.
But positive and negative energy are not simply like matter and anti-matter. Positive energy is life-energy, necessary for the "spark of life" and can heal the sick and wounded. Negative energy is, of course, its exact opposite. Only in D&D, the opposite of life is not death, but rather un-death; the animation of the dead in a mockery of life.
As far as outsiders go, they (IMHO) are *not* filled with positive energy the way beings of the material plane are. They are beings of pure spirit, not part of the material world, and therefore, not truly "alive". If they were, spells like raise dead and resurrection would affect them, but they don't. Yet because positive and negative energy still have other effects beyond life and undeath, they can still be damaged by such energies.
The only flaw, here, is the fact that cure spells do work on outsiders normally. One can reason that one of the "other effects" of positive energy is to heal anything that is not undead - including outsiders. Or, one can reason that the game-designers didn't fully think things through when they came up with all of this positive-negative energy stuff.
Regardless, given the effects that positive and negative energies have on the living, it is only logical to see why the good deities favor positive energy and evil ones favor negative. One could make a case that certain deities might make certain exceptions. Consider Wee Jas, who is LN. While most of her worshippers are LE, and it does state in the RAW that her neutral clerics must use negative energy, there is no prohibition against her having good clerics (unlike St. Chutbert, who while LN, it states specifically that he will not take evil worshippers). But I cannot see why Wee Jas, who favors negative energy, and also does not see the undead as blasphemous, would suddenly channel positive energy into her few good clerics.
Of course, this whole argument could have been avoided had the game designers just never tied divine healing magic to "positive energy." Just call it "divine power" that can heal or harm, depending on the will of the caster, and be done with it.
Now, if Wizards would come out and say that, as far as they are concerned, Negative Energy is innately evil (which would be a very different stance from prior editions), then I could accept that Animate Dead should be considered evil despite their mindless nature and the fact that these mindless creations can be created by a morally neutral (ie: non-evil) caster.
But they do not state this. They continue to state that Negative Energy is neutral, despite stating that Animate Dead was made Evil only due to its channeling of negative energy. Similarly, they do not allow a good cleric to spontaneously cast inflict wounds, despite some good deities being focused upon punishing evil, etc. They go so far as to state:
"Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."
By this statement it would seem that any good cleric that prepares and casts an Inflict or Harm spell should be considered to have slid a step towards evil. And the description of the plane in the MotP would seem to confirm this, describing the plane as having "brooding malevolence".
Yet they have never come out and firmly stated that negative energy is evil. Instead they continue to insist that it is neutral, that a cleric that prepares Inflict Light Wounds is not committing an evil act. By corollary, evil clerics should not be able to prepare Cure Light Wounds or Heal, yet again this is allowed.
Sorry about the mild rant, but I dislike the hypocritical double standard they have towards the energies. Good outsiders inhabit the Positive Energy plane (see the Hospice, MotP), and good clerics - and neutral clerics of good deities - are limited to positive energy (which I note was the source of life for mummies in 2e, another inexplicable change in 3e). Evil undead and outsiders inhabit the negative energy plane. It is described as "malevolent", and undead are considered evil due to being empowered by it. Evil clerics and neutral clerics of evil deities cannot choose to spontaneously cast cure spells, but instead must spontaneously cast negative energy inflict spells.
And yet numerous spells of both positive and negative energy do not carry the 'good' and 'evil' descriptors, respectively (most notably the cure / inflict line), and both the Positive and Negative Energy Planes carry the 'Mild Neutrally Aligned' subtype (i.e.: no penalties to those of any alignment, due to the innately non-aligned nature of the plane; similar to the Prime in that way).
I state again: Animate Dead is not in and of itself evil as the undead are non-aligned, the energy used to animate them is non-aligned, and the caster need not be evil to use the spell (any morally neutral caster can use the spell without penalty, and in all prior editions a good caster could use the spell without penalty). Only in the revised 3.5e, for reasons that are still contentious and often confusing due to their conflicting statements regarding the negative energy plane, has the spell been made 'evil'.
Thus, I see nothing wrong with the original poster's views, and in fact support them. Thus the only 'evil' undead spells are those that seek to create sentient undead with an evil subtype - for which the 'evil' subtype entirely makes sense. I do think, however, that while the 'evil' tag should be dropped from 'animate dead' it should be added to the pre-reqs for creating golems if the prior edition method (enslaving an elemental) is still used.
It is possible that has also been dropped, as many other things have been (such as the complex series of spells needed to become a lich - most of which were non-evil (such as permanency, magic jar, etc), followed by drinking a poison composed of the most lethal natural and supernatural poisons known to exist). Or even the fact that in prior editions (barring 3e) mummies drew upon the positive energy plane instead of the negative one. I think some other undead did as well, but I cannot recall specific examples beyond the common mummy.
Wrong. The current spells we see have the Evil descriptor. This is not the same as “being evil.” Descriptors do not govern what sort of actions are morally or ethically associated with casting the spell (such as casting animate dead is an evil action), but simply to govern what spells clerics may cast (or classes with similar descriptor-based restrictions).
I cannot find where it states that all constructs abide by the alignment of their creator. Golems are always neutral since they cannot think, and homunculi are the alignment of the creator. The latter is clearly stated in the monster entry, and my opinion is that it’s only true because a homunculus has an Intelligence score and thus can think and reason.
What you need to look at is what makes a spell evil. One good source is The Book of Vile Darkness, written by Monte Cook, one of the original authors of 3rd ed D&D. On page 77 is tells you what an evil spell is. If the spell has the evil descriptor it is evil, anything that spell does is evil. Even if you cast it on evil, the out come is evil. As Mr. Cook says, fireball is not evil, because it has many uses. Wither flesh, is ALWAYS evil, no matter how it is used. It is evil even if you just prepare it--it is an evil act.
Actually, that’s widely regarded as a pretty poor source of defense and judgment. Checking your source however, I find that it does not state why spells are evil, but why spells have the descriptor and thus are barred from clerics who cannot cast spells with the Evil descriptor. Furthermore, Monte Cook fails to completely backup his claims in the example he cites. Shriveling, only has one purpose: to wither the flesh of another creature. Fireball, he states, has "many" uses. What about holy smite? End result is the same, and I doubt there are "many" differing ways to implement smiting except to harm someone else. Then look over at horrid wilting. It seems rather similar to shriveling except that it is higher level and lacks an Evil descriptor. There are other examples, I'm sure, if you bother looking for them. Also, I don’t see where MC states that even preparing the spell is an evil act. However, since casting spells does not affect your alignment, I guess he would be wrong anyhow.
How does this affect undead? Like I said, all spells used to create undead are evil. The outcome is evil, so you can easily say that mindless undead created from the spell is evil. Why else would it be an evil spell?
Er, the outcome is NOT always evil. There are plenty of examples that go contrary to this common belief that "all undead are evil no-matter-what-you-say." Since animating a skeleton does not alert the departed soul, harm them in any way, enslave them, or otherwise cause them ill will, it does not rely on a soul or the use of such. It also created non-intelligent undead that cannot do anything for themselves, which therefore should NOT be evil (though they are, and this goes contrary to what Alignment says in the PH). Also, there is nothing "evil" used in the ritual; just a gem. The only possible reason for this that I could come up with was that the game designers wanted paladins do be able to easily smite them (and be useful), and for protect spells to be more useable in games with lots of undead.
Another reason given is the powers the spell taps into. For instance, if you summon angels, it’s good, but fiends, it’s evil. All of that is because of the powers it taps into (PHB 286). So you can clearly see a summon spell can be evil because of the powers you contact.
I don’t recall summon monster requiring you to contact other "powers" so much as pulling an energy-based duplicate of a monster from another plane. Since on the lower planes pretty much everything has the Evil subtype, that is the reason why the spell is evil. It’s not that you are DOING something evil, it’s that you are using something from a plane infused with evil.
As far as planes go, what lives there? Pretty much all evil. Name one good thing negative energy does? The plane itself is not evil, don't get me wrong, but only evil things I know of use negative energy.
Yes, the plane of negative energy is not evil, therefore the energy itself is not evil, therefore applications based around its use should not be evil. Note the cure/inflict series of spells: they are both based solely around the use of positive and negative energy respectively, and no alignment descriptors at all.
[b]The current spells we see have the Evil descriptor. This is not the same as “being evil.”
So, you're argument has gone from fluff reasoning to the evil descriptor only signifies which spells clerics should take. Your argument is losing ground as you change from fluff reasoning to trying to use the rules to back up your fluff.
If 'good' clerics are supposed to avoid spells with the 'evil' descriptor, why is it ok for 'good' wizards to use 'evil' spells?
I'm not saying there is no reason to make alignments and alignment descriptors work the way you want them to in your own campaigns. This is pretty much what everyone does and this is why alignments seem 'vague'; they are vague so that players can use their own morals, values, and beliefs in the game (using alignment to reflect this) without one real world culture/religion dominating the mentality of the game.
However, since you're changing your argument to a rules basis, I would like to know why good/evil descriptor only would only effect clerics (and their spell selection) but no other class, by the rules.
Don't forget about dread golems out of Ravenloft. All create undead spells can be happy shiny bolts of holy light. In most games they are not. These things have the evil descriptor for more than just cleric casting abilities. You’re just not looking outside the box. What you’re saying is that it doesn't state X so therefore X can never ever be true. Don't forget that mindless fiends flee from more powerful fiends. Why do they do that? They are mindless. You can easily see how mindless undead fit in here. If one thing that’s mindless flees from something, it could attack it.
As far as smiting, it depends on the source. Like I said in my previous post, if you smite evil, you tap into good powers. Almost no one will say its "evil" to kill evil things. When you smite good, it’s an evil act because almost no one will say its "good" to smite good. If it was "evil" to kill period (i.e. smite evil) then there would be no such thing as good. Evil would rampage through the "turn the other cheek" guys with no problem. Paladins would fall, angels would fall. Saying the evil descriptor doesn’t do anything but govern what spells a cleric can get is like saying the evil subtype is only for determining what smite works against it.
I don’t recall summon monster requiring you to contact other "powers" so much as pulling an energy-based duplicate of a monster from another plane. Since on the lower planes pretty much everything has the Evil subtype, that is the reason why the spell is evil. It’s not that you are DOING something evil, it’s that you are using something from a plane infused with evil.
I think you are confused. When you summon something, you contact it. It is that "power" I’m referring too. Bringing a fiend to the material plane could in no way be good. Bringing an angel or celestial to the material plane is good right? So bringing fiends into the material plane is good? No it is not, it is Evil! You ARE doing something evil. If you are a “good” cleric why not summon celestials? In no way would a “good” cleric summon fiends when they could just as easily summon celestials. The same can be applied to undead. I also do not think the souls can be brought back as long as the body is animated. I can’t remember where I saw this, but if it’s true, then yes it is harmful to the soul.
Er, the outcome is NOT always evil. There are plenty of examples that go contrary to this common belief that "all undead are evil no-matter-what-you-say." Since animating a skeleton does not alert the departed soul, harm them in any way, enslave them, or otherwise cause them ill will, it does not rely on a soul or the use of such. It also created non-intelligent undead that cannot do anything for themselves, which therefore should NOT be evil (though they are, and this goes contrary to what Alignment says in the PH). Also, there is nothing "evil" used in the ritual; just a gem. The only possible reason for this that I could come up with was that the game designers wanted paladins do be able to easily smite them (and be useful), and for protect spells to be more useable in games with lots of undead.
Why is the desecrate spell evil? Look at the word desecrate. When you animate zombies/skeletons, where do they come from? No one wants auntie Pearl shamblin’ down the street. Why animate undead when you, as good, should use better options at hand? You are trying to put real life morality in a game where it is not the same. In D&D Good and Evil are forces that bind things together. By casting an evil spell, you tip the balance more to evil. As a good cleric you want all your spells to tip the scale in favor of good. There is a reason why good aligned clerics turn undead and evil rebuke them. It is pretty easy to figure out undead are viewed as abominations and evil. Most “good” clerics can’t even command undead. They are only able to turn them. So if you create undead, you have no way to control them. In most games if a “good” cleric cast evil spells, even for the greater good, they would have to:
A: Atone
B: Fall
1. They are not maturely occurring (Yes, I know lots of things are not.) Strike one.
2. They are infused with negative energy (Which nothing good comes from.) Strike two.
3. Every spell used to create them has the Evil Descriptor (Making the spell evil.) Strike three.
Undead are out!
But seriously, D&D is an open game. Play undead how you want. From everything I have seen in all the books, undead are for the most part evil and intelligent undead can do whatever they want. Mindless undead, while their alignment is neutral, are evil in some ways.
The entire article is essentially "fluff" that uses rules to back it up.
If 'good' clerics are supposed to avoid spells with the 'evil' descriptor, why is it ok for 'good' wizards to use 'evil' spells?
Wizards don’t get their powers from gods.
I'm not saying there is no reason to make alignments and alignment descriptors work the way you want them to in your own campaigns.
That is the way they work. There is absolutely no alignment shift caused by casting spells with the Good or Evil descriptors.
This is pretty much what everyone does and this is why alignments seem 'vague'; they are vague so that players can use their own morals, values, and beliefs in the game (using alignment to reflect this) without one real world culture/religion dominating the mentality of the game.
However, since you're changing your argument to a rules basis, I would like to know why good/evil descriptor only would only effect clerics (and their spell selection) but no other class, by the rules.
Because that’s what it says in the books. Clerics are barred on what spells they can cast; no other classes are.
It states exactly what I said it stated prior. Also, you fail to backup the argument. As I had said; BoVD is a very poor way to defend yourself.
All in all, it boils down to how you see things. Tell me why does it have the evil descriptor? Why on earth bother to label a spell evil if it isn’t evil? So a good cleric can't cast an evil spell? Why? IT’S EVIL! Why would they be bared from something? Because it is against their "beliefs". That’s why neutral clerics can pick.
I am not arguing that animate dead has an Evil descriptor, but that casting it does not make you evil, nor is it an evil action.
Don't forget about dread golems out of Ravenloft. All create undead spells can be happy shiny bolts of holy light. In most games they are not. These things have the evil descriptor for more than just cleric casting abilities. You’re just not looking outside the box. What you’re saying is that it doesn't state X so therefore X can never ever be true. Don't forget that mindless fiends flee from more powerful fiends. Why do they do that? They are mindless. You can easily see how mindless undead fit in here. If one thing that’s mindless flees from something, it could attack it.
I don’t play Ravenloft (or more accurately, I haven’t in over three years), so I can’t comment on dread golems or their creation methods. The [Evil] descriptor does in fact exist for more than simply determining what spells clerics with an alignment limitation can cast. The other reason is for detection spells and also for spells such as dispel evil. Your alignment doesn’t shift at all from casting such spells.
As far as smiting, it depends on the source. Like I said in my previous post, if you smite evil, you tap into good powers. Almost no one will say its "evil" to kill evil things. When you smite good, it’s an evil act because almost no one will say its "good" to smite good. If it was "evil" to kill period (i.e. smite evil) then there would be no such thing as good. Evil would rampage through the "turn the other cheek" guys with no problem. Paladins would fall, angels would fall. Saying the evil descriptor doesn’t do anything but govern what spells a cleric can get is like saying the evil subtype is only for determining what smite works against it.
So we get into the logic loop of "fiends become good aligned because they kill fiends". I am not arguing that killing is universally evil and that it should be abstained from. I am arguing against MC's stance that a spell has the Evil descriptor because while fire can have other functions, smite good is only useful for hurting things (arguably in an undue fashion). However, you avoid the example of horrid wilting, which again achieves the same result as the example spell shriveling, but without a descriptor. Also, it’s Necromancy to boot. It isn’t mentioned with the houseruled spells either.
I don’t recall summon monster requiring you to contact other "powers" so much as pulling an energy-based duplicate of a monster from another plane. Since on the lower planes pretty much everything has the Evil subtype, that is the reason why the spell is evil. It’s not that you are DOING something evil, it’s that you are using something from a plane infused with evil.
I think you are confused. When you summon something, you contact it. It is that "power" I’m referring too. Bringing a fiend to the material plane could in no way be good. Bringing an angel or celestial to the material plane is good right? So bringing fiends into the material plane is good? No it is not, it is Evil! You ARE doing something evil. If you are a “good” cleric why not summon celestials? In no way would a “good” cleric summon fiends when they could just as easily summon celestials. The same can be applied to undead. I also do not think the souls can be brought back as long as the body is animated. I can’t remember where I saw this, but if it’s true, then yes it is harmful to the soul.[/b]
You are making a lot of assumptions. Summon monster spells do not require you to contact a power of any kind. You simply summon a creature of your choosing. You don’t have to contact anybody. You are assuming that summoning an angel is always a good action, regardless of the situation, and that a fiend is automatically an evil thing to do. Different situations may call for different creatures, though neither thing constitutes good or evil for purposes of determining an alignment shift.
A good cleric cannot summon creatures that are evil in alignment because their god cannot grant them such spells (again, part of the cleric package). Even if a cleric would like to summon a devil so that it is not adversely affected by an aura or spell that harms good aligned beings, he cannot.
Second, undead are not fiends. They are not spawned in, nor do they exist in a festering pit of evil-made-manifest. That is why fiends have an Evil subtype, but undead do not.
I do recall somewhere that if a body is animated that some spells cannot bring them back. However, since many savage races and common folk do not have access to even the most minor of raising magics, nor could afford them, the point is rather moot. This also does not harm the soul in any fashion.
Er, the outcome is NOT always evil. There are plenty of examples that go contrary to this common belief that "all undead are evil no-matter-what-you-say." Since animating a skeleton does not alert the departed soul, harm them in any way, enslave them, or otherwise cause them ill will, it does not rely on a soul or the use of such. It also created non-intelligent undead that cannot do anything for themselves, which therefore should NOT be evil (though they are, and this goes contrary to what Alignment says in the PH). Also, there is nothing "evil" used in the ritual; just a gem. The only possible reason for this that I could come up with was that the game designers wanted paladins do be able to easily smite them (and be useful), and for protect spells to be more useable in games with lots of undead.
Why is the desecrate spell evil? Look at the word desecrate. When you animate zombies/skeletons, where do they come from? No one wants auntie Pearl shamblin’ down the street. Why animate undead when you, as good, should use better options at hand? You are trying to put real life morality in a game where it is not the same. In D&D Good and Evil are forces that bind things together. By casting an evil spell, you tip the balance more to evil. As a good cleric you want all your spells to tip the scale in favor of good. There is a reason why good aligned clerics turn undead and evil rebuke them. It is pretty easy to figure out undead are viewed as abominations and evil. Most “good” clerics can’t even command undead. They are only able to turn them. So if you create undead, you have no way to control them. In most games if a “good” cleric cast evil spells, even for the greater good, they would have to:
I am well aware of how alignments (both the facet of personal ethics as well as cosmic forces) function and interact. You are citing an absurd example in your defense. Try to focus on the situations that I am imagining, in which some society or tribe raises their fallen warriors to continue defending themselves. In this society, the warriors view this as an honor, to defend their people even after death. Note this is just one example, and that also since the souls are not stopped from proceeding to the afterlife, that it affects them in no ill way.
Also, a good cleric cannot even cast animate dead. If they could, since the spell does NOT rely on the use of positive/negative energy to order them about, the cleric still could anyway. Also, a cleric/wizard can cast such spells all they like. You do not tip any sort of cosmic balance in anyway by casting these spells. If there are scales to be tipped, then it must be a houserule in your own game.
A: Atone
B: Fall
I choose C: Not applicable, since a good cleric cannot cast evil spells unless they take levels in another spellcasting class that can actually do that sort of thing. If they do so, nothing bad happens since casting those spells are not evil actions.
1. They are not maturely occurring (Yes, I know lots of things are not.) Strike one.
2. They are infused with negative energy (Which nothing good comes from.) Strike two.
3. Every spell used to create them has the Evil Descriptor (Making the spell evil.) Strike three.
1. Since many things are not natural by our standards, this does not apply.
2. Negative energy is neutral. This argument would be like saying that dying is evil. So again, this does not apply.
3. Since this is a game mechanics issue, you are correct.
But seriously, D&D is an open game. Play undead how you want. From everything I have seen in all the books, undead are for the most part evil and intelligent undead can do whatever they want. Mindless undead, while their alignment is neutral, are evil in some ways.
Actually, mindless undead are neutral evil in 3.5. This makes no sense, as mindless creatures cannot even act on their own accord, and thus SHOULD be neutral. However I do not agree that they are evil in any way, since they cant do anything (including but not limited to the inability to think, feel emotions, or even react to their surroundings; they are automatons that are easy to make and break).
If that rule applies to neutral clerics, the same would apply to any other cleric. As for wizards casting evil/good spells, in the BOVD it states that a neutral character may get away with casting a few evil spells, and because of that won't change his alignment unless he continually does such things. Casting an evil spell is evil act, casting a good spell is good act.
Creating undead brings evil things into the world, even despite your best intentions, which would be at best neutral because it seems like a good idea at the time. However the method is evil by nature, and continued use makes you evil.
I see what you're saying, but by the raw and common judgment, use of negative energy isn't on the top of the "good" way of dealing with things.
2. They are infused with negative energy (Which nothing good comes from.
A lot of good can come from undead and necromancers. Animate a zombie, tell him to build a house free of charge (Good, check) order an undead to kill a demon (check) fight enemies thus saving living soldiers lives (check) etc. And just because Aunt may hates that her long dead husband is a zombie makes it no more evil then me hating Unicorns because they killed my clear cutting brother makes Unicorns evil. What people are upset by is not relevant or is Aunt May happy that her dead 15 year old son is a 'deathless'?
How come you can create a golem from dismembered brains and hold a Good align but not raise the dead to fight in life. A dead body is an object by RAW so raising a using Neg energy to animate a body is equal to using it to animate a dead tree (I can see Aunt May the treant feinting now).
-Positive energy doesn't make things good. Positive and negative energy aren't supposed to have alignments. Why should undead be evil, then, simply because they are powered by negative energy?
-The notion of "natural order" is farcical. The only thing that makes undead unnatural is that they are generally, but not always artificial beings. But then again, so are constructs, magic items, cities, certain planes, some races, and so many different things that trying to label undead as "unnatural" is basically saying that "they didn't pop up due to the random interactions of forces that generate things otherwise", along with some catch-phrases like "mockery" and other very subjective terms that have no real place in a rational discussion.
So, without the notion that negative energy makes something evil, and without any credible notion of "the natural order", all the reasons for undead being evil really go out the window.
This is just it. The good undead, like the fallen angel/atoned fiend, makes for a good element to a game - no one would disagree. However, as soon as the association of evil with undead is rescinded, so to is the intriguing element of having good undead; without evil undead, there is no such thing as 'good' undead anymore as well. No player will touch trying to incorporate 'undead' into their character concept (whether playing as an undead race or playing a necromancer) because it is uninteresting because there is no association of evil/good; they can't walk the line so to speak, they can't play the 'blacksheep' of necromancers by doing good instead of doing evil. Just as if everyone is playing fallen angels or ascended fiends, it becomes utterly redundant an uninteresting.
Not really. Just take Vampire: the Masquerade. Undead that must feed on sentient, living beings have a reason outside of "being" undead for having an inclination towards evil, and fill this part of the "undead niche" rather nicely.
There is also more playing an undead than simply portraying the angsty, redeemed fiend. A wizard who becomes a lich would be a lot more like (un)living history than the aforementioned archetype.
It doesn’t matter what being an evil spell means in your game. Casting an evil spell might be evil, or it might be that as long as it is used for a good purpose it isn’t considered an evil act despite it being an evil spell, but the spell is evil. I personally would say it is an evil act to cast, and the use is a separate act entirely, but that’s just me.
If we say that the descriptor means nothing we could have a [fire] spell deal cold damage, a [language-dependent] spell having nothing to do with language and instead shooting lightning bolts from your eyes, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. (A cookie to whoever gets the reference.)
Descriptors are not just a way of keeping someone from using the spell; there is a reason behind the descriptor. A [fire] spell should be related to fire in some way, a [cold] spell should be related to cold in some way, and an [evil] spell should be related to evil in some way. If you believe that animate dead (skeletons and zombies) should be changed because it isn’t evil that’s fine, but by the RAW it is still a spell with the evil descriptor.
Of course if this is shown to be wrong you better believe that I’m going to add a few spells to what my PCs can take. An [evil] spell that summons bunnies of pure goodness and light that heal the sick, a [good] spell that opens a one-way portal out of hell for devils to access the material plane more easily, and a [peanut-brittle] spell that acts just like fireball, but deals acid damage rather than fire damage.
BOVD does in fact say what an evil spell is, please read it again. All in all, it boils down to how you see things.
Exactly. It states that 'Shrivelling' - effectively a lower level Horrid Wilting spell - is Evil, but Horrid Wilting itself is not. It states 'fireball' can be used for multiple purposes, but can you name one other than causing fire damage, other than causing intensely painful 1st to 4th degree burns over most of a person's body? And, yes, 4th degree burns do exist. 3rd degree stops at the muscles, as I recall, while 4th degree deals with the internal organs beneath them (which is why you never hear of 4th degree in conjunction with a survivable burning - they are not survivable).
BoVD vacillates somewhat on what an Evil spell is and why some spells receive the onus of an Evil descriptor while others do not. By the definition, in the BoVD almost every damaging spell in the game should receive that descriptor. Most damaging spells exist solely to harm, after all. Yet they do not. In the end, the only spells to receive that descriptor are those the creators of the game wish to limit to non-good clerics. And they vacillate there as well, allowing good clerics to use the various Inflict Wounds, Harm, and other negative energy spells but not allowing them the use of others, and placing the Evil descriptor on some damaging spells but not placing it on other damaging spells (such as Horrid Wilting - which is at least Necromancy (for some odd reason) or Fireball or Melf's Acid Arrow).
Tell me why does it have the evil descriptor? Why on earth bother to label a spell evil if it isn’t evil? So a good cleric can't cast an evil spell?
Actually, that is the main reason. There are some spells the creators of the game wish to limit to NPCs and evil parties, barring them from good parties. Non-clerics, however, are often able to use such spells with little or no penalty. A NN Druid, for instance, could cast Unhallow without sliding into NE. A non-Evil wizard could cast Contagion, Eyebite, Magic Circle Against Good, or Nightmare without penalty or alignment slide.
The problem, however (at least in the case of Animate Dead), is not the evil descriptor, but rather it is that the labeling of the spell as evil is entirely new. Animate Dead was a non-aligned negative energy spell (just as Inflict Wounds is a non-aligned negative energy spell) in every edition except for the most recent 3.5. Even in 3.0 it was a non-aligned spell, the more potent and horrific Create Undead spells being the aligned (Evil) spells. The justification given in every prior edition was that Create Undead created sentient undead that were innately evil, while Animate Dead basically created mindless automatons bone or flesh that stood motionless unless given a (very simple) task - and then performed that task until told to stop, regardless of what happened to them.
Why would they be barred from something? Because it is against their "beliefs". That’s why neutral clerics can pick.
Actually, no, it is not necessarily against their beliefs. I think in prior editions there were some good deities that allowed Animate Dead (but not the evil Create Undead). Also, some neutral clerics cannot pick - such as clerics of St Cuthbert. They must choose positive energy rather than negative. Also, while most neutral clerics can choose negative energy, as I quoted in a prior post, the channeling of negative energy is considered an evil act regardless - a means set up by the creators of the game to discourage the use of this neutral non-aligned energy by neutral non-aligned clerics.
Again we receive an ambiguous and mixed message from WotC. Negative energy, whenever it is channeled or used, is an Evil act (from the SRD & PHB). Yet the energy is considered non-aligned and can be used by good characters without alignment penalty - except in the case of good clerics / paladins turning or using certain specific spells. I note that evil clerics can cast cure spells and good ones inflict spells - a seeming contradiction compared to other changes made in 3.5e.
Don't forget about dread golems out of Ravenloft. All create undead spells can be happy shiny bolts of holy light. In most games they are not.
I'm not sure what either of these comments have to do with your post. In Ravenloft all magically created creatures - even those typically neutral - are innately evil. Indeed, a paladin's mount is evil, as are all familiars, all animal companions, etc. Only the PCs or NPCs (possibly) are not evil, maybe. Golems and indeed all constructs created in Ravenloft automatically receive the Evil alignment, if not the subtype. As for Create Undead, I cannot recall any sentient undead in 3e or 3.5e created by this spell or its greater equivalent considered non-evil. In prior editions undead could be created from either energy - and thus there were pos energy mummies, neg energy vampires, etc. In 3e and 3.5e they made all mummies negative energy, and later - when it became necessary to have a pos energy undead, they eventually created the 'deathless' to fill the (unnecessary) void.
These things have the evil descriptor for more than just cleric casting abilities.
Actually, no, they do not. By the rules a good wizard can cast an [Evil] spell without loss of powers, but a cleric likely cannot. Indeed, a good sorcerer can have an [Evil] spell, cast it multiple times a day every day for a year, and unless their spell specifically results in an evil act occurring they will not suffer an alignment slide. And merely causing damage to another is not Evil or Fireball, Chain Lightning, Horrid Wilting, etc would be evil - which they are not.
You’re just not looking outside the box. What you’re saying is that it doesn't state X so therefore X can never ever be true.
Not really. What we are stating is that BoVD contradicts itself. The PHB contradicts itself. And the creators of the game have contradicted themselves multiple times. The matter of negative energy has been vacillated on so many times it is akin to watching a tennis match. The nature of Evil - and more specifically what is or isn't - or should or shouldn't be considered - an Evil spell has been contradicted several times just in the core three rule books alone.
Their definition of Evil in the PHB and in the BoVD is counter to what is stated regarding the Mindless state, regardless of whether the mindless is undead or not. By its definition the mindless should not be capable of alignment, and spells that create such should not be capable of having an alignment associated with them.
A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. It has immunity to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) and automatically fails Intelligence checks.
Mindless creatures do not gain feats or skills, although they may have bonus feats or racial skill bonuses.
and also:
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.
Don't forget that mindless fiends flee from more powerful fiends. Why do they do that? They are mindless. You can easily see how mindless undead fit in here. If one thing that’s mindless flees from something, it could attack it.
Where exactly can one find a Mindless Fiend --a fiend with Int -- (not merely Int 0, mind you), and where does it state Mindless fiends flee from more potent fiends? Finally, by the core rules definition of Mindless, they would not be capable of said action. If such undead exist and if such undead truly do act in such a fashion it would be yet another example of a contradiction in the rules.
As far as smiting, it depends on the source. Like I said in my previous post, if you smite evil, you tap into good powers. Almost no one will say its "evil" to kill evil things. When you smite good, it’s an evil act because almost no one will say its "good" to smite good. If it was "evil" to kill period (i.e. smite evil) then there would be no such thing as good. Evil would rampage through the "turn the other cheek" guys with no problem. Paladins would fall, angels would fall.
Saying the evil descriptor doesn’t do anything but govern what spells a cleric can get is like saying the evil subtype is only for determining what smite works against it.
The first paragraph has little or nothing to do with the second. As for the second: by the RAW, a spell descriptor only defines who can use a spell and how the spell interacts with other descriptor-tagged spells and effects. By the RAW, a subtype determines how various magical effects affect the subtyped. It would have been more accurate to compare Smite to the spell Animate Dead than Smite to the Evil descriptor - or to compare the Evil descriptor to the Evil subtype. The descriptor and subtype, though affecting different things, exist solely for the purpose of determining how the tagged interacts with other tagged effects and effectors.
I don’t recall summon monster requiring you to contact other "powers" so much as pulling an energy-based duplicate of a monster from another plane. Since on the lower planes pretty much everything has the Evil subtype, that is the reason why the spell is evil. It’s not that you are DOING something evil, it’s that you are using something from a plane infused with evil.
I think you are confused. When you summon something, you contact it. It is that "power" I’m referring to. Bringing a fiend to the material plane could in no way be good. Bringing an angel or celestial to the material plane is good right? So bringing fiends into the material plane is good? No it is not, it is Evil! You ARE doing something evil. If you are a “good” cleric why not summon celestials? In no way would a “good” cleric summon fiends when they could just as easily summon celestials.
You have basically restated what he first stated. He never said summoning a fiend was good, merely that it was evil due to the plane it being summoned from being evil. Animals typically neutral are instead evil if native to an evil plane, as the plane itself is evil.
The same can be applied to undead.
No, it cannot. In part of the vacillating view of WotC and the creators of 3.5e, negative energy is in an of itself non-aligned - neither evil nor neutral. Nor is the plane that is its source evilly aligned (actually, it is mildly neutrally aligned).
I also do not think the souls can be brought back as long as the body is animated. I can’t remember where I saw this, but if it’s true, then yes it is harmful to the soul.
Partially correct. A sentient undead is one where the soul is entrapped within, thus while a sentient undead is 'alive' the soul cannot be Raised as it is not available for such. That is why spells that create sentient undead are typically considered evil. The body is seen as acting on its own, but the soul is typically seen as imprisoned within it - perhaps being tainted by what it witnesses / experiences to the point of the soul itself eventually becoming evil. Some souls manage to (re)gain control of the body, in which case the undead can become whatever alignment the soul happens to be (thus the rare non-evil sentient undead). Also, some souls can manage to maintain control during the undead rising / transforming / creating / whatever - in which case the undead is whatever alignment it was in life (such as all ghosts, incidentally, as they are basically just manifested souls upon the ethereal that can shift somewhat into the Prime).
Animate Dead basically creates a mindless automaton from a skeleton or corpse. That is all. The soul is in no way contacted or connected, and while the skeleton or body is animated the only spell that will not work for restoring the soul to life is Raise Dead - and that only due to the need for the body. Actually, I think I recall reading somewhere an example where Raise Dead could conceivably be used to 'slay' a zombie, restoring the former owner of the body to life and thus ending the animated body's existence as a zombie. A skeleton, however, does not have enough flesh left for Raise Dead to work - regardless of whether it is animated or not. Resurrection, however, should work just fine - even if the former body is walking around as a zombie (and, no, the body would not be 'slain' by resurrection, as the spell does not need nor use the body).
The only possible reason for this that I could come up with was that the game designers wanted paladins do be able to easily smite them (and be useful), and for protect spells to be more useable in games with lots of undead.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Yes, quite a few lower level protection spells would now work against mindless undead if you give them an alignment; Magic Circle Against Evil would be particularly useful. Of course, Chaotic or Lawful would have worked just as well, but D&D has taken a more Good vs Evil bent in recent editions (as opposed to the Law vs Chaos of, I think, 1st edition). And neither Chaos nor Law could readily be justified (just as Evil is not readily justified for Animate Dead - leading to the current argument).
Why is the desecrate spell evil? Look at the word desecrate.
Not sure what this has to do with your argument, but ironically enough the term means something quite a bit different in D&D than in real life. I note that an sacred site of an evil deity is not considered 'holy' or 'consecrated' to that deity in D&D (as any devoted alter, etc to any deity would be called in RL, regardless of the deity's supposed AL). Instead a sanctified alter to an evil deity, at least in D&D, is called 'unholy' and 'desecrated'. In D&D these terms simply mean the location is 'holy' / 'consecrated' to an evil deity rather than a good one. By RL definition, desecration means the defiling of a sacred site / item (regardless of the deity / religion involved). Due to 3e's odd double-sided view on pos / neg energies, desecration uses negative energy and so bolsters undead. Otherwise there is little if any connection between these two sentences of yours and your argument.
When you animate zombies / skeletons, where do they come from? No one wants auntie Pearl shamblin’ down the street. Why animate undead when you, as good, should use better options at hand? You are trying to put real life morality in a game where it is not the same.
Actually, by your example, you are the one attempting to apply RL morality to the game. There are some cultures in this world that quite literally eat their dead. It is a way of keeping the deceased with the living and honoring their memory and strength by consuming it. Granted, these cultures are currently very very minor (as you can imagine western missionaries have done their best to stamp out such practices, with notable success). There are other societies in this world that, after their deceased is skeletonized, either buries the skeleton under their house or puts the bones in an urn which is placed in their house. Still others place the body on top of a table like surface a few dozen feet off the ground - so that the spirit has a swifter journey upward and leaving the flesh to the birds - literally. The real world has quite a few cultures that would have little problem with skeletons.
Zombies are another matter entirely, but that is mostly due to the 'gross' factor and the sanitation issues of a having a rotting corpse about. In drier environs where desiccation would prevent most rot and much of the 'gross' factor, I can readily imagine some cultures (in a fantasy setting) having no problem with zombies. Although I admit, in a fantasy setting I would imagine it more common for 1) menial labor, and 2) punishments for those dying with debts unpaid. IE: Though their spirit departs, their body will continue working to pay off their debt. Sounds more morally acceptable than having their children continue paying it - for however many generations it takes - as was common in some parts of the this world.
In D&D Good and Evil are forces that bind things together. By casting an evil spell, you tip the balance more to evil.
Not true, even by the RAW. Clerics are the only ones affected by the Evil descriptor, and that is mostly due to the fact that they borrow their power from beings that often have a vested interest in promoting one alignment or another.
There is a reason why good aligned clerics turn undead and evil rebuke them. It is pretty easy to figure out undead are viewed as abominations and evil.
Actually, this is only true in the current edition. In 2E mummies used positive energy - regardless of their alignment (which was usually Lawful, as I recall). They were not considered an 'abomination' but instead a revered (or feared, dependent on AL) former ruler (or other important personage of the past). Zombies and Skeletons also were not considered 'abominations' until 3.5e. Even in 3E they were considered neutrally aligned, which makes sense considering their mindless nature.
So if you create undead, you have no way to control them.
Not true of mindless undead created by Animate Dead. They remain unmoving after creation until given a simple command, which they then follow until given a different command or until they are destroyed. If a skeleton is told to 'dig a ditch as deep as you are tall from here (points) to there (points), the skeleton will do just that. If adventurers come upon it, the skeleton will continue digging. It will not attack as it was not given such an order. If the adventurers attack it the skeleton will not defend itself. It will continue digging until it has completed the ditch or it is destroyed. If it has completed the ditch it will stand still (not even getting out of the hole, as it was not told to do thus afterwards), not reacting even if attacked. Only if it was ordered to attack those seeking to halt it or those intruding would it attack.
Most skeletons encountered by adventurers in 'typical' adventurers are those that have been given guard duty. They either patrol along a set path - never deviating - and attack any intruder they have not been told not to attack, or they stand forever in front of a door, attacking any that seek to enter that are not allowed (likely due to command (allow none but ____ to pass) or sigil (allow none not showing _____ to pass)).
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. 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.) The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely.
1. They are not maturely occurring (Yes, I know lots of things are not.) Strike one.
2. They are infused with negative energy (Which nothing good comes from.) Strike two.
3. Every spell used to create them has the Evil Descriptor (Making the spell evil.) Strike three.
1. I presume you meant naturally occurring, yet what then are ghosts? They can occur without the need of a spell, and they are undead. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but I note it is also the weakest argument, as - you yourself stated - many things are not naturally occurring (such as celestials).
2. Negative energy is not innately Evil. It is innately Neutral (as are Air, Fire, Earth, Water, and Positive elements / energies). That is not a strike for undead being evil - unless you think all elementals are also evil? I note, as another has already, that fiends (being living creatures) are based upon positive energy. Are they then good?
3. This is only true in 3.5e. Animate Dead was a neutral spell in all prior editions due to its creation of mindless and soulless undead. They have no mind, nor does their body entrap the soul of its former host. This is the only possible strike against them, and it is only true for those that ignore both the history of the game, the definition of Mindless in the game, and the definition of Evil alignment in the game. All three of these work against this strike.
But seriously, D&D is an open game. Play undead how you want. From everything I have seen in all the books, undead are for the most part evil and intelligent undead can do whatever they want. Mindless undead, while their alignment is neutral, are evil in some ways.
In the first we agree. Every DM decides how undead will be played in their campaign worlds.
Unfortunately, in 3.5e the alignment of mindless undead is not neutral - that's why this problem is argued so often. They have been given (for the first time in the history of the game) a NE alignment, despite their mindless nature and the definition of Evil in the PHB, simply because the spell that often creates them has an Evil subtype - again for the first time in the history of the game.
Anyway, I hope I have made my point(s) and supported them sufficiently. Sorry for how long it took, but I thought it might be rude to use multiple posts in a row to state everything.
Let's take these arguments, for example:
1. They are not maturely occurring (Yes, I know lots of things are not.) Strike one.
And your point? Neither are constructs (including warforged) or entirely supernatural beings like certain outsiders. That doesn't make them automatically evil. So that reason's out.
2. They are infused with negative energy (Which nothing good comes from.) Strike two.
Which is a steaming load. I kill some bandit trying who's been raiding a town for months. I use DMM:M enhanced energy drain to toast a mind flayer. Etc.
Negative energy is a neutral force, like positive energy. There's no reason why undead should be evil just because they are infused with negative energy any more than living creatures have to be good because they are infused with positive energy. Negative energy may be used for negative effects, but then again, so are intelligent swords, and I don't see an alignment requirement of evil on those.
3. Every spell used to create them has the Evil Descriptor (Making the spell evil.) Strike three.
Which, given the aforementioned status of undead as fictional beings, is a totally arbitrary decision. There's no reason for undead to be evil unless the campaign setting specifically structures itself so that undead have to be evil. In my game, I can say that all undead creation spells have no alignment descriptor, which, when you look at it, isn't really any different than printing up a book that has the evil descriptor. The problem here is that there's a general assumption that undead have to be evil, which really has no reason for existing other than the fact that people haven't been able to get beyond the stereotype of a million zombie movies.
The core rules assume deities of a certain mindset (undeath=bad, life=good) and that only the evil among them want to grant their agents in the prime material the ability to mess with the dignity of the dead and create armies of unquestioning horrifying servants and/or loose lifeless predators on the living. This is not always the case; there have always been official supplements that granted some neutral and good clergy undead related powers or had good deities defending burial places with the undead (most times we've seen Osirus, Lord of the West presented in D&D he's been of this type). For that matter in earlier additions the Forgotten Realms god of Illusion treated Trueseeing effects as verboten for her followers, one who used such effects was fallen.
Most deities are very "pro-Natural Order," taking a dim view on living on beyond your time (and not retiring to your deities outer planar work force) but undead are inherently tainted only in some settings (Ravenloft) in others it depends entirely on circumstance (ghosts), needing to feed off intelligent life dose not make you evil--giving in to that need and murdering to live, is (as per Cook's maxim there and pretty much every official treatment of vampires and people who are cool with their lycanthropy, etc.). There are plenty of descriptions of undead that say nothing about inherent evil (revenants I believe are LN, watchghosts I believe switched to Lawful upon creation and reverted to their original alignment on becoming order-less; creating a watchghost from the unwilling dead would be evil but using this magic to allow one of your fellow fanatics spend their afterlife keeping up the Don Quixote bit should not be--example: the Guardians of Castle Waterdeep).
Negative energy is NOT linked to decay, quite the opposite. Positive energy causes decay (even now that mummies seem to make more sense, but on closer inspection make less, in my opinion), negative energy is a great preserver (just like cyanide and strychnine and other taxidermists' and undertakers' tools). I know this because of my favorite necromancer: his zombies don't decay anywhere as quickly as his stored corpses and little negative material energy keeps them both fresh practically forever, the ghoul pack that discourages proselytizers from his tower is in GREAT physical condition despite the fact that as near as he can tell they have no life processes natural growth or healing and appear to be sustained long periods with no food by their extra-planar connections--for that matter his old mentor looks great for a human of several centuries and in capable of feats of strength and endurance unexplainable by the caloric count of a few miserly pints of blood a day. Oh, he is quite aware that influx of negative energy is not good for him. He sits in his little fictional world, applies what seems to me to be internally consistent scientific method to his surroundings which apparently differ substantially from mine ("Tell me again about the naturally occurring gravity on your wooden spaceship while you're in free-fall?!?") and explains to me that as a prime material life form he's composed of a vibrant, shifting pattern made up of a mixture of the four elements, positive and negative energy and an astral body, "a soul to you lay-persons not conversant in outer planar mechanics."
This balance must be maintained for good heath, he personally has never been quite the same after some of his mishaps with negative energy, his health and even mental abilities have suffered, and his priest friend claims it would be harder to resurrect him now but he is more resilient to the stuff than most and uncontrolled exposure to faernzes (sp?), radiance and other positive energies is damaging too. He has the burns to prove this despite what those Glantrian cultist say and is absolutely positive his drow friend could lessen the need for eugenic infanticide in her House is she just made her males wear lead-codpieces. Controlled exposure to either can be beneficial, he tells me about his great successes removing green slime and gut-worms from friends with down-powered death spells and his (admittedly less powerful than most priests') healing skills are greatly enhanced by his ability to temporarily and selectively suspend or enhance certain life processes.
Then he starts telling me that he is positive that some undead, despite what the local churches might say are not only natural, i.e.. part of the way the Prime Material is put together, but are in fact naturally occurring, with out arcane interference. He cites "skeletal sharks", "revenants" and "living walls" as prime examples and warns me against confusing "unintelligent" meaning with out intelligence, mind or volition (like his skeletal guards or indeed his magic mouth spells) with "unintelligent" meaning stupid, shortsighted or just lacking an education (like his still illiterate barbarian friend or that paladin he used to know who dove off the boat in field plate).
The distinction being his skeletal guards must be instructed to take even the slightest action, whereas the ghouls, dumb though they may be initiate action on their own and if not controlled would surely want to eat him--and they can learn, as evidenced by their self-preserving fear of him and their continual proximity to his feeding station. Some "animate skeletons" might simply have orders to attack or, like the supposedly natural occurring sharks he mentioned before or dead warriors are motivated by half remembered and now meaningless reflexes that act like his complex "programming" of his guards.
(A little disturbed by his contentions, I grab my d20 books that describe the simplified pseudo-reality in which he exists. I find while some topics HAVE YET TO BE ADDRESSED in the current rules, nothing he claims is contradicted by them, what is more everything he's told me and everything about him is exactly "rules as written" for either this, or some earlier version. Huh, ok, Living Walls can be created by the evil Powers of Ravenloft granting a dying curse of vengeance, I'm not sure if that counts as "natural." Let's see... revenants, like ghosts, come in to being when a intelligent being resists death through shear will...Ut-o.. he may have something.... one in several hundred sharks of the sharks that die each year in the Sea of Fallen Stars spontaneously animate ...Damn! v3.5 has something to say about the inner planes and ...oh I guess he's kinda right. All of that is rules as written official of course house rules all differ and I don't think I've ever seen a game, even "official tournament" that wasn't some version of house rules.
Way back in late AD&D or early v2 rules there was a great article in Dragon on different deities' perception of good and evil; there the argument was made that perhaps a paladin's Detect Evil would detect another paladin in an opposing army if the war was truly backed by the nations' divine patrons but would instead detect the opposing do-gooder as good if the war was purely political. I've always had a fondness for that train of thought and always used in for worlds with opposing gods of otherwise morally compatible aims (Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Known World, my own creations, etc.; in my attempt at Dark Age Europe/Mediterranean I basically assumed that despite what their religious leaders said miracle workers agree that those other saints over there really should be on the same side as us, the druids are just rank and file like most people but THAT guy, right there is BAD).
Any animate dead spell is an evil spell. The core reason which cannot be escaped: it has the evil descriptor....
It depends on why the spell has that descriptor. It may be inherently evil, but it could just be that it is "dark", and most easily used for evil, which is why clerics can't use it, since they gods don't like it, but Wizards can, since what they use is more like fantasy science. For example, a Blasphemy spell used to stop a fallen angel can be regarded as good, since you are stopping an evil creature (it has the good descriptor still), and for some reason can't use Holy Word. (Maybe you are a neutral cleric who doesn't have the spell prepared but looted a scroll of an evil cleric.)
That would certainly apply for undead. Negative energy isn't evil, but, since it is the energy of death, certain uses of it can be considered "dark" enough that good gods may frown on its practice and ban it from their clerics even if it isn't inherently evil, for the same reason why Quakers don't like guns or going to war, even on the side of the "good guys"--if there are any in that particular war.
Summoning or creating undead to do good acts does not make it a good act. It is at best a neutral act. In a game where morality in the fantasy world is described, categorized, and is represented in rules it is hard pressed to argue such things. If more of an explanation of what is good and what is not is needed in this current incarnation, look at the deities and their clerics. The desecration of the body (as with the previously mentioned Aunt May scenario) is not sanctioned or accepted by a good-aligned church. While one can argue that the soul itself is not hurt when this happens, look again. Read any of your resurrection spells more closely. In these same scenarios, if Aunt May was to raise enough money to afford the have her husband resurrected she could not because the body is being animated. There is your interference. You have successfully prevented a good act from occurring because of your desecration. Creating or summoning undead in any of the Upper Planes will also brings ruin upon you as celestials tend to slay undead on sight.
One can argue all they want about this until they pass out from exhaustion, but the spell was updated with the evil descriptor because of it’s interference with resurrection magic and because of the alignment of the creatures it creates. Intelligent undead are the only ones who really get a choice and that’s when they are created naturally (as through being drained by a vampire or embraced, with achieving lichdom, etc.).
Yes, it does have the [Evil] descriptor. This I have not refuted. The only mechanical output of this is that good clerics, as well as neutral clerics who elect to channel positive energy, cannot cast it.
It doesn’t matter what being an evil spell means in your game. Casting an evil spell might be evil, or it might be that as long as it is used for a good purpose it isn’t considered an evil act despite it being an evil spell, but the spell is evil. I personally would say it is an evil act to cast, and the use is a separate act entirely, but that’s just me.
I'm telling you what an [Evil] spell is. Casting one is not an evil action; you are houseruling otherwise.
If we say that the descriptor means nothing we could have a [fire] spell deal cold damage, a [language-dependent] spell having nothing to do with language and instead shooting lightning bolts from your eyes, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. (A cookie to whoever gets the reference.)
Not quite an appropriate analogy, but very well blown completely out of proportion. I argue that [Evil] spells do not begin shunting you into the evil alignment axis despite how you use them, but are still affected by alignment-based themes (such as the Good and Evil domains, magic circle against good/evil, dispel good/evil, creatures with the good and evil alignments, etc), and you argue that [Cold] spells should start doing fire damage. My statement displays that there is still a relationship between alignment forces, your analogy allow for no such area.
Descriptors are not just a way of keeping someone from using the spell; there is a reason behind the descriptor. A [fire] spell should be related to fire in some way, a [cold] spell should be related to cold in some way, and an [evil] spell should be related to evil in some way. If you believe that animate dead (skeletons and zombies) should be changed because it isn’t evil that’s fine, but by the RAW it is still a spell with the evil descriptor.
Of course not all descriptors are solely used for restrictive purposes (I'm not even arguing that the [Good] and [Evil] ones are, but whatever). However, I AM stating that the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors do not warrant alignment shifts. There are other things that they govern aside from just that, but you don’t seem to want to believe or listen to that fact.
Of course if this is shown to be wrong you better believe that I’m going to add a few spells to what my PCs can take. An [evil] spell that summons bunnies of pure goodness and light that heal the sick, a [good] spell that opens a one-way portal out of hell for devils to access the material plane more easily, and a [peanut-brittle] spell that acts just like fireball, but deals acid damage rather than fire damage.
So if you are proven wrong you will create spells that obviously defy their descriptor definitions just because one of them didn’t work based on your assumptions?
I'm not saying there is no reason to make alignments and alignment descriptors work the way you want them to in your own campaigns.
That is the way they work. There is absolutely no alignment shift caused by casting spells with the Good or Evil descriptors.
That is a ridiculous argument. You're implying I'm making something up and your word is 100% accurate without proof from the core rules to support your claim. "That is the way they work" is not a valid argument. You are making the claim, this is your thread, therefore you need to provide your own evidence of proof and not expect people to research it on their own or merely take your word.
I am referring to something like this (but in support of your argument):
check page 160 of the PHB under neutral clerics and undead, which specifically states that "if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."
This is simple and to the point. The actual part of the sentence deals with neutral clerics and the undead (turning or rebuking), as proof to the explanation of why they have a choice, the latter part of the sentence emphasizes that channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is an evil act.
If you want to try using logic, again, 'because I say so' is not a valid argument. Look at Eightbitmage's response:
Descriptors are not just a way of keeping someone from using the spell; there is a reason behind the descriptor. A [fire] spell should be related to fire in some way, a [cold] spell should be related to cold in some way, and an [evil] spell should be related to evil in some way.[/QUTOE]
That's pretty logical.
If there are actual rules in the book that state that the [evil] descriptor is only used to designate which spells good and evil clerics can use and has nothing to do with necromancy being evil (as the channeling of positive and negative energy has been pointed out as being good/evil acts respectively), then please point it out.
Many people have stated sources and you just choose to ignore them. I backed up my argument with rules and you have ifs and buts.
I am not arguing that animate dead has an Evil descriptor, but that casting it does not make you evil, nor is it an evil action.
If that is how you have always played that’s fine, to each his own. However, in most games, casting an evil spell is an evil action.
I don’t play Ravenloft (or more accurately, I haven’t in over three years), so I can’t comment on dread golems or their creation methods. The [Evil] descriptor does in fact exist for more than simply determining what spells clerics with an alignment limitation can cast. The other reason is for detection spells and also for spells such as dispel evil. Your alignment doesn’t shift at all from casting such spells.
So now good clerics can't cast evil spells? Now the evil descriptor does in fact determine what certain clerics can cast? Yes, the evil descriptor does do other things, but my point, which you argued false until your last post, is that is DOES determine spells a cleric can cast. True, your alignment does not shift immediately but it will if you continue to cast such evil spells. If you deity is good, and for some reason he/she permits you to cast evil spells, then you will need to Atone. In almost every game a good deity will not let you cast evil spells. So therefore your whole argument about a good cleric creating undead is totally moot, but let’s go on shall we?
So we get into the logic loop of "fiends become good aligned because they kill fiends". I am not arguing that killing is universally evil and that it should be abstained from. I am arguing against MC's stance that a spell has the Evil descriptor because while fire can have other functions, smite good is only useful for hurting things (arguably in an undue fashion). However, you avoid the example of horrid wilting, which again achieves the same result as the example spell shriveling, but without a descriptor. Also, it’s Necromancy to boot. It isn’t mentioned with the houseruled spells either.
Horrid wilting you might want to read again. It is not the same spell as Shriveling. Horrid wilting is an area spell, there does not have to be any valid subject around. It could be used to create dry timber to start a fire, or hurt a water elemental. Shriveling has one and only one purpose, to cause harm to a living creature. You really need to read the section in BOVD since you like to quote it about What makes a spell evil. You have said you've read it, but from your posts I think you might want to read it again. Everything I have said still goes along with the good and evil descriptor while your arguments fail.
You are making a lot of assumptions. Summon monster spells do not require you to contact a power of any kind. You simply summon a creature of your choosing. You don’t have to contact anybody. You are assuming that summoning an angel is always a good action, regardless of the situation, and that a fiend is automatically an evil thing to do. Different situations may call for different creatures, though neither thing constitutes good or evil for purposes of determining an alignment shift.
I am making no assumptions. You are ignoring parts of spells. When you summon a creature what happens? The spell does not create it, so where does it come from? It already exists but on another plane. The spell pulls the creature through. If you summon a fallen angel then no, it's not good. They have a term for people who use their good clerics to summoning an ice demon to combat a fire devil. It's called Meta-gaming. Most good clerics would never decide to summon a fiend instead of a "good" celestial. Most deities would not permit it, you would most likely summon something that pertains to your deity. I can see your adamant about blindly ignoring the fact that no "good" comes from "evil" things. Yes, you could theoretically summon a fiend and make it kill the ogres to save the village. Then what? Kill the fiend? It is so much simpler to summon a celestial, have it kill the ogres, and then thank it.
A good cleric cannot summon creatures that are evil in alignment because their god cannot grant them such spells (again, part of the cleric package). Even if a cleric would like to summon a devil so that it is not adversely affected by an aura or spell that harms good aligned beings, he cannot. Second, undead are not fiends. They are not spawned in, nor do they exist in a festering pit of evil-made-manifest. That is why fiends have an Evil subtype, but undead do not.
I’m glad you are finally understanding what I’ve been telling you. Good clerics can't summon evil things because their deity will not permit it. Why would the deity deny them fiends and give them undead? Simply put they won't. Here you contradict yourself yet again. I don't know what monster manual you have, but mine says undead, like skeletons and zombies, are neutral evil. The SRD says neutral evil, no errata on the wizards site stating other wise. I never said undead are fiends either. Here, yet again, you try to place words which I clearly did not type. It is a simple comparison between two "mindless" things.
I do recall somewhere that if a body is animated that some spells cannot bring them back. However, since many savage races and common folk do not have access to even the most minor of raising magics, nor could afford them, the point is rather moot. This also does not harm the soul in any fashion.
Let’s look at this part. Savage and common folk do not have the means, that’s true, yet raising the graveyard of a poor village rather than that of a rich village, which could afford true rez for everyone, does not make it any different. The point is so far from moot you fail to realize this. You assume that since they have no earthly way to rezing their dead, it's ok to animate them. NO it is NOT. It is evil no matter what. In D&D it is not ok to do things some times and not others. D&D is made to be as close to black and white as possible, probably to avoid debates like the one we are having.
I am well aware of how alignments (both the facet of personal ethics as well as cosmic forces) function and interact. You are citing an absurd example in your defense. Try to focus on the situations that I am imagining, in which some society or tribe raises their fallen warriors to continue defending themselves. In this society, the warriors view this as an honor, to defend their people even after death. Note this is just one example, and that also since the souls are not stopped from proceeding to the afterlife, that it affects them in no ill way.
I would like to know how it would be absurd. Trying to focus on your situation requires a modified game, which I do not play. I in no way said it is impossible to do. If you would have read any of my previous posts to any extent, you would clearly see my statement of "D&D is an open game, you can do whatever you want, but by the rules. . .". Here we find you trying to force your morality and judgment on others, which in this game have absolutely no purpose. I agree with you that your example could happen, but not with ANY "good" aligned clerics. If the warriors were raised as intelligent undead, maybe with the template out of LM(can't remember what it is called), then yes it would work. If they are mindless that may be a slap in the face to them. They are nothing but meat shields. If the person controlling them ever died, or forbid a more powerful evil cleric rebukes them and turns them on their people, I’m sure there is no honor in that.
Also, a good cleric cannot even cast animate dead. If they could, since the spell does NOT rely on the use of positive/negative energy to order them about, the cleric still could anyway. Also, a cleric/wizard can cast such spells all they like. You do not tip any sort of cosmic balance in anyway by casting these spells. If there are scales to be tipped, then it must be a houserule in your own game.
Yes that’s right. If they could? They can't, your argument is moot once again. Yes a cleric/wizard could, but not as a divine spell. Remember where you get your cleric spells from, the same thing that LIMITS you on spells, your deity. The D&D world is all about balance. By creating more evil things you tip the scale. PHB says good and evil are not simple points of view, they are forces that define the cosmos. Also check Manuel of the Planes.
I choose C: Not applicable, since a good cleric cannot cast evil spells unless they take levels in another spellcasting class that can actually do that sort of thing. If they do so, nothing bad happens since casting those spells are not evil actions.
Yes I agree that a "good" cleric/wizard can cast evil spells as arcane, not divine. In doing so, he is going against his good alignment. If the player where to keep casting evil spells(which he/she would probably have to atone for) and not cast more good spells. They in fact would suffer and alignment shift. In your game, you may have a house rule that changes this, but in core D&D, this is how it works.
1. Since many things are not natural by our standards, this does not apply.
2. Negative energy is neutral. This argument would be like saying that dying is evil. So again, this does not apply.
3. Since this is a game mechanics issue, you are correct.
1. Undead are not natural in D&D either.
2. You don't turn into negative energy when you die. So what’s your point?
Actually, mindless undead are neutral evil in 3.5. This makes no sense, as mindless creatures cannot even act on their own accord, and thus SHOULD be neutral. However I do not agree that they are evil in any way, since they cant do anything (including but not limited to the inability to think, feel emotions, or even react to their surroundings; they are automatons that are easy to make and break).
Right I accidentally left off the evil part. That’s fine that it makes no sense. The game is highly based on how you want to interpret things.
Allips, for example, can come from someone who was driven to suicide by madness. Bodaks arise from those slain by the touch of absolute evil. People whom are astrally traveling and are slain by a negative energy-based effect might come back as devourers. Create undead and related spells are simply faster and more reliable methods for doing so.
Perhaps most undead are not inherently evil, but get to be that way because of an intrusion by Orcus and other demonic powers into the negative energy plane. Just the same as the efreeti empire is responsible, in part, for the slight tint of evil on the elemental plane of fire.
Then why aren't living creatures, powered by positive energy, mostly good? After all, paladins, celestials, certain good-aligned planes, etc. make heavy use of positive energy.
D&D takes the stance that negative energy is neutral, and messing around with exceptions is somewhat contrived. "Well, negative energy is neutral, but undead aren't because Orcus has a citadel in the negative energy plane."
As for the efreeti, fire elements are still neutral, as is fire itself, so the presence of demon lords, etc, probably wouldn't be a reason for why undead should always be considered evil.
For all of those using the argument that undead would rather attack you before they would save you or something similar--,an animal would do the same does that mean animals are evil? You can attack something on reflex but you can't defend something on reflex.
Actually animals only attack if provoked or find you as potential prey. Uncontrolled undead attack on sight regardless of your disposition towards them.
What I fail to see in this long post is any real reasoning in the part of spells having the evil descriptor and characters not suffering any penalties for it. Casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is the same thing as killing a random person. You don't slip your alignment automatically (see DMG), but if you persist in the act without counterbalancing with similar good acts, you will.
Too many people are falling back on previous editions of D&D for arguments. In a mechanics debate you can't do that. These spells probably received the [Evil] descriptor because they do not allow for their targets to be resurrected or raised until they are destroyed. I remember in times of Sinbad where skeletons did the bidding of whoever was in control, but one cannot argue what the rules currently say. You can house rule it all the way back to first ed if you want, but in the current incarnation these spells are evil and the undead they create are evil. Get over it.
Yes, I know that the evil descriptor is used for clerics; the very next line of what you quoted me saying does in fact show that. It does serve other purposes. If a good wizard constantly casts evil spells, thus an evil act, most DMs would require an Atonement or alignment change, but there is not a set limit on how many times it takes to do the previous. I think they purposefully left it vague.
A good wizard will change to evil if he goes casting fireball on villages.
On the three strikes, I never once said that any one of those automatically made anything undead. If you could correctly understand the list, it is the combination of all of those, if not more, that I feel is the reason why undead are evil.
You keep referring to prior editions. I’m talking about 3.5, so any prior editions are inconsequential to my argument.
Actually, it would be against their beliefs because it is against their deity. It would be hard to have a necromancer following a deity of life, who viewed undead as abominations.
I think you are right with WOTC dropping the ball on stuff. Maybe they changed their minds on things or changed things to make more sense to them. We may never know.
As far as the channeling, I agree with you. It doesn't make sense that an evil cleric can channel positive energy(where it says its a good act) and good shouldn’t channel negative. Of course the reason behind this is probably WOTC saw a non-healing evil cleric as crap. Where as there are many ways to deal damage, not too many to heal. Like you said, this is a big contradiction on their part. In my eyes, they are doing a good act, but with an evil end(probably). While it is "good" to cast a heal spell, healing the raging evil monster far out weighs the good in casting it.
While it's true a good wizard can cast evil spells with no loss of power, they may suffer consequences for it. Like and alignment change.
The smiting paragraph do work together. Do I really have to explain again? You said pretty much what I said I do not see why you understand your words which are very similar to mine. What I’m saying is smiting good is evil and vise versa.
You have basically restated what he first stated. He never said summoning a fiend was good, merely that it was evil due to the plane it being summoned from being evil. Animals typically neutral are instead evil if native to an evil plane, as the plane itself is evil.
Right. Which is was his response saying the same thing I said. Summoning something evil is an evil act. There is no "greater good" in D&D, it's made vague yet clear for that reason. You can not kill thirty children to save them from a horrible death. You can not summon an evil creature to save a village. Well you can, but it is evil.
On desecrate, I think you made my point. In D&D, it is evil. Evil deities have desecrated areas. In D&D, when you see desecrate, you can assume it is evil.
Clerics are not the only ones affected by the evil descriptor. I touched this earlier in my post about alignments so I won't repeat it. I guess next time I make a joke, like the one about Auntie Pearl, I need to add a /joke to it. . .
Aye, I never said that a cleric can't control things from the Animate spell. I did say create, which you do have to make a rebuke check to control them. I don't have my PHB with me, but I’m pretty sure Animate Dead is evil in 3.5 (all I have to go by is the SRD). So a good cleric can't cast it anyway.
Doh! Yes I did mean naturally. As far as ghosts, once again, I think you guys took the list wrong. I do not mean that just one of them makes said thing evil. It's a combinations of all those, if not more. No, celestials are not naturally occurring. That’s why they don't show themselves on the material plane much. While the plane is not evil, most things that come from it are. It is easy to see why undead have the evil label. No, not all elementals are evil, once again to the list. The same with fiends, the list. It is true in 3.5, which is what my argument is about.
The OP was arguing, at first, about morality, then he changed it to rules, which failed him. I'm talking about rules. As I’ve said, you can have undead good, change back to them being positive or negative energy, I don't care.
As I said in another post (at the moment hasn't made it up yet), yes, I did mean to add evil to mindless undead.
You have made you points, and good ones. I agree with you about things. I am talking about 3.5 though. In older editions I would agree with you 100%. When undead could be pos/neg energy, it would be easy to guess alignment for them. I’m not sure, it's been way too long since I played 2ed.
Psydrith:
As far as the comparison between mindless undead and animals. Well animals have an int, mindless undead do not. For instance, bears have an int of 2, skeletons 0. A bear could always flee from a commoner, a skeleton will not.
Objulen:
Please refer to my above post. Next time I will make it more clear. I thought a strike system might help, but I guess not. If I said each one made them evil, I would need just one strike and they would be out correct? No.
Perhaps most undead are not inherently evil, but get to be that way because of an intrusion by Orcus and other demonic powers into the negative energy plane. Just the same as the efreeti empire is responsible, in part, for the slight tint of evil on the elemental plane of fire.
I had to check my MotP to confirm this: the elemental plane of fire has no alignment trends at all.
It depends on why the spell has that descriptor. It may be inherently evil, but it could just be that it is "dark", and most easily used for evil, which is why clerics can't use it, since they gods don't like it, but Wizards can, since what they use is more like fantasy science. For example, a Blasphemy spell used to stop a fallen angel can be regarded as good, since you are stopping an evil creature (it has the good descriptor still), and for some reason can't use Holy Word. (Maybe you are a neutral cleric who doesn't have the spell prepared but looted a scroll of an evil cleric.)
That would certainly apply for undead. Negative energy isn't evil, but, since it is the energy of death, certain uses of it can be considered "dark" enough that good gods may frown on its practice and ban it from their clerics even if it isn't inherently evil, for the same reason why Quakers don't like guns or going to war, even on the side of the "good guys"--if there are any in that particular war.
Well the "reasons" as stated by those who tout BoVD are flawed in that there are spells that perform identical effects (both in description and function) that lack the [Evil] descriptor. Even in the section where it says you should houserule additional spells as [Evil], it failed to mention others.
As I've said, the [Evil] descriptor is not used to determine which spells shift your alignment around (since none do), but to determine which spells are valid counterparts or that clerics can/cannot cast.
Actually animals only attack if provoked or find you as potential prey. Uncontrolled undead attack on sight regardless of your disposition towards them.
Which comes from "undead are creepy". There's no more reason for an unintelligent undead to attack something at random than there is for a golem.
What I fail to see in this long post is any real reasoning in the part of spells having the evil descriptor and characters not suffering any penalties for it. Casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is the same thing as killing a random person. You don't slip your alignment automatically (see DMG), but if you persist in the act without counterbalancing with similar good acts, you will.
The only issue is that there are many spells that are only considered "evil" because they have the descriptor. There are examples of many spells that seem evil at first glance, but become paper tigers the more you look at them. Just look at Energy Ebb in the Libris Mortis. There are several DoT spells that don't have the descriptor (Acid Arrow being one), and neither Enervate nor Energy Drain have the evil descriptor. So why is the DoT negative level ray considered evil? The same applies to undead. I have not seen a single good argument for why undead should be automatically evil other than "the setting says so".
Too many people are falling back on previous editions of D&D for arguments. In a mechanics debate you can't do that. These spells probably received the [Evil] descriptor because they do not allow for their targets to be resurrected or raised until they are destroyed.
Neither does Trap the Soul, and Imprisonment does the same thing for all intents and purposes, and neither have the evil tag.
I remember in times of Sinbad where skeletons did the bidding of whoever was in control, but one cannot argue what the rules currently say. You can house rule it all the way back to first ed if you want, but in the current incarnation these spells are evil and the undead they create are evil. Get over it.
How enlightening. Yes, these are the RAW. However, I don't feel any reason to follow RAW that does make sense, and I see no legitimate reason for why undead should all be considered evil, anymore than I see no legitimate reason for level 7 spells to be more powerful than level 9 spells.
Objulen: Please refer to my above post. Next time I will make it more clear. I thought a strike system might help, but I guess not. If I said each one made them evil, I would need just one strike and they would be out correct? No.
I understand what you are saying, I'm just pointing out that the criteria for the strikes doesn't work for any logically consistent god, and if this is the case, then whether or not a cleric is barred from creating undead or not is a matter of preference for individual deities, not something for alignment.
I disagree with this statement because neither inflict nor cure spells have a [Good] or [Evil] descriptor. Also, spells such as ray of enfeeblement do not have an [Evil] descriptor. The implication is that by casting too many curative and/or infliction spells that your alignment will shift. Also, that would quickly shunt a neutral cleric into good or evil, depending, which was probably not the designer's intent.
If that rule applies to neutral clerics, the same would apply to any other cleric. As for wizards casting evil/good spells, in the BOVD it states that a neutral character may get away with casting a few evil spells, and because of that won't change his alignment unless he continually does such things. Casting an evil spell is evil act, casting a good spell is good act.
Again, BoVD isn’t core, and a very bad way to defend yourself. It’s never stated in the PH that casting spells with aligned descriptors is actually related to the action.
Creating undead brings evil things into the world, even despite your best intentions, which would be at best neutral because it seems like a good idea at the time. However the method is evil by nature, and continued use makes you evil.
Nope.
I see what you're saying, but by the raw and common judgment, use of negative energy isn't on the top of the "good" way of dealing with things.
Not at all, I have supplied means to how it can be neutral, and even good.
Only if they were commanded to prior to the loss of their master (i.e., "Attack everything that enters this room.") or they are intelligent. Otherwise, no.
What I fail to see in this long post is any real reasoning in the part of spells having the evil descriptor and characters not suffering any penalties for it. Casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is the same thing as killing a random person. You don't slip your alignment automatically (see DMG), but if you persist in the act without counterbalancing with similar good acts, you will.
That’s pretty funny, but it’s not as severe as you make it out to be. That’s like saying I can kill some people at random, but if I donate to charity, it all balances out.
Too many people are falling back on previous editions of D&D for arguments. In a mechanics debate you can't do that. These spells probably received the [Evil] descriptor because they do not allow for their targets to be resurrected or raised until they are destroyed. I remember in times of Sinbad where skeletons did the bidding of whoever was in control, but one cannot argue what the rules currently say. You can house rule it all the way back to first ed if you want, but in the current incarnation these spells are evil and the undead they create are evil. Get over it.
The lesser resurrection spells won’t work, but it’s not like the average peasant could afford it anyway. Also, I don’t agree with the way it is in the books, which is where this debate came from.
Undead are evil because of how they instinctively react. The mindless quality only serves to show their mental state of mind within the present rules system. They cannot make skill checks and do not possess any feats; they are oblivious automations of evil. Intelligent undead, like with the above mentioned Vampire reference can change their alignment, despite what it says in the Monster Manual, nothing is ‘always’ a certain alignment. They have demonstrated this enough times with powerful NPCs throughout the games history to stale that argument: it is simply a state of mind when they became an undead.
Mindless undead do not react at all however, without programmed instruction. Intelligent ones can, however, and that I'm not particularly in issue with (many forms of undead, given the method in which they are created, were evil previously anyway).
Summoning or creating undead to do good acts does not make it a good act. It is at best a neutral act. In a game where morality in the fantasy world is described, categorized, and is represented in rules it is hard pressed to argue such things. If more of an explanation of what is good and what is not is needed in this current incarnation, look at the deities and their clerics. The desecration of the body (as with the previously mentioned Aunt May scenario) is not sanctioned or accepted by a good-aligned church. While one can argue that the soul itself is not hurt when this happens, look again. Read any of your resurrection spells more closely. In these same scenarios, if Aunt May was to raise enough money to afford the have her husband resurrected she could not because the body is being animated. There is your interference. You have successfully prevented a good act from occurring because of your desecration. Creating or summoning undead in any of the Upper Planes will also brings ruin upon you as celestials tend to slay undead on sight.
Yes, because commoners have access to thousands of gold pieces to spend on a resurrection. Unless she can get it together very quickly, she will have to go with a resurrection or something similar, which would require over 10,000gp, the willingness of a cleric to do that for her, and her hubby must have not died of natural causes. Even if that were possible, not every instance (or even most, or few) would be geared around a similar situation.
One can argue all they want about this until they pass out from exhaustion, but the spell was updated with the evil descriptor because of its interference with resurrection magic and because of the alignment of the creatures it creates. Intelligent undead are the only ones who really get a choice and that’s when they are created naturally (as through being drained by a vampire or embraced, with achieving lichdom, etc.).
It can have a descriptor all it wants, in the end it doesn’t mean that the caster magically becomes evil unless he was using his magic for evil in the first place.
That is a ridiculous argument. You're implying I'm making something up and your word is 100% accurate without proof from the core rules to support your claim. "That is the way they work" is not a valid argument. You are making the claim, this is your thread, therefore you need to provide your own evidence of proof and not expect people to research it on their own or merely take your word.
I don’t recall you fronting evidence that casting spells with said descriptors shifts your alignment, or anyone for that matter. I see a handful of people stating that it does, while others are in my camp. If it were a good or evil act, I'm sure that would be specified in the book somewhere.
This is simple and to the point. The actual part of the sentence deals with neutral clerics and the undead (turning or rebuking), as proof to the explanation of why they have a choice, the latter part of the sentence emphasizes that channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is an evil act.
Unfortunately, that means that there could be no neutral clerics, as they would invariably shift alignments from casting spells. Even a simple curative spell would be sufficient to make anyone good aligned. I'm not going to agree with a stance that is essentially "You can summon a demon and then cure it, making it all good!" Of course for that to work summoning demons would have to be an automatic bad-thing-no-matter-what-you-say.
If you want to try using logic, again, 'because I say so' is not a valid argument. Look at Eightbitmage's response:Descriptors are not just a way of keeping someone from using the spell; there is a reason behind the descriptor. A [fire] spell should be related to fire in some way, a [cold] spell should be related to cold in some way, and an [evil] spell should be related to evil in some way.
They aren’t solely used to keep people from using it; they are used to easily categorize them. That’s all they are for. Under the descriptor heading there is nothing stated that it directly shifts your alignment for casting spells labeled [Good] or [Evil].
If there are actual rules in the book that state that the [evil] descriptor is only used to designate which spells good and evil clerics can use and has nothing to do with necromancy being evil (as the channeling of positive and negative energy has been pointed out as being good/evil acts respectively), then please point it out.
Necromancy isn’t evil. Look at the spells, how many are evil? I got to finger of death and found plenty that weren’t. It seems that while it is apparently "evil" to create undead, its okay to command them or otherwise control them. Also, blight struck me as a spell that as defined by BoVD should be evil since it can only kill something, but isn’t. Neither was finger of death or destruction, both of which "slay a creature". Sorry, but what I didn’t find was a rule that stated Necromancy as being wholly evil.
It doesn’t matter what being an evil spell means in your game. Casting an evil spell might be evil, or it might be that as long as it is used for a good purpose it isn’t considered an evil act despite it being an evil spell, but the spell is evil. I personally would say it is an evil act to cast, and the use is a separate act entirely, but that’s just me.
I'm telling you what an [Evil] spell is. Casting one is not an evil action; you are houseruling otherwise.
I don't agree with what you say an [evil] spell is, but we can get to that in a second.
I didn't say that casting an [evil] spell is evil by RAW, I agree with you that it is a house rule that I have chosen to implement, which is why I said personally, and that it was just me. What I did say is that an evil spell is evil, much as an unholy sword is evil. You can save princesses and kill evil doers with said sword, it doesn't make the sword less evil. Casting such a spell is something I would say is like forging such a sword. You are creating evil using evil means. IMC that is evil, but there are not rules that explicitly state that fact.
If we say that the descriptor means nothing we could have a [fire] spell deal cold damage, a [language-dependent] spell having nothing to do with language and instead shooting lightning bolts from your eyes, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. (A cookie to whoever gets the reference.)
Not quite an appropriate analogy, but very well blown completely out of proportion. I argue that [Evil] spells do not begin shunting you into the evil alignment axis despite how you use them, but are still affected by alignment-based themes (such as the Good and Evil domains, magic circle against good/evil, dispel good/evil, creatures with the good and evil alignments, etc), and you argue that [Cold] spells should start doing fire damage. My statement displays that there is still a relationship between alignment forces, your analogy allow for no such area.
No, I actually am going to turn your original accusation of blowing things out of proportion back on you. I am saying that a descriptor describes a spell, this is my primary point. A fire spell logically involves fire or heat in some way. If a spell had the descriptor [fire] and had nothing to do with fire, or something to do with cold, fire's antithesis, it would be illogical. By extension if an [evil] spell has nothing to do with evil there is something illogical going on.
Descriptors are not just a way of keeping someone from using the spell; there is a reason behind the descriptor. A [fire] spell should be related to fire in some way, a [cold] spell should be related to cold in some way, and an [evil] spell should be related to evil in some way. If you believe that animate dead (skeletons and zombies) should be changed because it isn’t evil that’s fine, but by the RAW it is still a spell with the evil descriptor.
Of course not all descriptors are solely used for restrictive purposes (I'm not even arguing that the [Good] and [Evil] ones are, but whatever). However, I AM stating that the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors do not warrant alignment shifts. There are other things that they govern aside from just that, but you don’t seem to want to believe or listen to that fact.
Once again you seem to think I am saying things that I am not. This all goes back to my original point, the spell would not have the evil descriptor if it were not an evil spell. If this leads you to conclude that someone who casts an evil spell becomes more evil that is your own end. All I said was that an evil spell is evil because it is evil.
Of course if this is shown to be wrong you better believe that I’m going to add a few spells to what my PCs can take. An [evil] spell that summons bunnies of pure goodness and light that heal the sick, a [good] spell that opens a one-way portal out of hell for devils to access the material plane more easily, and a [peanut-brittle] spell that acts just like fireball, but deals acid damage rather than fire damage.
So if you are proven wrong you will create spells that obviously defy their descriptor definitions just because one of them didn’t work based on your assumptions?
I only assume that an [evil] spell must be evil to receive such a descriptor. If that is an incorrect assumption why couldn't you have an [evil] spell that does only good things? The descriptor means something or it does not. There is no in between. If the descriptor means something then the spell is evil because that is the descriptor given to it. If the descriptor means nothing why can't a [fire] spell deal cold damage?
This is expanded on in Dragon #336 (Birth of the Dead, page 36), and parallels real-life legends about such creatures rising up for one reason or another.
As I had said; BoVD is a very poor way to defend yourself
If you're going to use non-Core material to defend your posts, it should be perfectly acceptable for others to do the same. In this case, your argument against the BoVD merely seems to suggest that you don't agree with what the WotC staff deemed worthy to clarify alignments in their game. If you think it is a poor defense for WotC interpretation on alignment than its perfectly acceptable for others to suggest that Dragon magazine is a poor defense to suggest that undead occur naturally. I'm not saying it’s a poor defense (as much as I think BoVD is a reasonable defense for alignment interpretation), I am saying be consistent and fair to those in disagreement with yourself.
If you're going to use non-Core material to defend your posts, it should be perfectly acceptable for others to do the same. In this case, your argument against the BoVD merely seems to suggest that you don't agree with what the WotC staff deemed worthy to clarify alignments in their game. If you think it is a poor defense for WotC interpretation on alignment than its perfectly acceptable for others to suggest that Dragon magazine is a poor defense to suggest that undead occur naturally. I'm not saying it’s a poor defense (as much as I think BoVD is a reasonable defense for alignment interpretation), I am saying be consistent and fair to those in disagreement with yourself.
What about the fact that the BoVD has an incredibly narrow cultural view point, or that many arguments that it makes are incredibly irrational? By the logic that creating undead is evil because it fills the world with negative energy, I can make a valid mathematical argument that killing any living creature is evil, because it has the same net result:
+1u negative energy = evil
+1u negative energy = -1u positive energy
-1u positive energy = evil.
What removes positive energy from the world? Killing things that are alive. So, every living creature is automatically incredibly evil because it is increasing the balance of the world in favor of darkness.
And let us not forget the BoVD's companion book, the Book of Exalted Deeds, which states that diseases, poisons, assassins, and undead are evil, but afflictions, ravages, Slayers of Domiel, and deathless are good in what amounts to one of the worst about-faces I've seen in an RPG.
The BoVD and the BoED are invalid because they have absolutely no logical consistency. If we are going to use them as valid sources, then any sort of reasonable discussion is impossible, because those books have a distinct lack of anything resembling reason.
If you're going to use non-Core material to defend your posts, it should be perfectly acceptable for others to do the same. In this case, your argument against the BoVD merely seems to suggest that you don't agree with what the WotC staff deemed worthy to clarify alignments in their game. If you think it is a poor defense for WotC interpretation on alignment than its perfectly acceptable for others to suggest that Dragon magazine is a poor defense to suggest that undead occur naturally. I'm not saying it’s a poor defense (as much as I think BoVD is a reasonable defense for alignment interpretation), I am saying be consistent and fair to those in disagreement with yourself.
Non-core should be 3.5 if you are going to use it. BoVD was made before 3.5.; Book of Exalted Deeds was made during 3.5. Thus BoED can be used, but not 3.0 stuff.
Evil descriptor has nothing to do with evil: it only has to do with whether good divine casters can cast it. Even without a deity, a Cleric can't (Ideal Cleric). The reason is that is just the way descriptors work. Fire Descriptor has nothing to do with fire burning stuff, but fire domain and other fire affecting effects.
If you're going to use non-Core material to defend your posts, it should be perfectly acceptable for others to do the same. In this case, your argument against the BoVD merely seems to suggest that you don't agree with what the WotC staff deemed worthy to clarify alignments in their game. If you think it is a poor defense for WotC interpretation on alignment than its perfectly acceptable for others to suggest that Dragon magazine is a poor defense to suggest that undead occur naturally. I'm not saying it’s a poor defense (as much as I think BoVD is a reasonable defense for alignment interpretation), I am saying be consistent and fair to those in disagreement with yourself.
Most of that information should be featured in your standard Monster Manual core rulebook.
I’ll outline it for you. Negative energy is what undeath is comprised of/fueled by. As such, undead seek out the living and kill them. This is because it is the nature of energy to want to reach neutrality. Negative energy seeks to eliminate positive, positive seeks to eliminate negative.
What does this mean exactly? That undead creatures, by their very nature, will tend to seek out and kill living things. This means that by their very nature beings of negative energy, undead are compelled to be murderous creatures who will kill "good," "evil," and "neutral" beings indiscriminately. The base nature of an undead creature is to commit "bad/evil" acts. So, though they can be commanded to do otherwise or, for sentient undead, can master this compulsion, they are still at their base nature "bad/evil" beings. This is the direct correlation between negativity and "bad" (evil).
Neither does Trap the Soul, and Imprisonment does the same thing for all intents and purposes, and neither have the evil tag.
Actually these spells confine the soul in some way, thus preventing the resurrection spell to function. In the animated undead aspect, the soul is not contained in a place it should otherwise be.
because commoners have access to thousands of gold pieces to spend on a resurrection. Unless she can get it together very quickly, she will have to go with a resurrection or something similar, which would require over 10,000gp, the willingness of a cleric to do that for her, and her hubby must have not died of natural causes. Even if that were possible, not every instance (or even most, or few) would be geared around a similar situation.
How irrelevant to WHY something has the evil descriptor. It does not matter how much money it takes to do something good, it's the act itself.
It can have a descriptor all it wants, in the end it doesn’t mean that the caster magically becomes evil unless he was using his magic for evil in the first place.
One might understand that alignment changes do to activities almost never result in an immediate alignment change. The core rules say that themselves. That is the point of all the alignment change issues: people are consistently stuck on the notion that alignment changes for an evil act are immediate. They aren't!
That’s like saying I can kill some people at random, but if I donate to charity, it all balances out.
Actually, that's an extreme and wrong illustration of what I was attempting to present. Most people in society are Neutral at best. All any of you are doing is trying to rationalize your actions. If you want real world examples of how alignments work in their extremes (as fantasy role playing is accustomed to and loosely based on), look at Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, and a slew of other iconographic persons. These people are the only true good people in the world, the rest of us are neutral and until you understand that stand point how can you not open your mind to the obvious bigger picture that fantasy role playing is presenting? They gave us rules and gods, behaviors and what to expect from people we meet along our fantastic journey.
It's a world of imagination. We all know this, but please don't attempt to make the argument that's its ok to do something just because you found a loophole or rationalized it. I deal with that enough from my players to understand the difference. In the world as we know it, it might not be an evil act to use a skeleton leg covered in oil to make a torch (reference anyone?), but any good cleric worth 2cp will feel uncomfortable with it and attempt to make amends for it. And then there's the debate between what is good and what is exalted. . .
My points in this thread are more from the standpoint of devil's advocate. The only point in this thread that is not devil's advocate from me about the [evil] descriptor. But that's not worth arguing over as no one here is really changing their opinions about alignment and its more one of those things where everyone needs to agree to disagree.
I'm glad you enjoyed my impromptu lesson.
I’ll outline it for you. Negative energy is what undeath is comprised of/fueled by. As such, undead seek out the living and kill them. This is because it is the nature of energy to want to reach neutrality. Negative energy seeks to eliminate positive, positive seeks to eliminate negative.
This does mean that it is evil, in a moral or ethical sense. It simply does what it does; it doesn’t kill life because it wants to, or derives any form of pleasure from doing so. That in itself means that it cannot be evil. It can be bad, in the sense that many bacteria and viruses can be bad for your health.
What does this mean exactly? That undead creatures, by their very nature, will tend to seek out and kill living things. This means that by their very nature beings of negative energy, undead are compelled to be murderous creatures who will kill "good," "evil," and "neutral" beings indiscriminately. The base nature of an undead creature is to commit "bad/evil" acts. So, though they can be commanded to do otherwise or, for sentient undead, can master this compulsion, they are still at their base nature "bad/evil" beings. This is the direct correlation between negativity and "bad" (evil).
Again, negative energy itself cannot be evil since it is simply an energy force. Despite the fact that it is associated with death and/or undeath (neither of which are inherently evil) does not make it evil. It is dangerous to living creatures, to be sure, but so are many things. Also, it does not make undead evil; many forms of intelligent undead (the ones that can actually do things on their own) are the result of evil people who died under certain circumstances.
Antioch, I love the way in which you have categorized and explained the nature of undeath. Your "spark theory" is pretty much spot on, and very much in tune with the physical behavior of actual energies. What I don’t like is how you say that negative energy cannot be equated to "evil" or “bad.” Meaning not good. You have yourself provided the evidence that leads us logically to the conclusion that negative energy is "bad."
I’ll outline it for you. Negative energy is what undeath is comprised of/fueled by. As such, undead seek out the living and kill them. This is because it is the nature of energy to want to reach neutrality. Negative energy seeks to eliminate positive, positive seeks to eliminate negative.
What does this mean exactly? That undead creatures, by their very nature, will tend to seek out and kill living things. This means that by their very nature beings of negative energy, undead are compelled to be murderous creatures who will kill "good," "evil," and "neutral" beings indiscriminately. The base nature of an undead creature is to commit "bad/evil" acts. So, though they can be commanded to do otherwise or, for sentient undead, can master this compulsion, they are still at their base nature "bad/evil" beings. This is the direct correlation between negativity and "bad" (evil).
Exactly! Its never been because of undead are just plain mean or nasty, it's that they seek to cancel out or eliminate the positive energy fueled living creatures. They get slapped with the evil label because in DnD murderous activity is an evil act. Another stance would argue that this is neutral activity because of their nature of non-intelligent undead, but because of the alignment guidelines (which do not apply in settings that do not use alignment, such as D20 Modern imho, or house-ruled no-alignment D&D games) they are labeled as such. Creating them brings a murderous creature into existence and gets labeled as evil. If there was not an alignment system this whole argument would blow into the wind. Unfortunately, in the standard D&D game we are shown our premise of behaviors.
Another take for alignment arguments (I know possibly off topic, but I believe the discussion has moved to 'why should undead and the spells that create them be labeled evil') is to look at the clergy. If they are penalized or restricted from the behavior in the current incarnation then doing something they are not allowed to do because it could cost them their divine driven power, is similarly an evil or admonishable offence to any other character. This is the reason I made the above religious iconographic references, to show that it’s a universal conduit when talking about what is good and what is evil. To see what must obviously be an evil act you must look to see what good-aligned clergy or divine worshipping characters can get away with. That's all I was meaning.
The very first sentence under the zombie description explicitly states that zombies are created by dark and sinister magic. So, creating zombies is not natural, it requires magic. It is a dark and sinister act because it is created with dark and sinister magic - good people don't go around using dark and sinister magic to accomplish their goals.
I looked up the zombie description in the SRD to see if they included this information in there, because this part seems like it could merely be fluff. The SRD states:
Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
There is only one spell that creates zombies and that is Animate Dead. The description under skeletons never explicitly states that they are created by dark and sinister magic. However, by extension of the fact that the only way to create a zombie is through dark and sinister magic (ie animate dead), then (re)animating skeletons with Animate Dead is dark and sinister as well.
Now, the description of animate dead never explicitly states that it is dark and sinister magic, thus the dark and sinister referred to in the zombie description either stems from the fact that it is a necromancy spell or the fact that it has the [evil] descriptor. I'm more inclined to believe it stems from the [evil] descriptor as there are necromancy spells that are not [evil].
So, there you have it. Zombies are reanimated by dark and sinister magic, they are not created naturally. The only spell that creates zombies is animate dead - which is dark and sinister magic because it is the only way to create zombies.
Someone could try to argue that dark and sinister as adjectives in this case do not equate to evil. However, dark's use in this word means secretive (its the only definition that applies to the context) while sinister means evil. Sinister means evil because the other definitions do not work (i.e., it is not fraudulent magic because it is actually working (illusionary magic is probably the closest to fraudulent that D&D magic comes), it is not unlucky magic because it is producing the effects the caster intends, it does not mean on the left side because it doesn't matter which hand the mage is using, nor does it mean a bar that starts in the upper left corner of a banner or flag because we are not making coats-of-arms).
Are there any moral connotations to Positive and Negative Energy? More specifically, is it wrong to take a creature that was once of Positive Energy, and infuse it with Negative Energy instead?
Perhaps all the Animate Dead spells are inherently evil because you are altering the creature's natural state, forcing it to function from Negative Energy when it's "supposed" to use Positive.
Other undead that are not comprised of dead flesh (spectres, ghosts, etc.) may also be faced with this same conundrum. One particular hypothesis is that a creature's soul is the animating source of Positive Energy throughout its lifetime. So, presumably, the spirit of the creature would be composed of pure Positive Energy. However, is a ghost or spectre actually the creature's soul, or merely a negatively-charged "copy"? If it actually is the soul, how does it instead become composed of Negative Energy, and does this process cause it to become Evil-aligned for some moral reason?
Another thought: If the creature was originally Positive, why would it be re-animated with Negative Energy? Would it not make more sense to re-animate the creature with Positive Energy? In such a case, what would the result be? It certainly makes sense that an "undead" creature re-animated with Positive Energy could certainly be of Good alignment, especially if it was re-animated with good intentions, and the creature was originally good-aligned.
Perhaps the link between Evil and Undead is not necessarily just because it is animated with Negative Energy, but because it is animated with the "wrong kind" of energy. Presumably, a creature that was fully comprised of Negative Energy, and never was comprised of Positive, wouldn't necessarily be Evil, or of Evil origin. Interestingly, carrying this line of thought further, would a "negatively-charged" being that was re-animated with Positive Energy also be tied to Evil because of being re-animated with the "wrong kind" of energy?
Unfortunately skeletons and zombies are not intelligent, and thus are not aware of the act of "murder". Therefore, they cannot be evil since they are not consciously committing the act. That much is made clear in the PH under alignment.
Also, you are not bringing a murderous creature into being by casting animate dead, as nothing created by that spell is capable of acting on its own. That is something that people continually ignore; THEY ARE NOT MURDEROUS.
Another take for alignment arguments (I know possibly off topic, but I believe the discussion has moved to 'why should undead and the spells that create them be labeled evil') is to look at the clergy. If they are penalized or restricted from the behavior in the current incarnation then doing something they are not allowed to do because it could cost them their divine driven power, is similarly an evil or admonishable offence to any other character. This is the reason I made the above religious iconographic references, to show that it’s a universal conduit when talking about what is good and what is evil. To see what must obviously be an evil act you must look to see what good-aligned clergy or divine worshipping characters can get away with. That's all I was meaning.
Clerics are not barred from casting it lest they lose their abilities; they cannot cast is period. They cannot say "I'll go ahead and pray for it, cast it, and lose my powers." They don’t get the option. If they cast it from a scroll, or by taking lots of wizard/sorcerer levels, then they can do so.
I didn’t say skeletons and zombies occur naturally, I said that "many forms of intelligent undead" do. Check allip, bodak, wight, and ghoul to name a few (though ghoul mentions that the assertion might not be true).
There is only one spell that creates zombies and that is Animate Dead. The description under skeletons never explicitly states that they are created by dark and sinister magic. However, by extension of the fact that the only way to create a zombie is through dark and sinister magic (ie animate dead), then (re)animating skeletons with Animate Dead is dark and sinister as well.
Now, the description of animate dead never explicitly states that it is dark and sinister magic, thus the dark and sinister referred to in the zombie description either stems from the fact that it is a necromancy spell or the fact that it has the [evil] descriptor. I'm more inclined to believe it stems from the [evil] descriptor as there are necromancy spells that are not [evil].
So because one of three related sources mention dark and sinister (and the primary one does not), then it must be true? I think not. Perhaps a 2:3 ratio would have done better to sway my opinion (or if the description in animate dead stated it), but then again I took that into consideration long ago when "Undead are ALWAYS evil-no-matter-what-you-say!" threads were popping up.
I've done my homework on this topic. Since there are many people whom work on one book, I am inclined to say that that bit in the zombie description is in fact a piece of fluff.
Alignment prompts superficial judgments. There is only the rationalization of intents and actions, and never justification or righteousness in those actions. The Player’s/DM’s judgments on whether or not an intent or action is good or evil is irrelevant. The only perceptions towards events in the game that matter, are the ones that NPC/Gods/PC needs to make. Therefore, evil is as evil is perceived by PCs and NPCs.
Magic is a gun. Negative or positive energy is a gun. Whatever connotation that is associated with a magical or non-magical action is purely subjective with regards to the NPC/God/PC interpreting it.
If there are rules or suggestions that apply a connotation to a spell, then those rules or suggestion are only ever suggestions on how NPC/gods/PC may interpret your actions.
If you want to play a grown up game, then do so. People for some reason may choose not to. People have a choice to play a game with either truth, or justice. I choose truth.
Actually these spells confine the soul in some way, thus preventing the resurrection spell to function. In the animated undead aspect, the soul is not contained in a place it should otherwise be.
Since when have gems and bottles deep underground been proper receptacles for souls? Trapping a soul away from the afterlife is trapping a soul away from the afterlife, and whether you do it with a gem, a bottle deep underground, or locking it in a dead body, you are doing the same thing.
I didn’t say skeletons and zombies occur naturally, I said that "many forms of intelligent undead" do.
I'm not arguing undead and negative energy. Again, as I have stated, I am showing you that:
A) Fluff can be used to point out that undead are evil and why (I used St. Cuthbert doctrine as an example of fluff that can be used to argue against your initial fluff). You opened the thread with some fluff to point against undead being evil and something to do with negative energy, I used some fluff in response to argue the other way of what you said.
B) You keep saying the rules support your claim, but you fail to provide RAW that supports your claim without reasoning outside the context of the rules. The whole [evil] as a guideline for clerics only is flawed because the reason good clerics cannot take evil spells is because they are evil.
and
C) If you're going to rule out none-core RAW, such as BoVD, than you must rule out all non-core RAW which includes Dragon Magazine.
The only argument I made is that I agree with the [evil] descriptor being an evil act and the undead created with [evil] spells are evil.
By the books, skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil. You cannot argue or reason that away. If we open up the MM or the SRD, it still says Neutral Evil (forget all past editions, that is a faulty argument). I am reasoning all undead created by arcane spells are evil (in fact, divine spells do not create undead, the restore life - this is a very big difference) and I also have reasoned that all create undead spells are evil. The information I have supplied from the books is to support this argument only. I am not arguing that negative energy is evil or that all undead are evil.
So because one of three related sources mention dark and sinister (and the primary one does not), then it must be true?
This is faulty logic. Zombies are created with dark and sinister magic. This is not stated in the spell description itself because the writers assume we the reader has some indication to inform us that animate dead is dark and sinister magic. The [evil] descriptor indicates it is evil; to write that the spell is evil in the description itself is redundant. Look at fireball. It does not have a sentence saying this is a fire based spell - that would be redundant because we have the [fire] descriptor to know it involves fire.
Since there are many people whom work on one book, I am inclined to say that that bit in the zombie description is in fact a piece of fluff.
My quote does not come out of a core book, it comes directly out of the SRD. The SRD does not include 'fluff' material, it includes all rules relevant to 3rd party publishers to make material for the d20 system and D&D. The SRD includes the exact line that I quoted, zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. This is important to the rules and so it is in the SRD, even though it is an exact quote from the MM it is relevant to the rules for 3rd party publishers of d20 material.
Please point to quotes from the RAW that informs us that undead creation is not evil and that zombies and skeletons are not evil – and stick to the current edition.
I'm not arguing undead and negative energy. Again, as I have stated, I am showing you that:
A) Fluff can be used to point out that undead are evil and why (I used St. Cuthbert doctrine as an example of fluff that can be used to argue against your initial fluff). You opened the thread with some fluff to point against undead being evil and something to do with negative energy, I used some fluff in response to argue the other way of what you said.
The original intent of the article was to illustrate how negative energy and undead relate to each other and function together. It has since changed into an undead good/evil thread. While you can argue undead being evil, you have yet to provide me with evidence that mindless creatures can even have alignments of anything other than neutral. That’s the major thing is that skeletons and zombies for some reason very recently gained alignments of Neutral Evil, by the alignment rules this is not possible or even feasible.
B) You keep saying the rules support your claim, but you fail to provide RAW that supports your claim without reasoning outside the context of the rules. The whole [evil] as a guideline for clerics only is flawed because the reason good clerics cannot take evil spells is because they are evil.
As has been said several times (sometimes by different people!), casting spells does not change your alignment; what you DID with the spell changes that. Alignment descriptors exist to easily categorize which spells clerics can and cannot cast, which domains affect them, and which spells are hedged out, dispelled by, or countered by other spells.
C) If you're going to rule out none-core RAW, such as BoVD, than you must rule out all non-core RAW which includes Dragon Magazine.
I mentioned an article from one Dragon magazine. Since you said so yourself that we aren’t going to use non-core, I told you to look in your MM. You did, but avoided all undead aside from skeleton and zombie. I told you other monsters that are in the MM that have ways in which they are naturally created (allip and bodak come to mind, I forget the others).
So, I gave you RAW. I don’t know why you are still hung up on the Dragon thing. If we aren’t going to use non-core stuff then let’s have no more of your BoVD please.
The only argument I made is that I agree with the [evil] descriptor being an evil act and the undead created with [evil] spells are evil.
Which goes against the rules, both your statement of alignment-based spells shifting your alignment and also that mindless undead can have evil alignments. The first is something that you are making up, while the latter contradicts Alignment as explained in the PH (which I have said before, and I believe was mentioned by someone else).
By the books, skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil. You cannot argue or reason that away. If we open up the MM or the SRD, it still says Neutral Evil (forget all past editions, that is a faulty argument). I am reasoning all undead created by arcane spells are evil (in fact, divine spells do not create undead, the restore life - this is a very big difference) and I also have reasoned that all create undead spells are evil. The information I have supplied from the books is to support this argument only. I am not arguing that negative energy is evil or that all undead are evil.
Argue what you will, but I disagree, and don’t have a problem telling people why I disagree with a particular rule. At the very least, it makes for interesting threads and perhaps might provide me with insight as to why a rule is the way it is. At this point however, the only end result I can come up with was that they decided to spontaneously make them evil so that paladins can smite them, and casters can hedge them away with protection/magic circle spells. That’s really not good enough for me, and it makes absolutely no sense at all, since creatures with no Intelligence score are pretty much incapable of having alignments and (again, by the rules) should be sitting right in the middle at Neutral.
Also, clerics make better necromancers than necromancers, gaining access to animate dead earlier. They can cast create undead as well, so they are just as capable (if not more so) as wizards in the area of undead animation.
This is faulty logic. Zombies are created with dark and sinister magic. This is not stated in the spell description itself because the writers assume we the reader has some indication to inform us that animate dead is dark and sinister magic. The [evil] descriptor indicates it is evil; to write that the spell is evil in the description itself is redundant. Look at fireball. It does not have a sentence saying this is a fire based spell - that would be redundant because we have the [fire] descriptor to know it involves fire.
Actually that’s working off of your own particular statement, not the rules. We cannot state that its obviously evil and will alter your alignment because it is has a descriptor. Also, many players will only purchase a PH, so it would be important to note it there, and not in the MM. In the case of fireball, it does state that it inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level, so the fact that fire is involved is stated.
My quote does not come out of a core book, it comes directly out of the SRD. The SRD does not include 'fluff' material, it includes all rules relevant to 3rd party publishers to make material for the d20 system and D&D. The SRD includes the exact line that I quoted, zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. This is important to the rules and so it is in the SRD, even though it is an exact quote from the MM it is relevant to the rules for 3rd party publishers of d20 material.
You must have not looked at all the monsters. Under dryad the SRD makes a point of noting that "Although they are generally solitary, up to seven dryads have been encountered in one place on rare occasions." That must be a very important, crunchy rule, that everyone must know about dryads. I'm also guessing that its important from a rules stance to tell me that water mephits "Water mephits are jaunty creatures with an unflagging sense of humor who quickly get on the nerves of everyone around them."
I checked further, some monster simply state a height and weight (nothing more about personality, appearance, etc), while some go into some detail to give more "fluffy" content.
Please point to quotes from the RAW that informs us that undead creation is not evil and that zombies and skeletons are not evil – and stick to the current edition.
I know what the rules say; skeletons and zombies are Neutral Evil (undead creation by itself isn’t evil, that’s something you added). As has been said though, I don’t agree with it due to contradicting information and common sense. I state that non-Intelligent creatures have an alignment of Neutral. It’s in your PH if you would bother to check. This contradicts what the MM says. Since the PH is the primary source for information on alignment rules, I'm going to go with that.
Since only zombie makes any mentioned of the fluffy content pertaining to dark, sinister magic, I am inclined to disagree with that as well. At the very least, it should be in the spell description. Since its not, and its not even mentioned in the other undead created by it (skeleton, and its not even stated as dark and sinister in the precious SRD), I'm inclined to say that yeah, its fluffy content thrown in their by whomever wrote it into the MM. The fact that its absent from the skeleton entry in the SRD could be argued that, hey, it’s not animated by dark and sinister magic (since according to you the SRD is full of hard, crunchy rules-only material that everyone must know).
Since only zombie makes any mentioned of the fluffy content pertaining to dark, sinister magic, I am inclined to disagree with that as well. At the very least, it should be in the spell description.
...but it is included with the spell... the part that says [evil]. It may not be in the description, but it is there.
...but it is included with the spell... the part that says [evil]. It may not be in the description, but it is there.
Except that unlike some descriptors like the [Fire] descriptor, alignment descriptors have been intentionally left somewhat nebulous. Nothing in core material really states that using a spell with such a descriptor is necessarily an act of that alignment.
Alignment descriptors exist to easily categorize which spells clerics can and cannot cast, which domains affect them, and which spells are hedged out, dispelled by, or countered by other spells.
This is absurd and absolutely wrong, and this is the basis for much of your argument against [evil] not really being evil. By this logic if the [evil] descriptor is only used for clerics, then why does [evil] appear on non-clerical spells? There are two non-clerical/divine spells in the SRD/Core books that have the [Evil] descriptor:
Eyebite: Necromancy [Evil], Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Nightmare: Illusion (Phantasm) [Evil], Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
By your logic, this is pointless because the [Evil] tag only exists to inform good clerics of which spells they cannot take. Again, we know that the [evil] tag interacts with alignment in some context (the descriptor portion of the SRD/books tells us that the descriptors interact with various things, the only two exceptions are language dependent and mind-affecting – they are exception because the book further elucidates upon them). We know that the books and the SRD (under Zombies description) say that zombies are /only/ created by dark/sinister magic and there is only one spell to create zombies, Animate Dead. It does not tell us in the spell description for [evil] spells that casting [evil] spells is evil because it is assumed we are aware of this by noting that the spell has the descriptor [evil].
...I told you to look in your MM. You did, but avoided all undead aside from skeleton and zombie.
Again, as I have stated, I am in disagreement with you on the animate dead spell and the [evil] description itself - not all undead nor negative energy - hence, I am only looking at skeleton and zombie descriptions to make my current argument.
The fluff thing was to show you that fluff can be used in favor of any side of an argument (you use fluff to say that undead are not evil and have nothing to do with negative energy, I used fluff to say undead are evil - neither side of the fluff is correct because they could apply to two completely different campaign worlds).
The whole non-core stuff was to ask you to be fair to those arguing against you - if you rule out non-core for them, then avoid using non-core yourself.
These two points, fluff and non-core have nothing to do with the stance I am taking in the discussion on animate dead and the [evil descriptor]. I keep trying to point out that they have nothing to do with our current discussion, but you keep arguing against them as if I were using those points to strengthen my argument. I am not doing this, those two statements (fluff and acceptance of non-core should be universal in this argument) are stand alone from my argument that animate dead and [evil] are really Evil. Arguing against my points of fluff and non-core does nothing to bolster your claim that [evil] is not really evil.
I can come up with was that they decided to spontaneously make them evil so that paladins can smite them
Which is more logical - they are evil because they were created by evil spells, or they are only evil simply as a game mechanic to allow paladins to smite them? (Hint: think Occam’s razor). I'm in favor that they are evil because they are created by evil spells. Saying its not the case is like saying a golem created with iron is not an iron golem because it was created with iron but they are only iron as a game mechanic to let fighters know what kind of weapons they might want to use when fighting them.
You can say that it makes no sense, but if you pick up your book or look in the SRD skeletons and zombies do have an evil alignment in this edition. If you argue with past edition, ie, they were not evil then, then you must pick up the argument against necromancy not being evil because it was decidedly evil in 2nd edition (again, I'm only arguing from the current edition of the rules, which is in favor of my take on [evil] and what it means). Again, you are only speculating on how [evil] cannot be evil but offer no written proof that the books say otherwise. Here is proof from the books:
1) [tags] interact with various aspects of the game, [alignment] descriptors interact with alignment. Taken from the descriptor portions of the magic section in the PHB/SRD.
2) Zombies are created with dark and sinister magic, only one spell creates zombies, animate dead. Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor. Zombie description taken from the MM and SRD
3) [Evil] is not only for clerics because it is tagged onto spells that clerics do not have access to. Taken from the spell descriptions in the PHB/SRD
4) Channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil. In the turning section in the PHB and the SRD.
Please use core material to back up your claim other then saying you rule out these claims of mine because it makes no sense to you. I keep pointing at the books and you keep saying it does not work with your internal logic. I'm not saying you can't disagree with the books, but if you think the books say otherwise, point it out to us so we can understand where you are coming from.
Undead A to Z
Allip - An Allip is the spectral remains of someone driven to suicide by a madness that affected it in life. It craves only revenge...
Bodak - Bodaks are the undead remnants of humanoids who have been destroyed by the touch of absolute evil.
Devourer - Devourers are massive creatures every bit as evil as they look.
Ghost - Some ghosts go about their business with little or no interest in the living. Others, however, are malevolent spirits who loathe all life and seek to destroy it whenever possible.
Ghoul and Ghast - These terrible creatures lurk wherever the stench of death hangs heavy, ready to devour the unwary.
Lich - As a rule, these creatures are scheming and, some say, insane. They hunger for even greater power, long-forgotten knowledge, and the most terrible of arcane secrets.
Mohrg - Mohrgs are the animated corpses of mass murderers or similar villains who died without atoning for their crimes. Tortured by an all consuming hatred of living things, they long to live again.
Mummy - Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best forgotten.
Nightshades - Nightshades are powerful undead composed of equal parts darkness and absolute evil.
Shadow - Shadows are creatures of sentient darkness, hating life and light with equal fervor.
Skeletons - Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
Spectre - They haunt the places where they died, retaining their sentience but now hating all living things.
Vampire and Vampire Spawn - Forever anchored to their coffins and the unholy earth of their graves, these nocturnal predators scheme constantly to strengthen themselves and fill the world with their foul progeny.
Wight - Wights are undead creatures given a semblence of life through sheer violence and hatred.
Wraith - Wraiths are incorporeal creatures born of evil and darkness.
Zombie - Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
Bodak - Bodaks are the undead remnants of humanoids who have been destroyed by the touch of absolute evil.
Devourer - Devourers are massive creatures every bit as evil as they look.
Ghost - Some ghosts go about their business with little or no interest in the living. Others, however, are malevolent spirits who loathe all life and seek to destroy it whenever possible.
Ghoul and Ghast - These terrible creatures lurk wherever the stench of death hangs heavy, ready to devour the unwary.
Lich - As a rule, these creatures are scheming and, some say, insane. They hunger for even greater power, long-forgotten knowledge, and the most terrible of arcane secrets.
Mohrg - Mohrgs are the animated corpses of mass murderers or similar villains who died without atoning for their crimes. Tortured by an all consuming hatred of living things, they long to live again.
Mummy - Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best forgotten.
Nightshades - Nightshades are powerful undead composed of equal parts darkness and absolute evil.
Shadow - Shadows are creatures of sentient darkness, hating life and light with equal fervor.
Skeletons - Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
Spectre - They haunt the places where they died, retaining their sentience but now hating all living things.
Vampire and Vampire Spawn - Forever anchored to their coffins and the unholy earth of their graves, these nocturnal predators scheme constantly to strengthen themselves and fill the world with their foul progeny.
Wight - Wights are undead creatures given a semblence of life through sheer violence and hatred.
Wraith - Wraiths are incorporeal creatures born of evil and darkness.
Zombie - Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
One spell that you left out of the list is summon monster, which is considered an [Evil] spell when used to summon a creature of an evil alignment. From the mechanics of that ruling, I submit that it is the creation or conjuration of an evil creature that garners those spells its descriptor. Therefore, as I have said, I have no problems with the create undead and greater create undead spells, both of which always generate an evil critter (none create ghosts, which are any alignment). Also, I never said that clerics cannot channel negative energy (which as I have also said, is a neutral force). I have always claimed the opposite as an argument against those who attempt to state that it’s evil because of that.
I couldn’t find your quote (checking the SRD and PH), so a reference would be handy. Also, to clarify the reasoning behind my stance (since you apparently think that I might have a grudge against a bad DM ruling or some such).
The rules clearly state that creatures without Intelligence must be neutral. The act of creating undead does not strike me as an "always evil no matter what you say" action, and the fact that many do and fail to supply adequate justification as to why doing so SHOULD always be evil regardless of culture or need bothers me.
I am not arguing that all undead shouldn’t be evil, or shouldn’t tend to be evil. As I have pointed out in monster fluff, many of them seem to bring this curse upon themselves through their actions in life and are being punished. That’s not an issue, that’s flavor. The fact that things that cannot think are neutral evil creates a great lapse in judgment because alignment demands the ability to think and consider the choices you make or will make, which skeletons and zombies cannot do. Its not that they don’t want to, they have no ability to do so at all.
The capability to have an Alignment originates in the Wisdom statistic.
SRD Wisdom Defined
Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.
Indeed, creatures without an intelligence trait are "mindless" -- ergo, they can not know that something is or is not right or wrong, since they don't have a mind to process the information. Skeletons and zombies are undead robots, and giving them an alignment other than neutral when mindless constructs and other creatures with intelligences of less than 2 are always neutral for the same reason is simply having a double-standard in-game; if your argument is held as true, then you can have evil characters at animal intelligence, or evil mindless constructs.
There is no rational reason for undead to be portrayed as generically evil other than "the DM said so" at all, and this is doubly so for mindless undead, who are incapable of moralization, which, by the rules, defaults them to an alignment of neutral.
Animals are neutral because their natural tendencies fall within the scope of the neutral alignment. They act in response to their drives, and on instinct, but they are not "without alignment" (ref. MM animal). If an animal's natural tendency and instinct was to attack angels on sight (but not demons), or if they need to seek out and befriend demons, if they hate churches or if they are greedy with their kills even after they are full then they might be naturally evil. If they hunt demons, if they seek out paladins to become a mount, if they hate unhallowed areas, if they allow the needy to eat from their kills even while they go hungry they might be naturally good. Instead they are naturally neutral because they act in their own interest without being selfish, similar to a farmer.
Animals that are intelligent tend to range from Chaotic Good to True Neutral. People generally feel that animals act in a good manner toward their own species, and while they are beneficial as a resource or as a companion, they can be dangerous to people if threatened, injured or hungry.
Constructs also are neutral because their natural tendencies fall within the scope of the neutral alignment. Their animating force is an elemental spirit from the plane of earth (ref. MM Golem). While they do nothing (except respond to an attack) if not ordered, they also act like an elemental force of earth. They do not respond when addressed, they tend to slam, bull rush or overrun, they act as if they are impervious to damage and they use their weight, mass and bulk to hinder movement.
Constructs that are intelligent tend to act in a Lawful Neutral manner. This is why good and evil creatures tend to regard contructs as neutral until proven otherwise. They follow orders without emotion, carrying out missions without consideration to anything except success. They are neither cold nor friendly. They act like tools. They promote and enjoy structure through their actions.
Undead are animated by a spirit or supernatural force (Ref. MM undead definition). While they also generally do nothing if not ordered, they respond to positive and negative energy, act in an alien and unnatural manner that is not just different but contrary to life, tend to fight living things more zealously than objects or constructs, are repulsed by light, hallowed places, good aligned people and society and are attracted to darkness, unhallowed (evil) places, evil aligned people and solitary places. This makes their natural tendency evil, and they cannot choose otherwise because they are unintelligent.
Undead that are intelligent tend to act in a Neutral Evil manner. They act with extremes of emotion that tend to be negative. They are selfish, malicious, greedy, hateful, needlessly violent, sometimes impulsive, sometimes calculating, they are always cold and unfriendly even when they force themselves to be hospitable.
Unfortunately skeletons and zombies are not intelligent, and thus are not aware of the act of "murder". Therefore, they cannot be evil since they are not consciously committing the act. That much is made clear in the PH under alignment.
Antioch, By your logic, a Dretch is not evil because it is mindless and not really aware of any of its actions. The fact it is a fiend is irrelevant, just as you argue that the fact the skeleton or zombie is undead is irrelevant.
I'm well aware the Dretch is a fiend and has the evil subtype. However, such an evil label is also applied to the spells that served to create every skeleton in existence. So if you want to say the Dretch is evil simply because of its subtype, I will point out the evil label given to the spells that serve to create undead. With that said, you cannot defend this stance simply by pointing to evil labels.
Now, most would say a Dretch not being evil is a bit preposterous. I implore you to defend your view. Just because something is mindless, is not requisite for moral neutrality. It becomes quite apparent that some creatures are simply evil because of their nature. And because one cannot redeem something that has no mind, it is simply evil.
There is no rational reason for undead to be portrayed as generically evil other than "the DM said so" at all
And because the MM says the majority (not all, just the better half) of undead as having a contempt for the life, seeking to destroy the living?
, and this is doubly so for mindless undead, who are incapable of moralization, which, by the rules, defaults them to an alignment of neutral.
The rules defaults them to neutral?!? You mean, aside from the fact that the current MM lists mindless undead (zombies/skeletons) as Neutral Evil?
Intelligence does not define the capability to have an alignment, only the capability to choose your own (ref. PHB alignment). Sentience gives a creature the ability to choose a different alignment than what is presented, unless the creature is naturally aligned by being from the outer planes or is a magical beast.
Animals are neutral because their natural tendencies fall within the scope of the neutral alignment. They act in response to their drives, and on instinct, but they are not "without alignment" (ref. MM animal). If an animal's natural tendency and instinct was to attack angels on sight (but not demons), or if they need to seek out and befriend demons, if they hate churches or if they are greedy with their kills even after they are full then they might be naturally evil. If they hunt demons, if they seek out paladins to become a mount, if they hate unhallowed areas, if they allow the needy to eat from their kills even while they go hungry they might be naturally good. Instead they are naturally neutral because they act in their own interest without being selfish, similar to a farmer.
Animals that are intelligent tend to range from Chaotic Good to True Neutral. People generally feel that animals act in a good manner toward their own species, and while they are beneficial as a resource or as a companion, they can be dangerous to people if threatened, injured or hungry.
Constructs also are neutral because their natural tendencies fall within the scope of the neutral alignment. Their animating force is an elemental spirit from the plane of earth (ref. MM Golem). While they do nothing (except respond to an attack) if not ordered, they also act like an elemental force of earth. They do not respond when addressed, they tend to slam, bull rush or overrun, they act as if they are impervious to damage and they use their weight, mass and bulk to hinder movement.
Constructs that are intelligent tend to act in a Lawful Neutral manner. This is why good and evil creatures tend to regard constructs as neutral until proven otherwise. They follow orders without emotion, carrying out missions without consideration to anything except success. They are neither cold nor friendly. They act like tools. They promote and enjoy structure through their actions.
Undead are animated by a spirit or supernatural force (Ref. MM undead definition). While they also generally do nothing if not ordered, they respond to positive and negative energy, act in an alien and unnatural manner that is not just different but contrary to life, tend to fight living things more zealously than objects or constructs, are repulsed by light, hallowed places, good aligned people and society and are attracted to darkness, unhallowed (evil) places, evil aligned people and solitary places. This makes their natural tendency evil, and they cannot choose otherwise because they are unintelligent.
Undead that are intelligent tend to act in a Neutral Evil manner. They act with extremes of emotion that tend to be negative. They are selfish, malicious, greedy, hateful, needlessly violent, sometimes impulsive, sometimes calculating, they are always cold and unfriendly even when they force themselves to be hospitable.
1) Most demons, devils, etc. are sentient. They can not change alignment by choice.
2) Neither can most monsters, such as dragons, etc., who are filled with "evil energies" or some such. They are "naturally evil", despite their self-aware natures.
3) If I program an automata to go on a killing spree, it's "natural alignment" would be some sort of evil, but it doesn't change alignment.
This is a case of working from back from the conclusion. Golems orders to go on a permanent rampage or man-killer animals do not shift alignment to NE -- they are incapable of moral action because they lack the intelligence for moral choice. The same applies to mindless undead. Saying that some quality of mindless undead that would give them a greater disposition to go on a rampage is meaningless; mindlessness removes moral culpability, irrelevant to the actions or predispositions of the beings in question, which is the standard for all D&D.
Antioch, By your logic, a Dretch is not evil because it is mindless and not really aware of any of its actions. The fact it is a fiend is irrelevant, just as you argue that the fact the skeleton or zombie is undead is irrelevant.
I'm well aware the Dretch is a fiend and has the evil subtype. However, such an evil label is also applied to the spells that served to create every skeleton in existence. So if you want to say the Dretch is evil simply because of its subtype, I will point out the evil label given to the spells that serve to create undead. With that said, you cannot defend this stance simply by pointing to evil labels.
Now, most would say a Dretch not being evil is a bit preposterous. I implore you to defend your view. Just because something is mindless, is not requisite for moral neutrality. It becomes quite apparent that some creatures are simply evil because of their nature. And because one cannot redeem something that has no mind, it is simply evil.
Dretches have an Intelligence score of 5, which is enough to have an alignment; it also does not state that Dretches are mindless in their description, nor do they posses the mindless trait.
You may be thinking of a Lemure, which is mindless and lacks an intelligence trait. Given that Lemure are created from the souls of evil creatures, it makes sense that they would be evil; while mindless in their current form, they are still the wicked souls they were in life.
Compare this to mindless undead, who are corpses animated by negative energy, which is neither good nor evil, simply a neutral elemental force of death.
Now, most would say a Dretch not being evil is a bit preposterous. I implore you to defend your view. Just because something is mindless, is not requisite for moral neutrality. It becomes quite apparent that some creatures are simply evil because of their nature. And because one cannot redeem something that has no mind, it is simply evil.
A Dretch has int 5. It is not mindless, just stupid. If said Dretch was in a town and had no orders and could do bad things it would. If a zombie was in a town without orders, it would do nothing at all.
For people who keep quoting the subtype. A subtype spell has no affect on alignment. A fireball takes you no closer to being on the fire side in the battle of fire vs water nor does it infest your soul with fire or light you on fire. Thus an evil subtype takes you no closer to the battle of good vs evil nor does it infest your soul with evil or enlighten you on evil etc.
If it does make you evil, then what is the exchange rate of good descriptors to evil ones? I assume since animate dead is 6th level, and casting for any reason gets you 6 lvs of evil, then 6 protection from evils cancel it out. LOL.
1) Most demons, devils, etc. are sentient. They can not change alignment by choice.
2) Neither can most monsters, such as dragons, etc., who are filled with "evil energies" or some such. They are "naturally evil", despite their self-aware natures.
To restate:
Intelligence does not define the capability to have an alignment, only the capability to choose your own (ref. PHB alignment). Sentience gives a creature the ability to choose a different alignment than what is presented, unless the creature is naturally aligned by being from the outer planes or is a magical beast.
Maybe you missed that part.
3) If I program an automata to go on a killing spree, it's "natural alignment" would be some sort of evil, but it doesn't change alignment.
It would be performing evil actions, which is different from being evil aligned.
This is a case of working from back from the conclusion. Golems orders to go on a permanent rampage or man-killer animals do not shift alignment to NE -- they are incapable of moral action because they lack the intelligence for moral choice. The same applies to mindless undead. Saying that some quality of mindless undead that would give them a greater disposition to go on a rampage is meaningless; mindlessness removes moral culpability, irrelevant to the actions or predispositions of the beings in question, which is the standard for all D&D.
Golems are incapable of shifting to NE due to their actions because they are not responsible for their actions, nevertheless, they are Neutrally aligned, rather than "without alignment".
Skeletons are incapable of shifting to Neutral or Good (on the good/evil axis)regardless of their actions, because they are not responsible for them. Nevertheless, they are Evil.
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 not really sure why this is commonly interpreted to apply to mindless creatures. Animals have minds, intelligence scores, they are even social. Mindlessness isn’t mentioned in the paragraph at all. Incapacity for moral action is the qualification for automatic neutrality. Skeletons are perfectly capable of moral action, as proven by their alignment section.
For people who keep quoting the subtype. A subtype spell has no affect on alignment. A fireball takes you no closer to being on the fire side in the battle of fire vs water nor does it infest your soul with fire or light you on fire. Thus an evil subtype takes you no closer to the battle of good vs evil nor does it infest your soul with evil or enlighten you on evil etc.
Because water runs downhill doesn’t mean helium has to.
Your logic is flawed, as I'm sure you know. No two spell descriptors have to work exactly the same way, affecting and being affected by other rules in all the same manner.
Please explain the section on page 33 PHB "Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful Spells:" where it says "Spells associated with a particular alignment are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell description."
To point out the obvious, casting fire spells don’t make your soul more fiery oriented because it’s not in the rules. Though often the strawman for the [evil] is not evil position, being more fiery doesn’t matter to elemental deities because there is no "Elemental Alignment" where you choose to be aligned with Water, Air, Earth or Fire (makes me think of MtG). That doesn’t mean that such a thing isn’t possible (for a Prestige class or something). It just means that it’s not the way it works now.
[Evil] spells however, are associated with the evil alignment. It says so in the rules.
Your logic is flawed, as I'm sure you know. No two spell descriptors have to work exactly the same way, affecting and being affected by other rules in all the same manner.
Please explain the section on page 33 PHB "Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful Spells:" where it says "Spells associated with a particular alignment are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell description."
To point out the obvious, casting fire spells don’t make your soul more fiery oriented because it’s not in the rules. Though often the strawman for the [evil] is not evil position, being more fiery doesn’t matter to elemental deities because there is no "Elemental Alignment" where you choose to be aligned with Water, Air, Earth or Fire (makes me think of MtG). That doesn’t mean that such a thing isn’t possible (for a Prestige class or something). It just means that it’s not the way it works now.
[Evil] spells however, are associated with the evil alignment. It says so in the rules.
And because the MM says the majority (not all, just the better half) of undead as having a contempt for the life, seeking to destroy the living?
Which is what I was referring to with the "DM said so" comment. Just because Wizards decides to make most undead evil, or aberrations, or whatever, doesn't mean that there is any real reason for them to be that way; Wizards has to support their monster machine by creating monsters who are only evil because they are "creepy" instead of actually trying to explore death or alien points of view. There is no reason why undead should all be portrayed as evil, particularly when books of utterly terrible quality like the BoED are made with what amounts to good undead (or Deathless, one of the worst about-faces I've seen in RPGs).
The rules defaults them to neutral?!? You mean, aside from the fact that the current MM lists mindless undead (zombies/skeletons) as Neutral Evil?
Which is in direct contradiction for the rules on alignment in the PHB, which supersede those in the MM, given that the only real detail on alignments is in the PHB. Mindless undead being evil falls under the "DM/Wizards fiat" in this case, since it directly contradicts stated rules for no given reason.
It is also possible that skeletons and zombies are exceptions, isn't it?
If there are exceptions, there are reasons for why a specific case is different from the norm. I'd expect Wizard to provide a valid reason why mindless undead are evil other than "undead are creeeeeeepy".
For people who keep quoting the subtype. A subtype spell has no affect on alignment.
This is wrong. First off, spells do not have subtypes, they have descriptors. We know there is an interaction between descriptor and alignment because the books expresses this comment under descriptors in the magic section.
Here is the direct quote from the SRD, which is, in turn, a direct quote from the PHB:
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.
Descriptors govern how the spells interact with, amongst other things, alignment. Interact means to 'act upon one another'. If two things interact, they have some affect on each other. So, spells affect alignment and alignments affect spells in some context. It’s already agreed that alignment acts upon spells in the case of divine spellcasting - alignment is the deciding factor in which spells a divine can choose/prepare. However, if this was only the case, the descriptor would only be a guideline and not an interaction as it is classified. I am highlighting the term interaction because the writers have specifically chosen this word since they added descriptors to D&D (ie, its the same wording in 3.0 and 3.5). Thus, it is an interaction because descriptors act upon alignment as well as alignment acts upon descriptors. See below for more on this argument (*).
A fireball takes you no closer to being on the fire side in the battle of fire vs water nor does it infest your soul with fire or light you on fire. Thus an evil subtype takes you no closer to the battle of good vs evil nor does it infest your soul with evil or enlighten you on evil etc.
This reasoning is counterintuitive to your statements. The concept of fire and water (or cold in the case of spell descriptors) is much different than the concept of good and evil (i.e., fire/water does not affect class choices, spell selection, deity worship, etc.).
Yet again, look at it this way, if I'm fighting a war against water, I would be sure to use fire because I know fire is effective against water (increased damage = interaction between [fire] spells and [cold] creatures, the cold subtype increases the damage of the fire descriptor - the fire descriptor causes creatures of the cold subtype to take more damage). Following this logic, good is surely more effective against evil and vice versa. Now, evil and good are concepts in the game that affect many things (such as choice of class, deity worship, etc.). We could reason that since good is more effective against evil, it must be good to use good because removing evil from the world (which oppresses, hurts, or destroys innocent life) is a good act (protecting innocent life). By extension then, since evil is good against good, it must fall in line with the ethos of evil (oppress us, hurts, or destroys innocent life). Then again, this is by extension that fire/evil must be similar descriptor concepts.
If it does make you evil, then what is the exchange rate of good descriptors to evil ones? I assume since animate dead is 6th level, and casting for any reason gets you 6 lvs of evil, then 6 protection from evils cancel it out. LOL.
This is just ridiculous. This is the mentality that brings folks to not understand how [evil] could affect alignment in the game. First off, this is metagaming. However, if a character thought it was possible to balance their alignment by casting [good] and [evil] spells, then casting [good] spells to affect alignment would not be a good act. This is because they are casting [good] for selfish reasons and not because it is in-line with the ethos of good (protecting innocent life and all that jazz).
In the same vein, there is no set X mount of good/evil acts affects a characters alignment to the X degree. This is purposefully vague. Not for the fact that the designers are trying to suggest that good/evil acts do not affect alignment. On the contrary, the designers are vague because alignment is subjective to the players (a cohesive whole, this includes DMs and players alike). It is up to them, the players of D&D, to decide how evil Evil is in their game and how much if affects things like alignment. Some groups might think stealing is an evil act and this is a slow decline towards an alignment of evil. Some groups might think stealing is a viable answer to an oppressive government/monarchy/class system. I'm not advocating either, I am saying either could be justified depending on the morals, values and beliefs of each gaming group and the individuals playing in those groups.
Also, the problem with starting to look at X amount of acts turns into alignment shift and placing importance in alignment and maintaining good or evil is that alignment is not meant to be used like this, it is merely in indication of the morals of a character. A good player is more likely to do what they can to help their fellow man, an evil character is more than likely to do what they can to hinder their fellow man. It should be noted evil is not the “I do what I can for myself first mentality”, which is neutral. It is ok to do what one can for oneself; it is the interaction with other individuals that begins to determine the good and evil side of the alignment as concerns D&D. Willfully helping, assisting, respecting other individuals is good while willfully hurting, oppressing or killing other individuals is evil. The problem with alignment shifts is that people are upset to think that the character they envision as 'good' is acting opposite to this belief, or else a player wants to maintain a certain alignment for the benefits they think they are receiving. People need to look beyond this and play they way they feel the character should be played, if it turns out that the desired alignment and the actual alignment are two different things, it should merely be noted on the character sheet and play should continue (the player can consider it a self discovery).
As it stands, the designers have decided that some spells fall into the category of willfully hurting, oppressing, or killing other individuals and they have labeled them as [evil].
This always leads to the argument, well if X spell is [evil] why isn't y spell evil because it does nearly the same thing? This argument almost always points to damage based spells only. By core/raw/SRD rules, doing damage is not an [evil]/Evil/evil act in itself. Swinging a sword and injuring someone is not evil, casting fireball is not evil - even when these two things willfully cause damage to another individual. These are not evil of themselves because the intent of the damage is more an indicator of whether or not the act is good or evil. Swinging a sword at a bunch of marauding orcs who are coming to town to ****, burn and pillage is a good act, it is protecting innocent life. Casting a fireball at those orcs is a good act for the same reason. Swinging a sword at the shop keep because you think he is price gouging is not a good act. Tossing a fireball into the duke's castle because you think he is taxing you too much is not a good act. These are borderline acts however, they are not directly evil because the fighter/mage is not hurting these people without provocation. However, these acts certainly aren't in line with the ethos of being good either. It’s a judgment call for the arbitrator of the rules, the DM. Most DMs would probably rule these acts as evil, but what if the shop keep was evil and he was price gouging to oppress the peasants that come to his shop, which is the only within 60 miles of the poor community he lives in while he's living like a king?
So where does this all go? [Evil] interacts with alignment, the rules say this. The rules don't specify how much or to what extent because the demographics of all players of D&D has a wide range of the interpretation of evil itself.
Animating undead to make them do an act of good, may be a good action but causing the necromantic energy to flow through you and putting your mind in contact with mental domination of undead begins corrupting you. Power corrupts, and the absolute power over death corrupts absolutely.
Then why are true resurrection and dominate person fair play?
What you need to look at is what makes a spell evil. One good source is The Book of Vile Darkness, written by Monte Cook, one of the original authors of 3rd ed D&D. On page 77 is tells you what an evil spell is. If the spell has the evil descriptor it is evil, anything that spell does is evil. Even if you cast it on evil, the out come is evil. As Mr. Cook says, fireball is not evil, because it has many uses. Wither flesh, is ALWAYS evil, no matter how it is used. It is evil even if you just prepare it--it is an evil act.
How does this affect undead? Like I said, all spells used to create undead are evil. The outcome is evil, so you can easily say that mindless undead created from the spell is evil. Why else would it be an evil spell?
You are begging the question, unless I am very much mistaken. Besides, the Book of Vile Darkness and its counterpart contradict the Core understanding of alignment in several places, and as such I would not trust them as good guidelines for the operation of D&D ethics as a whole.
- By RAW, Zombies aren't actually Neutral Evil. Seriously
Check out WotC's rule on primary and secondary sources. If a secondary source contradicts a primary source, then the primary source is correct. Always. Now, in this instance, the PHB is the primary source for alignment. Therefore, as the MM's statblock for the Zombie (or Skeleton) contradicts the PHB, the PHB is correct, which means that a Zombie (or Skeleton) is actually True Neutral. Fun. - Casting [evil] spells, by RAW, is evil. I don't like that fact (in fact, I downright hate it), but it's the truth, thanks to the gem that is the BoVD. That being said, as the BoVD contradicts itself multiple times on this issue alone, it's a piece of RAW that anyone who wants a serious discussion is going to have to throw out instantly.
- Nothing in the RAW aside from the BoVD states that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. I defy anyone who disagrees with me to point out where it says otherwise. Why is the burden of proof on me, not you? Well, because D&D's ruleset operates under an inclusive architecture, by which I mean that what matter is what's there, not what isn't. In other words, the rules don't say that it's impossible a dead person to get up and walk around (seriously, check the rules on death; there aren't any :D), but that doesn't mean that you can, because they also make no mention of you being able to.
As this relates to this issue... Nowhere in the PHB (or any other supplemental material aside from the aforementioned BoVD does it state that casting an [evil] spell is evil. Therefore, because of how the ruleset operates, it's not evil, and I'm correct. However, if you can find some rules-text that says otherwise, I'll gladly admit to being wrong. - If you want to get really deep, Undead aren't really evil because they kill things. If an Undead kills because of some need or urge, not out of maliciousness, I don't see them as being evil, as there was no morally wrong intent behind the killing (in the same way that I don't see killing a brutal warlord as being bad because the intent of the perpetrator was to save lives or merely to consider living him/herself, depending on him/her being good or neutral respectively). Even if they were acting maliciously, ironically, the people who claim that they should be innately evil would be stopping the undead from being evil, because if they have an innate hatred of life and love of killing, then they don't really have a choice in the matter and therefore aren't capable of moral thought, so can't be evil either :P
- I think people have already got this, but I do see it quite often. Creating Undead does not necessarily bind the souls who used to own the bodies, or harm them in any way. This relates to a previous point; until the rules explicitly state that they do, then by RAW, they don't.
- I see the whole "X clerics can't cast X" thing as PR more than anything. Good gods don't want their heralds using spells and powers that tend to make people wretch, as gods are dependant on followers, and there's nothing like bringing a horde of zombies into a quasi-medieval town to lose worshippers in droves. Just to be clear, though, icky does not mean evil. It means just that, icky. A lying corpse isn't evil, so why is a walking one?
- One last thing on the whole dignity issue. Objectively, it's not really evil. Yes, it upsets people, but upsetting people isn't evil. I can pretty much guarantee that the drow priestess of the temple of Lolth that your party just destroyed is going to be upset, but the party who did it will still be lauded as heroes, and have the alignments to match. Furthermore, relating to a previous point, given that in the case of many forms of undead, the soul isn't even aware of what's happening, then I question the sense of such an argument. The soul has no idea about what's happening, and probably never will. Hell, they don't even remember their former body (petitioners don't remember their former lives), so I don't really understand how their dignity is being violated.
Also, there's the whole issue of hypocrisy. Unless your adventurers are all vegans who've taken Vow of Purity (a feat that doesn't let you touch dead bodies), then they'll be dealing with dead bodies every day; eating them, and using them as tools. Unlike zombies and skeletons, though, animals do actually have an Intelligence score, albeit a low one, and as such, if anything, they should be treated with more respect. After all, they have souls too.
Alignment discussions are fun! :P
Which is what I was referring to with the "DM said so" comment. Just because Wizards decides to make most undead evil, or aberrations, or whatever, doesn't mean that there is any real reason for them to be that way; Wizards has to support their monster machine by creating monsters who are only evil because they are "creepy" instead of actually trying to explore death or alien points of view. There is no reason why undead should all be portrayed as evil, particularly when books of utterly terrible quality like the BoED are made with what amounts to good undead (or Deathless, one of the worst about-faces I've seen in RPGs).
Which is in direct contradiction for the rules on alignment in the PHB, which supersede those in the MM, given that the only real detail on alignments is in the PHB. Mindless undead being evil falls under the "DM/Wizards fiat" in this case, since it directly contradicts stated rules for no given reason.
If there are exceptions, there are reasons for why a specific case is different from the norm. I'd expect Wizard to provide a valid reason why mindless undead are evil other than "undead are creeeeeeepy".
So this argument has gone from fluff, to rules, to fluff again? The only argument that you are making here is that you think undead should be good now (forget what the rest of the world thinks, WotC should make judgment calls about undead based on your opinion). By the by, undead being evil is far from being different from the norm. Likewise, when playing with the rules as written, there is no 'because the DM said so' - that's an argument that goes for someone who is playing in a way the rules were not designed to be used (i.e. player: the MM says skeletons are evil, why are you're skeletons good? DM: Well, the rules say they are evil, but they are good because I said so -- that is the 'DM said so' mentality).
Most real world cultures view the living dead as evil or unnatural. Especially the dead risen via magic or unnatural (creepy) means. Now, a lot of world cultures do revere the risen dead especially if the dead have risen on account of divine intervention. And what do you know, the game agrees with this interpretation. Using magic to raise dead and undead raised through unnatural means (ghoul disease, mummy rot, bit by vampire, dead murders, restless villains souls) are evil. And all the clerical spells to raise the dead (reincarnation, resurrection) are acts of good.
As a case in point, there are quite a number of real world cultures who view the living dead as signs of evil powers (evil entities, worshippers of evil entities and what have you).
Yes, you could point out some real world cultures that see things differently with respect to undead, but again, we're talking the greater majority of the inhabitants of the earth who do see undead as evil.
They, WotC, do not offer an explanation of why undead are evil (and TSR with necromancy in 2e) because some gamers might see this as WotC imposing too much of their own religious mindsight/morals onto the game. With the fluff not in there, DMs are allowed to use their own real world morals to explain why undead are evil.
This was the same argument in prior additions, especially after TSR finally came out and said necromancy is evil - and that's all necromancy, unlike WotC necromancy which is not all evil.
I see no reason for WotC to make animating the dead and basic undead (skeletons and zombies) good just because a few people want this to happen.
Now, the few people that do not think undead should be evil or that animating the dead should not be evil or that using negative energy should not be evil, there is nothing to stop you from changing the rules in your game and playing the way you want to. However, since the majority of players do play with undead as evil and animating the dead as evil and, a portion of these, as negative energy as evil, lets leave the rules as is until there is a large scale cultural world change to undead as good.
To restate: Maybe you missed that part.
No, I did not. Perhaps you missed the part where I argued against the general silliness of the alignment system? In this instance I was referring to its mechanics specifically, of how magical creatures are general "stuck" with an alignment due to some mystical force, which is something I've never supported except for exemplar outsiders, since their thematic purpose is to represent some alignment combination. Without free will, good and evil are meaningless.
It would be performing evil actions, which is different from being evil aligned.
One without a mind can not perform evil actions; a golem in this case is like a gun. It simply does what it was made to do. While the results are evil, the full blame falls on the one who set the machine about its task.
Golems are incapable of shifting to NE due to their actions because they are not responsible for their actions, nevertheless, they are Neutrally aligned, rather than "without alignment".
Neutral is without alignment for mindless creatures. PHB 104, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral actions are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers are tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for moral right or wrong behavior."
What quality makes one incapable of moral right or wring behavior? Intelligence of 2 or less. Mindless undead fit this criteria, and thus, should be neutral, just like guns.
Skeletons are incapable of shifting to Neutral or Good (on the good/evil axis)regardless of their actions, because they are not responsible for them. Nevertheless, they are Evil.
Based on what reasoning? Negative energy is not evil anymore than positive energy is good. There is nothing present to cause an "innate" alignment shift than there is for golems or other constructs.
I'm not really sure why this is commonly interpreted to apply to mindless creatures. Animals have minds, intelligence scores, they are even social. Mindlessness isn’t mentioned in the paragraph at all. Incapacity for moral action is the qualification for automatic neutrality. Skeletons are perfectly capable of moral action, as proven by their alignment section.
Your conclusion is fallacious. In D&D, there are two things that modify your alignment -- your "alignment energies", and choice. Creatures of animal intelligence do not have the capacity for moral choice. How can we conclude that creatures with less intelligence than animals similarly do not have the capacity for moral choice? Given that negative energy is neutral as well, there is no reason for undead to be evil except for their own choice, or other factors of their condition indirectly driving them towards evil; I've always been of the opinion that "feeders" would have a far greater number of evil members than undead like liches, etc, who are not put in a position of viewing their former race as food; further, nothing makes a Morg evil, but it is reasonable to presume that mass murderers and other heinous people brought back from the dead aren't, as a group, going to start having a sudden change of heart.
I think people have already got this, but I do see it quite often. Creating Undead does not necessarily bind the souls who used to own the bodies, or harm them in any way. This relates to a previous point; until the rules explicitly state that they do, then by RAW, they don't.
Actually, it says in the Libris Mortis that undead do not have the souls of the original creature in them, against all reason. Further, in D&D, nothing can compel a soul to return against its will, so once a soul has departed to the out realms, it can not be returned to an undead body unless it wills it.
Very interesting read. Just thought I'd point out a few things.
- By RAW, Zombies aren't actually Neutral Evil. Seriously
Check out WotC's rule on primary and secondary sources. If a secondary source contradicts a primary source, then the primary source is correct. Always. Now, in this instance, the PHB is the primary source for alignment. Therefore, as the MM's statblock for the Zombie (or Skeleton) contradicts the PHB, the PHB is correct, which means that a Zombie (or Skeleton) is actually True Neutral. Fun.- Casting [evil] spells, by RAW, is evil. I don't like that fact (in fact, I downright hate it), but it's the truth, thanks to the gem that is the BoVD. That being said, as the BoVD contradicts itself multiple times on this issue alone, it's a piece of RAW that anyone who wants a serious discussion is going to have to throw out instantly.
- Unless I'm mistaken, the D&D primary sorces are all three of the core books; PHB, DMG, and MM.
- Explicitly stating '[Evil] is evil' in the BoVD is not because it was meant as some superfluous statement. Its added in the BoVD as a clarification. The authors of the Core Books already think [Evil] is evil and most likely presume its a logical concept. However, they may just have felt it necessary to actually say it in a secondary source somewhere because of all the 'its not explicitly stated in fine print in the core books so [Evil] has nothing to do with evil.'
I think Traevanon has found the best argument to indicate [Evil] spells are evil and I would like to see where the rules refute or contradict themselves. His quote is taken from page 33 of the PHB (not the BoVD or any other secondary source). If, "Spells associated with a particular alignment are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell description," then how can [Evil] not be evil if its associated with the evil alignment?
No, I did not. Perhaps you missed the part where I argued against the general silliness of the alignment system? In this instance I was referring to its mechanics specifically, of how magical creatures are general "stuck" with an alignment due to some mystical force, which is something I've never supported except for exemplar outsiders, since their thematic purpose is to represent some alignment combination. Without free will, good and evil are meaningless.
So, not only should undead be good, now the alignment system is silly. Look, no one is telling you that you can't change your game to whatever you like, but don't start telling everyone they need to play your way. No one is telling you to play with evil undead, they are just explaining to you that in the RAW, undead are generally (ie mostly) evil.
Based on what reasoning? Negative energy is not evil anymore than positive energy is good. There is nothing present to cause an "innate" alignment shift than there is for golems or other constructs.
It’s already been quoted from both the PHB and SRD, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act. Again though, this is by the RAW, you are free to change it in your games just like undead and alignment in general.
Your conclusion is fallacious. In D&D, there are two things that modify your alignment -- your "alignment energies", and choice. Creatures of animal intelligence do not have the capacity for moral choice. How can we conclude that creatures with less intelligence than animals similarly do not have the capacity for moral choice? Given that negative energy is neutral as well, there is no reason for undead to be evil except for their own choice, or other factors of their condition indirectly driving them towards evil; I've always been of the opinion that "feeders" would have a far greater number of evil members than undead like liches, etc, who are not put in a position of viewing their former race as food; further, nothing makes a Morg evil, but it is reasonable to presume that mass murderers and other heinous people brought back from the dead aren't, as a group, going to start having a sudden change of heart.
Your conclusion is fallacious, but again only by the RAW, you are free to change it in your games to work this way, but that doesn't make it apply to everyone else or alter the rules in any way.
Now, of course, your dislike of the alignment system as is and want for undead to be good could lead to this fallacious reasoning. First off, alignment is by choice. There are no magical energies that make sentient beings an alignment. Now, being from a certain ethos (celestial/good, demon/evil) one is always good (or, conversely, evil). They are all born and raised this way, it is their culture, their birthright, their destiny, whatever. It seems alien to our free-willed human minds, but it’s just the way it is.
Again, negative energy is evil, its been proven and you can go dig around in the SRD to find it in the Turning section (the quote is 'Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil', once again, the statement is channeling positive energy is a good act, channeling negative is an evil act, regardless if a cleric is neutral). Negative energy is evil because, aside from the fact that we have a direct quote from the PHB telling us this, it harms and destroys life (which is also a core ethos of evil). Vice versa for positive energy. Nothing in the book dictates that animals do not have the capacity for moral choice, just that they are not governed by a human sense of morality and thus are always neutral.
Once again, you're free to run your games in any context that you wish. However, this does not change the rules of the game and no one else has to play the way you want the game to work.
So this argument has gone from fluff, to rules, to fluff again? The only argument that you are making here is that you think undead should be good now (forget what the rest of the world thinks, WotC should make judgment calls about undead based on your opinion).
It seems to be a horror to involve fluff and mechanics in one's arguments, but for no perceivable reason. How is it a bad thing to use both? Undead being evil goes against both mechanics and makes no sense fluff-wise. Thus, I use both.
By the by, undead being evil is far from being different from the norm.
Argument ad populum is not a valid reasoning for anything.
Likewise, when playing with the rules as written, there is no 'because the DM said so' - that's an argument that goes for someone who is playing in a way the rules were not designed to be used (i.e. player: the MM says skeletons are evil, why are you're skeletons good? DM: Well, the rules say they are evil, but they are good because I said so -- that is the 'DM said so' mentality).
Except that it is. The RAW is used as a standard because it is the official product made by the people who designed the game, none of which means that the rules are necessarily consistent or make sense.
For example, if I designed a game system, and had Finger of Death as a level 1 spell, and Magic Missle as a level 9 spell, that would be mechanically inconsistent with the spell-level system, even though it is RAW, because I made the system, and they are my rules. Simply because a rules system comes from an official publisher doesn't mean that it's good (i.e. Paladium) or makes sense, either in part or in whole.
Most real world cultures view the living dead as evil or unnatural. Especially the dead risen via magic or unnatural (creepy) means. Now, a lot of world cultures do revere the risen dead especially if the dead have risen on account of divine intervention. And what do you know, the game agrees with this interpretation. Using magic to raise dead and undead raised through unnatural means (ghoul disease, mummy rot, bit by vampire, dead murders, restless villains souls) are evil. And all the clerical spells to raise the dead (reincarnation, resurrection) are acts of good.
Which relies on an ad populum argument. Simply because most of the world thinks that undead should be evil doesn't mean that there is any good reason for this to be so. Heck, if we go by that standard, most commonly held negative stereotypes would automatically be true, simply because they are commonly held. This is not a justification by any stretch of the meaning.
The fallacy here is revealed further by deathless, the "good undead", which are terribly inconsistent with setting material (positive energy makes animate corpses?). Simply put, there are plenty of systems one could develop where undead are good, and Wizard's has even given its nod in this direction, even if it is in a rather incomprehensible fashion.
As a case in point, there are quite a number of real world cultures who view the living dead as signs of evil powers (evil entities, worshippers of evil entities and what have you).
Which is, again, ad populum. I have no problem with some undead being evil; my point is that there is no reason for 99.99% of undead to be evil.
Yes, you could point out some real world cultures that see things differently with respect to undead, but again, we're talking the greater majority of the inhabitants of the earth who do see undead as evil.
Argument ad populum once again. The opinions of the greater majority of anything are irrelevant; only the offered reasons are worthy of consideration.
They, WotC, do not offer an explanation of why undead are evil (and TSR with necromancy in 2e) because some gamers might see this as WotC imposing too much of their own religious mindsight/morals onto the game. With the fluff not in there, DMs are allowed to use their own real world morals to explain why undead are evil.
Honestly, it would be far better if WotC just made a good supplement that covered how undeath could be used instead of avoiding the issue. Instead of, say, the Libris Mortis that was printed, why not make a book that covers the "default" D&D presentation of undead, and goes into other possible systems and structures that present undead in a different fashion? Even a decent sidebar or three would go along way.
This was the same argument in prior additions, especially after TSR finally came out and said necromancy is evil - and that's all necromancy, unlike WotC necromancy which is not all evil.
Which makes no sense. Death, entropy, and the forces of decay are not evil, in and of themselves.
I see no reason for WotC to make animating the dead and basic undead (skeletons and zombies) good just because a few people want this to happen.
I see no reason why WotC has to choose only one, and can't cater to everyone. Further more, I see no reason why WotC has to degrade their rules systems with inconsistencies because players have trouble wrapping their heads around the notion that necromancers and undead don't have to be evil (not a personal attack against you, but I've seen it quite a few times).
Now, the few people that do not think undead should be evil or that animating the dead should not be evil or that using negative energy should not be evil, there is nothing to stop you from changing the rules in your game and playing the way you want to. However, since the majority of players do play with undead as evil and animating the dead as evil and, a portion of these, as negative energy as evil, lets leave the rules as is until there is a large scale cultural world change to undead as good.
Or, we can abandon the ad populum argument, and Wizard's can write their default system, and examine other possible systems in undead supplements, much like Unearthed Arcana examines other possible systems for various aspects of the game.
Argument ad populum is not a valid reasoning for anything.
Argument ad populum is an appeal to the popular to win an argument or debate. I'm not saying everyone agrees with me therefore I am right; I am not appealing to anyone to support me. I am saying D&D and WotC has been created for and is being marketed to as many people as possible. They are not debating undead, they did indeed create the game to appeal to as many people as possible. Again, not as an argument and they are not appealing for support to come to their conclusions.
If we want to start bringing in real fallacies. You are trying to bring in ad logicam by trying to show other peoples fallacies to discredit the end result that is most undead in D&D are evil, negative energy is evil, and the [Evil] descriptor is evil (ad logicam, the fallacy fallacy). Again, you're holding now that because you and a minority of people think undead should be good and negative energy should not be evil, the entire game should be changed to suit your preferred playing style.
How about ad nauseam? Just because you keep saying it should be different is not going to change the way it is (regardless if you now think you can prove some inconsistency or fallacy in the rules - again, you're free to play your game any way you like, it just isn't going to change the rules). You have taking this from a discussion about undead and negative energy and its association with evil in the game to why it should be different then the way it is.
What of argumentum ad misericordiam? Now because you and a few people want good undead, everyone should just agree to play the game you want to - this is crossing over in an appeal to false authority.
Or, we can abandon the ad populum argument, and Wizard's can write their default system, and examine other possible systems in undead supplements, much like Unearthed Arcana examines other possible systems for various aspects of the game.
Again, no one is appealing to ad populum in this discussion. A company marketing their product to the most people has nothing to do with arguing ad populum. However, trying to say it’s innovative or new (undead being good, negative energy not being evil) is argumentum ad novitatem (because it is newer or novel, it must be the right way to go).
This, in fact, leads us to where you have gone, ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).
The initial argument was a bit of fluff material to support good undead. Just as easily, fluff can be used to support evil undead, to arguments based on fluff rule each other out. More realistically, however, neither piece of fluff can be proven wrong and in fact both are supported in that any number of campaigns can be infinitely different than one another. However, this does not change the rules. When the rules were shown to prove that undead are mostly evil, negative energy is evil, and [Evil] is evil, we are now trailing into the realm that because the rules are inconsistent, the whole undead being evil thing, the negative energy being evil, and the [Evil] descriptor being evil must be inconsistent (this is ignoratio elenchi using argument ad logicum).
This argument is about:
1) Undead being evil, 2) negative energy being evil, and 3) the [Evil] descriptor being evil.
There is only one authority on this matter as concerns the D&D game, and that would be the core rules (not your opinion, and if the game writers are appealing to the people, this is not ad populum which is an argument that appeals to the people - marketing to the people and arguing to gain support from the people are two different concepts. In fact, assuming that everyone will put the two conclusions together is assuming everyone is ignorant, you find the fallacy in that).
If you don't agree with the rules as written, either house rule your games or go find an RPG that suits your tastes (there are plenty out there were undead are not always evil). If you want to argue undead in the core books not being evil, appeal to the authority that governs undead and evil in D&D, the core rules. If you want to argue why the rules of D&D should be changed, start your own article on Regdar's.
So, not only should undead be good, now the alignment system is silly. Look, no one is telling you that you can't change your game to whatever you like, but don't start telling everyone they need to play your way. No one is telling you to play with evil undead, they are just explaining to you that in the RAW, undead are generally (i.e. mostly) evil.
I am as entitled to express my opinion in a discussion on alignment and its mechanics as anyone else; pointing out flaws in the system isn't "telling everyone they need to play your way".
And yes, the alignment system is rather silly. The basic system of alignments removes thought and role playing from the system by reducing characters to evil "because his stat block says so." 'Alignment energies' are tools of the monster machine, which are fine in certain situations, but are overall a detriment to using D&D for something other than a hack 'n slash, which has become outmoded by they advent of computer games, particularly MMOs. A black dragon may be evil, but it should have a reason for being evil other than "this line of text says so."
Just take drow -- elves don't default to evil, so there is actually well-developed background on why the drows are, in general, evil, based on their culture and civilization. There are also good drow, however, they are in the minority.
The same should be applied much more universally. After the 10,000,000 'new' aberration that's an alien horror, or 5,483,910 'original' life-hating undead, the redundancy has become ridiculous.
It’s already been quoted from both the PHB and SRD, channeling negative energy is an evil act and channeling positive energy is a good act. Again though, this is by the RAW, you are free to change it in your games just like undead and alignment in general.
Channeling, perhaps, but negative energy is not evil, nor positive energy good. That specifically refers to channeling that clerics use in turning/rebuking undead, not the energies themselves, and is a hold-over from the older system more than anything else. The negative energy plane does not have an alignment descriptor or affiliation, nor does the positive energy plane, and many death-effects and negative energy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor (just as many positive energy effects don't have the [good] descriptor).
The problem here is that the system described is more than a bit half-baked. Negative energy is the energy of death and sometimes evil, just as positive energy is the energy of life and sometimes good. Either make good energy and evil energy that power supernatural creatures, make the energy of life and the energy of death, or make both and use them as appropriate. The current system tries to combine them in a way that is going to end up with inherent inconsistencies, where I can use negative energy in an enervate or energy drain, and it's an inherently neutral act, but forms the basis of spells like desecrate.
Your conclusion is fallacious, but again only by the RAW, you are free to change it in your games to work this way, but that doesn't make it apply to everyone else or alter the rules in any way.
No, that's how it works in the game. Don't believe me? Pick up Heroes of Horror and flip to page 76, and read the side bar, where it talks about "Behavioral or Relative Alignment", with the latter dealing with "fundamental forces" while the former deals with "codes of behavior".
Or, for more on Behavioral Alignment:
"Under this optional system, alignment still exists, but it's not nearly as absolute as the core rules have it. Good, evil, law, and chaos do not exist as true universal forces. Rather, alignment simply measures a character's general attitudes toward life, the world, and the people around her." Emphasis mine.
Then we go to the Alignment entry in the MM glossary on p. 305, "Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it."
Then there's the part in the BoED (sorry, I don't have the page reference) where it states that committing an evil act, even in pursuit of a greater good, is always evil because it increases the cosmic scales toward evil, as well as the individual's soul (which itself is an irrational statement, because the good act still pushes the universe towards good, so if the net good of an 'evil' act and a good result > a 'good' act and a good result, it would make sense to pick the former).
In default D&D, alignments are cosmic forces. A creature with a specific alignment is, in some way, tied to those alignment forces. But if a creature is born with some connection to good or evil, if a creature does not have a choice (which is different from not knowing that you don't have a choice), then it can not be said to be good or evil, for good and evil lie in what we choose to do and be. Without it, good and evil are meaningless.
Now, of course, your dislike of the alignment system as is and want for undead to be good could lead to this fallacious reasoning. First off, alignment is by choice. There are no magical energies that make sentient beings an alignment.
Wrong. Read the Libris Mortis (which says that undead are evil because they are actually animated by "evil spirits"). Or the above entry for the above alignment descriptors and the Relative Alignment system. Your statement is generally true of mortal creatures to some extent, but little else.
Now, being from a certain ethos (celestial/good, demon/evil) one is always good (or, conversely, evil). They are all born and raised this way, it is their culture, their birthright, their destiny, whatever. It seems alien to our free-willed human minds, but it’s just the way it is.
The only case where I would agree with you would be in the case of exemplar outsiders such as demons and celestials, since that is the prime thematic function, what they were meant to do, so to speak, and they are formed from the energies of good, evil, law, and chaos. However, it still would not be accurate to say that they have free will (and hubris to say that claim that it is the appropriate cultural viewpoint; in Jewish belief, for one, angels have no free will). For all other creatures, simply being good or evil as a result of a birthright or destiny means that the creature really is not good or evil, because it has no more choice in the matter than an animal or construct. Culture is certainly a valid explanation, but not one that really justifies the Always descriptor in most cases, since in any society that is a collection of individuals, rebels exist.
Again, negative energy is evil, its been proven and you can go dig around in the SRD to find it in the Turning section (the quote is 'Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil', once again, the statement is channeling positive energy is a good act, channeling negative is an evil act, regardless if a cleric is neutral). Negative energy is evil because, aside from the fact that we have a direct quote from the PHB telling us this, it harms and destroys life (which is also a core ethos of evil). Vice versa for positive energy. Nothing in the book dictates that animals do not have the capacity for moral choice, just that they are not governed by a human sense of morality and thus are always neutral.
Channeling positive and negative energy is evil, which is only used in reference to cleric turning/rebuking and spontaneous casting. Nothing else makes the claim that negative energy is evil, and if it were evil (and positive energy conversely good), then why don't all spells using these energies have the appropriate descriptors, their associated planes bear the appropriate affinities? As I said above, it's the inconsistent application of this that causes a great deal of inconsistencies.
As for negative energy harming and destroying life, tell me, what is the average body count of the standard PC LG party in a game of D&D? Heroes and villains both wield the forces of death and decay to achieve their goals, and seek to use life the same way. Entropy and stasis, life and death, decay and growth; both are two sides of the same coin. Each act of destruction is an act of creation, and vice-versa. Death and life and tools used by the forces of good and evil in the pursuit of their goals. Now, those who desire evil generally have a stronger affinity for death than life, and vice-versa, but that does not make death evil, nor does it mean that the forces of good do not engage in their own share of death-dealing.
Once again, you're free to run your games in any context that you wish. However, this does not change the rules of the game and no one else has to play the way you want the game to work.
How is it that I'm trying to force everyone to play the game they way I want to be, and you're not? Tell me, how does being a champion of the way things are make you inherently better than someone who wants change? And how would Wizard's gain the right to tell us how we should play the game?
If I were to head outside and drop a nice, fat, juicy caterpillar onto an ant hill, what would happen? The ants would swarm it and devour the free lunch.
Now, what would happen if I tossed a random commoner into an evil temple filled with undead? Mrs. Farmhand is likely in the same boat as the caterpillar.
Does this make the ants, or the undead, intelligent? Of course not. It just means that, to the undead, living creatures look tasty. Sure, they don't *need* to eat us to survive...but they're mindless, so how would they know that?
Argument ad populum is an appeal to the popular to win an argument or debate. I'm not saying everyone agrees with me therefore I am right; I am not appealing to anyone to support me. I am saying D&D and WotC has been created for and is being marketed to as many people as possible. They are not debating undead, they did indeed create the game to appeal to as many people as possible. Again, not as an argument and they are not appealing for support to come to their conclusions.
You said that your position was correct because most of the cultures of the world would regard undead as evil; how is that not an Argument ad populum?
As for the argument that WotC should create a product that appeals to the most possible people, that quite correct, but they haven't done that; if they did, they would create a product that appeals to different tastes and play styles, which is quite possible given the many different campaign settings in existence, which all tend to follow several assumptions that invariably include the aforementioned logical inconsistencies.
If we want to start bringing in real fallacies. You are trying to bring in ad logicam by trying to show other peoples fallacies to discredit the end result that is most undead in D&D are evil, negative energy is evil, and the [Evil] descriptor is evil (ad logicam, the fallacy fallacy). Again, you're holding now that because you and a minority of people think undead should be good and negative energy should not be evil, the entire game should be changed to suit your preferred playing style.
I'm not saying that negative energy shouldn't be evil, I'm saying that by the default game material, it isn't evil. Nothing supports this beyond a over-generalization of a cleric's ability to channel positive or negative energy.
Further, I'm not saying that the game should be changed to suit a minority of players, I'm saying that it should have much better internal logical consistency that it presently does, and that it should cater to many different play styles. WotC already made good undead, they just call them Deathless, at the same time having negative and positive energy as neutral energies.
Some people want Greyhawk, FR, and LotR; others want Dark Sun and Planescape, which drop the more conventional models. Even if the majority of supplements are written for the predominant play-style, side-bar head-nods to other playstyles with alternate rules is far better than the mish-mash we currently have.
How about ad nauseam? Just because you keep saying it should be different is not going to change the way it is (regardless if you now think you can prove some inconsistency or fallacy in the rules - again, you're free to play your game any way you like, it just isn't going to change the rules). You have taking this from a discussion about undead and negative energy and its association with evil in the game to why it should be different then the way it is.
I'm discussing my views on undead and their association with evil in the game, i.e. how they don't make sense, and should be altered.
Further, if I can play the game anyway I wish, why can't everyone? If some people agree with me, or my points make sense to them, what should stop them from using them? Simply because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that others don't.
Different views on how undead should/shouldn't be evil in a game where all the rules are ultimately optional and simply acknowledging that fact and expanding on it is in no way inappropriate.
What of argumentum ad misericordiam? Now because you and a few people want good undead, everyone should just agree to play the game you want to - this is crossing over in an appeal to false authority.
Your own inconsistencies are astounding. Sighting RAW in an ultimate appeal to false authority, since Wizard's has no real authority over anyone's game. While it is a good standard to draw from, Rule 0 is the ultimate rule. The notion that we must bind ourselves to a specific arbitrary standard is ultimately fallacious, since we are ultimately talking about fluff (since alignment is built on the game setting, and thus a derivative of fluff).
Again, no one is appealing to ad populum in this discussion. A company marketing their product to the most people has nothing to do with arguing ad populum. However, trying to say it’s innovative or new (undead being good, negative energy not being evil) is argumentum ad novitatem (because it is newer or novel, it must be the right way to go).
Except that wasn't my argument. While I personally enjoy novelty, it certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. Again, you misunderstand my point. I'd like to see a system with good internal consistency that caters to multiple play styles; it's not really difficult. Note that it is also a fallacy to use an appeal tradition.
This is also the first post you mention marketing. It makes good sense buisnesswise; it also makes sense to try and appeal to as broad a base as possible. One does not necessarily have to choose one or the other.
If we wish to examine it from a marketing viewpoint, we must consider that there are people who do not buy FG, GH, etc. because they do find those settings suitable to their tastes. There are also people who are turned away from D&D, or at least less inclined to use it, because of the way it is presented. It makes more sense to include both; given that there can be multiple campaigns, or at least an occasional supplement (or even sidebars), then one must consider this option.
Further, it makes more sense for people like me to come on the boards, from a marketing point of view, and point out these fallacies and what not, because even if you don't choose to make any official material with them, players can adopt D&D with unofficial material that will boost your sales. People who don't like my PoV will not use what I'm saying. Indeed, one must wonder how many people have purchased 3.x materials because of non-WotC conversions, such as those on Athas.org or Planeswalker.com.
The initial argument was a bit of fluff material to support good undead. Just as easily, fluff can be used to support evil undead, to arguments based on fluff rule each other out. More realistically, however, neither piece of fluff can be proven wrong and in fact both are supported in that any number of campaigns can be infinitely different than one another. However, this does not change the rules. When the rules were shown to prove that undead are mostly evil, negative energy is evil, and [Evil] is evil, we are now trailing into the realm that because the rules are inconsistent, the whole undead being evil thing, the negative energy being evil, and the [Evil] descriptor being evil must be inconsistent (this is ignoratio elenchi using argument ad logicum).
This argument is about:
1) Undead being evil, 2) negative energy being evil, and 3) the [Evil] descriptor being evil.
There is only one authority on this matter as concerns the D&D game, and that would be the core rules (not your opinion, and if the game writers are appealing to the people, this is not ad populum which is an argument that appeals to the people - marketing to the people and arguing to gain support from the people are two different concepts. In fact, assuming that everyone will put the two conclusions together is assuming everyone is ignorant, you find the fallacy in that).
If you don't agree with the rules as written, either house rule your games or go find an RPG that suits your tastes (there are plenty out there were undead are not always evil). If you want to argue undead in the core books not being evil, appeal to the authority that governs undead and evil in D&D, the core rules. If you want to argue why the rules of D&D should be changed, start your own article on Regdar's.
This ignores the way fluff and the rules are tied together. To point to only one or the other is folly, since the rules are the mathematical model that supports the game mechanics. For example, Wail of the Banshee is a 9th level spell; thus it should be, overall, more powerful than all spells of 8th level or lower. If Magic Missile, a 1st level spell, is more powerful than Wail of the Banshee, then something is wrong with the rules mechanics in relation to the fluff.
Undead are listed as being evil for fluff reasons. These fluff reasons are supported by game mechanics. However, if those fluff reasons don't make sense, then the mechanics don't matter, and vice-versa.
For example, creating undead is, by the RAW mechanics, evil. However, negative energy is not inherently evil, as evidenced by the multiplicity of negative energy spells without the evil descriptor, as well as WotC's own materials on the negative energy plane (which is not evil-aligned). There is no fluff reason for why undead should be evil that can not be countered by a similar fluff example that is not regarded as evil, even though it is the same or a similar act. For example, according to the Libris Mortis, undead are evil because they are inhabited by evil spirits. Why then, is necromancy evil? I can enslave an elemental spirit to make a golem without any sort of moral taint or sin; how then is enslaving an evil spirit, which surely would be far more beneficial than enslaving a neutral elemental spirit, be evil?
And here we have the problem with the rules and the fluff not meshing properly. The mechanics of the game do not support the game reality objectively and consistently, which is the only thing I'd like to see happen, as long as it was done in a way that caters to multiple play styles to varying degrees.
[Regdar – and with that, this is the last post for this thread! Regdar calls it a tie.]