Where do I find the rules for Spell[Evil] effect on alignment?

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Where do I find the rules for Spell[Evil] effect on alignment?

Thanks!

[Psyren]

Where do I find the rules for Spell[Evil] effect on alignment?

Thanks!

Book of Vile Darkness lists a number of acts that will shift alignment if done habitually/repeatedly. Casting [Evil] spells is on the list, however they do specify that most people can get away with casting a few without any problems.

(Note however that animating undead is given harsher treatment.)

[Tarlek Flamehai]

(Note however that animating undead is given harsher treatment.)

Just what I am looking for, actually the Invocation - The Dead Walk.

[Starmage21]

Just what I am looking for, actually the Invocation - The Dead Walk.

The [Evil] and other alignment descriptors only serve to determine that clerics of opposing alignments can cast them. Other divine casters who might be able to cast those spells are unaffected by the descriptors.

If you open up to the idea set in BoVD or that Invocation description could turn you evil, then you also have to accept that casting [Good] spells could make you good, or [Lawful] spells make you lawful, etc.

[Phelix-Mu]

Note that the actual rate and form that change of alignment takes is one of the most radically DM-dependent features of the game. It may happen immediately at X castings, or gradually over a range of castings. It may be a very noticeable change, or it may be totally irrelevant, taking a backseat to the role play.

But the RAW (of BoVD) suggests that it does happen, and that alignment is objectively verifiable and incontrovertible. There is little room for subjective views on alignment in the mechanics of alignment, beyond what the DM institutes themselves by fiat. Detect evil detects evil. Period. (Though even that simple example is actually less than clear cut, as detect evil will ping for some creatures that aren't actually evil...like the ubiquitous redeemed succubus.)

EDIT: I find it bizarre and a bit inconsistent that the universe cares about clerics, but gives druids a free ride. Certainly, a DM may rule such, but my view is that such things should be consistent.

Happily, even if [evil] spells affect druids and other non-cleric divine casters, most of them don't suffer in the same way from alignment change. A judicious TN druid can use both [good] and [evil], [lawful] and [chaos] spells with impunity, as long as they don't exclusively use one or the other, and strive for balance. Such is my interpretation, anyway.

[Inevitability]

The corruption rules from on of the Fiendish Codexes go in on how casting Evil spells can send you on a one-way trip to the lower planes. Not sure about the details though.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

So, per RAW, would a CN Warlock have their alignment shifted by using, or even spamming, The Dead Walk?

[Phelix-Mu]

So, per RAW, would a CN Warlock have their alignment shifted by using, or even spamming, The Dead Walk?

For the temporary undead? I'd say that is a pretty minor infraction. Making the permanent ones should have the same effect as for a normal spellcaster, which is to say they become evil.

This is why many DMs have to, at the start of the game, outline if undead creation is being handled differently for characters that are expressing an interest in it. It's explicitly evil to be doing that stuff. Handling it otherwise is a houserule (though a fairly common one that I tend to have a smidgeon of empathy for, despite my personal druidic tendencies).

[Red Fel]

So, per RAW, would a CN Warlock have their alignment shifted by using, or even spamming, The Dead Walk?

Well, first off, the question is whether using an invocation that calls out a spell is the same as using the spell. I'd rule that it isn't, and I'd point out that invocations don't have alignment tags, but I can't cite to an authority on that. If using an invocation that calls out a spell isn't the same as using the spell, however, you're free and clear.

Assuming they're the same thing, then the answer is yes. By RAW, you would eventually become Evil by spamming the equivalent of Animate Dead. However, when you become Evil is subject to extensive DM discretion. If he decides it's less of a slippery slope and more of a gentle downhill stroll, for example, you could go on spamming The Dead Walk for years in-character with minimal consequence, other than the disapproval of Paladins and the smell of a charnel house.

[Psyren]

The thing is, regardless of descriptor or method, BoVD blacklists any form of animating undead. So even if you say Warlocks sidestep the descriptor or they aren't divine or something, they would still get dinged for using The Dead Walk under the separate "creating or animating undead" clause.

Also, while I agree with Phelix-Mu that this method would probably be pretty minor, BoVD does say this:


Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity— are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

While it was likely referring to more permanent means of creating undead, there is still a lot of room here for a DM to say "if you use this, you won't be neutral for long."

[Lord Vukodlak]

EDIT: I find it bizarre and a bit inconsistent that the universe cares about clerics, but gives druids a free ride. Certainly, a DM may rule such, but my view is that such things should be consistent.

A druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
What inconsistency?


(Though even that simple example is actually less than clear cut, as detect evil will ping for some creatures that aren't actually evil...like the ubiquitous redeemed succubus.)
That's an effect of the evil subtype (or any alignment subtype).

[Rubik]

The way I see it, mindless undead should not be Evil because they have no reason to be. They're incapable of conscious thought -- and therefore, any alignment other than True Neutral -- and the energies used in their creation are also True Neutral.

If I'm Neutral, or even Good, and the DM says that animating mindless undead for decent purposes turns me Evil, I'd simply ignore it and act the way I want to, anyway. Detect Evil might ping on me, but if I'm feeding orphans and helping little old ladies across the street with no malice aforethought, the DM can stick it.

[Phelix-Mu]

What inconsistency?


Hmm. Perhaps you are right. My general point was that all druids have the default option to be TN, and thus there are no descriptors opposed to their alignment, and so all descriptors are allowed. Absent the BoVD bit about the effects of casting evil spells, a TN druid can cast whatever.

But I guess a TN cleric of a TN god could as well (I think). And thus there is less inconsistency than I thought.

The other point I was making about detect evil is that it sounds like it detects evil alignment, but it really detects said alignment and/or evil subtype (and/or cleric auras, as noted in the spell), which can lead to seeming false positives if the player doesn't understand how the spell works (usually only plausible when a character that can cast the spell miscommunicates its effects to another character).

EDIT:

@Rubik: Libris Mortis already presents an arguably plausible explanation of why it's evil. Whether you, me, or anyone else accepts that vague argument is irrelevant. The game says it's evil. Houserule away.

[Starmage21]

What inconsistency?


Alignment descriptors are used pretty much by the cleric class only. Probably the favored soul too. Any other divine caster doesnt care about alignment descriptors.

In the cleric class description:


Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells
A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

[Rubik]

@Rubik: Libris Mortis already presents an arguably plausible explanation of why it's evil. Whether you, me, or anyone else accepts that vague argument is irrelevant. The game says it's evil. Houserule away.And yet Core is the authority on alignment and says that mindless things cannot be anything but True Neutral. They can have alignment subtypes, but they cannot be morally or ethically aligned unless they have an Int score.

So that argument is invalid.

[Phelix-Mu]

And yet Core is the authority on alignment and says that mindless things cannot be anything but True Neutral. They can have alignment subtypes, but they cannot be morally or ethically aligned unless they have an Int score.

So that argument is invalid.

Undead specifically override the general rule on how mindless creatures are aligned. It's an exclusion-based system, and that rule evidently does not apply to mindless undead (as per both the Monster Manual, the authority on monster characteristics and abilities, and Libris Mortis, which is more fluffy, but more well-explained, as well).

[Red Fel]

And yet Core is the authority on alignment and says that mindless things cannot be anything but True Neutral. They can have alignment subtypes, but they cannot be morally or ethically aligned unless they have an Int score.

So that argument is invalid.

Fire is destructive. You may not intend it to be; you may intend to use fire to warm your home, or light your room, or cook your food. But it is destructive, and if you stick your hand in it, you will know pain.

Undead are abominations against nature and life and goodness. Inherent quality. They're not Evil because of conscious thought; I agree, most are incapable of it. They're not Evil because they intend to do Evil, or because their creators intend them for an Evil purpose. They're Evil because they are abominations against nature and life and goodness, intentions be damned. The fact that they are mindless only means they can't choose to be Good or Evil.

Note that this is distinct from creatures with the (Evil) subtype. These are beings made with the distilled cosmic essence of Evil. Many of them are intelligent, and Evil is in their nature instinctively. Undead are not Evil in terms of their nature, nor by the choices they make; their very existence is what's Evil. Making them is choosing to actively bring Evil into the world, which is why it would be considered Evil by core standards.

Mind you, I don't necessarily support any of this. I find this anti-undead propaganda to be hideously life-ist. But that's what the books seem to suggest.

[Phelix-Mu]

I find this anti-undead propaganda to be hideously life-ist.

Repeated for truthiness.

In my setting, many druids even tolerate small numbers of undead, under the logic/belief that negative energy is part of the balance, and that some undead do "naturally" occur (spontaneous ghosts, hauntings, etc). The problems arise when undead, as they are wont, reproduce out of control, kill massive numbers of commoners (likely giving rise to more hauntings/ghosts), and otherwise create blips in the status quo of a caliber such that they threaten the balance at some level.

Of course, many other druids hunt undead assiduously, as well as their creators.

[Psyren]

And yet Core is the authority on alignment and says that mindless things cannot be anything but True Neutral. They can have alignment subtypes, but they cannot be morally or ethically aligned unless they have an Int score.

So that argument is invalid.

The alignment line in a given creature's entry will always be more specific than the general rule. (Also,where is that general rule located?)

[Lord Vukodlak]

Alignment descriptors are used pretty much by the cleric class only. Probably the favored soul too. Any other divine caster doesnt care about alignment descriptors.

In the cleric class description:

Except for druids who have the exact same passage in their class description.

Oh and classes like Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman or Shugenja. Casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to clerics/druids) respectively. Which implies they also suffer the same alignment restrictions.

So really the only divine casters who escape alignment prohibitions on spells either completely lack them in there spell list, are restricted to a given alignment or are archivists.

[Runeclaw]

If you open up to the idea set in BoVD or that Invocation description could turn you evil, then you also have to accept that casting [Good] spells could make you good, or [Lawful] spells make you lawful, etc.

I don't agree with that. I don't see any reason why it has to by symmetric and have no problem with the notion that evil is inherently more corruptive than good is "anti-corruptive".

Put another way, even if you did assume that casting [Evil] spells is an evil act and casting [Good] spells is a Good act, what alignment does someone who performs Good acts when it suits their purposes and evil acts when it suits their purposes have? An Evil alignment, obviously.

Another way of looking at is that using [Evil] energies to enforce your whim upon the universe is an inherently Evil act, but using [Good] energies to enforce your will is not, in and of itself, inherently a Good act. This makes sense to me.

[Starmage21]

I don't agree with that. I don't see any reason why it has to by symmetric and have no problem with the notion that evil is inherently more corruptive than good is "anti-corruptive".

Put another way, even if you did assume that casting [Evil] spells is an evil act and casting [Good] spells is a Good act, what alignment does someone who performs Good acts when it suits their purposes and evil acts when it suits their purposes have? An Evil alignment, obviously.

Another way of looking at is that using [Evil] energies to enforce your whim upon the universe is an inherently Evil act, but using [Good] energies to enforce your will is not, in and of itself, inherently a Good act. This makes sense to me.

That logic might fly given that we accept that [Evil] is a corrupting force, and [Good] isnt. We actually have evidence to the contrary. There is a spell that will completely rewrite an evil aligned being's alignment to good, against their will.

Good and evil arent the ethical, sliding scales that balance in the eye of the beholder as you and I know them to be. In D&D they are objective forces which are balanced against each other, and even have their own representative exemplar realms (planes). There is nothing to suggest that the forces of Good dont have just as insidiousness to them as Evil does. Paladins get away with killing anything that pings on the Evil-dar all the time.

[Psyren]

That logic might fly given that we accept that [Evil] is a corrupting force, and [Good] isnt. We actually have evidence to the contrary. There is a spell that will completely rewrite an evil aligned being's alignment to good, against their will.

In the context of our world that seems like rewriting. But in the context of D&D, remember that Good is seen as the default state. BoED is heavily based on Rousseau philosophy. You are not so much converting someone against their will, as you are wiping their slate clean by posing the perfect argument, magically formulated for their exact experiences and situation..

[Squark]

On D&D morality and cosmology: Look, it's really weird, and can get rather mind-screwy. The fact that it was written by game designers who weren't always communicating with each other and not philosophers/theologians/ethics comittees also leads to some ethical dissonance.

From a metagame perspective, the reason Mindless undead are evil is so things like Holy weapons and [Good] spells work on them, even if you can argue they themselves are morally neutral in the same way an uncontrolled fire is. And anyway, if their default behavior is mindless destruction, one could argue that the creation of such a dangerous creature is wrong for the same reasons lighting forests on fire for no reason is.

[Pan151]

And anyway, if their default behavior is mindless destruction, one could argue that the creation of such a dangerous creature is wrong for the same reasons lighting forests on fire for no reason is.

Except the default behaviour of most of the mindless undead is absolute inaction.

If somebody animates a skeleton but does not give them any commands, then they will simply stand where they were raised until their bones crumble to dust. They would not make any action even if you attacked them.

[Squark]

Except the default behaviour of most of the mindless undead is absolute inaction.

If somebody animates a skeleton but does not give them any commands, then they will simply stand where they were raised until their bones crumble to dust. They would not make any action even if you attacked them.

Libris Mortis says otherwise. Core is silent on the issue, so that's our only source on the matter.

[atemu1234]

No. It doesn't work that way. Spamming it you're OK, provided you're using it for suitably neutral reasons.

[Rubik]

Libris Mortis says otherwise. Core is silent on the issue, so that's our only source on the matter.You mean how the Monster Manual obviously doesn't very clearly state that:

"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple."

?

[Psyren]

You mean how the Monster Manual obviously doesn't very clearly state that:

"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple."

?

So by that logic, a paralyzed or dominated demon stops being evil?

[Rubik]

So by that logic, a paralyzed or dominated demon stops being evil?If that is its permanent, from-creation state, and it starts out mindless, with no way to initiate any action whatsoever from inception, then yes.

[Phelix-Mu]

If that is its permanent, from-creation state, and it starts out mindless, with no way to initiate any action whatsoever from inception, then yes.

Evil is a state independent of all other states, and not reliant upon any interaction in D&D. If the rules say the rock is evil, it's an evil rock. Never mind that doesn't make any sense.

[Rubik]

The alignment line in a given creature's entry will always be more specific than the general rule. (Also,where is that general rule located?)Okay, I knew the text was around here somewhere, but it took me way too long to find it.

PHB, pg 104:

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." Also, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

So anything incapable of ethical or moral thought is incapable of being anything but Neutral, even those prone to certain behaviors, such as attacking and eating people.

I could see certain mindless undead having the [Evil] subtype due to the spell used to create them, but it's impossible for them to actually be Evil simply due to the fact that they're unable to make any kind of decision regarding their behaviors (which is either predatory or based entirely on someone else's orders, depending on circumstances and the type of undead in question).

[atemu1234]

Okay, I knew the text was around here somewhere, but it took me way too long to find it.

PHB, pg 104:

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." Also, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

So anything incapable of ethical or moral action are incapable of being anything but Neutral, even those prone to certain behaviors, such as attacking and eating people.

I could see certain mindless undead having the [Evil] subtype due to the spell used to create them, but it's impossible for them to actually be Evil simply due to the fact that they're unable to make any kind of decision regarding their behaviors (which is either predatory or based entirely on someone else's orders, depending on circumstances and the type of undead in question).

Do you want RAW to go with your RAW?

Because RAW says they're evil, just like they said animals are neutral, so...

[Rubik]

Do you want RAW to go with your RAW?

Because RAW says they're evil, just like they said animals are neutral, so..."Text vs table" applies here, I think.

[Pan151]

Do you want RAW to go with your RAW?

Because RAW says they're evil, just like they said animals are neutral, so...

When RAW is dysfuntional you don't have to blindly follow it just because it's RAW. That's what a DM is supposed to be there for, after all - take care of rules contradictions and imperfections.

[Squark]

You mean how the Monster Manual obviously doesn't very clearly state that:

"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple."

?

Not contradictory. There is a difference between having no new orders and not being under control, and Libris Mortis addressed that possibility.

[Rubik]

Not contradictory. There is a difference between having no new orders and not being under control, and Libris Mortis addressed that possibility.How so? Newly spawned skeletons never do anything but stand there unless they're commanded, according to their entry, no matter what created them. Even "naturally-occurring" ones just do nothing.

It's like a computer sitting there in standby mode. Unless something commands it do something, nothing happens. Ever.

[Lord Vukodlak]

How so?
When discussing the difference between a zombie and a flesh golem Libris Mortis goes over the differences chief among them is a lack of involvement of negative energy and that golems are animated by elemental spirits and not evil spirits.

So while an undead creature might be mindless there is still an evil animating spirit behind it that has no direct control over its body.

[Rubik]

When discussing the difference between a zombie and a flesh golem Libris Mortis goes over the differences chief among them is a lack of involvement of negative energy and that golems are animated by elemental spirits and not evil spirits.

So while an undead creature might be mindless there is still an evil animating spirit behind it that has no direct control over its body.Except zombies aren't animated by spirits.

According to the text in the PHB: "Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls."

[Lord Vukodlak]

Except zombies aren't animated by spirits.

According to the text in the PHB: "Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls."

Spirit can differ from soul, the line you are referring to is from the magic jar spell. A zombie does not have a soul in the same since that a human has has a soul in that the spirit isn't in control, its the same principal as a golem. So you can't use magic jar on mindless undead because the spirit that animates it isn't in control.

But at the end of the day none of this matters because mindless undead are listed with an evil alignment and SPECIFIC TRUMPS GENERAL. The general rule that unintelligent creatures are only true neutral is overridden by the specific rule in the monster entries.

By RAW mindless undead are evil because that's what it says in the monster entry. Anything else is 100% houserule.

[Rubik]

Spirit can differ from soul, the line you are referring to is from the magic jar spell. A zombie does not have a soul in the same since that a human has has a soul in that the spirit isn't in control, its the same principal as a golem. So you can't use magic jar on mindless undead because the spirit that animates it isn't in control.

But at the end of the day none of this matters because mindless undead are listed with an evil alignment and SPECIFIC TRUMPS GENERAL. The general rule that unintelligent creatures are only true neutral is overridden by the specific rule in the monster entries.

By RAW mindless undead are evil because that's what it says in the monster entry. Anything else is 100% houserule.Actually, there's nothing preventing you from inhabiting a zombie using Magic Jar.

And skeletons and zombies were Neutral in 3.0. I can only presume that the alignment change in 3.5 was a rather ridiculous mistake from someone who had no idea what they were doing, like Skip Williams, perhaps.

[Psyren]

Actually, there's nothing preventing you from inhabiting a zombie using Magic Jar.

And skeletons and zombies were Neutral in 3.0. I can only presume that the alignment change in 3.5 was a rather ridiculous mistake from someone who had no idea what they were doing, like Skip Williams, perhaps.

BoVD is 3.0 and it also has them as being "inherently evil." Also Libris Mortis doubled down on it - which was written by Bruce Cordell, not Skip.

[Rubik]

BoVD is 3.0 and it also has them as being "inherently evil." Also Libris Mortis doubled down on it - which was written by Bruce Cordell, not Skip.And yet it's still stupid and nonsensical, regardless. I've come to expect more from Bruce. Not so much from Skip.

[Psyren]

It does make sense - you just don't like the explanation they've come up with. Which is a perfectly valid stance, but all disregarding that explanation does is leave you with RAW unjustified.

[Phelix-Mu]

Just call it stupid and houserule it away. TO is largely a thought exercise, and is almost the only place where totally strict RAW is a thing. Games that actually run on strict RAW have a way of coming apart at the seams specifically due to RAW.

No shame in the houserule, especially if it makes the setting of your campaign more fun, consistent, or interesting. I houserule liberally at the drop of a hat. Many of the best DMs I am familiar with are the same way. The default game only exists on paper; here in meat-space, we are more sensible.

[Necroticplague]

On a related note, does anyone here know why Animate Dead and similar have the [evil] tag in the first place? I thought that alignment tags were supposed to indicate the type of energy used in the casting of the spell. However, it doesn't make any kinda sense that a spell which creates something that runs on Negative involves any energy from the Lower Planes. If anything, it should be [neutral], given how the Negative Energy Plane is mildly neutral aligned. Even if using the spell is inherently evil (which is a whole can of worms in its own right), the alignment tag isn't consistent with what the tag means.

[Psyren]

On a related note, does anyone here know why Animate Dead and similar have the [evil] tag in the first place? I thought that alignment tags were supposed to indicate the type of energy used in the casting of the spell. However, it doesn't make any kinda sense that a spell which creates something that runs on Negative involves any energy from the Lower Planes. If anything, it should be [neutral], given how the Negative Energy Plane is mildly neutral aligned. Even if using the spell is inherently evil (which is a whole can of worms in its own right), the alignment tag isn't consistent with what the tag means.

This was discussed/sourced extensively on page 1, which is what led to these lines being drawn in the sand to begin with :smalltongue:

[georgie_leech]

This was discussed/sourced extensively on page 1, which is what led to these lines being drawn in the sand to begin with :smalltongue:

Mm. To sum up: Logic and the RAW disagrees with itself all over the place, but just about the only explicit thing we're told is that Undead are always evil. I disagree that it should be this way, to stay consistent with other bits of RAW, but it's hardly unclear.

[Brookshw]

This was discussed/sourced extensively on page 1, which is what led to these lines being drawn in the sand to begin with :smalltongue:

Red Mage also explained it pretty well not too long ago. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358001-Undead-always-EVUL/page10)

[Necroticplague]

Red Mage also explained it pretty well not too long ago. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358001-Undead-always-EVUL/page10)

You're referring to the post where he says "casting this spell is an evil acts, always, therefor it should have the [evil] descriptor", correct?

The problem is, that's not how those descriptors work. I might be wrong, but I thought that alignment descriptors were like elemental descriptors (at least for spells); they indicated that energies or material from an Outer plane of that alignment are used. Summoning demons is evil because it involves energies from one of the Lower Planes, while Dictum is always lawful because it involves drawing lawful energy forth from a plane of Order. And since it generates a creature that runs on negative energy, it doesn't really make sense that any energy from a lower plane is needed.

[atemu1234]

Your logic with the animals is faulty, as well. Because animals are neutral and mindless, you assume all mindless creatures are neutral? I know that's the explanation given for animals, but that doesn't automatically make it apply to everything else.

[Brookshw]

You're referring to the post where he says "casting this spell is an evil acts, always, therefor it should have the [evil] descriptor", correct?

The problem is, that's not how those descriptors work. I might be wrong, but I thought that alignment descriptors were like elemental descriptors (at least for spells); they indicated that energies or material from an Outer plane of that alignment are used. Summoning demons is evil because it involves energies from one of the Lower Planes, while Dictum is always lawful because it involves drawing lawful energy forth from a plane of Order. And since it generates a creature that runs on negative energy, it doesn't really make sense that any energy from a lower plane is needed.

On my phone and afb but I believe post 293 was the better of his two lengthy comments on that page. As to descriptors I don't see much on the srd that would support it being the plane that matters though I did see
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. and from that I can gather a mindless creature being evil is legit. Heading into the office so can't dig too deeply at the moment.

[Ettina]

I just ignore alignment claims that make no sense. Like the reams of organized, orderly, rule-bound Always Chaotic Evil races.

[atemu1234]

I just ignore alignment claims that make no sense. Like the reams of organized, orderly, rule-bound Always Chaotic Evil races.

Like which? I can't think of any. Drow are Neutral Evil and only survive based off of repeated divine intervention, but that's the closest I can think of. Chaos doesn't automatically mean lolrandom, and chaotic evil doesn't always mean murderhobo. They can work together, though backstabbing is to be expected.

[Rubik]

Mm. To sum up: Logic and the RAW disagrees with itself all over the place, but just about the only explicit thing we're told is that Undead are always evil. I disagree that it should be this way, to stay consistent with other bits of RAW, but it's hardly unclear.We're told that, and then it doesn't happen. We have ghosts in Core, for instance, and necropolitans, and quite a few elsewhere, as well.

So, yeah. Both Libris Mortis and Core have non-Evil undead.

[Rubik]

Your logic with the animals is faulty, as well. Because animals are neutral and mindless, you assume all mindless creatures are neutral? I know that's the explanation given for animals, but that doesn't automatically make it apply to everything else.Animals aren't mindless. They're Int 1 or 2. And the rules text says they can't be anything but Neutral because non-sentient creatures don't have the mental capability of morality or ethics.

And mindless creatures are non-sentient, so that applies to them, as well.

[Psyren]

We're told that, and then it doesn't happen. We have ghosts in Core, for instance, and necropolitans, and quite a few elsewhere, as well.

So, yeah. Both Libris Mortis and Core have non-Evil undead.

Those are specific exceptions to the general rule about undead being evil, just as we can have evil oozes despite them being mindless. (Living Blasphemy, MM3 pg. 93, for instance.) It's all about the energy.

[Rubik]

Those are specific exceptions to the general rule about undead being evil, just as we can have evil oozes despite them being mindless. (Living Blasphemy, MM3 pg. 93, for instance.) It's all about the energy.You mean entirely Neutral negative energy, right?

[Psyren]

You mean entirely Neutral negative energy, right?

It is neutral where it belongs, on the NEP. Bringing it here, to the Prime, is the problem.

It's like uranium. Leave it in the ground and there are no moral implications for you. But if you throw a bunch of it into a forest or dump it in a lake, you're committing an evil act. The energy itself may be neutral but not what you're doing with it. Contact poison in a bottle is neutral too, but smear it on random doorknobs and you're committing an evil act.

And as I've proven above, there are other mindless evil creatures besides skeletons and zombies.

[Necroticplague]

On my phone and afb but I believe post 293 was the better of his two lengthy comments on that page. As to descriptors I don't see much on the srd that would support it being the plane that matters though I did see and from that I can gather a mindless creature being evil is legit. Heading into the office so can't dig too deeply at the moment.

I know, I was talking about 293. The part that is relevant to my question ("why does Animate Dead have the [evil]descriptor if it doesn't involve any [evil] energies.") is as follows:



Given that the intentional creation of undead is an objectively evil act, regardless of how it is accomplished (BoVD, page 8), it follows that all undead-creating spells have the [Evil] descriptor, yes? Because that objectively Evil act is the sole outcome of a casting of those spells.

And I'm just not seeing the link from "using this spell is always evil" to "this spell should have the [evil] descriptor". If that was true, Poison should have the [evil]descriptor too, since it uses a poison that causes ability damage (an evil act, as per BOED, p.34). And Deathwatch should lack it, because its end result isn't evil, even remotely.

[Psyren]

And I'm just not seeing the link from "using this spell is always evil" to "this spell should have the [evil] descriptor". If that was true, Poison should have the [evil]descriptor too, since it uses a poison that causes ability damage (an evil act, as per BOED, p.34). And Deathwatch should lack it, because its end result isn't evil, even remotely.

The PHB was written before BoED when they decided poison was always evil. But just because they didn't tag poison does not mean tagging Animate Dead is wrong.

Deathwatch I agree with you on, and they put it on Slayer of Domiel's list so they must have felt the same way.

[Taveena]

Relevant, but slightly off topic - while the vague Negative Energy Radiation undead apparently give off is nasty... shouldn't the same be said of Positive Energy Radiation Deathless give off? Sure, Negative energy results in sickly children and low crop harvests, but Positive energy results in cancerous children and locust swarms. They're both neutral forces. Hell, Fire is arguably more destructive than either, and Fire elementals aren't evil (and nor are golems powered by them.)
The Plane of Negative Energy ain't Evil aligned, and there's a REASON that Holy weapons - supposedly Good - won't hurt an Archlich or Baelnorn. (Well, any more than a normal weapon would.)

The whole thing is a stupid writer's conflation between negative energy and [Evil]. As far as I can tell, fiends are healed by positive and hurt by negative like anyone else. And if they're MADE of cosmic evil...

[Necroticplague]

The PHB was written before BoED when they decided poison was always evil. But just because they didn't tag poison does not mean tagging Animate Dead is wrong.

Yes, because their's no such thing as errata or reprints that can correct things they thought were issues later.

That said, I'm not saying its wrong on any point, just inconsistent enough that I can't figure it out and was hoping for an explanation. The way I see it, either:

A:The descriptor comes from the types of energy used. Animate Dead is inconsistent because it uses energy from an Inner plane, not an Outer one, and should have it removed.
B:The descriptor comes from the result of the spell. Poison is inconsistent because it produces an Evil result, and thus should have the tag added (making it even more similar to contagion).

Of course, since neither of those are consistent, I'm hoping someone who knows a bit about descriptors can clarify the issue.

[hamishspence]

As to "How evil, exactly, is casting an [evil] spell?", Fiendish Codex 2 puts it as a 1 pt Corrupt act, on a par with "humiliating an underling" and "intimidating torture" (torture that does no actual damage).

[Psyren]

Yes, because their's no such thing as errata or reprints that can correct things they thought were issues later.

The "errata" is reinforcing their stance. LM came out after both of those books, remember? So you are countering your own position with this objection.



That said, I'm not saying its wrong on any point, just inconsistent enough that I can't figure it out and was hoping for an explanation.

How is it inconsistent? Is there any book that says animate dead isn't evil?

PHB says it.
MM1 says it.
BOVD says it.
LM says it.
FC2 says it.

How anyone can still be confused on this point is baffling to me. Not liking it is one thing, but not comprehending is quite another.

[Necroticplague]

My confusion isn't over it being evil. I'm working from a position that accepts that casting animate dead is always evil. However, I don't see how the fact it's always evil to cast means it should have the [evil] descriptor.

Also, the comment about errata was in response to you saying that Poison can't have the [evil] descriptor because its was released before they decided poisons were evil, to which "they could have changed it afterwards" is a valid response.

[Brookshw]

My confusion isn't over it being evil. I'm working from a position that accepts that casting animate dead is always evil. However, I don't see how the fact it's always evil to cast means it should have the [evil] descriptor.

Also, the comment about errata was in response to you saying that Poison can't have the [evil] descriptor because its was released before they decided poisons were evil, to which "they could have changed it afterwards" is a valid response.

Speaking as someone who works for a successful global commercial publisher your giving them waaaay to much credit in terms of correcting things in reprints (and the less we say on this note the better probably).

Or in other words, those corrections are in the queue and will follow the ToB errata correction.

[Psyren]

My confusion isn't over it being evil. I'm working from a position that accepts that casting animate dead is always evil. However, I don't see how the fact it's always evil to cast means it should have the [evil] descriptor.

Also, the comment about errata was in response to you saying that Poison can't have the [evil] descriptor because its was released before they decided poisons were evil, to which "they could have changed it afterwards" is a valid response.

If that's your only problem then we have no quarrel. Descriptors are just shorthand, when they mean anything at all. Ideally, they shouldn't have to tell you "creating mockeries of life that thin the veil between this world and a nightmare realm just by existing" might not be very nice to do, any more than they would have to tell you that "inflicting someone with the slowest and most agonizing demise possible, even an enemy" might not be very nice. But despite agreeing that both of these are evil in their game, they only tagged one with the descriptor and not the other. It's unfortunate/inelegant, but ultimately, it doesn't change the fact that the first one was tagged.

[Rubik]

I don't see where it says the undead do any of that in the undead type or in any of the monster descriptions. You may want to stop pretending that your house rules are not house rules.

[Psyren]

I don't see where it says the undead do any of that in the undead type or in any of the monster descriptions. You may want to stop pretending that your house rules are not house rules.

I wrote Libris Mortis and BoVD? Man, that's near a decade of royalties they owe me for my houserules then, thanks for the heads up.

[Rubik]

I wrote Libris Mortis and BoVD? Man, that's near a decade of royalties they owe me for my houserules then, thanks for the heads up.Those books provide ideas for house rules. They aren't RAW. Using them at your table does not mean they are any less house rules.

[Brookshw]

Those books provide ideas for house rules. They aren't RAW. Using it them at your table does not mean they are any less house rules.

So splatbooks aren't RAW? Huh, first I've seen that put forward with a straight face

[Psyren]

Those books provide ideas for house rules. They aren't RAW. Using it them at your table does not mean they are any less house rules.

They're rules, and they're written in a first-party source. Rules As Written.

Again, nobody is making you like them. (Nor do I see anywhere in either book that says "this section is a houserule.")

[Rubik]

They're rules, and they're written in a first-party source. Rules As Written.

Again, nobody is making you like them. (Nor do I see anywhere in either book that says "this section is a houserule.")They're suggestions for how to rule at your table, much like the flaw and gestalt sections are in the SRD. They aren't things you can assume are in play, even if LM is.

[Lord Vukodlak]

And skeletons and zombies were Neutral in 3.0. I can only presume that the alignment change in 3.5 was a rather ridiculous mistake from someone who had no idea what they were doing, like Skip Williams, perhaps.
Not a mistake, other mindless undead in 3.5 are listed as evil aligned, its clearly an intentional change and LM backs that up? So either find a 3.5 mindless undead that's neutral aligned from a WoTC source or admit that your wrong and mindless undead are by RAW evil.

[Rubik]

Not a mistake, other mindless undead in 3.5 are listed as evil aligned, its clearly an intentional change and LM backs that up? So either find a 3.5 mindless undead that's neutral aligned from a WoTC source or admit that your wrong and mindless undead are by RAW evil.That's easy. Ghost bombardier beetle.

[Necroticplague]

That's easy. Ghost bombardier beetle.

Can't exist, given how Ghost can't be applied to Vermin.

[Brookshw]

Can't exist, given how Ghost can't be applied to Vermin.

Are you sure that's that's not because of suggested house rules rather than RAW?

[Necroticplague]

Are you sure that's that's not because of suggested house rules rather than RAW?


“Ghost” is an acquired template that can be added to any aberration, animal, dragon, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, or plant. The creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature) must have a Charisma score of at least 6.

Seems fairly cut-and dry. Vermin aren't on that list.

[Blackhawk748]

Well we could have a Ghost Shambling Mound then, still winds up being similar.

Anyway heres my 2 cents. Negative Energy is "Neutral" correct? As in its Planar Alignment? So going with that things powered by it should be Neutral too, as they are powered by a Cosmically Neutral source. Im not saying its not ungodly dangerous, because it is, but it isnt evil. Personally i think making a Golem is a hell of a lot more evil than making a skeleton. Why? Because you are trapping an intelligent being into a metal body to be your slave, the other you are simply taking "distilled death" and making it power a collection of bones. Im not saying the second is particularly nice (especially if you made a ghoul or a wight, then you just a jerk) but i dont think its inherently evil. Thus why i use the "Playing with Fire" stance for my games.

Edit: Just checked and in PF Negative Energy Elementals are Neutral, so ya the argument that making undead is bringing "untold evil" into the world is kinda....... meh. (reason i went to PF is cuz i couldnt find one in 3.5)

[Brookshw]

Seems fairly cut-and dry. Vermin aren't on that list.

Huh? I'm teasing rubik about his "not raw" position. Sorry if that was unclear.

[Karnith]

Templated undead aside (I'm fairly certain a number of Ghost/Ghost Brute Plant creatures would end up neutral-aligned), Blood Amniotes from Libris Mortis are Int: - and always neutral. I guess because Ooze Traits?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Never mind thought you were talking about the swarm creature that follows it, but that would appear to be the only one. The Bloodmote Cloudo undead insects neutral evil., the mindless bone rat swarm... neutral evil, corpse rat swarm mindless yet neutral evil.

It seems quite clear that WoTC decided evil is the default alignment for undead even mindless ones.

[atemu1234]

I just checked; ghosts can indeed be any alignment in the SRD. However, the fact remains that RAW states that things like zombies and skeletons, however mindless, are evil. That's the original point, not that all mindless undead are neutral evil.

[Psyren]

They're suggestions for how to rule at your table, much like the flaw and gestalt sections are in the SRD. They aren't things you can assume are in play, even if LM is.

No, they're just explanations for what is in the MM. Take or leave the explanation as you please, but a creature's statblock is not optional and it stands.


Templated undead aside (I'm fairly certain a number of Ghost/Ghost Brute Plant creatures would end up neutral-aligned), Blood Amniotes from Libris Mortis are Int: - and always neutral. I guess because Ooze Traits?

Living Blasphemy is a mindless ooze and is evil.

So mindless evil is quite possible, it just so happens undead pretty much corner the market on it.

[hamishspence]

Living Blasphemy is a mindless ooze and is evil.

So mindless evil is quite possible, it just so happens undead pretty much corner the market on it.

Lemures are another example - they are INT - and have both the Evil subtype and a listed LE alignment.

[bekeleven]

They're suggestions for how to rule at your table, much like the flaw and gestalt sections are in the SRD. They aren't things you can assume are in play, even if LM is.

Aah yes, the cover page of libris mortis, where the title of the book is presented under the words
http://i.imgur.com/BP2bIoM.png

[Psyren]

^ You were being sarcastic towards Rubik, right? There are variant rules in LM (like Good Liches and Haunting Presences) but the entire book is not presented that way. It's hard to tell on the web.

(Besides which, variant rules are still RAW. I never see anyone saying "Cloistered Cleric? Pounce/Whirling Frenzy Barbarian? Spontaneous Divination Wizard? Houserules, all of them!")