PDA

View Full Version : Animate Dead



dungeon-keeper
2009-11-09, 06:07 PM
Do you have to be an character with an Evil Alignment (CE, NE, etc.) to cast the spell Animate dead?, because it is listed as a Necromancy (Evil) spell

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-09, 06:11 PM
No, but by RAW, casting the spell slowly turns you evil. I'd talk to your DM, because it's one of the dumber things about the alignment system that Dominating people to fight and die for you isn't Evil, but raising undead is.

Draken
2009-11-09, 06:11 PM
As an arcane caster? Not really. But as a cleric at least, if you are of good alignment the spell is not considered to be on your class list, I think.

Not sure about Archivists and Favored Souls.

onthetown
2009-11-09, 06:12 PM
Kind of depends on what your DM rules... but if they're a rules lawyer, they'll likely say it will turn you evil.

Johel
2009-11-09, 06:16 PM
You can be a LG wizard and cast the spell.
But once you travel with your skeleton majordomo, Miko and her LS paladins will assume you are evil and won't even bother casting "Detect Evil" : you command an undead, hence you take responsibility for its existence, since "good people aren't suppose to tolerate such abomination".

SMITE EVIL !!!

Radiun
2009-11-09, 06:18 PM
Be Neutral, cast animate dead, then use spells with the good descriptor.
If your DM tries to turn you evil, point out your prodigious use of 'good' spells

jiriku
2009-11-09, 06:32 PM
Be Neutral, cast animate dead, then use spells with the good descriptor.
If your DM tries to turn you evil, point out your prodigious use of 'good' spells

I have done this. It's amusing to see the look on the DM's face when he realizes that the same rule he's using to penalize you also invalidates his point. Side note: casting planar binding to summon an angel and bind it to your will is technically a good act, since summoning a good outsider gives the spell the [good] descriptor.


Only good clerics are expressly forbidden from casting spells with the [evil] descriptor.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-09, 06:46 PM
You can be a LG wizard and cast the spell.
But once you travel with your skeleton majordomo, Miko and her LS paladins will assume you are evil and won't even bother casting "Detect Evil" : you command an undead, hence you take responsibility for its existence, since "good people aren't suppose to tolerate such abomination".

SMITE EVIL !!!

Granted, a Miko who does so falls because you are an innocent.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-09, 06:50 PM
But if you wear black robes, mutter in a sinister fashion, and take pleasure in combat, as a certain obscenely-low-Wisdom Malconvoker happens to do, you deserve whatever comes to you.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-11-09, 07:06 PM
Personaly i prefer to summon celestial monkeys to do my bidding while i have a few undead servants around.

Woodsman
2009-11-09, 07:12 PM
Acting on good intention whilst using undead minions allows you to remain neutral.

Heroes of Horror mentions the fact that neutral dread necromancers use their necromancy (where the only evil part is spells with [Evil] and animating dead) for good intentions. The acts aren't blatantly evil, just kind of evil. The ends kind of justify the means in this case (you aren't good, but you aren't evil either).

It's about how the DM interprets it, as well. An open-minded DM will see things as I explained. Rules Lawyers will say, "No, you turn evil and there's jack squat you can do!"

Or something like that.

Mongoose87
2009-11-09, 07:14 PM
Of course, unless there's a Paladin in the party, how you play the character matters a lot more than what it says on your sheet under "Alignment."

Set
2009-11-09, 10:39 PM
Be Neutral, cast animate dead, then use spells with the good descriptor.
If your DM tries to turn you evil, point out your prodigious use of 'good' spells

You can even work out a spreadsheet. "Okay, I cast Animate Dead today, which is 4 levels of [Evil], so I'll use my remaining spell slots before I go to bed Summoning Celestial Monkeys and Bees, until I get 4 levels of [Good] to cancel it out." Just to be on the safe side, stay ahead of the curve. "But I've only cast 14 levels of [Evil] spells and 29 levels of [Good] spells! I'm way ahead of the curve. I should be getting a Mount Celestia merit badge or something!"

And then you can really mess with the system. "I Summon a Lantern Archon and have it Ray of Light-to-death an orphanage. That's 3 levels of [Good] for me, and some monstrously over-the-top evil that doesn't count for alignment tracking purposes. Tomorrow I'll Planar Ally a Hound Archon and order it to devour a nunnery, which still counts towards my [Good] tracking, because it has an alignment descriptor, while the Sound Burst I cast to stampede the parade horses into the crowd at harvest fest was just wicked fun, and that Flame Strike I called down in the middle of the hospice was just the un-trackable meaningless sort of evil. Who knew enslaving Angels and Archons and forcing them to do acts of unspeakable evil could be good for my karma?"

"If casting [Evil] spells turns me evil, and casting [Good] spells turns me good, how many [Fire] spells do I have to cast to become fire? If I cast enough [Death] spells, am I become death, destroyer of worlds?"

Radiun
2009-11-09, 10:43 PM
"If casting [Evil] spells turns me evil, and casting [Good] spells turns me good, how many [Fire] spells do I have to cast to become fire? If I cast enough [Death] spells, am I become death, destroyer of worlds?"

No but cast enough Sonic spells and you turn blue and gain a +50ft enhancement bonus to your land speed ;-P

Deth Muncher
2009-11-09, 10:48 PM
No but cast enough Sonic spells and you turn blue and gain a +50ft enhancement bonus to your land speed ;-P

I see what you did there. Do not want. :P

In any event, there's the whole thing about "oh, you're disturbing a body from its rest" blah blah. Why not Creation a corpse? Then you're golden.

Radiun
2009-11-09, 10:54 PM
I see what you did there. Do not want. :P

In any event, there's the whole thing about "oh, you're disturbing a body from its rest" blah blah. Why not Creation a corpse? Then you're golden.

Bah, Golems bind the unwilling spiritls from the plane of X to a machine and subjugate it to your whims. Animate Dead makes the leftovers of a previous person run on be moved around by negative energy. Animating the dead is one of the least horrific things casters do.

Ashiel
2009-11-10, 12:16 AM
I'm curious if anyone can actually provide the rule that says casting spells of the evil descriptor turns people evil. I've heard this argument many times before, but no one has ever been able to point me in the right direction with this.

Can anyone here help me find it? :smallsmile:

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 12:32 AM
No, but by RAW, casting the spell slowly turns you evil. I'd talk to your DM, because it's one of the dumber things about the alignment system that Dominating people to fight and die for you isn't Evil, but raising undead is.

While the alignment system has its problems, don't make baseless statements. "Dominating people to fight and die for you" is pretty explicitly called out as wrong in BoED. Hell, even in the PHB Lawful Evil is called "Dominator."


I'm curious if anyone can actually provide the rule that says casting spells of the evil descriptor turns people evil. I've heard this argument many times before, but no one has ever been able to point me in the right direction with this.

Can anyone here help me find it? :smallsmile:

BoVD, page 8.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 12:42 AM
Acting on good intention whilst using undead minions allows you to remain neutral.

Heroes of Horror mentions the fact that neutral dread necromancers use their necromancy (where the only evil part is spells with [Evil] and animating dead) for good intentions. The acts aren't blatantly evil, just kind of evil. The ends kind of justify the means in this case (you aren't good, but you aren't evil either).

It's about how the DM interprets it, as well. An open-minded DM will see things as I explained. Rules Lawyers will say, "No, you turn evil and there's jack squat you can do!"

Or something like that.Unless there's a paladin around, just cast those [Evil (but not really)] spells, and when the DM tells you that you're now evil, go out and anonymously save a few orphanages at your own peril, anyway. If the DM says that it's not in-character (because you're evil), just tell him that being evil isn't in-character (because it's actions and intents that matter). What can he do? I mean, really?

Xenogears
2009-11-10, 12:44 AM
Bah, Golems bind the unwilling spiritls from the plane of X to a machine and subjugate it to your whims. Animate Dead makes the leftovers of a previous person run on be moved around by negative energy. Animating the dead is one of the least horrific things casters do.

Entirely depends on wether or not you think thst snimsting the corpse also binds the soul. Seeing as though a true Rez spell works even without a body but not if that body is an undead it gives a pretty good indication that it does in fact trap the soul in some manner. That is what makes it evil.

Then you get to the confusing bits though. If you use create undead where do souls come from for it? Or are the souls merely a side-effect and not a requirement? That would make create undead not explicitly evil but animate dead evil. Thats prolly what I would go with...

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 12:47 AM
Supposedly, it's because undead are auto-evil.

Despite necropolitans, and dread necromancers, and ghosts, and baelnorns, and demiliches, and...and...and...

Yeah, despite them. Because mindless undead hunger for living flesh, except that mindless undead are mindless, and don't ever do anything that they aren't told...but...are animated by negative energy...which is neutral-aligned...errr...

Death is bad, mm'kay?

Thajocoth
2009-11-10, 12:48 AM
Does not the fireball incinerate it's target with painful flame until they die? Does not the lightning bolt sear it's targets with excruciating electricity? Animate Dead can, in the hands of a good wizard, help even the battlefield between good and evil. Good needs all the help it can get. Summoning help is not a sign of weakness. No matter how powerful you may be, having allies makes you stronger.

As long as you're not harvesting corpses for the purpose of animating them... Let the buried dead rest and the innocent live. The bodies of the cruel and villainous, however, deserve no such privileges, nor do they usually care much about the fates of their bodies... So who should even object to the act?

To quote Dragon Magazine #372 (February 2009), page 20, regarding the topic of necromantic powers:

"Their sometimes dark descriptions might make them seem odd in the hands of good PCs but if you think about it, no more so than the flesh-crisping fury of fireball or the blood-letting butchery of reaping strike."

(That article contains the 4th edition version of Animate Dead, which is a level 9 Wizard Daily power. It raises a fallen enemy in battle who's then an undead under the wizard's command for the remainder of the battle.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-10, 12:51 AM
While the alignment system has its problems, don't make baseless statements. "Dominating people to fight and die for you" is pretty explicitly called out as wrong in BoED. Hell, even in the PHB Lawful Evil is called "Dominator."But Dominate isn't evil.

Radiun
2009-11-10, 12:53 AM
Does not the fireball incinerate it's target with painful flame until they die? Does not the lightning bolt sear it's targets with excruciating electricity?

I'll do you on better
5th level druid spell Call Avalanche drops a ton of snow on anyone in the area of effect (8d6), and creatures who fail their save are buried. Unless they dig their way out (or possibly make a DC 25 strength check, DM discretion), they die slowly, 1d6 per minute I think.

At least lightning bolt and fireball spells are quick(ish) deaths ;-)

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 12:56 AM
I'll do you on better
5th level druid spell Call Avalanche drops a ton of snow on anyone in the area of effect (8d6), and creatures who fail their save are buried. Unless they dig their way out (or possibly make a DC 25 strength check, DM discretion), they die slowly, 1d6 per minute I think.

At least lightning bolt and fireball spells are quick(ish) deaths ;-)Druids use the poison spell.

Aren't poisons evil? Even drow sleeping poison? Which, admittedly, is kinda a humane alternative to bludgeoning someone to death or slitting their throats, if it comes right down to it?

D&D alignments are FUBAR'd. At least, when it comes to BoED and BoVD.

Xenogears
2009-11-10, 12:57 AM
Druids use the poison spell.

Aren't poisons evil? Even drow sleeping poison? Which, admittedly, is kinda a humane alternative to bludgeoning someone to death or slitting their throats, if it comes right down to it?

D&D alignments are FUBAR'd. At least, when it comes to BoED and BoVD.

Actually ironically enough Drow Sleeping Poison is listed as a NON-evil poison in the BoED since it does NOT do ability damage...

Ashiel
2009-11-10, 12:58 AM
BoVD, page 8.

Thank you so much. No one has ever before mentioned to me where this contrived rule comes up. I'm also glad to find out it's just a tacked on piece of nonsense from an equally stupid book. Phew, I thought it might have actually been in the rules somewhere. :smalltongue:

On a side note, it goes to show how stupid both the BoVD and the BoED are, considering stuff like this. I never bothered to pick up the BoVD, and the BoED is 60% how to do stuff that's supposedly "evil" and still call yourself good (a holy assassin, good poisons, forcefully changing people's alignments, and stupid stuff like deathless - oh look, undead that aren't undead really).

You have no idea how happy I am now. :smallamused:

Xenogears
2009-11-10, 01:01 AM
Thank you so much. No one has ever before mentioned to me where this contrived rule comes up. I'm also glad to find out it's just a tacked on piece of nonsense from an equally stupid book. Phew, I thought it might have actually been in the rules somewhere. :smalltongue:

On a side note, it goes to show how stupid both the BoVD and the BoED are, considering stuff like this. I never bothered to pick up the BoVD, and the BoED is 60% how to do stuff that's supposedly "evil" and still call yourself good (a holy assassin, good poisons, forcefully changing people's alignments, and stupid stuff like deathless - oh look, undead that aren't undead really).

You have no idea how happy I am now. :smallamused:

Good Clerics still can't cast spells with the Evil tag including any undead related ones...

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 01:02 AM
Actually ironically enough Drow Sleeping Poison is listed as a NON-evil poison in the BoED since it does NOT do ability damage...I stand corrected.

However, I note a distinct lack of [Evil] tags on the poison spell, on shivering touch, ego whip, prismatic spray/wall/sphere, ray of enfeeblement, and the various poisonous animals and vermin crawling around in the Monster Manual.

Oh, and ravages too, of course. :smallsigh:

Ashiel
2009-11-10, 01:08 AM
Good Clerics still can't cast spells with the Evil tag including any undead related ones...

Oh, that's fine by me. They can do it in thematically appropriate ways (such as getting the spell animate dead on their spell list with the Death domain, if they're a lawful good cleric of Wee Jass or something else appropriate.

However, I'm glad to find out that this idea of arbitrarily forcing alignment changes based on [Descriptors] is just from some random (highly optional) splat-book. It just makes more sense the normal way (notice the comments about golems, and celestial badgers and how silly yet completely accurate they are by the Book-of rules).

I'm also relieved that the reason I couldn't find the rule people were talking about is because I never bothered to buy that silly book.
:smallsmile:

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 01:17 AM
Dominating people to fight and die for you isn't Evil

Should it be?

Xenogears
2009-11-10, 01:18 AM
I stand corrected.

However, I note a distinct lack of [Evil] tags on the poison spell, on shivering touch, ego whip, prismatic spray/wall/sphere, ray of enfeeblement, and the various poisonous animals and vermin crawling around in the Monster Manual.

Oh, and ravages too, of course. :smallsigh:

Yes well apparently those are all okay because the ability damage on them has bee fluffed to be non-painful in nature. So if you were to take any poison in DnD and refluff it to deal ability damage in a non-painful way then its just fine to use it.

Edit: Yes Dominating someone to fight for yo should be evil. The whole robbing them of all free will and forcing them to risk their lives for something they may not agree with and may in fact even be opposed to.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:54 AM
Edit: Yes Dominating someone to fight for yo should be evil. The whole robbing them of all free will and forcing them to risk their lives for something they may not agree with and may in fact even be opposed to.

What about stabbing them with a sword and letting them bleed out on the floor? Why isn't that evil? They may not agree with and in fact even be opposed to it.

sonofzeal
2009-11-10, 04:24 AM
Just because something doesn't have the Evil tag, doesn't mean it doesn't turn you evil. Yay for triple negatives.


Things can be evil without the evil tag. Fireballs aren't evil, but fireballing an orphanage is. Dominate isn't "inherently" evil, but a lot of the things you can do with it are.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 06:32 AM
the FAQ for the Living Greyhawk campaign clarified it- stating that the BoVD bit is binding- casting an evil spell is an evil act- and a multiclass paladin-wizard who casts Animate Dead will Fall for doing so.

What it will not do, is change your alignment immediately. By FC2, casting Evil spells, is not a very evil act. Cast a lot of them, regularly- and expect your alignment to change.

The guidelines on the Malconvoker, in Complete Scoundrel, make it clear that there is such a thing as alignment drift from casting evil spells. (And that the malconvoker is immune- for evil summoning spells only).

Cast it very very rarely, only when needed to help others, and a fair DM should allow you to keep at least Neutral alignment (by Heroes of Horror).

Conversely, there is no "alignment drift" for casting Good spells- the Fiendish Codex 2 Corruption system makes it clear that it's your unatoned-for evil acts, that determine your afterlife destination.

Not, the total amount of good acts.

And even "good" descriptor spells can be used for evil purposes. It is possible to murder a Neutral person with Holy Word. The fact that you have committed murder, matters far more, than the fact that the murder weapon was a "good" spell.

PinkysBrain
2009-11-10, 06:39 AM
Conversely, there is no "alignment drift" for casting Good spells- the Fiendish Codex 2 Corruption system makes it clear that it's your unatoned-for evil acts, that determine your afterlife destination.
It's a decent indicator, but not really proof ... the gods after all do not define morality.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 06:41 AM
and the gods can't really interfere with beings damned by the corruption system.

In the context of D&D, even a god can Fall- a god with paladin ranks who commits a Corrupt act will lose their paladin status.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-10, 06:41 AM
And even "good" descriptor spells can be used for evil purposes. It is possible to murder a Neutral person with Holy Word. The fact that you have committed murder, matters far more, than the fact that the murder weapon was a "good" spell.

The casting of the spell is technically a good act.

The resolution of the spell may be an evil act, even if the above is true.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 06:44 AM
Possibly- but as a rule, it's evil acts, more than good acts, that determine alignment.

According to Champions of Ruin- it doesn't matter how much good you do- if you are committing evil acts on a routine and regular basis, you are evil.

Even if you commit one good act for every Evil act.

No more "Stupid Neutral" druids, of the "The balance permits me to do all the evil I want- as long as I do good acts as well"

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-10, 06:48 AM
Possibly- but as a rule, it's evil acts, more than good acts, that determine alignment.

According to Champions of Ruin- it doesn't matter how much good you do- if you are committing evil acts on a routine and regular basis, you are evil.

Even if you commit one good act for every Evil act.

No more "Stupid Neutral" druids, of the "The balance permits me to do all the evil I want- as long as I do good acts as well"

Void where prohibited. Some exceptions apply. See Grayguard for details.

Though I have played the neutral druid that actively encouraged balance. Not as a way to justify evil acts. Each act I did was deliberate and measured. The believe that if good or evil became too dominant, then man's freedom to determine his own fate in the afterlife would suffer. Therefore, it was best to make sure both good and evil were constantly in a struggle from which neither side won... Because it is the choosing that defines who you are. So he fought to ensure that there was always conflict, for conflict breeds strength. That conflict needn't be mortal, or even violent. But disagreement in views led to freedom of choice.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 06:50 AM
I see the Gray guard as more "Evil acts on very rare occasions, in the cause of duty" not "Evil acts as a regular routine"

It even says so- a gray guard who abuses the privilege, or overuses it- can expect to Fall, and be booted out.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-10, 06:55 AM
I see the Gray guard as more "Evil acts on very rare occasions, in the cause of duty" not "Evil acts as a regular routine"

It even says so- a gray guard who abuses the privilege, or overuses it- can expect to Fall, and be booted out.

But a Grayguard who tortures to obtain information to save lives? Good.

A grayguard who commits evil acts to further good ends is fine, unless he goes grossly blatant about it.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 07:21 AM
Actually, this is incorrect.

A low level gray guard who "tortures for information"- Evil act- will Fall- but the person casting the Atonement spell on him won't need to spend XP the way they normally would.

A top-level gray guard who "tortures for information"- Evil act- will not Fall- because Gray Guards have that special exemption, only for high-level members of the PRC.

It is pretty clear- low-level gray guards are not immune to the consequences of committing evil acts. High level ones are- again- only if they don't "go overboard".

Tolkien took a similar approach in Morgoth's Ring- torturing orcs, even to get life-saving information about where their next raid will take place? Evil. But also, not unknown.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 07:33 AM
What if you dominate a neutral or evil cleric, command him to cast animate dead (give him a scroll if necessary) and then command him to give you control over all the new undead? You could make a morally blind character that believes that as long as their hands are clean, their immortal soul will stay pure (though it would be up to the DM to determine what you can get away with).

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 07:35 AM
I lean to the "ordering somebody to do X evil act counts as doing it yourself"

A D&D crime boss is not "morally clean" merely because he never dirties his own hands.

That said, with a little generous interpretation (and Heroes of Horror for precedent) "casting an evil spell" (or, for that matter, "intimidating torture") are so low on the "Evil scale", that a person can maintain a Neutral alignment and still do them when the need arises.

Still count as "evil acts" but don't cause a full shift into Evil alignment.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 07:44 AM
I lean to the "ordering somebody to do X evil act counts as doing it yourself"

A D&D crime boss is not "morally clean" merely because he never dirties his own hands.

That said, with a little generous interpretation (and Heroes of Horror for precedent) "casting an evil spell" (or, for that matter, "intimidating torture") are so low on the "Evil scale", that a person can maintain a Neutral alignment and still do them when the need arises.

Still count as "evil acts" but don't cause a full shift into Evil alignment.

True, but the crime boss orders his cronies to do evil (bustin' skulls, breakin' legs and offin' the competition). You can use the undead to achieve good ends (swarming the BBED with skeletons to distract him whilst you take him down). It comes down to how morally suspect forcing someone to cast an evil spell you to use to good ends is.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 07:51 AM
as mentioned- the evil spell is, well, evil, but not very.

RAW, casting Animate Dead is exactly as evil (no more, no less) as casting Summon Monster to summon an imp, or a pit fiend.

And this is, according to BoVD, evil, but not very.

Using your animated dead for really good ends- lifesaving, basically, from sending them rushing into a burning building to haul out the trapped victims, to sending them at the Villain, who you are fighting out of a desire to protect people from him, is enough to put you in the "Neutral" range, in my view.

After all, a Dread Necromancer who does this sort of thing, can be Neutral, but not Good.

Oslecamo
2009-11-10, 08:28 AM
(swarming the BBED with skeletons to distract him whilst you take him down).

That would actualy be an evil act.

You try to swarm the BBED with skeletons. He tells his trusty evil cleric minion to command them.

Congratulations, you've just made the BBED even stronger.

Trying to fight fire with fire works horribly in D&D.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 08:33 AM
that is, however, dependant on them having an evil cleric minion.

Still- this is a fairly good rationale as to why there are so few non-evil dread necromancers- because fighting fire with fire is very risky.

Sometimes it works- a lot of the time, it does not.

A "dark hero" is an interesting option for some games, but they should probably be more the exception than the rule.

Oslecamo
2009-11-10, 08:37 AM
What kind of self-respecting BBED doesn't have a buff bot, in case he isn't one himself?:smalltongue:

But yes, the main point is that if you try to use evil tricks, it's quite easy for the evil dudes to turn them against you.

For example, if you have your army of undeads, it sudenly means good clerics can't try to turn enemy undead whitout frying your own on the process.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 08:43 AM
Possibly one which is both stupid and very dangerous? Akin to an unusually bright tarrasque.

And that is one point to be remembered- the ease of your weapons being turned against you- or limiting the abilities of your allies.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 08:48 AM
That would actualy be an evil act.

You try to swarm the BBED with skeletons. He tells his trusty evil cleric minion to command them.

Congratulations, you've just made the BBED even stronger.

Trying to fight fire with fire works horribly in D&D.

Assuming he has trusty evil cleric minions around... Not every enemy has evil clerics hiding in the tall grass, waiting to spring into action. Besides, if his buddy cleric rebukes the undead, why can't you turn/destroy them on your next action (in an epic, Scanners-like struggle for domination)? It might be a good surprise move as well: who's expecting to fend off an army of undead from the 'good guys'?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 08:52 AM
Some campaigns (Savage Tide in particular) seem to be based on the assumption that Good guys, of any kind, can team up with Bad Guys, to face those who are Much Worse Bad Guys.

Celestials + Demons, vs Demogorgon, for example.

I can definitely see DMs ruling that the non-association clause does not prohibit alliances.

So you could even have a paladin fighting alongside a horde of undead commanded by a necromancer, against the much worse main villain.

Oslecamo
2009-11-10, 08:52 AM
O'rrly?:smallamused:
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/3729099/images/1234811681577.gif
Go forth my loyal minions before I step over you! Slay the order of the good undead and bring back their zombies, so we may burn more orphanages!

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 09:19 AM
Go forth my loyal minions before I step over you! Slay the order of the good undead and bring back their zombies, so we may burn more orphanages!

*Curses! My loyal minions have been destroyed by the Order of Good Undead and turned into even more zombies that built orphanages! Blast... I will go and claim them myself!

**Master, they heard you were coming and destroyed them all on a whim.

*Foiled again!!! One day, I myself will figure out a way to get my own undead minions...

Oslecamo
2009-11-10, 09:25 AM
**Master, the zombie built orphanages have just crumbled due to the poor skill of the zombie labors! Countless children have suffered painfull slow deaths and the order of the good undead are now heralded as monsters! The farmers promise to elect you as their new leader if you get rid of them!

*Just as planned!

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 09:34 AM
***Well, it looks like my attempts to build orphanages have failed... Zounds! And in the worst possible way! And the people just elected a tarrasque as their new leader. What a whacky place! I'm going to the nearby kingdom of 'Nofiat'. On my way, I killed a band of evil rampaging ogres with some new undead I picked up and the people were creeped out, but then relieved that I didn't kill them, and triply relieved that the ogres have been demolished! Sure, the people don't hail me as a hero, but I know that I've done some good with my dirty, foul, yet infinitely easy to acquire minions.

t_catt11
2009-11-10, 09:43 AM
Sigh.

If you are relying solely on tags referenced in a splatbook for an explanation of how alignment should work, you're doing it wrong.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... hopefully, you get my drift.

Disturbing graveyards and interrupting the rest of the dead is a pretty evil act. Binding an outsider (of any alignment) for the sole purpose of crulty or selfishness is an evil act, no matter the descriptor tag.

Animating the corpse of an enemy to aid you in a fight is gross and socially unacceptable, but not necessarily evil.

D&D should not be played like KOTOR - you don't arbitrarily collect dark side and light side points in an effort to preserve some artificial balance. If you do... well, again, you are doing it wrong. Where is the roleplay? Where is the character concept?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 09:56 AM
Actually, neither D&D, nor Star Wars Saga Edition, has such a thing as "light points" only "dark points".

My guess is- it is for the purposes of determining what happens when you do it and you, for some reason, have a class, or feats, that penalize you for committing an evil act.

In a more freeform game, you might be able to persuade your DM that your Paladin/Necromancer won't Fall for casting animate dead.

But in a "normal game" or a massively multiplayer one like Living Greyhawk- Welcome to Fallsville, Population: You.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 09:59 AM
But Dominate isn't evil.

The spell can be used in other ways besides "fight and die for me!" that's why.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 10:17 AM
If you're going to toss BoVD and BoED, why bother having deeper alignment in your games at all? Cast all the Evil spells you want and houserule the ramifications away from your table, nobody's making you deal with them.

Those two books aren't perfect, I'll agree, but what else do we have? Core has a collection of blurbs; hamish posted the scraps from the rest. If you don't want deeper alignment in your games, just leave it out. Don't whine about WotC's attempt at making D&D more complicated than "go here, kill bad guys."

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 10:20 AM
Don't whine about WotC's attempt at making D&D more complicated than "go here, kill bad guys."Don't you mean their attempts to make it "Black vs White" and kill any attempt at subtle shades of gray?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 10:26 AM
It was already black-and-white in early D&D.

Something along the lines of

"There are evil guys and good guys, and anything the good guys do to the evil guys- theft, murder, torture, etc, is OK"

I still see that attitude a lot.

At least now, there is an attempt, at countering this.

A notion, in short, that some forms of behaviour eventually lead to slippage from Good, regardless of the fact that the victims of that behaviour, are Evil.

Flickerdart
2009-11-10, 10:30 AM
Aren't the Fiendish Codices much better with evil-related stuff than BoVD?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 10:34 AM
Yes, but also, they have the "casting a spell with the Evil Descriptor is a 1 point Corrupt act" line in FC2.

Which is the source of the complaints- that Animate Dead is deemed Evil.

I've seen the claim that "it doesn't actually say a Corrupt act is an evil act"- but it did not seem convincing.

BoVD lists acts that are usually evil (though states that a few, aren't always evil, like lying, or revenge)

FC2 lists acts that are Corrupt (murder, casting evil descriptor spells, torture, theft from the needy, etc)

BoED lists one or two acts/institutions as evil (torture, slavery, discrimination)

Champions of Ruin states that regular, routine evil acts turn the character evil- no matter how good their intentions.

Heroes of Horror says that it is possible to maintain a Neutral alignment and still commit evil acts- if your intentions are good, and the evil acts are intended to further good ends. If CoR also applies, this means the evil acts must also be not-routine, if you expect to stay Neutral.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-10, 10:56 AM
[Snip!]
Heroes of Horror says that it is possible to maintain a Neutral alignment and still commit evil acts- if your intentions are good, and the evil acts are intended to further good ends. If CoR also applies, this means the evil acts must also be not-routine, if you expect to stay Neutral.

I've never heard of Champions of Ruin, but from its logic, if you do routine good acts, does it balance out the routine evil acts, or are evil acts more heavily weighted than good acts?

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 11:02 AM
Don't you mean their attempts to make it "Black vs White" and kill any attempt at subtle shades of gray?

Other way around actually.

BoED is the first book that says "gee, murdering those orcs just because they happen to be orcs might make you fall."

So it marks the start, not the end, of the gray.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 11:06 AM
More heavily weighted.

This is consistant with Fiendish Codex 2, which weights it so heavily, that if you are lawful and do a few evil acts, then spend the rest of your life doing good ones, but don't ever actually atone, apologize, fix some of the damage done by the original evil acts-

then afterlife destination is the Nine Hells.

Trying to atone and dying before you have succeeded, means getting transformed into a Hellbred and getting a second chance at "ransoming your soul". Which requires good deeds of pretty major magnitude- on a par with destroying an archfiend.

There is also a suggested "Obesiant acts" system, that works like corruption, but for Chaotic Characters.

By extrapolation, it seems to imply that an Evil character whose acts "too lawful"- even if they are CE and a demon cult, needs to atone for their Lawful acts.

Counting Champions of Ruin is a bit borderline- it has a Faerun cover, but much of the ideas- the various evil character archetypes, etc, are viable in any D&D setting.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 11:08 AM
By extrapolation, it seems to imply that an Evil character whose acts "too lawful"- even if they are CE and a demon cult, needs to atone for their Lawful acts.

When you get right down to it, do they really? I don't see the Abyss being all that much better than Baator. It's like, "thank the evils I made it home to Orcus instead of Asmodeus!" At least Asmodeus might offer you a job without you having to clobber your way into one...

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 11:12 AM
Maybe, for some reason, it's a side effect of the Pact Primeval.

The Obesiance system is a little odd.

Probably the harshest option, is to fuse the two together- saying a CG character who has committed 9 points of Corrupt acts and 9 points of Obesiant acts, goes to Baator.

It did say it was rare, but there were a few devils out there trying to "lure Evil characters to the Law side" by tempting them to do such acts.

and, as far as we know, the vast majority of souls have to pass through the lemure process first- which might make Baator worse from the point of view of Evil characters who know about this.

Set
2009-11-10, 11:42 AM
Bah, Golems bind the unwilling spiritls from the plane of X to a machine and subjugate it to your whims. Animate Dead makes the leftovers of a previous person run on be moved around by negative energy. Animating the dead is one of the least horrific things casters do.

Yeah, that's a hoot. If I summon pure neutral energy from a neutral-aligned plane to animate a corpse into a mindless state of obedience, that's evil. If I summon up an elemental spirit and enslave it into a pile of rotting bodies that I've dug up and stitched together, creating a flesh golem that so loathes it's state that it can go on berserk killing sprees, that's fine and dandy...

Plus the whole mindless Evil thing is great. A skeleton, functionally incapable of ever making a choice, for good or ill, incapable of malice, planning, hate or cruelty, standing around because it's incapable of volition, is 'evil.' A berserk flesh golem, murderously rampaging through the city, smashing people into messy piles of broken bones and ruptured flesh, is neutral.

It's like, "This rock is evil." "Really. What did it do?" "Nothing, it's just evil." "Does it hate all life?" "No, it's just evil." "Does it *want* to do something evil?" "No, it's just a rock. It can't want anything. I could even use it to build an orphanage or hit an evil cleric over the head, but it's still evil, because it's dark, icky black, and black things are evil, no matter what they do."

I'd be fine with a completely different cosmology, where negative energy *is* malevolent and life-hating, with all skeletons and zombies getting an automatic Int score of 3 and evil alignment (the same Int 3 a Fiendish animal or vermin needs to have to go from being a neutral animal or mindless vermin to a malevolent evil creature, might as well use the same rules used for fiendish critters, who need a mininum Int 3 to be evil or good!). The positive material plane would be similarly inherently good (and less deadly). Channeling negative energy would become a dangerous act, risking corruption, and channeling positive energy would be a similarly good act, bringing life and love and stuff into the world. Any healing spells based off of positive energy would be [Good] spells, and evil Clerics would need alternative methods of healing their allies (and themselves), using necromantic spells that steal life-force from another (or borrow from your own life-energy, so that you might take a point of Con damage to gain hit point healing, allowing you to recover the Con damage overnight to catch up), or Transformation spells to knit flesh, or whatever, since attempting to channel positive energy would endanger their connection to the negative energy that empowers them. (Note to Clerics, being powered by one type of energy and trying to channel the opposite? Matter and antimatter. Don't do it unless you are ready to go to warp speed...)

But that's not any version of D&D, and, until 3.5, mindless skeletons and zombies were never evil, because they were animated by a neutral force, and incapable of 'being evil,' lacking wills or volition.

Negative energy and positive energy are both un-aligned mindless forces, neither hating nor loving the living, as able to serve as tools as fire, and just as able to kill people as fire. Back in 1st edition, the Mummy was even based on positive energy, as it's special attack, inflicting disease *creates life*. Sure, it's an unpleasant sort of micro-life, but it's still *creating life,* which is not what negative energy does. Under that original paradigm, where positive energy creates life (even disease) and negative energy destroys life, remove disease would be a logical choice to be a *negative energy spell.* It's killing stuff. Stuff we don't like and want dead, but it's still snuffing out life, which is absolutely what negative energy does. Apparently that was too morally confusing for people who wanted a black and white 'this is always evil, this is always good' game, and couldn't abide with the notion that positive energy could be used to kill people and negative energy could be used to cure disease or zap tumors or purge an infestation or infection.

As the game has evolved, mummies are no longer creatures of positive energy, and diseases are now associated with negative energy, because some writers were simply incapable of understanding the original design of positive energy as life-creating mindless neutral force and negative energy as life-destroying mindless neutral force. Despite the planes remaining neutral, spells associated with them became increasingly polarized as 'good' or 'evil,' in direct contradiction to the nature of the planes themselves.

And now we're stuck with the schizophrenic stuff we've got now, where positive energy is neutral, but used by good clerics, and negative energy is neutral, but used by evil clerics, and disease has become associate with negative energy *which by definition can't create life,* and all sorts of contradictory nonsense. 3.5 just took the insanity one step further by keeping the 3.0 rules that a Vermin or Animal must be raised to Int 3 to be able to be Good or Evil, but an object animated with neutral negative energy remains mindless, but becomes inexplicably evil, despite being incapable of making a moral decision. Meanwhile, a Ravid can still animate objects by infusing them with positive energy, and those objects remain neutral, instead of inexplicably becoming 'Mindless Good,' proving that, once again, the designer who changed skeletons and zombies to evil had no freaking clue what he was doing...

It's hilarious. Whoever made that change in the Monster Manual clearly didn't bother to understand how the game works, or read the Manual of the Planes for *any* edition of D&D. If he wanted to drag the game in a new direction, where negative energy is evil and positive energy is good, and mindless things can be 'Mindless Evil' or 'Mindless Good,' he would have had to make the necessary changes to the Ravid, and to Celestial and Fiendish animals and vermin, and to dozens of spells (including barring all of the Cure X Wounds spells from Evil Clerics, since channeling good positive energy would have called them to 'fall from grace') but since he didn't have an agenda planned out further than 'undead = icky and icky = EVIL!,' he didn't even think of that.

If the village is being overrun by hobgoblins, and the village priest casts animate dead to raise the occupants of the graveyard to help their living descendents fight off the horde, then sends them back to their graves when the fight is done, I'm pretty comfortable with saying that he's done a good thing, regardless of the tools he used to do it. If he summons a celestial monkey and has it steal a rival's solid gold holy symbol, that's a bad thing, no matter the alignment descriptor.

Alignment should be more complicated than something you can put a descriptors on, or else it becomes meaningless.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 11:42 AM
on the spell itself:

While it's tricky, i'd go with:

Yes, its evil, but No, it won't change your alignment- not cast just once.

Would cause Paladin to Fall, or Exalted character to lose feats, but wouldn't change alignment.

Cast it occasionally, in a crisis- to "fight evil and protect others"- and avoid other forms of evil - the character is probably Neutral at worst.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-10, 11:47 AM
IIRC undead were changed to evil so that paladins could smite them. I think a more elegant solution would to give mindless undead the [evil] subtype and keep them logically neutral, but eh.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 11:50 AM
But that's not any version of D&D, and, until 3.5, mindless skeletons and zombies were never evil, because they were animated by a neutral force, and incapable of 'being evil,' lacking wills or volition.


Whether or not mindless undead were evil in 2nd ed, 1st ed, and before, animate dead has been dubious for a very long time.

2nd ed "Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil clerics/wizards use it regularly"

I'm guessing similar wording is used in other editions.

Oslecamo
2009-11-10, 11:51 AM
Yeah, that's a hoot. If I summon pure neutral energy from a neutral-aligned plane to animate a corpse into a mindless state of obedience, that's evil. If I summon up an elemental spirit and enslave it into a pile of rotting bodies that I've dug up and stitched together, creating a flesh golem that so loathes it's state that it can go on berserk killing sprees, that's fine and dandy...

Here's the catch:

Dead corpse-doesn't hurt anyone.

Undead corpse-will hurt you if you touch him with too much strenght,

Earth elemental: CRUSH THE PUNY HUMANOIDS AND THEIR OPEN SPACES! COLAPSE THE MINES! BURY THEM! (yes, they're like that. Earth elementals hate open spaces, and in the manual of the planes it's said they constantly crush any atempt of bulding a large structure on the plane of earth, making it a pretty dangerous place)

Binded earth elemental: trapped...Can't go into a rampage so easily...Curse you wizard, forcing me to build orphanages!



Plus the whole mindless Evil thing is great. A skeleton, functionally incapable of ever making a choice, for good or ill, incapable of malice, planning, hate or cruelty, standing around because it's incapable of volition, is 'evil.' A berserk flesh golem, murderously rampaging through the city, smashing people into messy piles of broken bones and ruptured flesh, is neutral.

One is a force of nature beyond the concept of good and evil, the other is a mockery of life who breacks the natural cycle of things. My, I wonder wich one is more evil...

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-10, 11:58 AM
Undead corpse-will hurt you if you touch him with too much strenght
Citation needed.

Sure, earth elementals might be a miner's bane, but they're on the elemental plane. Bringing them into the world uncontrolled, even if limited, could be seen as evil. Uncontrolled earth elemental is bad; restrained yet still uncontrolled earth elemental is not quite as bad; mindless undead that won't do anything you don't order it to isn't bad.

So nature is "beyond good and evil", but breaking nature is suddenly the height of evil? Nature isn't beyond good and evil, it's under it. Too pathetic to have a moral status. The natural cycle can go cry itself to sleep in a piles of feces in a corner while touching itself for all I care.
I'm not fond of appeals to nature. Pet peeve. Sorry if I snapped at you too hard.

And if you consider anything a mockery of life (or you consider mocking life to be a bad thing), a flesh golem is easily as bad as a zombie.

Necron
2009-11-10, 12:32 PM
As much as I agree that it's intention that matters with the use of spells...

I think the act of reanimating the dead is the evil act and just cause for the Evil subtype. Regardless of what's done with them. And if the creator gets destroyed? They go back to being "uncontrolled" and are just as likely to attack living creatures in their vicinity.

It's only the presence and benevolent agenda of the user that prevents a horde of renimated skeletons/zombies from destroying the village.

...and comparing uses of animate dead to golem creation is moot.

Most people would consider creating a Flesh Golem to be just as Evil as casting animate dead. But is that ultimately any worse then creating a Clay Golem that you unleash on the locals? I'd probably say the actual "act" of creating the undead (or Flesh Golem) is the Evil part of the equation, not how you choose to use them. That's a seperate consequence.

Describing how one can use alternate creation rules to build a monstrosity to destroy the orphanage isn't really helpful in this context (aside from pointing out it's possible to be evil using innately non-evil magic).

Perhaps it might be easier to just imagine all Evil descriptor spells to have some sort of vile verbal components that call out to the negative forces to accomplish the casting of the spell? It's hard to posture the Good merits of your creation when you've just asked for Orcus' blessing during the casting of the spell.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 12:35 PM
And casting the ritual to create a flesh golem, requires Animate Dead.

Oddly, nothing like that is required for a flesh colossus.

in D&D (not Advanced- Basic, Expert, Master, etc) skeletons and zombies were Chaotic (which, back then, meant, pretty much, Evil) but there wasn't anything in the spell description saying whether it was Chaotic or not.

in AD&D 2nd ed, skeletons and zombies were Neutral, but creating them was described as the sort of thing "only evil spellcasters do regularly"

in 3rd ed, the same- with the spell given the Evil descriptor.

In 3.5, they gained Evil alignment as well.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-10, 12:36 PM
The spell can be used in other ways besides "fight and die for me!" that's why.So can Animate Dead. Labor, bodyguards, messengers, the spell does not require being used for combat.

Edit:just because Orcus is evil, does not mean asking for his aid is. Heck, drawing power from evil beings is the entire job of the Malconvoker class.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 12:38 PM
As much as I agree that it's intention that matters with the use of spells...

I think the act of reanimating the dead is the evil act and just cause for the Evil subtype. Regardless of what's done with them. And if the creator gets destroyed? They go back to being "uncontrolled" and are just as likely to attack living creatures in their vicinity sit there and do nothing because they are mindless automatons and have no orders or initiative.Fixed.


It's only the presence and benevolent agenda of the user that prevents a horde of renimated skeletons/zombies from destroying the village.Pretty much the exact same as any other potentially offensive spell.


...and comparing uses of animate dead to golem creation is moot.Despite how apt it is and how well it shows off the hypocrisy, yeah.


Most people would consider creating a Flesh Golem to be just as Evil as casting animate dead. But is that ultimately any worse then creating a Clay Golem that you unleash on the locals? I'd probably say the actual "act" of creating the undead (or Flesh Golem) is the Evil part of the equation, not how you choose to use them. That's a seperate consequence.It's all in the intent. Same with animate dead but for semantics, really.


Describing how one can use alternate creation rules to build a monstrosity to destroy the orphanage isn't really helpful in this context (aside from pointing out it's possible to be evil using innately non-evil magic).Golems are just harder to stop once they're set loose, but they're just as monstrous.


Perhaps it might be easier to just imagine all Evil descriptor spells to have some sort of vile verbal components that call out to the negative forces to accomplish the casting of the spell? It's hard to posture the Good merits of your creation when you've just asked for Orcus' blessing during the casting of the spell.If anything at all were alluded to as such, you might have a point. At this juncture, though, it's no more than, "Undead are icky, so they're auto-evil!"

Anonymouswizard
2009-11-10, 12:52 PM
:smallconfused: Zombies and skeletons were TN in 3.0. NE does not make any sense.

I'd personly make animate dead non-evil, as it creates neutral undead (no mind, so they have to be N, that is the rules). However, Create undead and create greater undead are evil, if they are used to create evil undead. True reserection should only apply to undead with intelligence above 2.

However, paladins and commoners (especialy commoners) see all undead as evil: there scary.


"Undead are icky, so they're auto-evil!"

Can we stop sounding like Piffiny?!!!:smallfurious:

Radiun
2009-11-10, 12:57 PM
On the "Undead is Icky" bandwagon

Cure X Wounds spells and its ilk should be necromancy.

Necromancy is the school about life and death.

Conjuration makes no sense unless you're taking flesh from the flesh dimension to heal your allies.
Transmutation would be a better fit if you insisted that Necromancy = Death Magic only.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 01:05 PM
They used to be- even in 2nd ed, and possibly further back- 3.5 making them Evil is a change.

They were Chaotic in "0th ed" though.

Animate Dead was still morally dubious back in 2nd ed, though. It was almost unique among spells in that respect.

Similarly, most healing spells were Necromancy prior to 3.5.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 01:31 PM
So can Animate Dead. Labor, bodyguards, messengers, the spell does not require being used for combat.

I'm not talking about why Animate Dead is Evil. I'm talking about why Dominate Person is not.

Now, I actually agree with you that AD shouldn't be Evil right out of the box, but saying "AD is mistyped!" isn't an argument for Dominate Person having the same subtype.

The game's rationale for Animate Dead being evil is as follows: animating undead requires negative energy; the purpose of negative energy is to weaken and destroy life, which would be evil. They are operating under two assumptions here - that undead creatures, no matter how well-commanded or constrained, would eventually seek to kill the living; and secondly, the mere presence of negative energy in the world makes it a gloomier/more unhappy place, per the Taint rules in Heroes of Horror and BoVD.

An interesting point from SoD:
Rich appears to subscribe to the former view - Xykon's first sorcerous act is to animate his dog Barky, who immediately attacks a bird without orders to do so.
The comic of course is not a D&D authority, but shows that such an interpretation of the rules is not unreasonable.

This logic is inconsistently applied, however, because other uses of negative energy (like the Inflict and Enervation lines) are not Evil subtype. One could argue that a short burst of negative energy is not as bad as binding it into the real world long-term via reanimation, but it's hard to imagine that making a few skeletons involves more negative energy than draining 2d4 levels of lifeforce.


Edit:just because Orcus is evil, does not mean asking for his aid is. Heck, drawing power from evil beings is the entire job of the Malconvoker class.

You'd have to be a pretty ballsy Malconvoker to trick Orcus, I think.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-10, 02:29 PM
As much as I agree that it's intention that matters with the use of spells...

I think the act of reanimating the dead is the evil act and just cause for the Evil subtype. Regardless of what's done with them. And if the creator gets destroyed? They go back to being "uncontrolled" and are just as likely to attack living creatures in their vicinity.

Nope, Mindless Undead are more like robots than Ghouls (anytime you hear about zombies in a film: 70% of time it is a ghoul).

They sit there and stare at nothing. Basically, they become hippies high on weed. They do nothing with their un-lives.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-10, 02:36 PM
Cure X Wounds spells and its ilk should be necromancy.

Conjuration makes no sense unless you're taking flesh from the flesh dimension to heal your allies.
Transmutation would be a better fit if you insisted that Necromancy = Death Magic only.

Cure Wounds involve conjuring positive energy from the Positive Energy Plane to effect healing. Getting directly down there with necromancy/transmutation is too nitty-gritty: most clerics can't manipulate that finely, and gods don't have the time to micromanage every healing spell they grant. If you just infuse positive energy, the body heals itself, no anatomical knowledge required. Evoking positive energy out of the air rather than conjuring it from a plane would work similarly.

Inflict Wounds are direct necromancy because it's easier. Curing a wound involves re-creating all the fine bindings; inflicting a wound involves merely introducing a bit more chaos into the body's system. Imbalance and wounds consequently follow. While you could manipulate negative energy to do this, the risk involved in doing so is greater than using positive energy. If something goes wrong conjuring a cure, you get leaks of positive energy; whatever. If something goes wrong conjuring a wound, you get harmed yourself.

Yes, the spell schools are messed up. Don't look too closely.

@uncontrolled undead: Most Libris Mortis mindless undead go out to destroy and be evil if not controlled. However, as per MM, the most fundamental undead, zombies and skeletons, do nothing when uncontrolled. This could be seen as a difference in perception, or as a sort of "errata"; but the LM undead earn their "evil" descriptor slightly more than the MM ones do. Only slightly.

Radiun
2009-11-10, 02:39 PM
They sit there and stare at nothing. Basically, they become hippies high on weed. They do nothing with their un-lives.
Unless they have instructions to attack or guard something of course.

But a Skeleton with no orders will let human children dress it up, stick a carrot in its nose, coals in its eyes, an a magic hat that leads to fun and adventure

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 02:47 PM
@uncontrolled undead: Most Libris Mortis mindless undead go out to destroy and be evil if not controlled. However, as per MM, the most fundamental undead, zombies and skeletons, do nothing when uncontrolled. This could be seen as a difference in perception, or as a sort of "errata"; but the LM undead earn their "evil" descriptor slightly more than the MM ones do. Only slightly.

The LM view is more realistic, if I may use that term when talking about walking corpses. Think about it; all undead in the world were animated at some point by something. Are we to assume that ALL the random ones that adventurers encounter were simply given instructions to feast on the living before their creator teleported off to the Bahamas?

Logic (what little we can apply to this topic) indicates that mindless undead may do nothing if left alone for awhile, and some time later go a-slaying.

Radiun
2009-11-10, 02:51 PM
Logic (what little we can apply to this topic) indicates that mindless undead may do nothing if left alone for awhile, and some time later go a-slaying.

Why?
Why does an entity with all the motivation of a tree take the initiative to do anything?
If rocks were animated, would they go a-slaying too?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-10, 02:52 PM
Eh. I don't use wandering zombies and stuff. I use ghouls for that purpose. It really depends on what premises you accept for your world.


Why does an entity with all the motivation of a tree take the initiative to do anything?

I don't know. Ask the makers of the typical D&D world that. In most worlds, there are random zombies OMNOMNOMing around.

Sliver
2009-11-10, 02:57 PM
on the spell itself:

While it's tricky, i'd go with:

Yes, its evil, but No, it won't change your alignment- not cast just once.

Would cause Paladin to Fall, or Exalted character to lose feats, but wouldn't change alignment.

Cast it occasionally, in a crisis- to "fight evil and protect others"- and avoid other forms of evil - the character is probably Neutral at worst.

But it is not like you just happen to need the spell and cast it. How can you do it? If you are in great need, why do you have Animate Dead at hand? Are you a spontaneous caster? So you have learned the spell, just in case? A prepared wizard? So you have prepared the spell this morning, planning to be in a crisis today? Cleric? Why did you request an evil spell from your god today? Oh why do you have a scroll of animate dead at hand?

Thing is, IMO, is that if you have the spell ready, be it a learned spell, a prepared at morning spell, or just a scroll, you knew or guessed you are going to use it. If you are a prepared caster and you prepared it this morning, you somehow knew there will be need. If you have a scroll that you didn't want to sell, it might be reasonable.. But if you are a spontaneous caster you have no excuse.

So only, if for some reason you carry the scroll around just in case, you are actually thinking about using it, be it this day or in your entire life. You could plan on using something else. Using methods that are considered evil when you could use something else, more neutral or even good?

Now I am not saying that the spell doesn't have to be inherently evil, just that if it is accepted that way and you use it, it means that it was planned, at least as a backup, and you could have figured out a good-er way to do what needed to be done, even if a little more difficult. So I don't think that good people can use evil spells, because they don't have a reason to have it at hand, and if they do, they knew they would need such a spell and didn't seek alternatives.

Woodsman
2009-11-10, 02:59 PM
Honestly, I can't get over the fact that necromancy is always seen as Evil.

You have Deathless, which basically boil down to "good undead." Pretty much anything that affects an undead affects a deathless, with positive and negative energy reversed.

Is that really the difference? Positive and Negative energy? Because the last time I check, it was generally how a person uses the tools their given that defines evil, not the tools themselves. It's like saying saws are evil and hammers are good.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:01 PM
Why?
Why does an entity with all the motivation of a tree take the initiative to do anything?
If rocks were animated, would they go a-slaying too?

The simplest explanation would be: Nature abhors a vacuum - just as antimatter tries to negate matter, so does negative energy seek to end positive energy, i.e. life. Undead in fiction (especially horror) are generally killing machines for this reason.

Rocks are generally not animated via necromancy.

Again, I'm not saying I subscribe to this motivation myself - I'm merely pointing out what the designers could have been thinking.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 03:08 PM
in the early Forgotten Realms novel Black Wizards- animals flee the zombies and skeletons in terror, plants wither as they get very close, and so on.

Enemy to All Living Things may be the trope here.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:11 PM
That would actualy be an evil act.

You try to swarm the BBED with skeletons. He tells his trusty evil cleric minion to command them.

Congratulations, you've just made the BBED even stronger.

Trying to fight fire with fire works horribly in D&D.

Wouldn't heroically being martyred by the BBEG also be evil then, since he's a vampire and raises you as powerful spawn?


So can Animate Dead. Labor, bodyguards, messengers, the spell does not require being used for combat.

Edit:just because Orcus is evil, does not mean asking for his aid is. Heck, drawing power from evil beings is the entire job of the Malconvoker class.

D&D's morality is objective, though. Certain acts are evil by will of the cosmos.


Why?
Why does an entity with all the motivation of a tree take the initiative to do anything?
If rocks were animated, would they go a-slaying too?

Giant Vermin also have null int scores, but they do things.


Honestly, I can't get over the fact that necromancy is always seen as Evil.

You have Deathless, which basically boil down to "good undead." Pretty much anything that affects an undead affects a deathless, with positive and negative energy reversed.

Is that really the difference? Positive and Negative energy? Because the last time I check, it was generally how a person uses the tools their given that defines evil, not the tools themselves. It's like saying saws are evil and hammers are good.

I think it's because when you're full of negative energy, you naturally want to kill positive energy, which happens to power all living things.

Woodsman
2009-11-10, 03:14 PM
I think it's because when you're full of negative energy, you naturally want to kill positive energy, which happens to power all living things.

That's like matter/anti-matter then. Two opposing forces coming into conflict and attempting to destroy each other simply isn't evil; it's the very nature of the forces. That's purely TN, whether the thing you're opposing is alive or undead.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:20 PM
That's like matter/anti-matter then. Two opposing forces coming into conflict and attempting to destroy each other simply isn't evil; it's the very nature of the forces. That's purely TN, whether the thing you're opposing is alive or undead.

Such a force itself should be neutral, yes. CREATING such a force, and knowing that it will spend its entire existence trying to murder the living, would be evil however.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:20 PM
That's like matter/anti-matter then. Two opposing forces coming into conflict and attempting to destroy each other simply isn't evil; it's the very nature of the forces. That's purely TN, whether the thing you're opposing is alive or undead.

Except morality is objective, so if you define something as "if it wants to kill life, it's evil," and it wants to kill life, then it's evil.

You know how we talk about valence shells "wanting" to fill with electrons, despite the fact that we're talking about a physical law incapable of feeling? Well, this isn't anything like that.

Radiun
2009-11-10, 03:22 PM
Giant Vermin also have null int scores, but they do things.

For survival.


As for negative and positive energy, I see them more as heat and cold (exo- and endo- thermic). They tend to cancel each other, but they don't seek each other in some personal vendetta. Negative Energy isn't exactly sentient, just a plane of existence.

Woodsman
2009-11-10, 03:23 PM
Such a force itself should be neutral, yes. CREATING such a force, and knowing that it will spend its entire existence trying to murder the living, would be evil however.

And then we get back too "the wielder is evil, not the tools."


Except morality is objective, so if you define something as "if it wants to kill life, it's evil," and it wants to kill life, then it's evil.

You know how we talk about valence shells "wanting" to fill with electrons, despite the fact that we're talking about a physical law incapable of feeling? Well, this isn't anything like that.

Again, matter and anti-matter destroying each other isn't evil. Animals killing other animals, albeit for food, isn't evil. It is a matter of perspective, though, but the problem is people tend to simplify things that really shouldn't be simplified.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:26 PM
And then we get back too "the wielder is evil, not the tools."

I thought the wielder was the point of this thread; it's called "Animate Dead," not "Skeletons and You."

But Myrmex is also right; it depends on how you define Evil. If you define Evil as "anything that debases or harms innocent life" well skeletons would qualify even if they have no higher motive for doing so besides instinct.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:28 PM
Again, matter and anti-matter destroying each other isn't evil.

Anti-what? This is D&D. The premises are different, so the conclusions that follow are different.


Animals killing other animals, albeit for food, isn't evil. It is a matter of perspective, though, but the problem is people tend to simplify things that really shouldn't be simplified.

It's not a matter of perspective, because D&D morality is objective. If you apply your personal standard of morality to an objective system, you are likely to disagree.

Really, though, there are two ways to see undead, outlined here, in the Tome of Necromancy (per RAW, there isn't a whole lot of support for either interpretation, but undead as always evil hints that negative energy on the material plane is a Bad Thing):

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 03:28 PM
I thought the wielder was the point of this thread; it's called "Animate Dead," not "Skeletons and You."

But Myrmex is also right; it depends on how you define Evil. If you define Evil as "anything that debases or harms innocent life" well skeletons would qualify even if they have no higher motive for doing so besides instinct.They have no such thing as instinct. They sit there, doing absolutely nothing, until commanded into doing so.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:29 PM
They have no such thing as instinct. They sit there, doing absolutely nothing, until commanded into doing so.

[Citation Needed]

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:30 PM
They have no such thing as instinct. They sit there, doing absolutely nothing, until commanded into doing so.

That is the MM ruling, which is contradicted by the existence of wandering undead in most D&D settings.

LM is more specific, and also more reasonable. They do nothing - for a while. Whether that while is 10 minutes or 10 years is not clear, but it is finite.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 03:35 PM
[Citation Needed]

Monster Manual, pg 225:
"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions onf its own and takes no initiative."

Though I couldn't find anything under the zombie entry, so perhaps there's something to be said for that (though the flavor text does indicate that they have to be commanded to attack: "These mindless automatons shamble about, doing their creator's bidding without fear or hesitation. ... Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple, such as "kill anyone who enters this room.")


That is the MM ruling, which is contradicted by the existence of wandering undead in most D&D settings.

LM is more specific, and also more reasonable. They do nothing - for a while. Whether that while is 10 minutes or 10 years is not clear, but it is finite.Primary source takes precedence. That's the Monster Manual, by the by.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-10, 03:35 PM
[Citation Needed]

MM pg 225, 1st paragraph on right under Heading Skeleton.
Similar but different heading under Heading Zombie on page 265.
Both say basically that they folliw explicit orders and do not deviate.

So if you say stay there and do not attack anything. They will never attack anything.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:39 PM
So if you say stay there and do not attack anything. They will never attack anything.

This still fails to explain the existence of wandering undead.

Unless you claim they were animated and told "Wander!" by their necromancers.

And Libris Mortis contradicts the MM on this.


Primary source takes precedence. That's the Monster Manual, by the by.

Specific trumps general. "The Book of Undead" is a more reliable source on undead behavior than a general book of monsters.

Myrmex
2009-11-10, 03:41 PM
Thanks for the citations Starbuck & Lycan. I just read the SRD. Been awhile since I cracked the MM and read fluff text.

Woodsman
2009-11-10, 03:42 PM
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy

That works marvelously. I see it as Playing with Fire, myself.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-10, 03:45 PM
This still fails to explain the existence of wandering undead.

Unless you claim they were animated and told "Wander!" by their necromancers.

And Libris Mortis contradicts the MM on this.

Name an example of wondering dead.

If this is a necromancers home: well, they were on guard duty.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 03:58 PM
Name an example of wondering dead.

If this is a necromancers home: well, they were on guard duty.

Environment: Any (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm)

By your logic, it is impossible for undead to be in a random encounter.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 03:59 PM
Environment: Any (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm)

By your logic, it is impossible for undead to be in a random encounter.Wouldn't that just mean that necromancers can be found anywhere?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:09 PM
when a necromancer is slain, what happens to his servant zombie and skeletons if they are not slain?

My guess is, they start to wander off, after a while, killing everything in sight.

and thats where "random encounter" zombies and skeletons come from.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:10 PM
Wouldn't that just mean that necromancers can be found anywhere?

But necromancers are not always listed in the same encounter tables that mindless undead are.

And of course there are undead that rise up from other sources, such as zombies created by a mohrg. They do not receive orders; do they just stand still?

The MM is insufficient here. Core is the base on which to build, not the endpoint.

Radiun
2009-11-10, 04:10 PM
when a necromancer is slain, what happens to his servant zombie and skeletons if they are not slain?

My guess is, they start to wander off, after a while, killing everything in sight.

and thats where "random encounter" zombies and skeletons come from.

Or they carry out their last orders.
Upon completion they stand around.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:12 PM
Or they carry out their last orders.
Upon completion they stand around.

In which case they should stand around in random encounters as well.

Unless their last instructions were "attack random passersby." This may be the case for some, but believing it for all is a stretch.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-10, 04:13 PM
Can anyone give Citations where Libris Mortis says otherwise? I just checked and couldn't find it.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:14 PM
Can anyone give Citations where Libris Mortis says otherwise? I just checked and couldn't find it.

I'm at work, but I'll look through mine when I get home.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:18 PM
there is also "spontaneously generated undead"

Libris Mortis- Atrocity Calls to Unlife (page 7)

Evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions, opening cracks in reality and letting the blight creep in. A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead.

Braaaains! :smallbiggrin:

Radiun
2009-11-10, 04:18 PM
[...]And of course there are undead that rise up from other sources, such as zombies created by a mohrg. They do not receive orders; do they just stand still?[...]

In which case they should stand around in random encounters as well.

Unless their last instructions were "attack random passersby." This may be the case for some, but believing it for all is a stretch.

Mohrg are intelligent undead, what's the issue?

Random encounters are up to the DMs to decide, I would have some zombies simply stand around, but then again I would also have goblins set fires to buildings and run, or loot an unconscious PC and run away, and then I would make the PCs the aggressors if they so chose at other points.
Simply because monsters in your games are by-and-large initially hostile does not mean it must be true for all. (Then again, I am also playing in a game where PCs getting a surprise round it nearly impossible and nearly all creatures are hostile)

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:21 PM
the point being, that it is possible to create uncontrolled zombies.

The "zombie attack" is a common trope- and they don't all involve a necromancer at the back urging them on.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-10, 04:23 PM
I will admit, there are some modules that have areas create zombies that are uncontrolled and attack people.
1) Modules usually break the rules
2) The area might have ordered the zombies to kill everyone they see

Anyone notice it is usually uncontrollable zombies, but rarely skeletons?

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:27 PM
true- though some art shows skeleton attacks and no controller in the background.

Does an "uncontrolled mindless undead"

Do nothing- ever?

Do nothing- until attacked- then hit back?

Start walking off in a random direction until it gets near something living- the try and kill it?

1 seems implausible, 2 only slightly more plausible.

3, on the other hand, seems like "standard operating procedure"

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:32 PM
there is also "spontaneously generated undead"

Libris Mortis- Atrocity Calls to Unlife (page 7)

Evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions, opening cracks in reality and letting the blight creep in. A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead.

Braaaains! :smallbiggrin:

Knew I could count on you. :smallsmile:


I will admit, there are some modules that have areas create zombies that are uncontrolled and attack people.
1) Modules usually break the rules
2) The area might have ordered the zombies to kill everyone they see

1) The purpose of splat books is to expand on core and make modules - and settings - more meaningful. You can have core-only modules and settings, but you will eventually run into questions like this one. That is why the splat books were created.

2) You are assuming an active command, but a passive "hatred for life" can provide that command as well. Example - evil artifact left in a crypt - it is reasonable to expect the dead interred there to rise up and defend it, even without being explicitly ordered to do so.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 04:40 PM
evil artifact left in a cryptWhy do people keep doing these things?! It's all fun and games until someone loses their brains!

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:43 PM
it can also be a handy explanation for why the spell has the evil descriptor- it calls up these "malevolent spirits"

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:47 PM
it can also be a handy explanation for why the spell has the evil descriptor- it calls up these "malevolent spirits"

Right, which would be a bit different than raw negative energy e.g. Enervate.

There's also the fact that you are using a sentient creature's corpse without its consent - falls under "disregard for dignity and life," part of the PHB evil alignment descriptions.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 04:50 PM
There's also the fact that you are using a sentient creature's corpse without its consent - falls under "disregard for dignity and life," part of the PHB evil alignment descriptions.But there's no life involved. Just death (the antithesis of life, in D&D). The person it used to belong to no longer exists; his soul has (or has not - this is D&D after all) passed to another plane of existence, and his mind has been erased. It's not like he cares anymore.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 04:52 PM
I'm less keen on the fact that Deathwatch is evil- primarily because, after giving it the Evil descriptor in PHB,

they then proceeded to give it to a class that "must be of good alignment" (Miniatures Handbook Healer) and a prestige class that "loses all benefits if they ever commit an evil act" Slayer of Domiel.

My guess is that it should probably have been errataed, but there hasn't been one so far as I can tell.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 04:52 PM
But there's no life involved. Just death (the antithesis of life, in D&D). The person it used to belong to no longer exists; his soul has (or has not - this is D&D after all) pass to another plane of existence, and his mind has been erased. It's not like he cares anymore.

Wouldn't it? Would you, even in the afterlife, like the idea of your body being turned into something that wants to kill innocents?

Or your family - even if they never see your zombie, they know some necromancer has made off with your body when they see your upturned grave. This is a dubious act at best on the caster's part.

No matter what he does with the body, it was never his - this is theft.


My guess is that it should probably have been errataed, but there hasn't been one so far as I can tell.

I think there was a thread where CustServ agreed at one point and then disagreed at another. It wouldn't surprise me.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 04:56 PM
Wouldn't it? Would you, even in the afterlife, like the idea of your body being turned into something that wants to kill innocents?What I want no longer matters. The essence of me, my mind and thoughts and memories, the important part, has been erased. I don't exist. Sure, there's a soul out there that was once attached to me, but it's a blank slate and is now immaterial...pun intended.


Or your family - even if they never see your zombie, they know some necromancer has made off with your body when they see your upturned grave. This is a dubious act at best on the caster's part.And this hearkens to the "undead are icky" theory.


No matter what he does with the body, it was never his - this is theft.Theft is inherently Chaotic, though, not Evil.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 05:00 PM
Mindless and Evil are not mutually exclusive- the lemure, for example.

With the aforementioned bit from Libris Mortis, 3.5 making zombies and Skeletons Evil doesn't seem entirely illogical.

Though LM could be taken as an after-the-fact rationale.



Theft is inherently Chaotic, though, not Evil.

Not according to BoVD.

Doesn't mean a thief can't be good, but it does mean thieving is by default at least a little Evil.

Optimystik
2009-11-10, 05:04 PM
What I want no longer matters. The essence of me, my mind and thoughts and memories, the important part, has been erased. I don't exist. Sure, there's a soul out there that was once attached to me, but it's a blank slate and is now immaterial...pun intended.

Your personal beliefs aside, afterlives exist in D&D, and the process of erasure there in those is very gradual.


And this hearkens to the "undead are icky" theory.

Theft is inherently Chaotic, though, not Evil.

So your mother would be fine with your corpse missing? Your widow?

Maybe the necromancer asked their permission first, but again this is not the majority case for animate dead. Causing them such anguish - since they are unlikely to deserve it - would be evil.

Theft needs a good reason behind it not to be evil, in D&D (and even then, that only elevates it to neutral.) A Necromancer who just wants some meat to hide behind or guard his manse probably doesn't count.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 05:05 PM
Not according to BoVD.

Doesn't mean a thief can't be good, but it does mean thieving is by default at least a little Evil.It's going against the law. It can be done for Good, for Evil, or for purely Neutral motives.

Is stealing the world-shattering MacGuffin from the Evil Overlord (who inherited it from his beloved father, and rightfully owns it) before he can start the Koboldpocalypse Evil?

No? Not at all?

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.

ShakeHandsMan
2009-11-10, 05:05 PM
I know it might not be 3.5", but the slayers guide to undead by the all-father Gygax himself states that mindless undead such as skeletons are completely without motivation, thought or ego beyond the commands of their master. It also states that undead are used by good clerics in some circumstances, (the exact example he provides is a good cleric raising a dead ox as a skeleton to continue to plow fields for starving villagers)
It also states that skeletons appear differently depending on the intention of the caster, ie. good caster = clean, pearly white skeleton with a soft blue glow to the eyes, evil caster = bits of rotting flesh on tarnished bones and a harsh red glow in the eye sockets, which furthers the idea that skeletons are most affected by an outside will, and themselves are no different then simple bits of calcium animated by the will of a caster, and blaming them for any acts they commit is no different then blaming the dagger used in an assassination.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 05:07 PM
an example of a civilization where "donating your body after death" is the rule rather than the exception- and possibly a prerequisite for membership:

Kaarnath, in Eberron.

It is "less evil" in many ways, than most D&D necromany-centric civilizations. But its rulers are still evil.

The above example does sound interesting though- and here, its skeletons, rather than zombies.

Possibly because the idea of a rotting zombie ploughing fields is, as mentioned, a little "icky"

4E Open Grave, seems to fall in between the two- undead-creation is by default evil, but on very very rare occasions, its justifiable.

hamishspence
2009-11-10, 05:13 PM
It's going against the law. It can be done for Good, for Evil, or for purely Neutral motives.


Any act can be done for "Good, Evil, or Neutral motives"-

right down to "sacrificing the innocent child's soul to Orcus to avert the world-shattering catastrophe."

the point is, what the default level of the act is.

BoVD does say that lying is one of those "normally evil acts" that can be non-evil if the reason behind it is sufficiently good.

Possibly stealing might also come under this.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-10, 05:18 PM
Any act can be done for "Good, Evil, or Neutral motives"-

right down to "sacrificing the innocent child's soul to Orcus to avert the world-shattering catastrophe."

the point is, what the default level of the act is.In this case, the default is Chaotic Neutral. It's 100% up to the motivations as to the moral ramifications of the act.

Is it to deny someone of something they need to sustain their (relatively innocent) lives? Evil.

Is it because you're starving, and you only steal when you have to, and from someone you know won't really notice? Neutral.

Is it to prevent far worse suffering due to the works of Evil? Good.

In all cases, it's tinged with Chaotic-ness, but that's about it.

Xenogears
2009-11-10, 08:09 PM
So your mother would be fine with your corpse missing? Your widow?
Maybe the necromancer asked their permission first, but again this is not the majority case for animate dead. Causing them such anguish - since they are unlikely to deserve it - would be evil.
Theft needs a good reason behind it not to be evil, in D&D (and even then, that only elevates it to neutral.) A Necromancer who just wants some meat to hide behind or guard his manse probably doesn't count.

But all those examples are seperate things. Sure stealing the body might be evil, but that does not make the animation itself evil. Even if we all were to agree that those were all evil acts it would only make THOSE acts evil not the animation. If someone donates the body specifically for the purpose of it being reanimated and then their necromancer buddy does so for them then how is that evil?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-10, 09:01 PM
But its rulers are still evil.

They're politicians and/or violent aristocrats. What do you expect?