the party found and supplied to her a robe of bones that breaks apart like a robe of useful items except it produces undead then i had her learn control undead for obvious reasons. the problem is one of my fellow party members insists that useing necromancy is an evil act so basically every time she uses control undead or ray of enfeeblement she is moveing one step closer to being the only evil person in our group? this does not seemright to me shouldn't the reasons the character takes an action be just as important as the action its self? and while we are at it why is torture considered all but default evil? if you come across a group of people who have been torturing others isn't turn about fair play?
the problem is one of my fellow party members insists that useing necromancy is an evil act so basically every time she uses control undead or ray of enfeeblement she is moveing one step closer to being the only evil person in our group? this does not seemright to me shouldn't the reasons the character takes an action be just as important as the action its self? and while we are at it why is torture considered all but default evil? if you come across a group of people who have been torturing others isn't turn about fair play?
You can make arguments for both sides because there is no "right" answer to ethics or morals. I generally view the alignment system as being sort of bogus anyways. I would say allow your character to view your actions as being good and just while at the same time allowing the other character to view you as evil. There is just no ultimate answer to ambiguous stuff like this. All you could try and do is using your reasoning to persuade the other character that your actions are ok.
Most fall somewhere between two extremes.
1- Any necromancy spell is evil no matter what.
2- Any necromancy spell is no more evil than any other spell. Intent is what matters.
Personally, in games I run, undead are always evil. No if's and's or but's. Sentient undead have impulses that drive them towards evil, just like humans have impulses that drive us to breath. With that, any necromancy spell that creates more of these evil things is always an evil act. The intent behind the creation can cancel this out. On occasion it can be balanced out to neutral, but never good.
-i am animating the corpses of our enemies, so our troops are not out numbered 100-1 by the barbarians- There is some evil for making the undead. But it is balanced out with some good thanks to the intentions of the act, save a town. It also helps that you know the undead will be destroyed soon, if not by the barbarians, than by you once they are repelled. End result is a neutral act.
-I am animating the corpses because our party needs some protection from the dangers ahead in this dungeon- Evil act of the spell itself, and used for selfish means. Evil act in the end.
See the diffrences? [note DM is final arbiter of what is and is not a good act, any slightly experienced DM can tell the diffrence between a good character acting for good, and someone trying to jusify actions to avoid a punishment]
I expect good characters to be willing to sacrafice a small ammount in return for the benefits that come with being a good character. [not being run out of town, rarely having bounties put on you, ect] BY expect a small ammount of sacrifice, what I mean is simply that I expect them to be genuinly good. That said, in my games a neutral act rarely shifts alignment, and even the occasional evil one will not result in an immediate alignment shift. [i also dont tell players their alignment. I will say "that is an evil act if you want to continue through with it", have cleric/paladin abilities fail, and occasionally have NPC's act in character if they can tell the PCs alignment, but I never go and write down on their sheet "oh man, now you are ne sorry."]
For instance in my last session, a few of the PCs attempted to join a paladin order. One of the two who attempted was accepted, as the other had committed a number of at best chaotic neutral acts. He is currently between CN and CE/NE on the alignment scale. His sheet says TN I think.
Summary- ask your DM if it is or isn't evil. It totally 100% depends on the campaign world and DM running it.
As for the other player, pose the question of "Is my wizard who uses spells such as disrupt undead evil?" "what about a cleric of a neutral diety who chooses to rebuke undead, in order to save a village from zombie horde?" There is a reason when describing a villian people do so like this.
"You guys come upon the evil necromancer [fantasy name here]."
The underlined refers to the italics, not the bold.
The vast majority of necromancy spells are unaligned, so how you use it is what matters.
The act of creating Undead (be the subject of the spell willing or otherwise) is Evil. This is the general opinion.
The act of using spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, and other debuffs that do not create undead on their own on the other hand, are not Evil unless the spell says otherwise (Enervate falls under this category, as you have to metamagic the hell out of it to kill someone with it). Clutch of Orcus is a good example of a spell that says otherwise.
Sometimes undead can be put to good use, despite their Evil tendencies. And there are undead that are not innately Evil. Majority, however, are Evil.
The DMs who believe that anyone who plays a Necromancer character is going to become this walking Zombie Factory are right about 70% of the time. 25% of the missing percentage is lower-level Necromancers who can't reanimate and are forced into the Debuffer role of casters, and the last 5% is the honest-to-Gygax Debuffer master Wizard.
If a player asks you if they can play a Necromancer, ask them what their role will be: Debuffer, or "I'm so damn powerful that I have a horde and a half of Skeletons following me around every waking second of the day and night" stereotypical Necromancer.
Personally, I tend to have my NPCs put undead to a good use, to counteract their natural Evil purposes. But I prefer Constructs for minions, as they look a lot more impressive than a bunch of brain-eaters anyway. That, and the fact that undead decay constantly is what prevents me from having a horde of them whenever I play a Wizard.
Spells like Disrupt Undead and Undeath to Dead show that the School contains Anti-Undead magic, which is needed at times.
But mostly, the School is known for Death spells and raising the Dead. This is what gets it its perceived "evilness". From a RP perspective, most people should feel this way about Necromancy (including some of the Non-Mage PCs). An educated Mage should know better though (not withstanding runins with several evil Necromancers that have formed an opinion).
For deities, in Greyhawk, most of the Gods who have the Domains related to the Undead (mainly Death but some others) are evil (with the remaining being Neutral). While not all these are considered malicious in intent, they are widely looked at with a bit of caution from Good aligned preists.
So overall, Necromancy does not equal Evil. However, if you keep making the Cohort go down the Necromancy road, she will be viewed that way. Talk to the DM and see if there's anything that can be done about it. Try to find out why he gave the character the Robe in the first place (his motivations, was it purely a die role, or did he have intent behind it). Unless it was his intent in giving you a cohort that would not fit in with the party (some of these biases might have been apparent), the Robe of Bones may have been a poor choice of a magical item.
If you are going around casting [evil] descriptor spells then you are more than likely doing evil things. If you are using spells without that discriptor to do evil things, then you are using necromancy to do evil things.
Sadly, the [evil] descriptor exists. I wish it didn't.
The true question /should/ be "what are you doing with the magic?". That, and a conversation with your DM on what counts as evil and not, should do the trick.
-S
As with any tool- the question isn't whether the tool is good or evil: but rather are you doing good or evil things with the tool?
This. If A sorcerer fireballs an orphanage and a necromancer uses some generic zombis to rescue the orphans, no one would argue that the necromancer was more evil than the sorcerer.
Srsly, what harm is there in creating undead? I don't think you're interrupting their plans to vacation in Europe. Sure it might be frowned upon by society and various religions might believe your violating their eternal rest, but that once again is a matter of being chaotic rather than lawful. Hell, if I understand thins correctly, ressurection spells work just as well on zombies as they do on corpses, so really you're just borrowing the corpse. Now, going around killing people in order to make them into zombies is evil, but that obviously has more to do with the killing part.
This. If A sorcerer fireballs an orphanage and a necromancer uses some generic zombis to rescue the orphans, no one would argue that the necromancer was more evil than the sorcerer.
Srsly, what harm is there in creating undead? Now, going around killing people in order to make them into zombies is evil, but that obviously has more to do with the killing part.
Most people view the digging up of loved ones that were resting in a cemetary as evil. Throughout the Earth's history, early doctors had to dig up corpses in the middle of the night so they could see what is in the body to learn the basics of modern medicine better. Even today, med students learn on corpses and coroners need to determine cause of death in corpses.
All of that 100+ years ago would have been viewed as Necromancy and thus evil, no matter what the reward could be.
Do I think the townspeople would view the Sorcerer as evil, yes. Do I think, even though he used his Zombies to save the children as evil as well? Yes. After all, the Zombies come out carrying the children, no townsperson is going to believe that they're "just saving" them, but being used in a coordinated effort with the sorcerer to use the children in future necromantic efforts.
True, but from a rational standpoint, the dead are simply lying in the ground. The reason necromancy is disliked is because of personal reasons and prejudices
Which usually starts with, the part of the reason they got put into the ground was out of respect to the person, and digging them back up violates that respect.
Its one thing to donate your body to science but another to have someone violating it after you go.
Which usually starts with, the part of the reason they got put into the ground was out of respect to the person, and digging them back up violates that respect.
Right, which is more about chaotic vs. lawful.
If somebody buried a pile of sticks, would it be evil to dig those sticks and make a scarecrow out of them? I suppose it might annoy that person, but everything is bound to annoy somebody.
Making them fight for the justice and blah blah = Good
Any other use that doesn't evolve dead and good = Neutral
Why ppl think that necromancy = evil?Because when you see a necromancer it usualy a Cleric of an evil god.Remember ppl : Cleric using necromancy = Evil, cleric using cure light wound = Good.This fact doesn't apply for wizard and sorcerer because necromancy is just an other school of magic for them.If your wizard use spell with blahblahblah[Good] do this make them better?Nope it all about how you use them.
Summary- ask your DM if it is or isn't evil. It totally 100% depends on the campaign world and DM running it.
Have you done this yet, Dead Pool?
Have you done this yet, Dead Pool?
This is where it gets kind of sticky. Lynn was origionally designed to be my cohort I know this out of character because my dm told me strait out. My character had been doing things in a way that set him up to have his own country. because he is so damn charismatic my dm stated that he would get leadership as a free feat if i did not take it for myself. seeing as how he is a fighter i decided that taking it as a free feat would be unfair and possibly unbalancing, so i burned a feat for it. by the time i took leadership lynn had already been making asstons of undead by scroll for her current master in order to save the town we were tasked with protecting. sorry to be so long winded but i thought some backstory would be helpful. to shorten the rest of a story our last session ended with me giving her the robe of bones due to her apparent natural abilities with the undead and another character staiting that useing the robe was an evil act as was using the control undead spell, this would not be so bad except for the fact that my dm said yep he's right. so basically my dm handed my cn/cg character a true nutral cohort and then saying oh yeah she is already soiled in evil acts and any more necro is evil to.
we were in a town that had gotten attacked and there were about 400 skeletons of dwarfs. they were all gonna get true rezzed. i asked the leader of the town if i could take all the bodies to use them as a skeletal army so lives wouldn't be lost again. my diplomacy was successful and in less then an hour in game time I was protecting a whole city with an army of undead.
you tell me. is that good or evil? lol
Undead are animated by negative energy, which by definition is evil.
But at the end of the day, the answer is setting-dependent. You can find (or imagine) settings where necromancy is rountine, or where there are mitigating circumstances that make necromancy less of an evil act.
IMHO necromancy is intrinsically evil; your DM may rule differently.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
This is where it gets kind of sticky. Lynn was origionally designed to be my cohort I know this out of character because my dm told me strait out. My character had been doing things in a way that set him up to have his own country. because he is so damn charismatic my dm stated that he would get leadership as a free feat if i did not take it for myself. seeing as how he is a fighter i decided that taking it as a free feat would be unfair and possibly unbalancing, so i burned a feat for it. by the time i took leadership lynn had already been making asstons of undead by scroll for her current master in order to save the town we were tasked with protecting. sorry to be so long winded but i thought some backstory would be helpful. to shorten the rest of a story our last session ended with me giving her the robe of bones due to her apparent natural abilities with the undead and another character staiting that useing the robe was an evil act as was using the control undead spell, this would not be so bad except for the fact that my dm said yep he's right. so basically my dm handed my cn/cg character a true nutral cohort and then saying oh yeah she is already soiled in evil acts and any more necro is evil to.
Sounds like your DM says it is evil in this setting. Since you took the leadership feat, the easy solution if to tell your cohort "Hey either stop being evil, or stop following me around, because I am gonna get some paladins soon. " If you had taken it as a free feat, then you would be a little stuck, I'd feel guilty telling the DM that free feat i got is not what i wanted.
I also am playing a NE drow Necromancer in 3.5 that doesn't have the first undead-type spell such as raising or controlling, he's more of a debuffer with Ray of Enfeeblement, and Vampiric Touch paired with Spectral Hand for reaching out and touching someone :D
I play a Lawful Evil Cleric in a 1st Ed. AD&D non-evil campaign who raises his fallen enemies to fight as a small unit of frightening allies. But I don't think he can be considered a Necromancer because he's divine... maybe the culturally popular Necromancer, but not by people in D&D (I don't think anyway, I had thought Necromancers were Arcane).
Remember, what you are viewed as is a matter of what people see and hear about you. If you "Summon" the Undead, "Command" the Undead to do your bidding, and you Quack like a Duck, you must be a Necromancer.
Priest or not, won't save you. Offhand, is your Deity associated with the Undead? That might make the people see the Holy Symbol and say Necromancer right off the bat.
Your second character, which doesn't do that (but uses Necromancy spells) will be less likely labled as a Necromancer, because he isn't Summoning and Commanding Undead Legions around him.
Remember, what you are viewed as is a matter of what people see and hear about you. If you "Summon" the Undead, "Command" the Undead to do your bidding, and you Quack like a Duck, you must be a Necromancer.
Priest or not, won't save you. Offhand, is your Deity associated with the Undead? That might make the people see the Holy Symbol and say Necromancer right off the bat.
Your second character, which doesn't do that (but uses Necromancy spells) will be less likely labled as a Necromancer, because he isn't Summoning and Commanding Undead Legions around him.
I agree, that's why I threw the two examples out there, both are evil, but one is wholly seen as a necro, and the other is not, yet both weild necromantic spells.
The priest is a priest of Arawn, Celtic god of the dead...so he would not be mistaken for a anything but a necro
Personally, in games I run, undead are always evil. No if's and's or but's. Sentient undead have impulses that drive them towards evil, just like humans have impulses that drive us to breath.
Even ghosts? (Note the Alignment entry: Any.)
Undead are animated by negative energy, which by definition is evil.
Where do people keep getting this impression?
Does the Negative Energy Plane have an Evil alignment trait? No.
Do the Inflict Wounds spells have the Evil descriptor? No.
Negative energy is just a force of nature. It's no more good or evil than fire or water.
Furthermore, saying that all undead are evil because they're powered by negative energy is like saying that all living creatures are good because they're powered by positive energy.
Point out that healing used to be part of necromancy, and as a traditionalist, you still consider it so. Then if you ever catch the busybody healing himself or willingly being healed by someone else, smite his ass for being a hypocrite.
Although True Resurrection allows the person a choice if they would like to re-enter the realm of the living, whereas Necromancy is sucker-punching his soul in the jaw, and telling it to pack it's bags, it's got more work to do back on the Prime.
Even ghosts? (Note the Alignment entry: Any.)
Even ghosts.
Some ghosts may try to fight against it, especially the ghost of a paladin, but it is a very hard fight. He might be able to pull off neutral, but never good.
Also, I wouldn't say people are fueled by positive energy, but with neither positive or negative energy.
Do the Inflict Wounds spells have the Evil descriptor?
If I hit you with a Cure Wounds Spell, you'd probably be having a better day then if I had hit you with an Inflict Wounds spell.
If Evil isn't making a random passerby's day a worse for no explicit reason, then I simply don't know what is.
If I hit you with a Cure Wounds Spell, you'd probably be having a better day then if I had hit you with an Inflict Wounds spell.
If Evil isn't making a random passerby's day a worse for no explicit reason, then I simply don't know what is.
That is, in fact, evil; however, it would be no more or less evil had you simply whacked the random passerby on the head with your mace.
That is, in fact, evil; however, it would be no more or less evil had you simply whacked the random passerby on the head with your mace.
Touche, Salla. Touche.
Also, I wouldn't say people are fueled by positive energy, but with neither positive or negative energy.
Why wouldn't you say that?
- Cure Wounds spells channel positive energy, heal living creatures, damage undead creatures, and have no effect on nonnliving nonundead creatures.
- Inflict Wounds spells channel negative energy, damage living creatures, heal undead creatures, and have no effect on nonliving nonundead creatures.
- The effects of these spells on undead are specifically attributed to the fact that undead are powered by negative energy.
From those propositions (all of which are spelled out in the rules, in black and white), it's easy to infer that living creatures are powered by positive energy, and nonliving nonundead creatures are powered by something else altogether. And that's assuming it isn't explicitly states somewhere that I haven't been able to find in a five-minute search.
If I hit you with a Cure Wounds Spell, you'd probably be having a better day then if I had hit you with an Inflict Wounds spell.
If Evil isn't making a random passerby's day a worse for no explicit reason, then I simply don't know what is.
I would also be having a rather bad day if you hit me in the head with a Fireball. And, in fact, both Holy Smite and Holy Word have the Good descriptor, and can make the average (Neutral) person's day very bad indeed.
Also, it's entirely possible to cast an Inflict spell for an explicit reason-- for example, in self-defense. I've played a TN rebuking Cleric who did just that on more than one occasion.
If Evil isn't making a random passerby's day a worse for no explicit reason, then I simply don't know what is.
That's exactly what evil is, and necromancy does not do that (zombie-necromancy anyway). I suppose the more squeamish people may need to make a few fortitude saves when they see corpses walking about the marketplace shopping for spell components and dropping off a pile of gold at the local cat sanctuary, but that's hardly the necromancer's fault.
I don't think there's a solid explanation for why Create Undead was pronounced inherently evil. The explanation of "you're forcing a soul back to it's body" is pretty weak, considering none of the mind-effecting enchantment spells have the evil descriptor(especially Dominate Person/Monster). Though in the end, just like with everything else in this game if the rules don't suit you just change them.
Animating dead in general depends on the cosmology and DM fiat, but imo there's a difference between creating a mindless undead thrall and an actively malevolent being. In the latter case, you are at least playing with fire, and showing disregard for the safety of those nearby you.
It says in the MM that Zombies, (besides them being neutral evil) are reanimated through dark and sinister magic... now someone explain to me how someone can Create them using dark and sinister magic and not be evil? Hmm? Does a cleric of Pelor use dark and sinister magic to heal, even though it is necromantic? No. Creating undead is called by the very books that created all these rules, Dark and Sinister. So by proxy, Creating them is by definition, Evil. How anyone can argue this point is beyond me. There have been thread after thread on here arguing the Evilness of undead, and it always ends up a flamewar, trust me, I was involved in one of them a while back.
But the magic used to create undead is dark and sinister, making the act of creating dark and sinister. The only variable to this that I could see is if Pelor (or name your good deity) commanded an army of undead to defeat evil... he used the souls of his good followers that previously died, to defend Goodness worldwide. I can't see that when he has so many other options.
Well yes, by official D&D rules necromancy is considered evil, my argument is that that such a disposition is ********.
Not all necromancy is evil. Ray of Enfeeblement isn't any more evil than Magic Missile.
Well yes, by official D&D rules necromancy is considered evil, my argument is that that such a disposition is ********.
I didn't mention Necromancy as being evil, because it covers a wide spectrum in the rules, but Creating Undead is, what Good purpose could you possibly have for raising the dead? It's not to speak to them, there's another spell for that. You are raising them to manipulate them for a purpose.
How Good would you feel it to be if you found your mother or your father reanimated by someone? I think manipulating the dead is by far a dark road to pursue, I'm sure you wouldn't think nice thoughts about the guy who raised your family from their graves to help him move his furniture...or any other non-evil mundane task. If it's not your family, it's someone else's.
Why wouldn't you say that?
- Cure Wounds spells channel positive energy, heal living creatures, damage undead creatures, and have no effect on nonnliving nonundead creatures.
- Inflict Wounds spells channel negative energy, damage living creatures, heal undead creatures, and have no effect on nonliving nonundead creatures.
- The effects of these spells on undead are specifically attributed to the fact that undead are powered by negative energy.
From those propositions (all of which are spelled out in the rules, in black and white), it's easy to infer that living creatures are powered by positive energy, and nonliving nonundead creatures are powered by something else altogether. And that's assuming it isn't explicitly states somewhere that I haven't been able to find in a five-minute search.
I would say one of the properties of negative energy is to drain HP from things.
One of the properties of positive energy is to boost HP on things.
One of the properties of fire is to burn things.
These things act out their properties on any object, living or not. Undead have the special power of being made of negative energy. So negative energy heals them, and positive hurts them just like fire is fueled by heat, and hurt by water.
I would say one of the properties of negative energy is to drain HP from things.
One of the properties of positive energy is to boost HP on things.
One of the properties of fire is to burn things.
These things act out their properties on any object, living or not. Undead have the special power of being made of negative energy. So negative energy heals them, and positive hurts them just like fire is fueled by heat, and hurt by water.
Except that still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because negative and positive energy have no effect on objects or constructs.
Negative energy works on undead the way positive energy works on the living.
Positive energy works on undead the way negative energy works on the living.
The reason negative energy works the way it does on undead is explicitly declared to be because undead are powered by negative energy.
Why is it then unreasonable to assume that positive energy works the way it does on the living because the living are powered by positive energy?
I didn't mention Necromancy as being evil, because it covers a wide spectrum in the rules, but Creating Undead is, what Good purpose could you possibly have for raising the dead? It's not to speak to them, there's another spell for that. You are raising them to manipulate them for a purpose.
How Good would you feel it to be if you found your mother or your father reanimated by someone? I think manipulating the dead is by far a dark road to pursue, I'm sure you wouldn't think nice thoughts about the guy who raised your family from their graves to help him move his furniture...or any other non-evil mundane task. If it's not your family, it's someone else's.
Yeah, I thought I added in the clause about the undead only, but apparently gleemax fails at edits.
But yeah, people who know them might not be too happy about it, but emotions don't factor into good and evil.
Except that still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because negative and positive energy have no effect on objects or constructs.
Negative energy works on undead the way positive energy works on the living.
Positive energy works on undead the way negative energy works on the living.
The reason negative energy works the way it does on undead is explicitly declared to be because undead are powered by negative energy.
Why is it then unreasonable to assume that positive energy works the way it does on the living because the living are powered by positive energy?
I would say the side effect of positive energy is to boost life and living-ness. The effect of negative energy is to hinder life and living-ness. You can boost a rocks life of 0 times infinaty, but it is still 0. You can drain it from 0 by infinaty and you have some stupid formula that doesn't work.
It's not unreasonable to assume the way you think, I just prefer to rationalize it another way. In my games it runs this way, as thats the way that makes the most sense to me. If you would rather another way thats fine.
I don't think the RAW says either way, leaving it up to DM's to determine for their specific settings.
I would say the side effect of positive energy is to boost life and living-ness. The effect of negative energy is to hinder life and living-ness. You can boost a rocks life of 0 times infinaty, but it is still 0. You can drain it from 0 by infinaty and you have some stupid formula that doesn't work.
It's not unreasonable to assume the way you think, I just prefer to rationalize it another way. In my games it runs this way, as thats the way that makes the most sense to me. If you would rather another way thats fine.
I don't think the RAW says either way, leaving it up to DM's to determine for their specific settings.
I jsut don't see much of a distinction between positive energy "boosting life and living-ness" and positive energy "fueling living creatures". If you do, and it works for your group, then that's fine.
(Incidentally, I can't seem to find the definition of a "living creature" anywhere either, but it's apparently a valid game mechanic because a lot of templates can only be applied to "any living creature", as opposed to "any creature".)
I jsut don't see much of a distinction between positive energy "boosting life and living-ness" and positive energy "fueling living creatures". If you do, and it works for your group, then that's fine.
I'm not a mechanic or really very into cars, so my analogy is going to be horribly off to someone who is.
That said.
If people are cars...
Fueling living creatures is like gasoline.
Boosting life and livingness is like NO2.
One is mandatory for survival, the other is for enhanced performance. (if the fast and the furious series is remotly accurate) [I work with kids, sorry if I see awful movies]
Positive energy is life. It is life-giving and light-giving. It is creative and productive and the essence of good, as represented by light.
Negative energy is un-life. It destroys life. It is empty and destructive, a void that draws in all light. It is the darkness of eternal night, and the essence of evil.
All this is comes to us through mythology and religion. The manichean dichotomy between good and evil, life and death, light and darkness is fundamental to our culture, literature, fantasy literature and roleplaying games inspired by that literature.
Sure, you can imagine a setting where negative energy and the undead are not necessarily, by definition and in essence evil. But in the standard D&D tradition that runs through all the editions and all the descriptions of what is good, evil, positive energy, negative energy and so on... well, it all bopils down to good and evil.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
What's so great about light, and what's so bad about darkness?
It's not about intrinsic value, it's about symbolism. Our language, as a reflection of our history, culture, religion and philosophy, is full of metaphors that equate light with life and goodness, and darkness with evil and death.
The light at the end of the tunnel. A black-hearted villain.
Good guys wear white hats, bad guys wear black hats. or cloaks. or lingerie.
OF course, this doesn't mean you can't inverse the poles, and have some great evil that is based on searing light, or some nurturing good that comes from darkness. But the typical manichean cultural symbolism is good and evil, life and death, light and darkness.
D&D is based on these cultural stereotypes, from its very inception.
YMMV, --- Wheldrake
(Of course,
Show
Rosette didn't start wearing black til she joined up with Aion
Yeah, I thought I added in the clause about the undead only, but apparently gleemax fails at edits.
But yeah, people who know them might not be too happy about it, but emotions don't factor into good and evil.
Yes and no, one of the definitions of "evil" is "morally bad or wrong" and "the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice" and it is commonly accepted as morally bad or wrong to raise the dead. Common human emotions often fuel Morals, common threads amongst we humans is the abhorrence of doing anything other than preserving a dead body, to a dead body, to be morally wrong, so bringing them back from the dead (and some would argue soulless) would be morally (fueled by one of many emotions) wrong.
-Violating someone's only real possession (their previous shell or body). Unless they deed it over to you, but still, c'mon. Graverobbing is often a capital offense.
-Shoving an evil spirit into a permanent vessel brings permanent evil into the Prime. This upsets natural order as it can't live, do some evil, then die. It's immortal so it hypothetically can keep being evil. And if it's a spawning undead...
-They're predisosed to evil per alignment. Simple enough. Left to their own devices, they perform evil acts as per their nature unless you think of them as the "wait till orders arrive" bunch. I like my undead of the Romero variety in that they have needs and wants that aren't evil (to them), but are to us.
-Ultimate form of slavery; you control them absolutely.
-Removes chance of normal person coming back to life (violation of corpse).
Now, using and channeling negative energy (Rebuke Undead) are not overtly evil acts though. Don't forget some neutral clerics can Rebuke, this doesn't make them evil necessarilly. Right tool for the right job.
Intent is everything. Murder isn't murder if it's self defense, right? You still killed John Doe, but it wasn't malicious.
D&D works on the premise of dynamic opposites for alot of its gameplay. Not a great way to be IRL, save for the physical sciences, but it has it's place. Ethically, a can of worms you should leave on the shelf, but for a game, you need to have rulings and mechanical FX to finality of acitons/reactions. A b/w nature abounds in many aspects in game. We need it. We just have to suspend our disbelief like going to the cinema is all. Your hand is forced and it becomes, if you can excuse the phrase, "a necessary evil".
Sorry.So why aren't flesh golems evil? You're violating at least six corpses and enslaving an elemental spirit to boot.
Touche'. Ah, well said and well done.
Well, truth be told I'm not sure. They're constructs for one and per the letter of the law (RAW) you're not employing evil energies, though I would argue illegally harvesting body parts is still evil.
Not sure about enslaving an elemental spirit. Forget what makes them tick, but you if you're sure that is the case, well...Tough call there. It's not a hermetic elemental per se. Wtf is it anyway?
There is a cadaver golem too. Heroes of Horror I think, worth a look.
In game, we fall upon clearly definable, b/w aspects. Constructs are ok in that respect though I would zero in like a hawk on the above mentioned stuff as a DM. Raw materials gotta' come from somewhere, yes?
IRL, All I gotta' say is Dr. Frankenstein. Oh, that's a good thread waiting to happen. Was he just insane or possessed of some evil in there?
All those villagers thought what he did and his creation were pretty evil, from the light that is was an abomination of natural life (it was IMO), not that evil brain = evil golem.
You've posed a good point. Run with that.
So why aren't flesh golems evil? You're violating at least six corpses and enslaving an elemental spirit to boot.
They should be! Ban all flesh golems now! Put them into the undead category! Flesh golem= zombie, but stronger...
Violating 6 dead bodies just sounds sick...
Well, truth be told I'm not sure. They're constructs for one and per the letter of the law (RAW) you're not employing evil energies, though I would argue illegally harvesting body parts is still evil.
From what I understand of this thread, RAW says it is:
Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor.
I'd say that since you need to cast an [Evil] spell to create a Flesh Golem, RAW you're doing something Evil. Also:
The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem’s creator.
That said, I don't agree with the ruling that Necromancers (specifically: undead Animation) are evil, and I still believe that Healing is nothing more than Necromancy, instead of that Conjuration (Healing) bull.
That said, I don't agree with the ruling that Necromancers (specifically: undead Animation) are evil, and I still believe that Healing is nothing more than Necromancy, instead of that Conjuration (Healing) bull.
Actually everything you just pointed out proves undead animation is evil. ..according to RAW and the definition of evil...
Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best forgotten.
I'd say that since you need to cast an [Evil] spell to create a Flesh Golem, RAW you're doing something Evil. Also:
I knew it. Well, I had a hunch, but didn't wanna' say as I didn't have the text (MonMan I) during said post to back it. I don't mess w/ the SRD though. Funny thing about my work, they don't really like it when I'm toting game books at my work station...but I'm allowed to f-off on the net fairly liberally.
Anyway, I thought, something doesn't seem right. I mean, the elemental battery pack as it were just left me feeling, eh, speculative.
But here we are. Thanks for the correction.
That said, I don't agree with the ruling that Necromancers (specifically: undead Animation) are evil, and I still believe that Healing is nothing more than Necromancy, instead of that Conjuration (Healing) bull.
Necromancy is the manipulation of life/death energy. Pretty standard really (meat helmets and all). In that respect, Healing should be Necro really. I mean, that's life energy, right? Or are you Summoning Pos/Negative energy from their respective planes? Seems like extra work, but whatever.
It's just when you traffic w/ dark and nasty elements, they're bound to rub off on you. Hence most necros being evil. Power corrupts.
Not sure what the RAW stance is, and I would be interested to hear it. I doubt mine is RAW.
As for flesh golems, I would say they are evil to create, and not evil to animate. Creation sees the first paragraph, and animating is simply a casting of whatever spell is needed to make them.
It's just when you traffic w/ dark and nasty elements, they're bound to rub off on you. Hence most necros being evil. Power corrupts.
Oh, I agree. I just don't believe in the idea that, simply by being a Necromancer and animating corpses, you're Evil and using [Evil] magic, especially when a spell like [i]Finger of Death[/c] is *not* [Evil].
Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the auspices of dark desert gods best forgotten.
Or, alternatively:
Zombies are corpses reanimated through the power of Transmutation and/or Enchantment magic, allowing a noble and good-meaning sorcerer to control selfless minions through sparks of his will.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their masters, cleaning the sewers so that the living need not risk their own lives.
Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the power of Anubis and Osiris to protect the nobly fallen.
As far as I'm concerned, what you said/quoted, Ariakus, is nothing more than flavor text, completely mutable, and only one side of the die.
In my games having your corpse animated is the main method to keep ones soul from entering the afterlife. It binds your soul as an unwilling intangible part of the undead creature that its corpse was used to create. Until the undead is destroyed.
Not sure what the RAW stance is, and I would be interested to hear it. I doubt mine is RAW.
When a living creature dies, its soul departs its body, leaves the Material Plane, travels through the Astral Plane, and goes to abide on the plane where the creature’s deity resides. If the creature did not worship a deity, its soul departs to the plane corresponding to its alignment. Bringing someone back from the dead means retrieving his or her soul and returning it to his or her body.
...
Enemies can take steps to make it more difficult for a character to be returned from the dead. Keeping the body prevents others from using raise dead or resurrection to restore the slain character to life. Casting trap the soul prevents any sort of revivification unless the soul is first released.
Yeah, looks like it's not RAW. Animating a body will prevent you from coming back to your own body, but it won't prevent you from gaining your heavenly (or infernal, abyssal, etc) reward.
As for flesh golems, I would say they are evil to create, and not evil to animate. Creation sees the first paragraph, and animating is simply a casting of whatever spell is needed to make them.
Well, the spells needed to animate a flesh golem include one with the [evil] descriptor...
NPC: Excuse me, but one of your zommies is a member of our adventuring party, but being undead stops him from being ressurected.
Necro: Fair enough. *kills Zommie in question* There ya go, you kids be careful now. :D
This is where it gets kind of sticky. Lynn was origionally designed to be my cohort I know this out of character because my dm told me strait out. My character had been doing things in a way that set him up to have his own country. because he is so damn charismatic my dm stated that he would get leadership as a free feat if i did not take it for myself. seeing as how he is a fighter i decided that taking it as a free feat would be unfair and possibly unbalancing, so i burned a feat for it. by the time i took leadership lynn had already been making asstons of undead by scroll for her current master in order to save the town we were tasked with protecting. sorry to be so long winded but i thought some backstory would be helpful. to shorten the rest of a story our last session ended with me giving her the robe of bones due to her apparent natural abilities with the undead and another character staiting that useing the robe was an evil act as was using the control undead spell, this would not be so bad except for the fact that my dm said yep he's right. so basically my dm handed my cn/cg character a true nutral cohort and then saying oh yeah she is already soiled in evil acts and any more necro is evil to.
It sounds like your DM is just trying to create drama in the game. Will your character make a stand and convince his new friend to turn from the Dark Side, or will he himself join Lynn in the Dark Side? I don't know your DM so I can't say if your DM is okay with an evil PC or if he'll confiscate your character sheet into the NPC pile if you turn to the Dark Side. A good way to gauge would be: what are the alignments of the other PCs? If they're all non-evil, your DM is probably assuming that you'll try to turn Lynn away from the Dark Side. If not, you have an actual choice to make!
TS
It's not to say that you can't work an [Evil] magic for ultimate good. You don't automatically become evil necessarilly. I mean, I guess you can, but there are shades of evil and then there's "Evil". You could follow that [Evil] shot w/ a [Good] chaser. Redemption is always possible and it's not like Reanimation and Undead creation are the sole province of divine types...it's just earlier acquired via CL/class.
So many shades of grey we can use and still be w/in a comfortable proximity to RAW.
-The Raise/Ressurection FU: good way to keep an evil villain from getting back in circulation I suppose. Evil doing it, but serves the greater good. Plus you can keep tabs on his body for later slaying and Speak w/ Dead if a question should service that needs a time answer.
A stretch I know, but I'm trying to stay proactive.
-Someone on here a few months back pitched a small village under the protection of a necromancer (and his 24 hr "civil servants") in such a scenario that the populace came to respect and ultimately love him for his constant vigiliance and protection in wartime. Seems pretty good, right?
-Convicted criminals could be sentenced to death...then undeath depending on legislature and government outlook. More of a Lawful nod than an Evil one. Helps set an example to the public when fiendish pedo is senteced to 24 hr grunt work where the citizenry can see "what happens IF"...
-Helm of Opposite Alignment? Really out there I know, but sentient undead w/ fixed alignments and no evil diets and the like could be "reprogrammed" like terminators.
Oh, I agree. I just don't believe in the idea that, simply by being a Necromancer and animating corpses, you're Evil and using [Evil] magic, especially when a spell like [i]Finger of Death[/c] is *not* [Evil].
Or, alternatively:Zombies are corpses reanimated through the power of Transmutation and/or Enchantment magic, allowing a noble and good-meaning sorcerer to control selfless minions through sparks of his will.
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their masters, cleaning the sewers so that the living need not risk their own lives.
Mummies are preserved corpses animated through the power of Anubis and Osiris to protect the nobly fallen.
As far as I'm concerned, what you said/quoted, Ariakus, is nothing more than flavor text, completely mutable, and only one side of the die.
This sounds one sided as well, and made up, as I see no references to your quotes. Mine are from SRD, and checked by MM1... yours? What I quoted wasn't flavored text, but straight from the books you play from. Look them up, if you don't have the books handy, I will give you the link to SRD where I got them.
Frankly, if you don't want to follow the rules of the game you are on the thread of, and playing from, then you need not post here, but create your own threads where anything goes. Look up Animate Dead in the book and tell me it is Transmutation or Enchantment... form the one I bought and am currently looking at... it says Necromancy. Now pairing the Fact (not your opinion) that Animate Dead is Necromancy, and looking up the monsters it animates (the ones I posted and reference), it is dark and sinister magic. This is not flavored by any means. What you argue now is contrived and flavored to try and prove a lone standing point. My argument is based on fact and has book and verse to back it up. What you say is 2+2 does not, in fact, equal 4, because you do not believe it does. So you will make up your own equation to make sure it sounds like the answer is 5.
Yeah, looks like it's not RAW. Animating a body will prevent you from coming back to your own body, but it won't prevent you from gaining your heavenly (or infernal, abyssal, etc) reward.
Not suprised I didn't follow RAW on that one, but it is interesting to hear exactly what officially happens.
This sounds one sided as well, and made up, as I see no references to your quotes. Mine are from SRD, and checked by MM1... yours? What I quoted wasn't flavored text, but straight from the books you play from. Look them up, if you don't have the books handy, I will give you the link to SRD where I got them.
Oh, I know it's equally one-sided, and it is made-up - although you didn't say that they were from the SRD, so I assumed they were your own opinions. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, just posting alternative viewpoints. And from your second paragraph, you've *never, ever* played with house rules? You think everything is perfectly balanced and doesn't need to be changed at all? I played AD&D first, and skipped 2nd/3rd ED straight to 3.5, so I'm still used to demons, devils, daemons, and severe stat differences between races/genders. Also, I don't see you bashing Krusk for *his* non-RAW viewpoint on souls and body-animation.
Furthermore, the three sentences you posted *are* flavor-text, and the only one that is strictly required by RAW is the 'dark and sinister magic' bit for the zombies. IIRC, Neutral clerics/wizards can cast Animate Dead, and there's nothing wrong with Anubis and Osiris, lords of the Dead in Egyptian mythos, creating mummies to guard the tombs of great nobles or the like.
Also:
Look up Animate Dead in the book and tell me it is Transmutation or Enchantment
It says Necromancy, but Transmutation "change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition" - doesn't that mean that it could animate something, or cause it to become mobile? Why can't I cast Animate Object on a corpse instead of Animate Dead? Nothing in RAW says I can't - it just has to be an inanimate object of nonmagical material, right? And Enchantment "affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior" - this one, I'll admit, is probably too much of a stretch, but I couldn't think of anything else that would accurately simulate the will of the caster being the controlling force.
Finally, Mummies are created with the Create Undead spell, a spell I didn't touch - I stuck with Animate Dead, and solely because I do not believe that creating the unintelligent undead, such as Zombies and Skeletons is Evil, as all you're doing is body animation, while creation of intelligent undead generally involves messing around with the soul/spirit of some creature (hence their intelligence and general malevolence) and *is* Evil.
and there's nothing wrong with Anubis and Osiris, lords of the Dead in Egyptian mythos, creating mummies to guard the tombs of great nobles or the like.
and solely because I do not believe that creating the unintelligent undead, such as Zombies and Skeletons is Evil, as all you're doing is body animation, while creation of intelligent undead generally involves messing around with the soul/spirit of some creature (hence their intelligence and general malevolence) and *is* Evil.
Second part first. Skeletons and Zombies, while Unintellegent, are still both NEvil. The creation of an Evil Aligned creature, is by its very nature, an Evil act.
Back to the first part. Mummies were created by those Gods to protect the tombs. Anubis, I may be wrong since I don't have my 1st ed copy of D&D in front of me, was LE in alignment for that reason. Few (if any) Gods of the Dead (in D&D) are Good aligned. Even ones that just protect the Dead (Wee Jas in Greyhawk) and don't like their priests controlling Undead are still on shaky grounds with the populace.
Second part first. Skeletons and Zombies, while Unintellegent, are still both NEvil. The creation of an Evil Aligned creature, is by its very nature, an Evil act.
Back to the first part. Mummies were created by those Gods to protect the tombs. Anubis, I may be wrong since I don't have my 1st ed copy of D&D in front of me, was LE in alignment for that reason. Few (if any) Gods of the Dead (in D&D) are Good aligned. Even ones that just protect the Dead (Wee Jas in Greyhawk) and don't like their priests controlling Undead are still on shaky grounds with the populace.
1) Ah, but *WHY* are Skeletons and Zombies Neutral Evil? Is it simply because they're animated using Animate Dead? In that case, Animate Object! Presto! - an animated corpse that is Neutral, and created using Transmutation instead of Necromancy.
2) Nor I, but Anubis was either LN or LG, same with Osiris. In fact, I think the only evil deities in they Egyptian section were Apep and Set. Odin is NG (Odin, Freya, and Frigg, I believe, all get warriors from the Valkyries, so they can technically be called Gods of the Dead) - though Hel is Evil, I'll grant. Arawn, I believe, was LE, but he's also the bad guy in most of the stories.
1) Ah, but *WHY* are Skeletons and Zombies Neutral Evil? Is it simply because they're animated using Animate Dead? In that case, Animate Object! Presto! - an animated corpse that is Neutral, and created using Transmutation instead of Necromancy.
Because thats what the rules say :-)
I don't think Animate Object will work on a body (any nonmagical material such as Wood, Metal, Stone, Fabric, Leather, Ceramic, Glass or the like). Organic Material is not among the listed (there is also an Animate Plant Spell).
The additional downside, is Animate Object* (if you were to allow it) is only a 1 round/level effect, where Animate Dead is a Duration Limitless spell (basically until the UNdead are destroyed).
* = You can also cast Permanancy at an XP cost of 3,000xp per casting to make it last longer
Oh, I know it's equally one-sided, and it is made-up - although you didn't say that they were from the SRD, so I assumed they were your own opinions. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, just posting alternative viewpoints. And from your second paragraph, you've *never, ever* played with house rules? You think everything is perfectly balanced and doesn't need to be changed at all? I played AD&D first, and skipped 2nd/3rd ED straight to 3.5, so I'm still used to demons, devils, daemons, and severe stat differences between races/genders. Also, I don't see you bashing Krusk for *his* non-RAW viewpoint on souls and body-animation.
Furthermore, the three sentences you posted *are* flavor-text, and the only one that is strictly required by RAW is the 'dark and sinister magic' bit for the zombies. IIRC, Neutral clerics/wizards can cast Animate Dead, and there's nothing wrong with Anubis and Osiris, lords of the Dead in Egyptian mythos, creating mummies to guard the tombs of great nobles or the like.
Also:
It says Necromancy, but Transmutation "change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition" - doesn't that mean that it could animate something, or cause it to become mobile? Why can't I cast Animate Object on a corpse instead of Animate Dead? Nothing in RAW says I can't - it just has to be an inanimate object of nonmagical material, right? And Enchantment "affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior" - this one, I'll admit, is probably too much of a stretch, but I couldn't think of anything else that would accurately simulate the will of the caster being the controlling force.
Finally, Mummies are created with the Create Undead spell, a spell I didn't touch - I stuck with Animate Dead, and solely because I do not believe that creating the unintelligent undead, such as Zombies and Skeletons is Evil, as all you're doing is body animation, while creation of intelligent undead generally involves messing around with the soul/spirit of some creature (hence their intelligence and general malevolence) and *is* Evil.
I didn't say anything about Krusk's non-RAW rules because I didn't see it, I didn't read each post in here, only gleaning over them. I speed read most of the time trying to save time and miss some details.
Everything I quoted was directly from SRD, and I checked them against the MM1, so there was nothing I added. Mummies are made by Dark desert gods...doesn't dark=evil? Dark and Sinister magic for zombies, and Skeletons are animated for use by their Evil masters. All 3 state evil in their creation process in one word or another, but they all mean "evil".
I use house rules when things don't make sense, but they are rarely far from the original rule, for example in a campaign I'm running online, I couldn't find a cleric for the group's healer... but I found a druid, so I made a house rule she could spontaneously cast healing like a cleric...so it's still real close to the RAW. But you wont see me posting house rules on the D&D site(barring recent example of course
) unless it is on a House Rules thread.I can't quite cross the line for the Transmutation, because I can't look at a corpse as an "object", and in reality...even though the person is dead, the body is still quite living with "other" less mentionables like bacteria and adipocer, the decay process is very much alive, or with Enchantment... I can't see the same corpse having a mind, especially because they are called "mindless" and are unaffected by mind spells.
Everything I quoted was directly from SRD, and I checked them against the MM1, so there was nothing I added. Mummies are made by Dark desert gods...doesn't dark=evil? Dark and Sinister magic for zombies, and Skeletons are animated for use by their Evil masters. All 3 state evil in their creation process in one word or another, but they all mean "evil".
I use house rules when things don't make sense, but they are rarely far from the original rule, for example in a campaign I'm running online, I couldn't find a cleric for the group's healer... but I found a druid, so I made a house rule she could spontaneously cast healing like a cleric...so it's still real close to the RAW. But you wont see me posting house rules on the D&D site(barring recent example of course
I can't quite cross the line for the Transmutation, because I can't look at a corpse as an "object", and in reality...even though the person is dead, the body is still quite living with "other" less mentionables like bacteria and adipocer, the decay process is very much alive, or with Enchantment... I can't see the same corpse having a mind, especially because they are called "mindless" and are unaffected by mind spells.
1) I know, it's just that when you first posted them, you didn't attribute them to anything, so ...
. Anyway, no, dark =/= evil. Evil typically uses darkness, yes, and darkness is usually attributed to evil, but darkness =/= evil. You won't catch people claiming the night is evil, will you? Anyway, as I said earlier, I understand where you're coming from and why you say it; I just disagree. No hard feelings.2) Here, it's the same thing - I feel that Animate Dead [Evil] doesn't make sense, nor does Cure Light Wounds [Conjuration (Healing)]. Animate Dead is a Necromantic spell to me, true, but it's not inherently evil, and the Cure-line of spells are also Necromantic, as they were in the older editions.
3) Personally, I wouldn't use Transmutation for Animate Dead either, but I can see (and I hope you can, as well) how it would work, especially considering the other Animate spells are Transmutation. As for the corpse being an 'object' or not ... well, it's open to interpretation, but strictly speaking, I think it is. Bacteria ... well, I wouldn't count them. They're *in* the body, yes, but they're not part of it. It'd be like saying you can't Animate that birdcage because it's got a parrot in it! And, as I said, using Enchantment as part of an alternate flavor for A.D. was reaching - I just couldn't think of another school that would cover the transfer of will from the controller to the controlled.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, and I hope you understand where I'm coming from, because I dont' think I can explain it any better than I already have. Pax? Agree to disagree?
Also, Zuggster: where'd you get the material list for A. Object? 'Cause this is all I found ...
You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate.
An animated object can be of any nonmagical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or an equivalent number of larger objects per caster level. A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as sixteen, and a Colossal object as thirty-two. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell.
This spell cannot animate objects carried or worn by a creature.
Animate objects can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Also, Zuggster: where'd you get the material list for A. Object? 'Cause this is all I found ...An animated object can be of any nonmagical material
The actual printed 3.5 PHB.
An animated object can be of any nonmagical material - wood, metal, stone, fabric, leather, ceramic, glass or the like.
The SRD basically cut out the examples from the PHB.
I didn't say anything about Krusk's non-RAW rules because I didn't see it, I didn't read each post in here, only gleaning over them. I speed read most of the time trying to save time and miss some details.
I am almost 100% sure almost all of my rules were non RAW. I think I even said "I doubt this is RAW" I was just posting how I run it, because it seemed relavant.
I personally rarely run any of my game RAW, and have houserules in effect for most situations. These were just the excerpt that explains why animating undead is always an evil act in my games. I don't think I made any claims otherwise.
I don't think Animate Object will work on a body (any nonmagical material such as Wood, Metal, Stone, Fabric, Leather, Ceramic, Glass or the like). Organic Material is not among the listed (there is also an Animate Plant Spell).
Wood, leather, and most fabric (all fabric in medieval times) are organic materials. Leather and some fabrics are even organic materials of animal origin, although they've been processed.
I consider corpses to be objects because they lack Wisdom and Charisma scores. They can't perceive their surroundings (Wisdom), and they can't differentiate between themselves and things that are not themselves (Charisma). They actually lack all six ability scores, but Wisdom and Charisma are the two that are required to be a creature.
And for those of you who believe a corpse isn't an object because it contains living organisms, the rules treat immobile, nonresponsive life forms such as trees and coral as objects. So, you can have a living object, which makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that you can also have nonliving creatures (like undead).
And for those of you who believe a corpse isn't an object because it contains living organisms, the rules treat immobile, nonresponsive life forms such as trees and coral as objects. So, you can have a living object, which makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that you can also have nonliving creatures (like undead).
Of course, for the tree, Animate Plant would be used. Of note Animate Plant does not effect nonliving vegetable material such as a cotton tunic or hempen rope, even those are made from Plant materials.
-Animate Dead, Create Undead and their ilk are more or less Evil per RAW and, most likely, the majority of most home games. That's cool if you don't want to implement it under the pretense of "it's typecast unfairly" or you don't want to play your necros as evil. It's okay to play evil PCs though.
Alot of in game adjustments are to bend the rules so players don't have to feel guilty playing "an evil character". I allow non-goods elligibility for Assassin. But...when you murder innocent ppl for $, evil isn't far away you know? So what? We're adults. You can be evil w/out being [Evil] IMO...
Alignment is a joke anyway. Just use it to abjucate spell/planar FX, etc. RP morality by character background (favored enemy, country, gender, etc) and dramatic poise. Don't let 1 of 9 archetypes pigeonhole you EVER.
But, there's a reason, in the classical sense necromancers are evil. The rare others are skilled surgeons and the like, and yes, Healing magic should be Necomancy too. I don't see how they got Conjuration; life/death energy...?
-Animate/Create enough undead, you're gonna' become evil. It's a downward spiral of morality. Animation is like drug addiction in that undying/powerful servants (slaves really) make your (un)life so much easier. More you have, the more work they can do and that industry is all your's...provided you maintain control.
-50 gp of onxy/cadavre or skeleton? Wtf? Seriously, that's a clear sign in that market to "those in the know" that shady Mr. Grim is up to something. What is that, Spellcraft 18 (divine) to figure out it's a main component to an [Evil] spell? 50 gp is alot of money to regular folks too. And of course, when those regular folks aren't interred and rotting, well...
Someone postulated using cheaper Material Components, bones, skin masks, and so on. Conflicted myself. A price should be paid to be sure for such immense power and practicality a permanent 24 hr slave affords you, but it's unrealistic at best. I mean, for a formidable threat from a respectable Necro, he's gonna' need an onyx mine at his disposal and last time I checked, the walking dead were not very skilled laborers (miners)...
-Conflicted about being evil do to undead creation? There is always its polar opposite, Deathless. Typically though, good and neutral gods that employ Deathlessness do so grudgingly as they still exist outside the natural order. Kind of a copout existentially and all, but D&D does thrive on dynamic opposites, so, just an avenue to consider is all. But, that just covers your bargain basement undead types. Never seen a Deathless Wraith. Consider instead of draining Constitution, bolstering it per positive energy. Hammy, I know, but is it opposite day or what? Unsure here.
-(Re)Animated corpses are not Objects per se. They are creatures per RAW I thought.
-(f)undead creation should not sway your hand in character generation. 3 "E's" here: experiment, enslave, enjoy...leads to a big "E", Evil usually. Just cuz' you're evil, doesn't mean you can't perform good acts, support your party like a mother hen, raise puppies and kittens, etc.
But I also believe that using the spell animate dead is, at best, a very tiny evil act. You can be of neutral alignment and do it after all.
The idea of it being evil because it brings negative energy into the world is laughable. Does that mean that going around and knocking barmaids up is an inherently good act, since you will help bring positive energy into the world?
Undead IMO are only evil because mindless destruction and killing is evil. And that is what they're predisposed to unless they're controlled carefully.
Creating undead is evil. But controlling and using them is *NOT* inherently evil. At this point it depends on how you use them. If you send them to find and trigger traps, is that evil? No.
If you send them into a dungeon with a handwave and order them to "kill everything inside", is that evil? Very much yes, even if you're FAIRLY sure all creatures inside are evil. You can never tell.
However, let's say you're a cleric during a period of famine and drought. The oxen are dropping dead left and right. Would it REALLY be evil for you to animate them, so they can keep working and potentially save dozens of villagers lives from the famine? (Let's ignore for a minute that it would cost like 200 gold per oxen, and that money could be put to better use. Good or evil don't penalize you for incompetence)
(Let's ignore for a minute that it would cost like 200 gold per oxen, and that money could be put to better use. Good or evil don't penalize you for incompetence)
Well, if you're looking at a long term investment, this would actually be a decent deal. Consider that the ox doesn't need to eat (so if it couldn't graze at certain times like winter, or during said famine/drought/dust bowl situation, you don't need to try and find or buy it food), doesn't need to sleep or rest (you one ox can plow fields for 24 hours a day, for example), doesn't need protection from the elements (no stable or barn) because it's immune to harsh cold, and if it got hot enough to actually damage the undead ox, every living thing is fried anyway. Plus, the ox can't get sick.
Since a hovel of a house in D&D is like 1000gp, a barn or decent stable would be a lot, so you're spending about 185gp more on an undead ox than a regular one (ox are 15gp, trade goods), you're saving on: food, building costs, and veterinarian bills. In addition, you're actually getting an increased work capacity, so you're in theory going to be able to do more with one ox.
Ta-da...not incompetent, but planning ahead. :D
(And the reason I noticed it is because I was trying to think of a way to mitigate the cost of turning a pack animal into a zombie/skeleton. Fell Animate Acid Splash is available as soon as level 5.)
It's not to say you or your buddies couldn't dish out the damage conventionally then finish off the future test subject w/ a Fell Animate spell.
I think you were wise to zero it for circumnavigating the price of the 50gp onyx. I'm still of the opinion that anyone w/ 1/2 a brain trying to do a little legwork on some "questionable activity in the neighborhood" (read, reanimation, etc) is gonna' take note of the local gem market. Easy enough to sleuth out. This would help keep said necro "discrete", ie)still in business.
But anyway, moving on.
Um, going out on a limb here, but feats aren't [Evil]. Spells are, and if I'm right, don't quote me here, it's just a shortcut to Animate Dead. Overall, I thought it was a given in game that making undead is evil. Just how evil or what you do w/ them is the larger question. A new thread to be sure.
I don't think they had the text and space via editing to go into another diatribe on the moral perils of undead creation for a feat. I think the intent w/ Fell Animate wasn't to create a loophole around the alignment so much as to:
-Ommitt the 50 gp (onyx)/cadavre. Adds up quickly, but is worth it long term
-Ommitt the otherwise long casting time of Animate Dead; instant, permanent allies tactically speaking are pretty nice w/out having to Summon them
-Ommitts procuring of "raw materials". Ironically, it's easier to go to the source, living in this case, then breaking into a cemetary, locating a decent, preferably fresh grave, digging for a long time, exhuming, and hauling it away...w/out getting caught. And if you do, you get hung typically just for graverobbing, not necessarilly practicing unlawful magics and trafficing w/ the dead
-The cadacre is fresh as fresh can be (recently slain). Related: don't zombies have a shelf (un)life? When do they cease to be practically functional?
-Um, they stay crunchy in milk?
The cost debate: 50gp for a permanent slave is outstanding economically speaking. You would pay a couple hundred in Thay (Faerun) for a healthy male slave typically. Of course, they deal in the undead variety too over there given the arcane ambitions of the nation.
Pro: Said slave never gets sick, tries to escape, complains, 24 hr work shifts, hazardous duty isn't an issue (more $) and doubles as a fearless guard too, etc.
Con: said labor sucks ass (can't perform relatively easy tasks) so it's digging trenches, porter work, no frills labor. Can't breed them to make more slaves and thusly, more $, social stigma (gotta' hide them from the public), the hygine issue and the smell...
Related: don't zombies have a shelf (un)life? When do they cease to be practically functional?
I'm not sure if there's a RAW answer to this ... but I'd say that the magic that animates them also prevents them from decomposing naturally, except over *long* periods of time (centuries+). Damage will eventually render the corpse unusable as a zombie, but a necromancer with access to bodies/parts and a decent hand with needle & thread would be able to keep an individual corpse running until it fell apart from overuse, as the newly-attached parts would be less affected by the spell, and thus more vulnerable to natural decay.
I'm not sure if there's a RAW answer to this ...
Maybe it was in 2nd ed or something, but I could've sworn there was a stipulation back in the day of "about a month" or so. Doesn't fly now though, 3rd ed, and I'd support that too.
Forensically, that's not a bad estimation though. After 2 weeks, a normal cadavre in respose (not upright, walking) is pretty far gone; trapped gases erupt, skin breaks, really nasty sh-t happens, but totally actionable for a zombie. 2 weeks in the tropics though (repose), nothing but bones left.
Being upright and mobile would help to ward off carrion feeders and slow decomposition a bit, but dead is dead to me. It's not like lichdom, nor should it be given relatively lower spell level and simplicity of the magic/subject.
but I'd say that the magic that animates them also prevents them from decomposing naturally, except over *long* periods of time (centuries+).
This is where I'm conflicted. The magic should stunt the rot somewhat, but I've seen in a few 3rd ed published dungeons, "zombie so rotted it can only lie there, if PCs become adjacent it tries to attack at a penalty..."
No necro is going to want a finite slave. The whole cost thing mentioned earlier. The spell should guarantee some undead shelf life.
On the other hand though, I would venture that Negative Energy isn't just it's battery supply; anatomically, metaphorically too, it's warding off other life forms like bacteria, some insects, carrion feeders, etc in much the same way the zombie wards of pretty much all animals as they defy animal reason, thusly triggering fight or flight responses. Keeping with this reasoning, World War 'Z' and Zombie Survival Guide (Max Brooks, recommended) stipulate that solanum (the reanmiate) prevents bacteria from hoarding up on the zombie. Essentially, this means they stick around a Hell of alot longer. Still suspectible to the elements (they freeze in winter, D&D one's don't) and rot accordingly, but way slower. Just a plot device to insure the fight lingers rather than survivors "waiting out the storm".
Damage will eventually render the corpse unusable as a zombie, but a necromancer with access to bodies/parts and a decent hand with needle & thread would be able to keep an individual corpse running until it fell apart from overuse, as the newly-attached parts would be less affected by the spell, and thus more vulnerable to natural decay.
You pose an interesting proposition here.
Not sure if a reanimated zombie w/ newly attached limbs and such would get their benefit as they were "installed after the program started". ie)Wouldn't you need to reboot (re-reanimate w/ new host tissues/bones)? Not sure if the powering negative energy would recognize the new pieces and parts, but I don't see why not. Mechanically, shouldn't break a DM's campaign you know, but it's gonna' come down to DM's discretion.
Of course, to allow it would be good too. Most necormancers should have Heal (surgery) too given their sphere of influence. Accomplished at anatomy and physiology, I'd hate to penalize a PC necro showing this kind of initiative, so I'd allow it as a DM. Would probably further campaign plot than hinder it.
Not sure if a reanimated zombie w/ newly attached limbs and such would get their benefit as they were "installed after the program started". ie)Wouldn't you need to reboot (re-reanimate w/ new host tissues/bones)?
I would (especially if it was brought up by a player) generally allow it without a 'reboot.' Probably the most I would do is Heal/Craft check to make sure the new part is attached properly, then a Spellcraft (to simulate the necromancer willing the magic to work with the new part).