Alignment - Intolerance by Design?

[Grinner]

The implementation of alignment confuses me. Before I joined these boards, it never struck me as all that deterministic. By this, I mean I didn't think it required players to perform certain actions, only to abstain from others.

However, I've been reading a thread in which one DM voiced some concern over his players. Basically, the party's cleric wanted to raise undead, but the other players, being of a "Good" alignment, threatened the destruction of any undead he raised.

What confuses me is why they feel the need to do this. I had been under the impression that so long as you didn't rape, murder, steal, or actually raise undead yourself, you were in the clear ethically. Or are they just acting "in-character"?

[Flickerdart]

The "he can raise whatever he wants, and it's none of my business" line of thinking is thoroughly Neutral, not Good. Bringing undead into the world is an Evil act, and Good characters generally don't like associating with people who perform Evil acts.

[NeoSeraphi]

The implementation of alignment confuses me. Before I joined these boards, it never struck me as all that deterministic. By this, I mean I didn't think it required players to perform certain actions, only to abstain from others.

However, I've been reading a thread in which one DM voiced some concern over his players. Basically, the party's cleric wanted to raise undead, but the other players, being of a "Good" alignment, threatened the destruction of any undead he raised.

What confuses me is why they feel the need to do this. I had been under the impression that so long as you didn't rape, murder, steal, or actually raise undead yourself, you were in the clear ethically. Or are they just acting "in-character"?

Raising undead is an evil act. Some characters (especially those who play paladin-like characters, or knights in shining armor, people who go above and beyond to be Good) will not only not perform evil acts, but work at length to stop them because they are inherently wrong.

It's actually not that hard to figure out. Look, if the BBEG is sending dragons out to destroy villages and burn civilians alive, the party's good characters are probably not going to stop him solely because they're getting paid, but also because they want to save lives and protect people, and stop someone else from killing. It's the same with party members.

I know if I was playing a lawful good character and one of my party members wanted to cou'de'grace an enemy that had surrendered to us and was disarmed and cooperating, I would object, or possibly even forcefully stop them. There are just some things you don't do.

I]{{scrubbed}} A "good" person isn't just someone who knows right from wrong, it's someone who is compelled to put a stop to evil acts.

[Icestorm245]

Most likely just acting in character. The only class that would actually be penalized for asscociating himself with undead or any would-be creators of undead is paladin. However, alignment does, at least by roleplaying standards, require you to perform certain actions, not just abstain from others. For example, the cleric who abstains from dealing with devils and outsiders but refuses to cure the leper is most likely neutral in the good-evil axis. Good and evil have obvious abstained and performed actions.

The players mentioned in your post wouldn't have had anything taken away from them if they didn't threaten the cleric of destroying his creations.

[Grinner]

I completely understand what you all are saying, but I had been speaking from a perspective of mechanics. Is there a rule that requires the paladin to antagonize the undead-raising cleric?

Edit: Ninja'd by Icestorm.

I do like the responses though.

[NeoSeraphi]

I completely understand what you all are saying, but I had been speaking from a perspective of mechanics. Is there a rule that requires the paladin to antagonize the undead-raising cleric?

Absolutely!

Here's a quote from the Paladin's Code of Conduct in the SRD:


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

The animate dead spell is an [Evil] spell. Casting it is an evil act, and it will offend a paladin's code. Additionally, all undead are evil creatures, and allowing an undead to travel with the party or fight along side the paladin would count as "associating" with it, which would cause her to fall.

[Hiro Protagonest]

"Evil" spellcasting is completely screwed anyway. Binding a devil with Planar Binding is a minor evil act, while using Fireball is completely neutral, and entirely based on motivation and what it's used for.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Eh, Alignment has always been a tricky subject with D&D, mostly because popular views of morality don't fall onto a simple axis, and D&D's metaphysics is weird.

For instance, IMO Animate Dead isn't an [evil] spell just because you're animating a corpse. The corpse is just a husk; the soul (the real dude) left a long time ago. It's evil because you're funneling negative energy, i.e. evil death energy, through you and into the bones. In this instance, Evil is an actual physical manifestation of reality in D&D, and mister dead animator is messing with it. Like I said, weird metaphysics.

[fryplink]

There was an article floating around these boards and the internets at large about the ramifications of this. It divided games into two of types: negative energy as a 5th element (and positive being a 6th) or negative energy being absolute and physical evil and positive being the inverse.

Essentially, type 1 meant that all unintelligent and voluntary intelligent undead (except vampires) were neutral (thus it was a houserule, but one with a foundation) and type 2 meant that all undead (except possibly vampires) were absolute evil, as were their creators

[tyckspoon]

For instance, IMO Animate Dead isn't an [evil] spell just because you're animating a corpse. The corpse is just a husk; the soul (the real dude) left a long time ago. It's evil because you're funneling negative energy, i.e. evil death energy, through you and into the bones. In this instance, Evil is an actual physical manifestation of reality in D&D, and mister dead animator is messing with it. Like I said, weird metaphysics.

Except for the bit where negative energy is definitively not Evil in the RAW, sure (Inflict spells and Enervation aren't [Evil], Negative Energy Plane doesn't have any alignment traits, etc.) The concept that best matches the rules is that Animate Dead does do something to the creature's soul to create the undead from its body- rips a part of it out the drive the skeleton/lock open the neg. energy microportal that powers it/whatever strikes your fancy. Biggest support for that is the restrictions on Raising/Resurrecting undead; if it was really just the body alone being used, there wouldn't be a problem with, say, True Resurrecting the creature (which creates an entirely new body.)

[Seharvepernfan]

What confuses me is why they feel the need to do this. I had been under the impression that so long as you didn't rape, murder, steal, or actually raise undead yourself, you were in the clear ethically. Or are they just acting "in-character"?

I don't know where, probably book of exalted deeds, but I remember reading a passage that said something like, "avoiding commiting any evil acts might make a being solidly neutral, but to be good one must go out of their way to commit good acts."

[GolemsVoice]

I once heard a story about the devil searching for a sould to fill the last place in hell with. He goes and speaks to many murderers, rapists etc. In the end he finds a person who complains, saying that he doesn't belong with these people, because he witnessed all them doing such awful things, but he never did anything himself, so he should be exempt. Guess who gets the last place.


Also, you've got to imagine a scene like this IC. Let's say creating undead is evil, or a character thinks it's evil. So if somebody did this in front of you, you wouldn't go "meh", you'd see this act as a violation of your beliefs, and might be forced to step in. It's actually quite the other way round: you're Good because you think an act is Evil (this, of course, can easily be generalized in a world where Evil and Good are actually defined), you don't think an act is Evil because you're Good.

[Suddo]

Taint is an in game mechanic that is about doing evil things and it being a bad thing to do.
Druids aren't bound like paladins to hate undead but if role-played at all probably should.
The argument against animation, except in extreme cases and even then, is that yes you can use zombies to rescue orphans from a burning building but there is probably a better way.

[Rubik]

Additionally, all undead are evil creatures,This is, alas, incorrect.

For instance, nowhere are necropolitans noted as Evil.

There are others (see: baelnorn).

[hamishspence]

They are noted as "Any nongood" though.

The spell Detect Evil also detects all undead as Evil regardless of their actual alignment.

So, while the tie of Undead to evil is sometimes exaggerated, there does seem to be a degree of association in the rules.

[Rubik]

They are noted as "Any nongood" though.

The spell Detect Evil also detects all undead as Evil regardless of their actual alignment.

So, while the tie of Undead to evil is sometimes exaggerated, there does seem to be a degree of association in the rules.Rather stupid, since negative energy is inherently neutral, as we all know.

[hamishspence]

Maybe whatever animates the undead isn't just negative energy.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is, alas, incorrect.

For instance, nowhere are necropolitans noted as Evil.

There are others (see: baelnorn).

Isn't baelnorn that one from an FR book that's only neutral so they aren't "kill on sight"?

There are archliches, however.

[Siosilvar]

In-core, Ghosts are the only undead I can find (on a cursory look-through) that's not always evil. that have an "alignment: any" line.

[hamishspence]

Quite a few are tagged "Usually X Evil" rather than "Always X Evil"- but that doesn't say how common the other evil alignments, and the nonevil alignments, are.

Mummies, for example.

[Siosilvar]

Quite a few are tagged "Usually X Evil" rather than "Always X Evil"- but that doesn't say how common the other evil alignments, and the nonevil alignments, are.

Mummies, for example.

You're right. I was just looking for "Alignment: any" and misphrased my comment above.

[Rubik]

Regardless, the point remains that not all undead are evil, by any means. Even in Core.

[horseboy]

The alignment system was created to pad out the play time with useless arguments so everybody else could get up and get more Mtn Dew.

[Rubik]

The alignment system was created to pad out the play time with useless arguments so everybody else could get up and get more Mtn Dew ales 'n whores.Fixed that for you.

[horseboy]

You're right.

[NeoSeraphi]

Fine. All creatures that are created through the spell animate dead (Skeletons and zombies) are "Always neutral evil", and fall under the category of "cannot associate with a paladin without breaking his oath"

[Gavinfoxx]

There was an article floating around these boards and the internets at large about the ramifications of this. It divided games into two of types: negative energy as a 5th element (and positive being a 6th) or negative energy being absolute and physical evil and positive being the inverse.

Essentially, type 1 meant that all unintelligent and voluntary intelligent undead (except vampires) were neutral (thus it was a houserule, but one with a foundation) and type 2 meant that all undead (except possibly vampires) were absolute evil, as were their creators

You mean this, from Frank and K's tomes?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality

[MukkTB]

The Paladin is set up to self destruct whenever the DM doesn't like what he is doing. The cleric is somewhat fragile in terms of what actions will get him messed up but nowhere near as much.

[NichG]

The whole discussion of why undead are evil when negative energy isn't necessarily, and so on makes me want to run a campaign about the very subject:

It'd turn out that in eons past, the risen dead and the living existed side by side in balance - the dead would be reincarnated into the living when they choose, and the living would go to join the dead.

However, Grazzt (only a young demon at the time) saw this, and saw an opportunity for power. He tapped into the pain, the anguish of the transition - to die was an unpleasant experience, and to reincarnate an uncertain one - and wrought a curse that the dead would constantly feel the echo of the pain of their death while in the mortal world, an experience that would drive most beings insane. Then, he kept close to himself the secret of relieving this pain, now effectively an addictive drug that would make any of the undead obey his every command just to be free of their suffering.

Thus, due to Grazzt's curse, the dead always bear the mark of their slaughter no matter how much negative energy they absorb. Thus do shadows beget shadows, vampires beget vampires, and the like. So too is the source of the mindless undead, for they are those whose form in death is so incomplete that a mind cannot last when shoved within it, and flees to oblivion to avoid the pain of being trapped in a torn and decayed shell.

Thus did Grazzt taint undeath with his evil, and this is what paladins and clerics see when they detect evil upon the undead. Now the adventurers must discover this secret and cure the poisoned waters of the Well of Death Reborn.

[Rubik]

Hmm. Isn't there a spell that kills you through orgasmic pleasure? Could be in the BoEF.

I'm totally finding a way to cast that before being raised as undead.

[erikun]

Hmm. Isn't there a spell that kills you through orgasmic pleasure? Could be in the BoEF.
Sounds exhausting.


The implementation of alignment confuses me. Before I joined these boards, it never struck me as all that deterministic. By this, I mean I didn't think it required players to perform certain actions, only to abstain from others.

However, I've been reading a thread in which one DM voiced some concern over his players. Basically, the party's cleric wanted to raise undead, but the other players, being of a "Good" alignment, threatened the destruction of any undead he raised.
I think there might be a bit of confusion with the situation. As I see it, the "evil" cleric wanted to raise undead, and the "good" party members did not. However, most likely, the reason the good party members did not was because they didn't want to run around doing evil things, and the Good alignment was a reflection of this attitude. That is, the characters have Good written on their character sheets because the characters don't want to do evil things, rather than the characters not wanting to do evil things because they have Good written on their character sheets.

Of course, I'm hearing about it second-hand, so my interpretation could be off.

Now, I suppose you could say that alignment can restrict actions, in a roundabout manner. Paladins, for example, are restricted in what they can do (and retain their abilities). And you could say that maintaining an alignment can determine some actions, assuming you want to retain a specific alignment for whatever reason.

However, I do not think that a LG character could just sit around while an orphanage was slaughtered and demons summoned by party members, and still retain that LG alignment afterwards. Just because you aren't actively part of the doing does not absolve you of all responsibility.

[Rubik]

Sounds exhausting.Lucky me, I have Con --, meaning infinite stamina! Huzzah!

[fryplink]

You mean this, from Frank and K's tomes?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality

Indeed! Hail! I've always used the "playing with fire" model. Then again, of recent I've done away with alignment for non-outsiders and non-Holy Types, and changed the Smite/Dictum type spells into Heretic and Smite Infidel. Basically if they don't believe what you believe, it hurts, otherwise, not so much.

[Zeful]

Maybe whatever animates the undead isn't just negative energy.

Which is pretty clear because when someone's body is animated as an undead, they cannot be raised, ressurected, or reincarnated until the undead in-question has been destroyed.

[Jeff the Green]

Which is pretty clear because when someone's body is animated as an undead, they cannot be raised, ressurected, or reincarnated until the undead in-question has been destroyed.

Not necessarily. I prefer the idea that the universe doesn't allow it to prevent the possibility of using an undead to create a clone by using True Resurrection on a currently zombified person, then destroying the zombie, then using Raise Dead on the corpse.

[Templarkommando]

Consider this: If you hang out with drug-dealers, it's entirely likely that when the cops show up to take care of the dealers, that they will ask you questions, and I think depending on what you failed to let the police know, the government may charge you with a crime.

So, I guess that lets it make sense on the lawful level. Let's talk about morality for a second.

Suppose that burglars were breaking into your neighbors house. On a moral level you know that theft is wrong, it's very difficult for me to say "Oh, well as long as I'm not engaging in it, I guess it's okay." I feel like I have a moral duty to prevent my neighbors from being harmed. I may not be led to go to my weapons closet and run in guns-a-blazing, but I would definitely feel a need to call the authorities - not necessarily from a lawful leaning, but out of a moral leaning - and testify against the burglars in court.

[Hunter Noventa]

Not necessarily. I prefer the idea that the universe doesn't allow it to prevent the possibility of using an undead to create a clone by using True Resurrection on a currently zombified person, then destroying the zombie, then using Raise Dead on the corpse.

That wouldn't work regardless, because a soul that's in it's own body isn't 'free and willing to return' because they have nowhere to return from. They're alive on the mortal plane already.