Undead destory soul?

[Hoboshank]

In my current campaign im playing a hellbred dread necro which the DM ruled started out at neutral but can change alignments to good. The question this raises is, does raising undead (all or some?) somehow harm or imprison the soul?

[Medic!]

I don't think mindless undeads' souls are affected, but creating undead is an evil act

[Togath]

how is it evil?, if it's for a good cause then it's neutral.
edit; and no, mindless undead's souls are uneffected.

[NNescio]

how is it evil?, if it's for a good cause then it's neutral.
edit; and no, mindless undead's souls are uneffected.

It still blocks resurrection effects though. This includes True Resurrection, so it must be doing something funny to the soul.

[Medic!]

I'm basing that assumption off of the [Evil] descriptor for the spells used to create undead.

[Togath]

I'm basing that assumption off of the [Evil] descriptor for the spells used to create undead.


aye, it has the evil descriptor, but using them for a good act still isn't evil, at worst it's neutral.

[Hoboshank]

I don't think mindless undeads' souls are affected, but creating undead is an evil act

well the DM seems to be willing to let the Evil Descriptor slide, however this is also directed at Create Undead. If mindless undead are fine, what about more powerful undead like wights or mummies?

[TheCountAlucard]

The question this raises is, does raising undead (all or some?) somehow harm or imprison the soul?Zombies and skeletons, no.


It still blocks resurrection effects though. This includes True Resurrection, so it must be doing something funny to the soul.It isn't because of the soul - it's because of the body.


well the DM seems to be willing to let the Evil Descriptor slide, however this is also directed at Create Undead. If mindless undead are fine, what about more powerful undead like wights or mummies?That's a more morally dubious issue, since those do leave the soul stuck in the body.

[Medic!]

I'm not seeing anything to indicate that Create Undead or Animate Dead has any ties to the creature's soul, should be safe to do as a hellbred as long as the DM rules that fighting evil with evil is good (which isn't so farfetched for most DMs)

EDIT: If you really wanna stay on the safe side, a phylactery of faithfulness should keep your character's mind at ease

EDIT#348: Since resurrection/true resurrection can return an undead to its previous living state, but not raise an undead as an undead again, I would also assume that the soul isn't involved with animation, only with resurrection.

[JaronK]

The Bone Knight PrC is designed specifically for Lawful Good necromantic types who raise an army of the dead for the purpose of protecting the living.

So, the concept does work.

JaronK

[Hazzardevil]

I actually had this debate with a DM in a thread in the recruitment section. the Tome of Necromancy (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_(3.5e_Sourcebook)) covers this.

[Coidzor]

^: Indeed, it's pretty much left up to the DM.

As for destroying souls, that usually requires a fair bit of effort, as even the more egregious undead don't so much destroy the soul as warp it to suit their purpose.

Certainly it isn't destroying the soul to make a skeleton or zombie, though. And if Bob dies and is resurrected, his old body can be made into a skeleton and he won't even sneeze or feel itchy.

[BlackestOfMages]

I'm basing that assumption off of the [Evil] descriptor for the spells used to create undead.

yeah, but deathwatch has the evil discriptor and the uses of that are:

picking up on the location of undead - IE: to smite the heck out of them/hunt vampires/not be caught unnawares.
to figure out which of your patients is in need of healing soonest
to detect if someones dying from a curse or something that shows no outward signs
to actually find life in a disaster site/battlefield etc
and to laugh at someone as they're about to die.

only one of those (and even then...) really strikes me as "evil"

so yeah, WoTC's definition of good and evil is all a little silly at times.

Necromancy may be morally questionable, but that's different from saying it's outright evil. what you use the skeletons for is what defines what you are, the same way as using a sword or another tool to perform an act does :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

Oh. That reminds me. You'll be interested in this homebrewed Prestige Class, The Redeemer of Regrets, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) methinks. Didn't win its contest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183854), but I feel it made a nice showing.

[hamishspence]

aye, it has the evil descriptor, but using them for a good act still isn't evil, at worst it's neutral.

Casting the spell will always count as an evil act- however, Neutral characters who only ever commit minor evil acts (casting an Evil spell is pretty minor) for Good ends generally don't change alignment from Neutral.

On Deathwatch- it didn't have the evil tag in 3.0, two of the earliest 3.5 splats (BoED, Miniatures Handbook) gave it to Good-only classes and PRCs (Healer, Slayer of Domiel) and I figure its Evil tag in 3.5 was a mistake.

[Tsuzurao]

Casting the spell will always count as an evil act- however, Neutral characters who only ever commit minor evil acts (casting an Evil spell is pretty minor) for Good ends generally don't change alignment from Neutral.

On Deathwatch- it didn't have the evil tag in 3.0, two of the earliest 3.5 splats (BoED, Miniatures Handbook) gave it to Good-only classes and PRCs (Healer, Slayer of Domiel) and I figure its Evil tag in 3.5 was a mistake.

Or the mistake may have been giving it to them at all. Both the Healer and the Slayer of Domiel came very early into 3.5. It's possible the developers for those books forgot to consider the change to Deathwatch when they added it to those spell lists.

[Coidzor]

Or the mistake may have been giving it to them at all. Both the Healer and the Slayer of Domiel came very early into 3.5. It's possible the developers for those books forgot to consider the change to Deathwatch when they added it to those spell lists.

Why do you hate Deathwatch so much?

Aside from the bit where they did a hatchet job on it so it's half one thing and half another, which is just sloppy.

[Togath]

I've found that 3.5 usually runs better if you remove good and evil descriptors to spells, just use logic for alignment changes; making a plague of undead to pillage a village of inocents is evil, creating an army of undead out of your enemies corpses to defeat a great evil is fairly true neutral or chaotic good, and making undead warriors out of the remains of people who have given you authority to turn their remains into undead after their death, and to use the undead created from them for a heroic cause is good aligned, and probably lawful.

[Wyntonian]

This is all personal opinion, but I've been tempted to refluff necromancy in my games. Rather than just brutally wrenching some twisted aspect of the soul into a rotting, unholy shell for one's own evil ends, it would be possible to politely ask the service of those who have gone before you in some way, possibly using their bodies and a part of their spirit to advance your common goals. Like stopping the bad guys from eating their children. Just a thought, but I've been rolling it around for a while.

[Coidzor]

This is all personal opinion, but I've been tempted to refluff necromancy in my games. Rather than just brutally wrenching some twisted aspect of the soul into a rotting, unholy shell for one's own evil ends, it would be possible to politely ask the service of those who have gone before you in some way, possibly using their bodies and a part of their spirit to advance your common goals. Like stopping the bad guys from eating their children. Just a thought, but I've been rolling it around for a while.

There've been a few things playing around with that idea. I think there's even one of the worst PrCs in the game based entirely on that idea. Risen Martyr or something. But they're usually recast as either A. Deathless or B. Constructs/Outsiders/Outsider-Constructs like that one dwarven ancestor statue creature.

[hamishspence]

Or the mistake may have been giving it to them at all. Both the Healer and the Slayer of Domiel came very early into 3.5. It's possible the developers for those books forgot to consider the change to Deathwatch when they added it to those spell lists.

Possible- but it is very useful for healer-types- I guess it was simpler to use the existing spell than create a new "lifewatch" one.

[Jack_Simth]

I don't think mindless undeads' souls are affected, but creating undead is an evil act
how is it evil?, if it's for a good cause then it's neutral.
edit; and no, mindless undead's souls are uneffected.
It still blocks resurrection effects though. This includes True Resurrection, so it must be doing something funny to the soul.
aye, it has the evil descriptor, but using them for a good act still isn't evil, at worst it's neutral.
Zombies and skeletons, no.

It isn't because of the soul - it's because of the body.

That's a more morally dubious issue, since those do leave the soul stuck in the body.
Debating morality or ethics of an act in this instance is painful. Why? The 'how' and the 'why' of the spells in question is undefined by the ruleset.

True Resurrection does not require a piece of the corpse to return someone to life. Yet if their skeleton is walking around elsewhere, True Resurrection fails (clause in Resurrection and True Resurrection). If a boulder falls on top of that skeleton, destroying it, True Resurrection can work again. But if the corpse is walking around elsewhere, it can't be brought back. However, due to a clause in the undead type, if you apply the spell directly to the undead, the spell turns them back into the living being they once were.

What's happening there? That's undefined. The books give no clear answer to what's going on when you're making an undead, beyond the mechanics of casting a spell. Building a 'why' and a 'how' that's at least 95% consistent with the rules-as-written is tricky... but before you can answer "how evil is this action?" or "should this action really be considered evil?" you need a 'why' or a 'how' behind how the spells work.

For instance:
If creating an undead (even a mindless one) drags the soul back from it's eternal reward (for good or ill) to imprison it in a cage of rotting flesh, to be tortured to power a corpse, then clearly, it is an extremely evil act. It's also about 95% consistent with the rules as they're written (Can't Raise them remotely due to soul not available; applied directly to the corpse, however, the soul is RIGHT THERE, so the spell works), and raising someone to help out a lame farmer is still going to be quite evil.

Alternately, if every soul has a Globally Unique Soul Existance ID (GUSEID), and animate dead et all get the body running by way of spoofing that ID, then there's no real problem, and animating a corpse is at worst a minor evil act, as *all* you're doing is preventing them from coming back.

Then, of course, there's the "what does a created mindless undead do when its master is gone?" - if a created undead is inherently hateful of the living when not commanded, and seeks to destroy life (even if it just limits that activity to things within it's immediate line of site), then you're playing with a fire that will eventually burn someone if not put out and carefully managed. If, however, it's a simple automaton that does nothing without orders, then... that's not really a problem (oh, and before you go saying that of course, being mindless, it does nothing without orders... consider that D&D actually has mindless living things that will hunt you, such as Monstrous Scorpions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousScorpion.htm)).

There's more, but you should get the idea by now - the problem with debating the morality of Animate Dead (and others) is that the things needed to specifically debate it properly just aren't defined in the common framework.

[Psyren]

It isn't because of the soul - it's because of the body.

Which makes little sense when you think about it, given that TR doesn't need a body at all. And if a person was reanimated as a ghost or something else incorporeal, TR on that person still doesn't work, so that doesn't quite wash.


This is all personal opinion, but I've been tempted to refluff necromancy in my games. Rather than just brutally wrenching some twisted aspect of the soul into a rotting, unholy shell for one's own evil ends, it would be possible to politely ask the service of those who have gone before you in some way, possibly using their bodies and a part of their spirit to advance your common goals. Like stopping the bad guys from eating their children. Just a thought, but I've been rolling it around for a while.

This is pretty much the fluff of Vivicarnum.