Perhaps MMOs have corrupted me, Part 2.

[tadkins]

I made a similarly titled thread a while back, regarding the combat ability of smaller races between the two types of games. I felt it appropriate to use it again. xD

I should begin by saying that MMOs were, largely, my first bit of exposure to the fantasy genre. First got into EverQuest when I was 15 or so, and would later get into World of Warcraft years after that. I vaguely knew of D&D the whole time, but never actually played. I didn't get a firsthand look at that game until just a couple years ago, when a few of my World of Warcraft guildmates decided to play a game.

With that said, I suppose my views are a bit different as a result of my experiences. Something I tend to have debates with a good friend over every now and then. The subject in question; darker classes. In MMOs, they come in titles D&D players would be familiar with. Necromancers, death knights, warlocks, assassins, and the like. The flavor among all of them is generally the same; dark, questionable, totally unlike your iconic knight in shining armor hero.

In most MMOs, such a character can generally be as noble as they want to be. While in EQ, a Necromancer or Shadow Knight is generally regarded with suspicion, a character can choose to be as good or evil as they want to be through the choices they make. They can choose to get in good with that paladin organization, or they can choose to slaughter them. The possibilites are endless. WoW is even more streamlined. That warlock hero is really no different from that paladin hero; we are simply heroes of our respective faction, serving under the same leaders, persuing most of the same quests in the name of our peoples.

I think about this sort of thing quite a bit. In these games, a character I've played and built over the years is a gnome named Tadkins Naletop. While the mechanics of each game are different, the idea behind the character is generally the same; she's a spellcaster curious about the darker arts and what lies beyond the veil of traditional magic. She existed as a Necromancer in EQ, and a Warlock in WoW. Mechanically, I enjoy the playstyle, and I incorporate that into my RP. A wizard can spend their time casting a fireball to deal damage, or they can cast a life-draining incantation that deals damage *and* heals themselves. She views it as practicality and efficiency, nothing more. Undead, demons, and otherworldly creatures feared as "evil" are simply tools to be used. Tadkins is willing to go further than most in pursuit of knowledge, but never out of maliciousness or evil. She simply believes that all knowledge is valuable, and attempts to understand the darkness should be made.

This is where I debate fiercely with my friend. With the way D&D is written, such a character cannot be considered as anything but Evil. My friend insists that using enough evil spells in a D&D game will inevitably corrupt a character beyond redemption. That simply playing with Evil makes one Evil. That if I wanted to play this character in a D&D game, it wouldn't matter what my views on it are, a DM would likely force her to be NE. I made the decision that if I were to play Tadkins in a D&D game, she'd be using a lot of darker spells, while being TN Wizard following Boccob. Even if a DM forced an alignment change, my character would remain devoted to her path, standing strong against the corruption for the sake of knowledge, and I would hope that she'd end up going to the TN plane of that deity upon death as a result.

What do you guys think? Does evil need to be as cut and dry as it's made out to be in the game, or are my views on the subject really just skewed? In essence, can the Dark Is Not Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil) trope exist in D&D?

[chaos_redefined]

A character who uses evil methods to perform otherwise good acts is neutral. Point them to the Malconvoker from Complete Scoundrel as an example of a non-evil character using evil spells.

(Although I disagree with that example allowing characters to remain good while regularly making pacts with evil creatures)

[Taveena]

S'basically because in D&D, Evil is actually a cosmic force. You screw around with Evil, you become Evil as it touches you.

The PROBLEM is that it's used completely arbitrarily. Undead are Evil in spite of being powered by Mildly Neutral Aligned energy. Poison is Evil because it causes unnecessary suffering, but the unnecessary suffering caused by a Ravage is Good and Power Word: Pain is completely unaligned. Channeling positive energy is a good act, even if you're using it to command Deathless to stop saving puppies from the burning puppy orphanage.

Long story short: D&D morality makes no sense. Capital E Evil, [Evil], and evil are only occasionally related, as shown by the Succubus Paladin, made of [Evil] in spite of being both Good and good.

[OldTrees1]

RAW Alignment in 3.5 is laughable. However the system can easily accommodate Dark is not Evil, Light is not Good, Blue Orange Morality, and the list goes on and on.


Warning: Playing without the RAW Alignments can lead to moral discussions and deep thinking. Remember to bring a hat.

[tadkins]

Yup, exactly. Basically, I just want to be a character that throws around balls of shadow, and summons a few scary monsters without feeling like I'm committing some horrible crime against the universe. xD

[OldTrees1]

Yup, exactly. Basically, I just want to be a character that throws around balls of shadow, and summons a few scary monsters without feeling like I'm committing some horrible crime against the universe. xD

Whoa, hold your horses. The lack of a naive prohibition is not the same as the existence of a naive permit. If you are in a group that rejects RAW alignment, then you should expect that the group will have their own ideas/discussions about what is and is not X and why. This is where you would need to talk to your group to find out.

[tadkins]

Whoa, hold your horses. The lack of a naive prohibition is not the same as the existence of a naive permit. If you are in a group that rejects RAW alignment, then you should expect that the group will have their own ideas/discussions about what is and is not X and why. This is where you would need to talk to your group to find out.

Of course, I'd discuss things with the group beforehand.

[OldTrees1]

Of course, I'd discuss things with the group beforehand.

Sorry I have a bad habit of figuring out something more to say after posting.

Based upon your description your character would register as a form of realistic Evil in my group(not merely because you do Dark spells habitually, but because your intent, considerations, and opportunities).

[tadkins]

Sorry I have a bad habit of figuring out something more to say after posting.

Based upon your description your character would register as a form of realistic Evil in my group(not merely because you do Dark spells habitually, but because your intent, considerations, and opportunities).

If that's the case though, I'd still like to think that this character is the kind of evil that can still function in a typical adventuring group.

[OldTrees1]

If that's the case though, I'd still like to think that this character is the kind of evil that can still function in a typical adventuring group.

Without question. I can even see Paladins* being able to work with/try to redeem it.

*Once the RAW Code of Conduct is replaced with something reasonable.

[Eldaran]

There's not even rules for changing alignment by doing evil stuff, so this is a subjective matter that depends heavily on your DM.

[Crake]

A character who uses evil methods to perform otherwise good acts is neutral. Point them to the Malconvoker from Complete Scoundrel as an example of a non-evil character using evil spells.

(Although I disagree with that example allowing characters to remain good while regularly making pacts with evil creatures)

Uh, no, using evil methods for good ends is still evil. Case in point, a necromancer who slaughters an entire village to make undead minions to defend the kingdom against attack, still Evil with a capital E.

The ends does not justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[tadkins]

Uh, no, using evil methods for good ends is still evil. Case in point, a necromancer who slaughters an entire village to make undead minions to defend the kingdom against attack, still Evil with a capital E.

The ends does not justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I agree completely.

However, a necromancer that joins the kingdom defenders on the battlements, and fires a spell at the invading orcs that, say, causes their intestines to burst? Not really evil, just gruesome.

[Pan151]

Uh, no, using evil methods for good ends is still evil. Case in point, a necromancer who slaughters an entire village to make undead minions to defend the kingdom against attack, still Evil with a capital E.

The ends does not justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You do understand that slaughtering an entire village and casting Animate Dead differ by several degrees of severity, right?

[Melcar]

Its a difficult question...

I would say that Your alighment might not need to change, but in the eyes of others you would be considered evil. Its not so much what you do, but how you do it. A paladin laying waste to a village, slaughtering all the children and women is good, because he was bringing the light...

My point is, as has been mentioned before, the morality of D&D is somewhat screwed. Killing children in the name of one faith is not less evil than doing it in the name of another faith. (Sorry if I touch upon a real world situation. I mean no harm by it.) But in D&D it would differ depending of the faith of the children. Generally speaking.

[Milo v3]

Necromancy isn't evil in D&D specifically, only a tiny amount of spells have the evil descriptor. Even if some spells have evil descriptor, there is no rule that says casting an evil spell is an evil action (unless it's a vile spell, in which it is an evil action).

[Crake]

You do understand that slaughtering an entire village and casting Animate Dead differ by several degrees of severity, right?

Evil actions are not limited to just casting Evil spells.

[Eldan]

Some D&D books state that these are evil and corruptive forces and that even getting near them taints you. Using them means giving them more of a foothold on the world, forever tainting creation. IF that is the case, then that's evil. Paradoxically, while Negative Energy itself is a neutral force of nature, anything derrived from it seems to be evil.

It's fluff. Change it however you want. If you want them as neutral forces often used for evil, go for it.

[HighWater]

Morality in DnD is a convoluted affair, precisely because they've tried to make it clear-cut and failed.

That means that some house-ruling is unavoidable. Personally I always care about how the character places their own needs with respect to innocents:

Good: Will seek to avoid inflicting suffering (especially murder/torture) on innocents. Will go out of their way to rectify or avenge suffering inflicted on innocents by others.
Neutral: Will seek to avoid inflicting suffering on innocents (unless absolutely necessary). Will not generally interfere with innocents' suffering (unless the personal costs are negligible or compensation is offered).
Evil: Does not seek to avoid inflicting suffering on innocents (it is such a useful tool!). Will not generally interfere with other people's suffering unless for personal gain. If very Evil or disturbed (I call this Excessively Evil), may even seek out the suffering of innocents at cost to itself.

Now let's see where your proposed actions fit on this scale.

While the mechanics of each game are different, the idea behind the character is generally the same; she's a spellcaster curious about the darker arts and what lies beyond the veil of traditional magic. She existed as a Necromancer in EQ, and a Warlock in WoW. Mechanically, I enjoy the playstyle, and I incorporate that into my RP. A wizard can spend their time casting a fireball to deal damage, or they can cast a life-draining incantation that deals damage *and* heals themselves. She views it as practicality and efficiency, nothing more. Undead, demons, and otherworldly creatures feared as "evil" are simply tools to be used. Tadkins is willing to go further than most in pursuit of knowledge, but never out of maliciousness or evil. She simply believes that all knowledge is valuable, and attempts to understand the darkness should be made.

Character Goal: knowledge of the Darker Arts. Not necessarely Evil as long as not used to do Evil... Right? But why are the Darker Arts considered Darker to begin with?

Fireball is not Evil or Good. It really depends on how you use it: using a Fireball to burn down a unicorn-orphanage run by puppies would be Evil. Using a Fireball to decimate a meeting of evil-doers would be Good.

Using spells that damage others while healing your wounds wouldn't necessarely be Evil in my book. Sounds like a case of Fireball: the target determines whether it is Evil or not.

The reason why creating Undead is Evil is convoluted. There is some hogwash about Negative Energy, but that was only introduced far after the practice was declared Evil. My best explanation is that it is very disrespectful of the dead: it is a defacement and humiliation of the body and a mockery of their former life that brings hurt to family and friends as well as quite possibly the body's previous owner's honour. In other words, it is Evil because the caster inflicts suffering upon others for his own personal benefit. This leaves room for "excusable" Animate Dead: explicit and unforced permission from the person itself would be one (A Paladin that wants their body to continue fighting Evil after they have passed), while service of a Greater Good would make it Neutral mostly (the cost for innocents is smaller than the benefit for innocents, such as when animating the body of an evil opponent to fight other evil). A second reason Animate Dead leans Evil is because the mindless Undead it creates have a tendency to be dangerous unless clearly instructed. Mindless Undead tend to attack the living, which means that creating them increases (potential) suffering for innocents, hence Evil. Undead that are NOT mindless are more dangerous still, because they have, or will regain, their own agency and they tend to have no interest in avoiding the suffering of innocents (Evil!).

The reason that summoning and brokering with Demons and Devils is Evil is a more clear-cut version of "increasing potential suffering for innocents": Demons and Devils have their own agency. Making a deal with them increases their power, which means they can now use this extra power against the powers of Good or against Innocents. Cheating a Demon or Devil will make them very angry and more likely to lash out against the innocent. Demons, Devils and other Evil Outsiders are inherently hard to control in DnD, any interaction with them is inherently dangerous, even compelling a Demon to fight a Devil (you are strengthening one branch of Evil to weaken the other, what happens if the Abyss, or Hell wins Evil's internal struggle and Evil turns its full power on Good?...) It is this risk for the suffering of others that makes summoning Demons/Devils an act of Evil.

Of course there is roleplaying-room for a character that does not see it that way. Perhaps the character is so arrogant to believe that she has absolute control over the forces she uses. Perhaps the character uses Evil on Evil to fight Greater Evil and therefore sees herself as Good. This is pretty close to Dark is not Evil... Generally an uncaring attitude towards others is a hallmark of Evil, although it's less Evil than an attitude that celebrates suffering in others. That way, you can position yourself between Neutral and Evil, but you're unlikely to be considered "good"...

[Werephilosopher]

I always heard that the argument for animate dead being Evil is that it brings negative energy into the world and keeps it there, as opposed to, for instance, inflict moderate wounds, which brings negative energy in only to "ground" it by dispersing it into someone.

Obviously this is nonsensical; even if the negative energy brought into the world by inflict spells is quickly "grounded", it still harms life, which is supposed to be why bringing it into the world and keeping it there in an animated corpse is Evil. There's also no reason given for why harming life is Evil, either, except that "life is Good!" which itself isn't supported.

[ThisIsZen]

It's the end result of deciding that Good and Evil are cosmic forces but not clearly and from a central position indicating WHAT those forces are. Authorial bias creeps in.

The mindless undead have been classic fantasy mooks forever, but I think even now the idea of Neutral or Good undead as anything other than aberrant trend-buckers is a bit strange outside of certain circles. So it wasn't so much a case of 'okay, the universe is set up like this so this is why x is y' but rather 'the tropes say x is y, so that's why x is y.'

If you want morality in your setting to be internally consistent and also objective, you'll have to rewrite everything yourself.

[Ohiohi]

I made the decision that if I were to play Tadkins in a D&D game, she'd be using a lot of darker spells, while being TN Wizard following Boccob. Even if a DM forced an alignment change, my character would remain devoted to her path, standing strong against the corruption for the sake of knowledge, and I would hope that she'd end up going to the TN plane of that deity upon death as a result.

Boccob, THE UNCARING. Also:

Boccob is a distant deity who promotes no special agenda, except
proclaiming magic the most important force in the world—more
vital than good, evil, law, or chaos
And:
Cleric Alignments: CN, LN,
N, NE, NG

So, even if mechanically you'll end NE, his clerics can be NE, his clerics would go to his afterlife, you'll go to his afterlife(as long as you follow him and praise him)

[Psyren]

Warlocks and Necromancers in WoW are neutral at best too; it's not wildly different from D&D over there. Alignment doesn't have to stop you from being a hero - just ask Belkar.

[Red Fel]

On the one hand, I disagree with a lot of the mechanics that say "this is Evil, so now you're Evil, full stop." I think that's oversimplistic. But it's RAW, so there's that.

On the other hand, it boils down to, as others have said, actions over intentions. When your ends justify your means, you are no longer Good. You may not be Evil, but you're definitely not a white-hat anymore. Now, Good makes allowances for tools, such as swords or fireballs. Good has to have tools to fight Evil, fine. But there are limits. That's part of what defines Good - there are things Good Will Not Do. Non-Good does not have those limits.

Now, that's not to say that you have to be Evil when you use [Evil]-tagged spells and abilities and the like. Simply that (arbitrarily, by RAW, stupidly, pick your adverb) doing so is non-Good. It may drag you towards Evil, but directing those Evil acts towards Good ends does a bit to mitigate that, landing you at the darker end of Neutral. It's like people in the Star Wars RPG who try to play "Gray Jedi" - you know, the ones who use Sith powers but are arguably good guys. They tap into the darker portions of their emotional spectrum, use their anger and hatred, but harness it towards nobler goals.

And that's not unreasonable. Being Neutral, I mean. Some of us (myself included) occasionally forget that N falls between G and E. (Not alphabetically, but you know what I mean.) Yeah, throwing a fireball at a bunch of things may be Evil or not, depending on the things currently now screaming and flailing about in a pyroclasm. But reanimating corpses... A Good character sees a corpse as a tragedy. A non-Good character sees one as an opportunity. See what I mean? I'm not saying you have to be mustache-twirlingly wicked to enjoy reanimating the dead, but generally speaking, desecrating a corpse isn't a Good thing. Neutral is a fair assessment.

Tl;dr: What Chaos said in Post #2. A character using Evil means to accomplish Good ends may wind up Neutral.

[Oko and Qailee]

Necromancers are not by default evil in D&D though.

Bone Knights, for example, are certainly not evil, they're just defenders of Karrn. Note that they have no alignment restrictions. Karrnath, though not an awesome place, has it's alignment on the spectrum of "Any Lawful" not "Any evil."

Making corpses is not an always evil act AFAIK, meaning Necromancy Wizards can be even be Lawful Good (Unless the DM says no...) Libris Mortis even goes out of its way to say that not all undead characters are Evil.

Part of the problem is:
1) When most people think undead the first thing they see is usually Lich/vampire and those are always evil
2) Passed down stigma towards undead since 1rst ed and gaming tables.

[Red Fel]

Making corpses is not an always evil act AFAIK, meaning Necromancy Wizards can be even be Lawful Good (Unless the DM says no...) Libris Mortis even goes out of its way to say that not all undead characters are Evil.

Making corpses isn't always Evil, certainly. Making corpses is half of what adventurers do. (Looting being the other half.) But (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) animating (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm) them (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createGreaterUndead.htm)? That's pretty unambiguously [Evil]-tagged.

[Psyren]

Necromancers are not by default evil in D&D though.

Necromancy isn't. A specific subset of the school though - namely, reanimating the dead - is.



Bone Knights, for example, are certainly not evil, they're just defenders of Karrn. Note that they have no alignment restrictions. Karrnath, though not an awesome place, has it's alignment on the spectrum of "Any Lawful" not "Any evil."

Eberron has very quirky alignment rules by D&D standards though, like clerics who don't have to follow the "one-step rule." So you can't really point at a necromancer in that setting and extrapolate that back to the base game.

[Oko and Qailee]

Necromancy isn't. A specific subset of the school though - namely, reanimating the dead - is.


Oh man, I'm silly, and horribly wrong. Still a Neutral Necromancer can command undead right?



Eberron has very quirky alignment rules by D&D standards though, like clerics who don't have to follow the "one-step rule." So you can't really point at a necromancer in that setting and extrapolate that back to the base game.

Yeah, but it's still official and it's still D&D. The point is, that if it's good in one setting then it stands to reason that it can be good in any setting the DM makes. Maybe in Greyhawk or Faerun Necromancy is always evil, but that fact that eberron shows it doesn't have to be evil means it doesn't have to be.

[Oko and Qailee]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there anything that actually prevents a good character from casting an evil spell? I know Clerics are restricted on that matter. But is there a general rule for Good Wizards that prevents them from casting [Evil] spells?

Because otherwise there is no reason you can't be a good necromancer other than the DM.

[Psyren]

Oh man, I'm silly, and horribly wrong. Still a Neutral Necromancer can command undead right?

Yes - though of course by doing so you become in some measure responsible for what the creature does while under your control, including where you release that control.


Yeah, but it's still official and it's still D&D. The point is, that if it's good in one setting then it stands to reason that it can be good in any setting the DM makes. Maybe in Greyhawk or Faerun Necromancy is always evil, but that fact that eberron shows it doesn't have to be evil means it doesn't have to be.

It's not "good" in Eberron either though. Almost nothing is outright "good" there - it was designed to have shades of gray in everything. (For more, read ECS 250, "Alignment is Unpredictable.")


Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there anything that actually prevents a good character from casting an evil spell? I know Clerics are restricted on that matter. But is there a general rule for Good Wizards that prevents them from casting [Evil] spells?

Because otherwise there is no reason you can't be a good necromancer other than the DM.

Nothing, but if you cast too many of them the DM can shift your alignment by the rules.

Yes, you can be a good necromancer - for a while.

[Heliomance]

Uh, no, using evil methods for good ends is still evil. Case in point, a necromancer who slaughters an entire village to make undead minions to defend the kingdom against attack, still Evil with a capital E.

The ends does not justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Actually... they kinda do. The issue is in measuring the ends, making sure they really are worth it, and ensuring you succeed.

That's the entire basis of consequentialism. The only thing that matters are the consequences. If, in the end, you did more good than harm, you're golden.

Of course, by that logic, this post is probably evil, because there's a very good chance I've just condemned this thread to go down in flames of moral debate!

[Red Fel]

Oh man, I'm silly, and horribly wrong. Still a Neutral Necromancer can command undead right?

Command, yes, but it's tricky. For example, the Rebuke/Command uses of Turn Undead are the province of Evil Clerics (but also Neutral ones who choose to channel Negative Energy). The Command (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm) and Control Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm) spells, on the other hand, have no [Evil] tag, and can therefore be used by Sorcerers or Wizards without hindrance to their alignment.

But the issue wasn't only controlling undead, but also creating them - and that's fairly unambiguously Evil.


Yeah, but it's still official and it's still D&D. The point is, that if it's good in one setting then it stands to reason that it can be good in any setting the DM makes. Maybe in Greyhawk or Faerun Necromancy is always evil, but that fact that eberron shows it doesn't have to be evil means it doesn't have to be.

Well, it's like the classic "If the DM can fix it, it's not broken" fallacy - the fact that it may not be Evil in one setting means that the DM could declare it to be so across the board. If he doesn't, however, it's still pretty clear. And even in a setting like Eberron, spells with the [Evil] tag are Evil, full stop.

[Milo v3]

.... If negative energy was evil... wouldn't the plane literally made of it have the minor evil trait at least? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

.... If negative energy was evil... wouldn't the plane literally made of it have the minor evil trait at least? :smallconfused:

No, and here's an explanation why - NE in the NEP belongs there. It is not the energy itself that is evil, it's bringing it into contact with life that is evil.

The example I always use is radiation - radioactive materials have no alignment by themselves. But dumping them into a lake or forest, or even digging a hole in the ground and throwing them in, always would be.

[kalasulmar]

youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

A man willing to use brutal or even evil means to defend or protect good people or ideals is still evil. You could make the argument that he is noble to the point of sacrificing his own soul for those ideals, but he's still on the bad end of the halo/horns debate.

[Oko and Qailee]

Well, it's like the classic "If the DM can fix it, it's not broken" fallacy - the fact that it may not be Evil in one setting means that the DM could declare it to be so across the board. If he doesn't, however, it's still pretty clear. And even in a setting like Eberron, spells with the [Evil] tag are Evil, full stop.

I have to disagree with this.... This is not an example of that fallacy.

That fallacy is "X isn't broken because the DM can fix it"

and is not the same as

"X, the rule, can be applied to other settings Y"

We're not fixing X, we're using X.

/nitpick

Edit: I'm not disagreeing the spell has the [Evil] descriptor. I'm trying to understand why a Good Necromancer can't exist by the rules when there is precedent of them existing by the rules...


Yes - though of course by doing so you become in some measure responsible for what the creature does while under your control, including where you release that control.

I mean, that argument applies to anything you summon. You're always responsible for things you summon.


Nothing, but if you cast too many of them the DM can shift your alignment by the rules.

Yes, you can be a good necromancer - for a while.

Sorry, I'm unaware of this rule, where is it?

(sorry guys, I'm pretty novice about this stuff)

[Heliomance]

youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

A man willing to use brutal or even evil means to defend or protect good people or ideals is still evil. You could make the argument that he is noble to the point of sacrificing his own soul for those ideals, but he's still on the bad end of the halo/horns debate.

Not if he succeeds in doing more good than the harm he's caused.

[Psyren]

I mean, that argument applies to anything you summon. You're always responsible for things you summon.

You're responsible for things you control as well. So finding an undead "in the wild" and enslaving it is not inherently evil, but depending on what you make it do or where you release that control, you can be culpable.



Sorry, I'm unaware of this rule, where is it?

(sorry guys, I'm pretty novice about this stuff)

BoVD pg. 8 - > Evil Acts -> "Casting Evil Spells." In addition, BoVD pg. 8 -> Evil Acts -> "Animating the Dead or Creating Undead." And depending on the specific undead you create, you might even fall into a third category, "Damning or Harming Souls" (e.g. if you create a Vampire who goes on to create more vampires, trapping the souls of those innocents.)

[Pan151]

Evil actions are not limited to just casting Evil spells.

Yet this thread is very clearly specifically about [Evil] spells and other evil actions of a roughly equivalent degree of evil ie the "dark and edgy" kind of evil, as opposed to the "legitimately evil" kind. I don't recall anybody in this thread seriously advocating mass murder if it's on good intentions...


No, and here's an explanation why - NE in the NEP belongs there. It is not the energy itself that is evil, it's bringing it into contact with life that is evil.

The example I always use is radiation - radioactive materials have no alignment by themselves. But dumping them into a lake or forest, or even digging a hole in the ground and throwing them in, always would be.

That analogy unfortunately completely falls apart when you consider that Positive Energy (ie the energy that literally gives you explosive cancer) has the exact opposite relationship with alignment.

[Trasilor]

I'm sorry, I am a bit confused. Where in the rulebooks does it say using a spell with the "EVIL" descriptor is an evil act?

Regarding Undead = evil.

IMHO I think this has less to do with desecration of bodies and more to do with how undead are an abomination against the natural order of things. Imagine an undead fox chasing a rabbit. The fox never gets tired, thus can hunt indefinitely. It will kill as many rabbits as it can (it does not actually 'eat' them as it gains no nourishment from the act). It is immortal, thus it has broken the cyclical nature of life.

Changing alignment.

This is something that the player and DM need to discuss long before an actual alignment shift happens. Justifying the means to the end is very much a TN attitude. The person is performing Good acts; however, their methodology may leave much to be desired.

EDIT: didn't see this:

BoVD pg. 8 - > Evil Acts -> "Casting Evil Spells." In addition, BoVD pg. 8 -> Evil Acts -> "Animating the Dead or Creating Undead." And depending on the specific undead you create, you might even fall into a third category, "Damning or Harming Souls" (e.g. if you create a Vampire who goes on to create more vampires, trapping the souls of those innocents.)

My only argument is that it is 3.0 :smallbiggrin:

[Red Fel]

Not if he succeeds in doing more good than the harm he's caused.

Not how it works in D&D. Let's not bring real-world philosophy into this; in D&D, Evil acts are Evil, regardless of the Good they accomplish.

If you could kill an innocent child to save an entire civilization, D&D says that this is still an Evil act, full stop. Doesn't matter how much Good you can or do accomplish; in D&D, the ends do not justify the means.

[Psyren]

My only argument is that it is 3.0 :smallbiggrin:

The problem is that BoED (a 3.5 source) incorporates BoVD's definitions of evil.

"These factors don’t change anything else said in this chapter (or in the Book of Vile Darkness) about what constitutes a good or evil deed."

Thus they are valid in 3.5 games as well, even if you agree that 3.0 material in general is not (which is also not necessarily the case.) Per BoED, if BoVD says it is evil, it is evil. (In D&D at least.)

[Pan151]

Not how it works in D&D. Let's not bring real-world philosophy into this; in D&D, Evil acts are Evil, regardless of the Good they accomplish.

If you could kill an innocent child to save an entire civilization, D&D says that this is still an Evil act, full stop. Doesn't matter how much Good you can or do accomplish; in D&D, the ends do not justify the means.

Yes, but saving the child is still a good act. Even if it doesn't justify an evil act, the two still have their individual effects on your alignment.

[Oko and Qailee]

BoVD pg. 8 - > Evil Acts -> "Casting Evil Spells." In addition, BoVD pg. 8 -> Evil Acts -> "Animating the Dead or Creating Undead." And depending on the specific undead you create, you might even fall into a third category, "Damning or Harming Souls" (e.g. if you create a Vampire who goes on to create more vampires, trapping the souls of those innocents.)

The casting evil spells thing seems more like Fluff than a rule, but it's there so I guess it counts. As for the Creating Undead, yeah I got nothing other than "the act is evil, that doesn't make the character evil".

I was clearly uninformed and therefore wrong.

[ComaVision]

I believe the text for Dread Necromancer says something to the effect of: "A Dread Necromancer that uses his spells for good is neutral aligned at best."

That seems reasonable to me and that's how I rule it in my games. Though, using Evil magic around Good people may cause them issues.

[Psyren]

@O&Q: The animation thing is actually much stronger than the evil spells thing. "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."

@Coma: Note also that "neutral at best" doesn't mean they won't end up evil either.

[Oko and Qailee]

@O&Q: The animation thing is actually much stronger than the evil spells thing. "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."


I mean, I said "I got nothing" :smallfrown:

[ComaVision]

@Coma: Note also that "neutral at best" doesn't mean they won't end up evil either.

Oh, they certainly could but I tend to avoid being punitive on issues of alignment. If a player made a reasonable attempt to use their Evil magic for a good cause then it seems allowable. The only time I'm particularly scrutinizing is when a player wants to play an Exalted character but I talk to them about it before the character comes in to play.

[Honest Tiefling]

By RAW, you're on the shady side of things, if not downright into 'MWAHAHA!' territory. However, you should probably consult your DM on the character before playing, for multiple reasons. Firstly, to see if your concept will work with THEIR idea of alignment and how it functions in their setting. A lot of DMs do homebrew, so there is a good chance they have a different take on it. Also, if you are in a party with say, several paladins or a clerics of gods that are pretty anti-shifty stuff, it could lead to more headaches then fun.

I admit, I am a sucker for this archetype as well, and I am none too happy with DnD alignments. Fun concept, but not for every game.

Also, Malconvoker. Your PC is a Malconvoker. If you do not consider this prestige class for your character I will be very confused and will have to come to your house to beat you with it.

[Psyren]

I mean, I said "I got nothing" :smallfrown:

I know, I know - I was just responding to your last sentence, i.e. "the act is evil but not necessarily the character." This is definitely true. However, given how serious an offense they consider reanimation to be, it's unlikely they intended you to make a habit of it and still be non-evil.

At the very least, you would have to be very fastidious about what you did with your powers in order to remain in N territory.

[Sith_Happens]

I was going to mention how there exists no mortal magic that can resurrect someone whose body is currently animated as an undead, and therefore something untoward is almost certainly going on with that creature's soul, but Trap the Soul and Soul Bind aren't [Evil] so... :smallconfused:

[Calimehter]

It always helped me to think of it this way . . . if a corpse were really nothing more than just a pile of bones, then you would be using *Positive* Energy (ala the Ravid's special ability) to animate it, or at least the spell Animate Object. That's not how it works, though. You need to use necromantic energy, which is energy that corrupts or snuffs out life force. The corpse still has some connection to its former soul and is not just an object (which is also why the ability to cast Speak with Dead on it gets you answers from the actual former occupant of said corpse), and forcing a bunch of life-corrupting negative energy into that body-soul connection is what makes it an evil act.

[Bulldog Psion]

Why I think raising the undead is pretty much viewed as evil in D&D:

1. There's the whole "defilement" issue. Sure, undead are a useful tool. A drinking vessel made out of someone's skull is a useful tool, too. However, it would almost always be viewed as a horrible insult to the deceased and would cause relatives immense distress. Same thing with the undead.

2. It has a whiff of enslavement about it. I don't think we need to say much more about that.

3. People are disgusted and horrified, instinctively, by rotting corpses, probably as a method to keep them from getting infected by microorganisms. Stuff that disgusts and scares us tends to be classified as evil.

4. People are scared of death. The undead are a shambling, undeniable reminder of the grave. Fear of death = aversion = classified as evil, as above.

5. I have to be careful about this one. The game was written by a person who came from a cultural background that accepted the idea of everything being designed with a purpose. Dying is a purposeful termination in such a view, to be met with submissive acceptance. Bringing back an undead is an act of rebellion against the deliberate natural order. That act of rebellion is evil regardless of motivation.

6. People freak out over stuff they can't explain. A walking corpse is something that violates all logic and expectations. That is really creepy because it suggests utterly unpredictable forces that act according to principles which we have no logical handle on.

[OldTrees1]

No, and here's an explanation why - NE in the NEP belongs there. It is not the energy itself that is evil, it's bringing it into contact with life that is evil.

The example I always use is radiation - radioactive materials have no alignment by themselves. But dumping them into a lake or forest, or even digging a hole in the ground and throwing them in, always would be.

1)If bring harmful radiation into contact with life is evil, then evocation/conjuration is a bigger culprit since they have access to more forms of radiation and their profession is to bring that radiation into contact with life.
2)Animation of a construct of bone via negative energy(aka a Mindless Skeletal Undead) produces less radiation than a visiting Fire Elemental.

This is why the Negative Energy => Animation is bad, theory adds the idea that undead pull the negative energy plane closer to the material plane. This has no support outside of that one of many theories in Libris Mortis and it is necessary for the argument of that theory. So if and only if a DM uses that section then Negative Energy => Animation is bad.


Why I think raising the undead is pretty much viewed as evil in D&D:

1. There's the whole "defilement" issue. Sure, undead are a useful tool. A drinking vessel made out of someone's skull is a useful tool, too. However, it would almost always be viewed as a horrible insult to the deceased and would cause relatives immense distress. Same thing with the undead.

2. It has a whiff of enslavement about it. I don't think we need to say much more about that.

3. People are disgusted and horrified, instinctively, by rotting corpses, probably as a method to keep them from getting infected by microorganisms. Stuff that disgusts and scares us tends to be classified as evil.

4. People are scared of death. The undead are a shambling, undeniable reminder of the grave. Fear of death = aversion = classified as evil, as above.

5. I have to be careful about this one. The game was written by a person who came from a cultural background that accepted the idea of everything being designed with a purpose. Dying is a purposeful termination in such a view, to be met with submissive acceptance. Bringing back an undead is an act of rebellion against the deliberate natural order. That act of rebellion is evil regardless of motivation.

6. People freak out over stuff they can't explain. A walking corpse is something that violates all logic and expectations. That is really creepy because it suggests utterly unpredictable forces that act according to principles which we have no logical handle on.

Good list of the factors that caused it to be labeled as evil. Factors like 1,2,and 5(when relevant) are clearly reasons that necromancy would be evil a priori, even if specific instances might not be. Factors 3,4 and 6 are good examples of non moral reasons creating moral judgement. A non evil necromancer would still need to take them into account though so as not to be negligent.

[tadkins]

In regards to the whole Positive/Negative energy thing, I've come to a conclusion.

If Negative energy is considered evil and "unnatural", then positive energy would have to be considered the same thing. You're channeling a force outside the natural order regardless, and positive energy can be just as dangerous as negative energy. There's a reason that the Elder Evils book features both a Negative and Positive based Elder Evil.



Also, Malconvoker. Your PC is a Malconvoker. If you do not consider this prestige class for your character I will be very confused and will have to come to your house to beat you with it.

Great class. The only thing is that it won't protect my alignment from using evil Necromancy spells (just evil Conjuration ones), so this whole debate would still be an issue.

[Hamste]

No, and here's an explanation why - NE in the NEP belongs there. It is not the energy itself that is evil, it's bringing it into contact with life that is evil.

The example I always use is radiation - radioactive materials have no alignment by themselves. But dumping them into a lake or forest, or even digging a hole in the ground and throwing them in, always would be.

So would that make it a neutral act to animate dead there as long as you plan to keep them there? After all taking radioactive materials and putting it right back can't be evil.

[Cruiser1]

Even if some spells have evil descriptor, there is no rule that says casting an evil spell is an evil action
Casting [Evil] descriptor spells is an evil action (BoVD page 8). Also, using any evil spell has a Corruption value of 1 (FC2 page 30). That means if somebody ever casts 9 [Evil] spells, they're going to the evil afterlife. "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life." D&D morality may not make sense, but its rules for morality are at least very clearly defined.

[LTwerewolf]

In regards to the whole Positive/Negative energy thing, I've come to a conclusion.

If Negative energy is considered evil and "unnatural", then positive energy would have to be considered the same thing. You're channeling a force outside the natural order regardless, and positive energy can be just as dangerous as negative energy. There's a reason that the Elder Evils book features both a Negative and Positive based Elder Evil..

They're both neutral and how they're used matters quite a bit. Defiling corpses is one reason negative energy tends to get a negative rep. Healing spells use positive energy and why it generally has a positive rep. Puns only slightly intended.

That being said, in the campaign I am currently DMing necromancy (of the undead type) is seen as evil under all but a few circumstances, and under those circumstances is heavily monitored. Remember when making a human shadowknight in freeport and trying to walk through the front gate? Didn't work out so well until you put forth the effort to change your faction standings. The way it's monitored in my campaign is basically having the mage council verify where the undead came from (via speak with dead or a manner of other divinations), and to confirm that the creature/person you killed was in fact evil or was in self defense. The undead are then marked with a specific arcane mark that dm fiat says is super ridiculous hard to replicate.

As far as the other evil spells go, there's not much way outside of an alignment change to really enforce consequences unless your dm starts throwing in taint rules. Take the alignment change and continue to treat your character like you did. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not a shackle. Just play the antihero. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiHero)

[Oko and Qailee]

At the very least, you would have to be very fastidious about what you did with your powers in order to remain in N territory.

No bakery run by skeletons then?

[OldTrees1]

Casting [Evil] descriptor spells is an evil action (BoVD page 8). Also, using any evil spell has a Corruption value of 1 (FC2 page 30). That means if somebody ever casts 9 [Evil] spells, they're going to the evil afterlife. "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life." D&D morality may not make sense, but its rules for morality are at least very clearly defined.

I think the thread has moved past RAW and into Reason on this topic. RAW alignment in D&D is pretty obvious and pretty silly/arbitrary.


No bakery run by skeletons then?
Lol. I would not recommend such unless they have very good hygiene. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

In regards to the whole Positive/Negative energy thing, I've come to a conclusion.

If Negative energy is considered evil and "unnatural", then positive energy would have to be considered the same thing. You're channeling a force outside the natural order regardless, and positive energy can be just as dangerous as negative energy. There's a reason that the Elder Evils book features both a Negative and Positive based Elder Evil.

One of the problems with this stance though is that it's inherently harder for positive energy to be harmful because all life is based on it. This is why, if any living creature is grievously injured, going to the PEP has to make them better before it can go overboard and become life-threatening. The NEP meanwhile will just make living things worse no matter what state they're in.

It is certainly possible to channel positive energy in such a way as to make it harmful to living things. But this is a function of the way it is channeled, not an inherent quality of the energy itself, and it can also be channeled in such a way as to benenficial. Negative Energy meanwhile is pretty much always harmful to living things.

[Pan151]

One of the problems with this stance though is that it's inherently harder for positive energy to be harmful because all life is based on it. This is why, if any living creature is grievously injured, going to the PEP has to make them better before it can go overboard and become life-threatening. The NEP meanwhile will just make living things worse no matter what state they're in.

It is certainly possible to channel positive energy in such a way as to make it harmful to living things. But this is a function of the way it is channeled, not an inherent quality of the energy itself, and it can also be channeled in such a way as to benenficial. Negative Energy meanwhile is pretty much always harmful to living things.

This logic is faulty. Water is also inherently harder to harm life than fire, but there is no alignment distinction between the two.

[turbo164]

[skeletal bakery]

Lol. I would not recommend such unless they have very good hygiene. :smallbiggrin:

Most human bakers would not be willing to sterilize their hands in boiling lye between loaves, so the skeletons might actually be even cleaner! ^_^

[Trasilor]

This logic is faulty. Water is also inherently harder to harm life than fire, but there is no alignment distinction between the two.

Water is deadly to life just as fire. Too much water on plants will cause them to drown or rot. Too much water can move massive amounts of earth/structures. (Salt)Water under extreme pressure can cut steel like a hot knife through butter. Frozen water has enough force to break stone. Water erodes mountains and changes landscapes.

While fire is the flamboyant killer that everyone is cautious about, water is the silent assassin that you never see coming. :smallamused:

[Pan151]

Water is deadly to life just as fire. Too much water on plants will cause them to drown or rot. Too much water can move massive amounts of earth/structures. (Salt)Water under extreme pressure can cut steel like a hot knife through butter. Frozen water has enough force to break stone. Water erodes mountains and changes landscapes.

While fire is the flamboyant killer that everyone is cautious about, water is the silent assassin that you never see coming. :smallamused:

Too much of anything is harmful to life - including life itself. The distinction is quantity - even a small amount of fire can harm life, but you need a much larger quantity of water to cause equal harm. Similarly, negative energy harms life much easier and much faster than positive energy does.

The issue is that I'm arguing about is that you cannot use that quantitative logic to categorise elemental forces as good/neutral/evil.

[OldTrees1]

Most human bakers would not be willing to sterilize their hands in boiling lye between loaves, so the skeletons might actually be even cleaner! ^_^

!
I am so adding boiling lye baths to my next necromancer's equipment.

[Psyren]

This logic is faulty. Water is also inherently harder to harm life than fire, but there is no alignment distinction between the two.

PE and NE are both energy. Water is matter, not energy. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

[OldTrees1]

PE and NE are both energy. Water is matter, not energy. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Fine.
Humans need Fire to live(it is how our metabolism works) but do not need Cold to live. Both Fire and Cold are dangerous to Humans. Why no alignment markings on Fire vs Cold?

Humans need neither Cold nor Negative to live. Both Cold and Negative are dangerous to Humans. Why would there be the alignment markings between Cold vs Negative?

[Pan151]

PE and NE are both energy. Water is matter, not energy. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

In the real world, yes.

In DnD, not necessarily.

[ComaVision]

Fine.
Humans need Fire to live(it is how our metabolism works) but do not need Cold to live. Both Fire and Cold are dangerous to Humans. Why no alignment markings on Fire vs Cold?

Humans need neither Cold nor Negative to live. Both Cold and Negative are dangerous to Humans. Why would there be the alignment markings between Cold vs Negative?

You are really grasping at straws...

If Cold and Heat/Fire are on the ends of a spectrum, you need a balance in between to live.

With Positive and Negative energy on ends of a spectrum, one kills you and the other's great.

Again, incomparable.

[OldTrees1]

You are really grasping at straws...

If Cold and Heat/Fire are on the ends of a spectrum, you need a balance in between to live.

With Positive and Negative energy on ends of a spectrum, one kills you and the other's great.

Again, incomparable.

That dealt with part 1, not part 2(In fact it strengthened part 2).
If we are only looking at the danger to humans at the ends of the spectrum, then there is no moral difference between Negative, Fire and Cold.

All of this is ignoring the "dangerous == immoral" assumption.


PS: It is also ignoring that the positive end of the spectrum is also dangerous.

[Pan151]

You are really grasping at straws...

If Cold and Heat/Fire are on the ends of a spectrum, you need a balance in between to live.

With Positive and Negative energy on ends of a spectrum, one kills you and the other's great.

Again, incomparable.

Except both Positive and Negative energy kill living beings equally well.

[ComaVision]

That dealt with part 1, not part 2(In fact it strengthened part 2).
If we are only looking at the danger to humans at the ends of the spectrum, then there is no moral difference between Negative, Fire and Cold.

All of this is ignoring the "dangerous == immoral" assumption.


PS: It is also ignoring that the positive end of the spectrum is also dangerous.


Except both Positive and Negative energy kill living beings equally well.

Equally? A little bit of negative energy harms you. A little bit of cold, heat, or positive energy does not.

[Pan151]

Equally? A little bit of negative energy harms you. A little bit of cold, heat, or positive energy does not.

Define "a little bit".

Also, a little bit of negative energy can, for example, do this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/miniatures-handbook--75/living-undeath--1981/). Which btw is the opposite of harming you.

[LTwerewolf]

Equally? A little bit of negative energy harms you. A little bit of cold, heat, or positive energy does not.

A little bit of positive energy heals you. That's what cure spells are.

[Psyren]

Fine.
Humans need Fire to live(it is how our metabolism works) but do not need Cold to live. Both Fire and Cold are dangerous to Humans. Why no alignment markings on Fire vs Cold?

Precisely - Cold is equally harmful to life as heat/fire. Thus is it a poor comparison for Positive Energy. If you got sent to a very cold plane while grievously injured, the best you could hope for would be to get preserved - your condition would not improve like it would on the PEP.

[Pan151]

Precisely - Cold is equally harmful to life as heat/fire. Thus is it a poor comparison for Positive Energy. If you got sent to a very cold plane while grievously injured, the best you could hope for would be to get preserved - your condition would not improve like it would on the PEP.

That depends. Being sent to a very cold place would help you if you had an uncontrollably high fever... for the first few seconds, after which you'd freeze to death. Which is no different from the PEP, which helps if you are injured... for the first few seconds, after which you start developing explosive tumors.

[ComaVision]

Define "a little bit".

Also, a little bit of negative energy can, for example, do this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/miniatures-handbook--75/living-undeath--1981/). Which btw is the opposite of harming you.

Unless there's some more text from the original book or something, I don't see anything about negative energy mentioned in that spell.

[OldTrees1]

Precisely - Cold is equally harmful to life as heat/fire. Thus is it a poor comparison for Positive Energy. If you got sent to a very cold plane while grievously injured, the best you could hope for would be to get preserved - your condition would not improve like it would on the PEP.

Did you notice the 2nd part of that post?
Based on your response(and the assumption you were replying to my whole post), you think that creating an entity animated by Fire would be as immoral as creating an entity animated by Negative Energy?

[ComaVision]

Did you notice the 2nd part of that post?
Based on your response(and the assumption you were replying to my whole post), you think that creating an entity animated by Fire would be as immoral as creating an entity animated by Negative Energy?

Undeath isn't life. If you made an elemental, it has life.

[OldTrees1]

Undeath isn't life. If you made an elemental, it has life.

I thought we were comparing apples to apples. Deathless, Undead and similar non living animations. I mean comparing living to non living is all fine and good, but not when discussing the moral implications of positive vs negative energies.

[Pan151]

Unless there's some more text from the original book or something, I don't see anything about negative energy mentioned in that spell.

If it didn't involve negative energy, then it would definitely not be "not unlike the process that produces a zombie".


Undeath isn't life. If you made an elemental, it has life.

Neither is Deathlessness. Yet it is considered "good".

[LTwerewolf]

Neither is Deathlessness. Yet it is considered "good".

Perhaps if you actually read about deathless you'd know that:

Deathless is a new creature type, describing creatures that have died but returned to a kind of spiritual life. They are similar in many ways to both living creatures and undead. However, while undead represent a mockery of life and a violation of the natural order of life and death, the deathless merely stave off the inevitability of death for a short time in order to accomplish a righteous purpose.

The positive Energy Plane is also called the birthplace of souls.

[ComaVision]

If it didn't involve negative energy, then it would definitely not be "not unlike the process that produces a zombie".

It doesn't have an Evil tag so I'd assume it isn't that similar.



Neither is Deathlessness. Yet it is considered "good".

I honestly know very little about the Deathless. It seems to me like Wizards was just sick of people complaining about all immortal undead were inherently evil. As I don't know how they're created, I can't comment on the differences.

EDIT: Interesting LT, thanks for the post :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

PS: It is also ignoring that the positive end of the spectrum is also dangerous.

Not as dangerous. There is no situation in which negative energy will improve a living thing. Even something close to being killed by positive energy will not be improved by negative energy.


Define "a little bit".

Only major-positive-dominant is harmful, and your death is not guaranteed either. Both minor- and major-negative dominant are harmful.

[OldTrees1]

Not as dangerous. There is no situation in which negative energy will improve a living thing. Even something close to being killed by positive energy will not be improved by negative energy.
Hence I left it in a PS(aka a statement that does not expect/demand a reply) rather than as a point.

[Milo v3]

Not as dangerous. There is no situation in which negative energy will improve a living thing.

Tomb Tainted Soul? Dhampir? Irrelevant since your making a generalisation but whatever.

Either way, Killing people is an evil act. Why does two evil acts get "oh, it's fine as long as your accomplishing more good than evil", and the others don't?

[Taveena]

No, and here's an explanation why - NE in the NEP belongs there. It is not the energy itself that is evil, it's bringing it into contact with life that is evil.

The example I always use is radiation - radioactive materials have no alignment by themselves. But dumping them into a lake or forest, or even digging a hole in the ground and throwing them in, always would be.

Positive Energy belongs on the Positive Energy Plane. It causes people to develop cancer, diseases to breed faster, and eventually makes them explode.
And yet, Deathless, which are powered by it, are [Good].

Good try, but no.

[Brookshw]

In regards to the whole Positive/Negative energy thing, I've come to a conclusion.

If Negative energy is considered evil and "unnatural", then positive energy would have to be considered the same thing. You're channeling a force outside the natural order regardless, and positive energy can be just as dangerous as negative energy. There's a reason that the Elder Evils book features both a Negative and Positive based Elder Evil. Seems like there's a disconnect here. It's not negative energy that's evil, its what you do with it. Animating undead has consistently been the providence of evil since 1e, a few poorly thought our prc don't change that. Positive energy? So what? Outside of a niche situation its fine and non harmful. Again, its not these things, its what you do with them.

[ThisIsZen]

Thought experiment time. Picture a world that runs on negative energy - where positive is the aberration, rather than negative. From the point of view of such a world (assuming that it was populated by sapient, negative-animated beings, but bear with me here), positive energy would have all of the connotations that negative energy has in a positive-dominated world. Channeling it causes harm to all but a select few corner cases who themselves defy the 'natural' order of things. Resurrecting someone slain, rather than re-animating them, would be creating something bizarre, akin to undead in our own PoV. It's not a perfect analogy because the mechanics of the situation don't fit perfectly (undead in the NEP don't explode eventually, and resurrecting the slain wouldn't have the same "can't reach the afterlife" connotations that animating them have), but it's still worth considering.

PE/NE are the matter/antimatter of D&D. I think this is a far more elegant way to view them than worrying about considerations of morality. NE is generally feared because the standard-assumed universe is positive-dominated and NE annihilates PE and is contrary to common understanding.

But if a body is an object animated by energy, then there's a line running from the NE to the PE. On one side of this line you have the undead - on the other, the living. They're two sides of the same principle - that a body without an animating energy is just an object. This actually does a decent bit to explain why resurrection spells can't bring dead back while their body is animate - you can't resurrect someone who's already alive (positive animate), so the spell also won't work when someone is undead (negative animate). Under this framework, the soul doesn't even enter into the equation - the soul is the stuff of the Outer Planes, a condensation of identity and belief. The animating energy is the engine - the soul is the pilot. A machine can run without a pilot (albeit not necessarily well) but it can't run without an engine.

[icefractal]

First off, I wouldn't use the BoED or BoVD as any kind of source on alignment. They have some potentially useful material in them, but as far as alignment is concerned you should just pretend those books don't exist, because the view they present is a mix of contradictory, stupid, and actually disgusting.

Secondly, negative energy. You should check out the Tome of Necromancy, it has a pretty good discussion of the subject.
Briefly - there are two ways to go, both valid. Either say that negative energy is just a force of nature, using it isn't evil, and mindless undead aren't evil. Or, say that it is evil, and as a result its uses also have actual bad effects that justify that status. Like even mindless undead being drawn to destroy life.

[OldTrees1]

First off, I wouldn't use the BoED or BoVD as any kind of source on alignment. They have some potentially useful material in them, but as far as alignment is concerned you should just pretend those books don't exist, because the view they present is a mix of contradictory, stupid, and actually disgusting.

Secondly, negative energy. You should check out the Tome of Necromancy, it has a pretty good discussion of the subject.
Briefly - there are two ways to go, both valid. Either say that negative energy is just a force of nature, using it isn't evil, and mindless undead aren't evil. Or, say that it is evil, and as a result its uses also have actual bad effects that justify that status. Like even mindless undead being drawn to destroy life.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[LTwerewolf]

Positive Energy belongs on the Positive Energy Plane. It causes people to develop cancer, diseases to breed faster, and eventually makes them explode.
And yet, Deathless, which are powered by it, are [Good].

Good try, but no.

Birthplace of souls, and the reason behind the deathless coming back to accomplish a righteous purpose. You seem to be ignoring that part.

[Finwaell]

I would allow that character and its motivations in my game. I really like it. It can be seen from your description you've given it a lot of thought and it shows in her being consistent and evolved.

However, there are things to consider.

In most worlds, she would have to operate under some sort of secrecy or camouflage her acts - necromancy is just viewed as evil no matter if it actually is. She could in her travels sure find places where she would be respected and accepted as normal, but most societies as it stands would mark her as tainted and she would have to deal with the consequences. Whether to fight it out, make her case in front of a court or judge, cover her doings or leaving hastily.

Even if she made her arguments to a rational open minded audience, there is something she would not probably bypass.
Unless there is some different way or mechanic for these things in the world you are playing in, necromancy, especially the rising of the dead, but some other spells as well, deal with souls of third persons. This is generally considered as REALLY evil and intolerable in most cases, especially if it is done without the consent of the "victims". This is due to the fact that it causes them not only inconvenience in the afterlife, it is really painful and torturing for the soul affected.

Even if you work under the pretext of undead being just animated objects, you have to ask whether disturbing the sanctity of their final rest is not enough of an offense in the cultural context (and it usually is). In most societies (especially the fantasy/medieval-or-earlier ones), the dead, their resting places and so forth are considered sacred to some extent, part of a larger human awareness of our mortality and the preciousness and integrity of a human being that extends after death. You can be certain that people would not act benevolently if you raised the corpses of deceased soldiers from the local military cemetery because you see them as tools and need your lawn mowed.. And I guess deep down you would know that it somehow is not right. And that's it. Unless she is that kind of person without consciousness, but then her moral integrity is questionable nonetheless.

Otherwise, there are many areas of magic and "forbidden knowledge" you could freely exploit, because let's face it, speaking historically people viewed many things as "unnatural" and evil just because they feared it, didn't understand it or just banned it in order to control others. But you have to seriously think about the ramifications of necromancy per se, as that is a wholly different area, at least in our (meaning Western or Western-like in fantasy) cultural borders.

And finally there is the matter of taint - actual taint and whether it applies in your world. If your actions really mark you physically and psychologically in a (probably subtle from start) way that may lead to an alignment change over time. You can discuss this in game terms (using sources like Unearthed Arcana) or just considering character development, where as I mentioned above, your gnomes consciousness is suppressed by her practical rational self to the point where she truly does not see the difference between good and evil, thus committing evil acts without second thought, under the impression she is doing everything she can as a champion for the greater good. And we had plenty of those even in recent history...

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
-Beyond Good and Evil-, Aphorism 146 (1886) ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

[Taveena]

You are really grasping at straws...

If Cold and Heat/Fire are on the ends of a spectrum, you need a balance in between to live.

With Positive and Negative energy on ends of a spectrum, one kills you and the other's great.

Again, incomparable.

Positive energy causes cancer and disease (see Ragnorra - granted that's 'corrupted', but iirc there are some mentions of cancers related to positive energy elsewhere) and the plane itself causes people to explode.
You need a balance between Positive and Negative to live, too. Too much positive /EXPLODES YOU/. Too much negative you turn into a Wight.
Besides, Fiends - literally /evil incarnate/, are healed by positive energy and hurt by negative. (With the obvious exception of Orcus.) What does that even say.

[Milo v3]

This is due to the fact that it causes them not only inconvenience in the afterlife, it is really painful and torturing for the soul affected.

Where is any of that said? :smallconfused:


Birthplace of souls
According to Incarnum fluff there is a place where souls come from on the positive energy plane, but the wording implies there are other Soul Fonts on other planes.

[LTwerewolf]

Where is any of that said? :smallconfused:


According to Incarnum fluff there is a place where souls come from on the positive energy plane, but the wording implies there are other Soul Fonts on other planes.

It directly says it's the birthplace of all souls in BoED.

[Milo v3]

It directly says it's the birthplace of all souls in BoED.

Then that fluff is technically 3.0 only, with 3.5e souls coming from Soul Fonts.

[LTwerewolf]

Then that fluff is technically 3.0 only, with 3.5e souls coming from Soul Fonts.

Vile Darkness is 3.0, BoED is 3.5.

[Milo v3]

Vile Darkness is 3.0, BoED is 3.5.

Eh, doesn't really matter, Magic of Incarnum is still a more up to date source and thus supersedes BoED.

[tadkins]

I would allow that character and its motivations in my game. I really like it. It can be seen from your description you've given it a lot of thought and it shows in her being consistent and evolved.

However, there are things to consider.

In most worlds, she would have to operate under some sort of secrecy or camouflage her acts - necromancy is just viewed as evil no matter if it actually is. She could in her travels sure find places where she would be respected and accepted as normal, but most societies as it stands would mark her as tainted and she would have to deal with the consequences. Whether to fight it out, make her case in front of a court or judge, cover her doings or leaving hastily.

Even if she made her arguments to a rational open minded audience, there is something she would not probably bypass.
Unless there is some different way or mechanic for these things in the world you are playing in, necromancy, especially the rising of the dead, but some other spells as well, deal with souls of third persons. This is generally considered as REALLY evil and intolerable in most cases, especially if it is done without the consent of the "victims". This is due to the fact that it causes them not only inconvenience in the afterlife, it is really painful and torturing for the soul affected.

Even if you work under the pretext of undead being just animated objects, you have to ask whether disturbing the sanctity of their final rest is not enough of an offense in the cultural context (and it usually is). In most societies (especially the fantasy/medieval-or-earlier ones), the dead, their resting places and so forth are considered sacred to some extent, part of a larger human awareness of our mortality and the preciousness and integrity of a human being that extends after death. You can be certain that people would not act benevolently if you raised the corpses of deceased soldiers from the local military cemetery because you see them as tools and need your lawn mowed.. And I guess deep down you would know that it somehow is not right. And that's it. Unless she is that kind of person without consciousness, but then her moral integrity is questionable nonetheless.

Otherwise, there are many areas of magic and "forbidden knowledge" you could freely exploit, because let's face it, speaking historically people viewed many things as "unnatural" and evil just because they feared it, didn't understand it or just banned it in order to control others. But you have to seriously think about the ramifications of necromancy per se, as that is a wholly different area, at least in our (meaning Western or Western-like in fantasy) cultural borders.

And finally there is the matter of taint - actual taint and whether it applies in your world. If your actions really mark you physically and psychologically in a (probably subtle from start) way that may lead to an alignment change over time. You can discuss this in game terms (using sources like Unearthed Arcana) or just considering character development, where as I mentioned above, your gnomes consciousness is suppressed by her practical rational self to the point where she truly does not see the difference between good and evil, thus committing evil acts without second thought, under the impression she is doing everything she can as a champion for the greater good. And we had plenty of those even in recent history...

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
-Beyond Good and Evil-, Aphorism 146 (1886) ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Thank you, that means a lot. I do hope to play her seriously in a game one of these days.

Ironically enough, she finds most undead distasteful. Zombies especially. They're gross, they smell, and they're literally nothing more than lumbering piles of meat. Most of the actual necromancy she'd use involves manipulating negative energy to attack and debuff. She might summon some incorporeal undead if anything, as they're rather useful, versatile, with fewer options available to the enemy to even fight them.

Besides, why spend time animating leftovers when you could call upon cosmic outsiders from beyond the planes, who are far more interesting? Elementals, fiends, celestials...the options are nearly endless.

Story-wise, Tadkins is part of an organization of gnomish wizards who keep the interests of their people at heart. The organization itself consists of eight members, one representing each magic school. Tadkins was chosen to take the seat of Necromancy out of the belief that she does in fact have the iron will to resist the corruption so inherent in that art. While she is willing to use questionable spells, she really does have the will to help others. For instance, when I was deciding on a deity, I ultimately chose Boccob because she's literally all about the magic. She wouldn't do the outright evil things that would be required to follow deities like Vecna or Nerull. That alone, I think, would convince me that she wouldn't deserve to have a straight-up NE alignment slapped on, even if she does use a few [Evil] spells here and there.

Besides, Avasculate is just too damn awesome!

[Sartharina]

I was going to mention how there exists no mortal magic that can resurrect someone whose body is currently animated as an undead, and therefore something untoward is almost certainly going on with that creature's soul, but Trap the Soul and Soul Bind aren't [Evil] so... :smallconfused:Imprisoning someone/something isn't evil. Torturing someone/something is.

As for the Positive/Negative energy thing...

Fire, Water, Heat, and Cold are all both beneficial and detrimental to life depending on their use and balance. As are Sonic, Acid, Electricity, and Force. However... negative energy is strictly harmful to life, in all cases, not just the extremes. Positive energy is almost always beneficial to life - a bit too much. Yes, positive energy can create cancer. But without positive energy, you wouldn't have a living body that could get cancer to begin with... and aside from a few selective spells, being undead is an awful existence.
Eh, doesn't really matter, Magic of Incarnum is still a more up to date source and thus supersedes BoED.No it doesn't, due to the way Primary Source works.

[Milo v3]

However... negative energy is strictly harmful to life, in all cases, not just the extremes. Positive energy is almost always beneficial to life - a bit too much. Yes, positive energy can create cancer. But without positive energy, you wouldn't have a living body that could get cancer to begin with... and aside from a few selective spells, being undead is an awful existence.

Except you can have societies where everyone takes Tomb Tainted Soul or Necromantic Affinity at level one (because fluff-reasons or something). So it specifically isn't always harmful to life, and theoretically you can have whole settings where basically living creature takes those feats at first level.


No it doesn't, due to the way Primary Source works.
Wait.... so the book on Soul Magic is somehow not the Primary Source on souls...... :smallconfused:

[LTwerewolf]

Except you can have societies where everyone takes Tomb Tainted Soul or Necromantic Affinity at level one (because fluff-reasons or something). So it specifically isn't always harmful to life, and theoretically you can have whole settings where basically living creature takes those feats at first level.


Wait.... so the book on Soul Magic is somehow not the Primary Source on souls...... :smallconfused:

It's also not the primary source on where evil souls go after they die. It's the primary source on how to use soul magic and that's all.

[Milo v3]

It's also not the primary source on where evil souls go after they die. It's the primary source on how to use soul magic and that's all.

But what states that it doesn't count as the primary source in this instance? It is the soul sourcebook.... :smallconfused:
BoED is the good source book, souls definitely isn't the books theme.

[LTwerewolf]

But what states that it doesn't count as the primary source in this instance? It is the soul sourcebook.... :smallconfused:
BoED is the good source book, souls definitely isn't the books theme.

Magic of Incarnum also says the fonts are found on the positive energy plane. Also The book says that it's for the use of the new subsystem, and introduces the subsystem in the likeness of the expanded psionics handbook. It also states itself subordinate to other sources such as (but not limited to) the player's handbook. It states, unlike other sources, that you're encouraged to use as much or as little of the book, as opposed to the other primary sourcebooks such as the expanded psionics handbook, which assume you're either using the entire book, or none of it.

[Taveena]

Slightly off topic: Positive Energy Plane has no harmful effects to undead, as the save against exploding is con-based and doesn't affect objects - and therefore undead. So they gain infinite HP. YAAAAY.

[Brookshw]

But what states that it doesn't count as the primary source in this instance? It is the soul sourcebook.... :smallconfused:
BoED is the good source book, souls definitely isn't the books theme.

Personally I side with BoED on this one as it's more consistent with previous editions (after all, one of the Positive Energy Plane's nicknames is "the soul"). If you prefer Incarnum, hey, go for it. If you're trying to reconcile the two you could probably look to the other "soul fonts" not as producing souls as such but more places where outsiders are born. Sure, they lack duality but incarnations of planes who's body doubles as a soul at least makes for a reconciliation on some level.

Personally I love the fluff on how the Positive Energy plane kills you by filling you with too much healing (basically drumming your soul to such a high level it's too much for the body to contain and it burst free). Feels like you could make an interesting plot hook there for a race of people who learned to somehow survive the process and become freewheeling souls.

[Heliomance]

Personally I side with BoED on this one as it's more consistent with previous editions (after all, one of the Positive Energy Plane's nicknames is "the soul"). If you prefer Incarnum, hey, go for it. If you're trying to reconcile the two you could probably look to the other "soul fonts" not as producing souls as such but more places where outsiders are born. Sure, they lack duality but incarnations of planes who's body doubles as a soul at least makes for a reconciliation on some level.

Personally I love the fluff on how the Positive Energy plane kills you by filling you with too much healing (basically drumming your soul to such a high level it's too much for the body to contain and it burst free). Feels like you could make an interesting plot hook there for a race of people who learned to somehow survive the process and become freewheeling souls.

Dammit, now you're making me want to homebrew a healing-focused PrC along the lines of Psion Uncarnate which does exactly that >_>

[Brookshw]

Dammit, now you're making me want to homebrew a healing-focused PrC along the lines of Psion Uncarnate which does exactly that >_>

Do it! :smallbiggrin:

Just a thought on what might be interesting in that vein: take some of whatever the freewheeling souls would be, build some fluff about a group that takes those souls into themselves in some form of binder/possessed by a fiend sort of way maybe.

[HighWater]

Besides, why spend time animating leftovers when you could call upon cosmic outsiders from beyond the planes, who are far more interesting? Elementals, fiends, celestials...the options are nearly endless.

Do note that outsiders and intelligent undead are very dangerous. Bringing them into your world to do your bidding is playing dice with other people's lives and fates:


A second reason Animate Dead leans Evil is because the mindless Undead it creates have a tendency to be dangerous unless clearly instructed. Mindless Undead tend to attack the living, which means that creating them increases (potential) suffering for innocents, hence Evil. Undead that are NOT mindless are more dangerous still, because they have, or will regain, their own agency and they tend to have no interest in avoiding the suffering of innocents (Evil!).

The reason that summoning and brokering with Demons and Devils is Evil is a more clear-cut version of "increasing potential suffering for innocents": Demons and Devils have their own agency. Making a deal with them increases their power, which means they can now use this extra power against the powers of Good or against Innocents. Cheating [or mistreating] a Demon or Devil will make them very angry and more likely to lash out against the innocent. Demons, Devils and other Evil Outsiders are inherently hard to control in DnD, any interaction with them is inherently dangerous, even compelling a Demon to fight a Devil (you are strengthening one branch of Evil to weaken the other, what happens if the Abyss, or Hell wins Evil's internal struggle and Evil turns its full power on Good?...) It is this risk for the suffering of others that makes summoning Demons/Devils an act of Evil [even if the spell itself weren't marked as Evil].
This, of course, provides excellent roleplaying and story opportunities.


Story-wise, Tadkins is part of an organization of gnomish wizards who keep the interests of their people at heart. The organization itself consists of eight members, one representing each magic school. Tadkins was chosen to take the seat of Necromancy out of the belief that she does in fact have the iron will to resist the corruption so inherent in that art. While she is willing to use questionable spells, she really does have the will to help others. For instance, when I was deciding on a deity, I ultimately chose Boccob because she's literally all about the magic. She wouldn't do the outright evil things that would be required to follow deities like Vecna or Nerull. That alone, I think, would convince me that she wouldn't deserve to have a straight-up NE alignment slapped on, even if she does use a few [Evil] spells here and there.

Because alignment in DnD only has 3 shades of grey, you don't have to be Nerull-evil to still be evil. Your character (who sounds quite interesting) sounds like somebody who is on the edge of losing sight of what really matters in matters of morality. You don't have to go through a Moral Event Horizon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) to be evil by DnD standards. That said, because your character has reasonable goals and still a form of a moral compass, she could function quite well in a group, but the arrogance of thinking she can control cosmic forces could lead her to (perhaps unwillingly) cause a fair bit of suffering for others down the road. This is the type of Evil I would definitely allow in a campaign because it provides extra depth and is restrained in its destruction.

[Heliomance]

Do it! :smallbiggrin:

Just a thought on what might be interesting in that vein: take some of whatever the freewheeling souls would be, build some fluff about a group that takes those souls into themselves in some form of binder/possessed by a fiend sort of way maybe.

Initial skeleton thoughts: Entry prereq of having to have been healed to twice your normal hitpoints and survived, and primary class feature a version of Eldritch Blast that does positive energy damage (so, heals) and can heal above maximum normal HP. Capstone ability, the next time you would fail a save against positive energy explosion, you instead shed your body and become one of these glowy soul things.

[Brookshw]

Initial skeleton thoughts: Entry prereq of having to have been healed to twice your normal hitpoints and survived, and primary class feature a version of Eldritch Blast that does positive energy damage (so, heals) and can heal above maximum normal HP. Capstone ability, the next time you would fail a save against positive energy explosion, you instead shed your body and become one of these glowy soul things.

Oh, I like it! Wondering if adding will save as a prerequisite makes sense, sort of as a precursor to being an energy being of sorts. Were you thinking after the capstone shed you become incorpreal? Maybe somewhere in there toss in a positive energy aura and aoe burst similar to the cleric acf in expedition to castle ravenloft (tied to a use per day instead). Also would a vulnerability to negative energy make sense?

Maybe throw this up on the homebrew forum so we don't derail this one.

[Vogonjeltz]

I was going to mention how there exists no mortal magic that can resurrect someone whose body is currently animated as an undead, and therefore something untoward is almost certainly going on with that creature's soul, but Trap the Soul and Soul Bind aren't [Evil] so...

They don't have to be tagged for it to be an evil act. Descriptors only govern how spells interact with other effects (i.e. Good clerics can't cast [Evil] spells).


This is why the Negative Energy => Animation is bad, theory adds the idea that undead pull the negative energy plane closer to the material plane. This has no support outside of that one of many theories in Libris Mortis and it is necessary for the argument of that theory. So if and only if a DM uses that section then Negative Energy => Animation is bad.

That's founded upon the section in the PHB on channeling negative/positive energy. It says channeling positive energy is always good and channeling negative energy is always evil.


Positive Energy belongs on the Positive Energy Plane. It causes people to develop cancer, diseases to breed faster, and eventually makes them explode.
And yet, Deathless, which are powered by it, are [Good].

Good try, but no.

Where is that claim about cancer/diseases from? I checked and it's not in the SRD on the planes.

As to positive energy being dangerous to mortals, it isn't except on the major positive-dominant planes because mortal forms can't contain that much energy. It's not that positive energy is dangerous per se, it's the issue of trying to cram more energy in a thing than is possible.

Negative energy is inherently evil because it's anti-life. Evil is defined by not caring about life.
Positive energy is inherently good because it's pro-life. Good is defined by caring about life.


First off, I wouldn't use the BoED or BoVD as any kind of source on alignment. They have some potentially useful material in them, but as far as alignment is concerned you should just pretend those books don't exist, because the view they present is a mix of contradictory, stupid, and actually disgusting.

Secondly, negative energy. You should check out the Tome of Necromancy, it has a pretty good discussion of the subject.
Briefly - there are two ways to go, both valid. Either say that negative energy is just a force of nature, using it isn't evil, and mindless undead aren't evil. Or, say that it is evil, and as a result its uses also have actual bad effects that justify that status. Like even mindless undead being drawn to destroy life.

I guess I don't share your views at all.
What on alignment from the BoED or BoVD is contradictory?
What did you think is stupid?
I would agree there's some repulsive things discussed in the BoVD, but then, it's the Book of Vile Darkness, right?

For the second part, the Tome of Necromancy seems to be a 3rd party diatribe filled with factual errors. Why would I want to use that over official content?


Slightly off topic: Positive Energy Plane has no harmful effects to undead, as the save against exploding is con-based and doesn't affect objects - and therefore undead. So they gain infinite HP. YAAAAY.

That does seem like an obvious oversight on the part of the writers.

Still, it could be reasoned that the fast healing granted is innately positive energy based and so becomes fast damage against Undead and only Undead.

[Psyren]

Hence I left it in a PS(aka a statement that does not expect/demand a reply) rather than as a point.

It was still part of your post and thus fair game.


Tomb Tainted Soul? Dhampir? Irrelevant since your making a generalisation but whatever.

Either way, Killing people is an evil act. Why does two evil acts get "oh, it's fine as long as your accomplishing more good than evil", and the others don't?

Which two?


Positive Energy belongs on the Positive Energy Plane. It causes people to develop cancer, diseases to breed faster, and eventually makes them explode.

And yet, Deathless, which are powered by it, are [Good].

Good try, but no.

Er, that ONLY happens on the Positive Energy Plane. You cannot heal living creatures to death on the Material. Good try, but no.

[OldTrees1]

It was still part of your post and thus fair game.

shrug. I consider the PS to be a place to state nitpicks. They are fair game to be answered or ignored.

[Milo v3]

Which two?

Lying and killing are listed as evil acts, that aren't always evil acts because they can help the greater good or even just be neutral rather than evil.

[Anlashok]

Lying and killing are listed as evil acts, that aren't always evil acts because they can help the greater good or even just be neutral rather than evil.

Well, lying being Evil is pretty ridiculous on its own.

[...]

Uh, no, using evil methods for good ends is still evil. Case in point, a necromancer who slaughters an entire village to make undead minions to defend the kingdom against attack, still Evil with a capital E.

The ends does not justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think he meant "evil methods" as in cooperating with evil, not being evil yourself. For example, summoning a fiend to destroy the nearest village is evil. Summoning a fiend to kill the evil wizard is neutral.

[facelessminion]

If that's the case though, I'd still like to think that this character is the kind of evil that can still function in a typical adventuring group.

It's -totally- the kind of evil that can function in an adventuring group! And amiable, intelligent evil that plays well with others can be extraordinarily fun to play - my favorite characters Ive played were a LE psion, NE druid, and Paladin that due to mythic got ridiculously evil at times.

All definitely evil, but all loyal cornerstones of the party. Evil has several different shades of both tempermant and severity, and very few flavors are unable to work with other adventurers (especially when you consider that even good adventurers are still murderhobos.)

[Sartharina]

I'd say she's Neutral, not Evil. She uses Evil to fight Evil, and does not allow her Evil methods to hurt Good. She also uses her Evil to Progress the cause of Good. Her use of Evil prevents her from being Good, but it doesn't stop her from being Neutral. The BoED only says the Ends Never Justify The Means for Good, not Neutral, characters. Ends can justify the means for Neutral (Which is more evil than Good). It's Evil when the Ends don't justify the means (Whether the means don't affect the ends:Doomsday happens despite evil actions taken to prevent it, or the puppy-kicking has nothing to do with stopping the end etc., or the wickedness of the means exceed the virtue of the ends, such as murdering misfits to win a cosmetic and largely meaningless reward like "Best Village")

Evil requires more malice than she possesses.

[Psyren]

Another point regarding the "reanimating the dead is evil" discussion is that undead will always ping as evil regardless of alignment, even ghosts and necropolitans.


Lying and killing are listed as evil acts, that aren't always evil acts because they can help the greater good or even just be neutral rather than evil.

Did you read the whole thing? For either of them?

"Lying is not necessarily an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends."

"In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act."

I'm all for bashing BoVD when it deserves it, but if you're just going to skim you do nothing but hurt your own position.

[Endarire]

Tadkins: Alignment is purely subjective and thus group-dependent. My solution is to scrap alignment entirely and change the spells and abilities that once depended upon alignment to work on creature type or just nix 'em entirely. Thus, detect evil becomes detect type that can detect a creature type or subtype specified when the spell is cast. (In the case of Paladins and Paladin-like classes, determine what this actually detects. Undead and Outsiders are the most likely candidates.)

Alignment adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to a game. I prefer games with more complex characters than "I'm Good like Superman!" and "I'm Evil like Mr. Sinister!"

Considering D&D's wargaming and real-Earth mythological roots, each party member was meant to be a hero akin to the Fellowship of the Ring from Lord of the Rings. You were a hero. You were a protagonist. You were "Good." Any other allies were "Good" because, to you, they were helpful, handy, or whatever.

During your travels, you met with people who, though they were not the antagonists, were not meant to be allies either. These were the townsfolk who didn't much care about you one way or the other, but eventually came to hope that you'd save the world - assuming they knew what was going on. They were "Neutral." They were, in short, a combination of space filler and background characters, as well as protagonists with perhaps more realistic or less altruistic goals who were more obviously motivated by money, fame, or worldly.

Then, of course, was a major point of the travels and the travails: Meeting and beating the antagonists. They were "Evil" because it was your job to stop them! They were doing things other people (or/and maybe you) didn't like. They were in your way, and getting rid of them meant noble-sounding things like peace upon the land and the reign of a merciful and gracious king. More likely, it meant that you got to be in charge instead of them, and you got to take their spiffy loot because they were dead or nullified.

But consider this: Team Evil is probably a fan of killing and looting, so what does Team Good do? Kill and loot, of course! Why? To become more powerful than Team Evil at their own game and win at the games of killing and looting! So what does Team Evil do? The same thing! It turns out "We're not so different... you and I" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0YPXb49q0).

Tadkins, also consider what your character is trying to do in D&D terms. The general nature of demons and devils and fiends in D&D is destruction, exploitation, corruption, and suffering. I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with how alignment got started in 1E D&D: "Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good character.'" -1 Corinthians 15:53.

I do however understand your point. Creatures are tools with stat blocks that can accomplish tasks, and whether that stat block wears the skin of a fiend or that of an angel (or otherwise) makes it feel like more than a spreadsheet. Ambiguous morality is one facet I wish D&D would embrace more in its mechanics and expected storytelling, and it's a fundamental part of my module, The Metaphysical Revolution (http://campbellgrege.com/work-listing/the-metaphysical-revolution-dd-3-5-module/). Ambiguities lead to difficult decisions, and these difficult decisions can lead to some very interesting roleplay.

One more note reading alignment is a very metagame reason: Most people who come together for a tabletop game of D&D (and probably many, many other games) are wanting to have fun as a team to complete objectives as a group and otherwise function as a team; otherwise, there'd be less or no need to act as a team. Intraparty conflict is something the GM and all those involved need to be OK with beforehand, since even if no one gets hurt, it may be disruptive to the rest of the party's enjoyment of killing and looting enemies and NPCs, and 'progressing' the game. That's somewhat like in World of Warcraft and many modern MMORPGs where PvP is in specific areas or on specific servers or requires prior player consent. That's sort of how people in general view those who dabble in fiend calling, summoning, consultation, and demonic stuff in-game.

[tadkins]

Tadkins: Alignment is purely subjective and thus group-dependent. My solution is to scrap alignment entirely and change the spells and abilities that once depended upon alignment to work on creature type or just nix 'em entirely. Thus, detect evil becomes detect type that can detect a creature type or subtype specified when the spell is cast. (In the case of Paladins and Paladin-like classes, determine what this actually detects. Undead and Outsiders are the most likely candidates.)

Alignment adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to a game. I prefer games with more complex characters than "I'm Good like Superman!" and "I'm Evil like Mr. Sinister!"

I've given this some thought. Perhaps instead of traditional alignments, you could have various "flavors" be their own teams, as good and evil as they want to be. A paladin would have "light". Tadkins would be aligned with "shadow". An average human warrior might have "steel". An elementalist would have...well, elementals and the inner planes.

Yes I just realized at this point that I just likened D&D characters to Pokemon types. xD


Considering D&D's wargaming and real-Earth mythological roots, each party member was meant to be a hero akin to the Fellowship of the Ring from Lord of the Rings. You were a hero. You were a protagonist. You were "Good." Any other allies were "Good" because, to you, they were helpful, handy, or whatever.

During your travels, you met with people who, though they were not the antagonists, were not meant to be allies either. These were the townsfolk who didn't much care about you one way or the other, but eventually came to hope that you'd save the world - assuming they knew what was going on. They were "Neutral." They were, in short, a combination of space filler and background characters, as well as protagonists with perhaps more realistic or less altruistic goals who were more obviously motivated by money, fame, or worldly.

Then, of course, was a major point of the travels and the travails: Meeting and beating the antagonists. They were "Evil" because it was your job to stop them! They were doing things other people (or/and maybe you) didn't like. They were in your way, and getting rid of them meant noble-sounding things like peace upon the land and the reign of a merciful and gracious king. More likely, it meant that you got to be in charge instead of them, and you got to take their spiffy loot because they were dead or nullified.

But consider this: Team Evil is probably a fan of killing and looting, so what does Team Good do? Kill and loot, of course! Why? To become more powerful than Team Evil at their own game and win at the games of killing and looting! So what does Team Evil do? The same thing! It turns out "We're not so different... you and I" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0YPXb49q0).

The way I see it, in that story, Tadkins is that lonely witch hiding within her lair in the mountains, doing her own thing. Once discovered, the protagonists have a choice at this point; snuff out her "evil" in her own cave, or attempt to establish communication, forging either an ally or enemy in the process.

Stories like Lord of the Rings had more clear-cut heroes and villains. There was no negotiating with Sauron or Saruman.


Tadkins, also consider what your character is trying to do in D&D terms. The general nature of demons and devils and fiends in D&D is destruction, exploitation, corruption, and suffering. I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with how alignment got started in 1E D&D: "Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good character.'" -1 Corinthians 15:53.

I do however understand your point. Creatures are tools with stat blocks that can accomplish tasks, and whether that stat block wears the skin of a fiend or that of an angel (or otherwise) makes it feel like more than a spreadsheet. Ambiguous morality is one facet I wish D&D would embrace more in its mechanics and expected storytelling, and it's a fundamental part of my module, The Metaphysical Revolution (http://campbellgrege.com/work-listing/the-metaphysical-revolution-dd-3-5-module/). Ambiguities lead to difficult decisions, and these difficult decisions can lead to some very interesting roleplay.

I agree completely. Something I rarely see is that big moment when a fresh-faced level one human warrior takes his or her first life. That bandit in the woods, that rampaging orc...it should be a shocking thing for the character to see blood on their hands for the first time. Or perhaps not, as the worlds we typically play in are full of violence and are basically Hells on Earth.

Tadkins would choose to wield more morally questionable magic, perhaps out of the sake of knowledge, or even a simple need to break out of the mold. I take some inspiration from the RL persecution of witches in history for this character. She would definitely find such a thing repugnant; the harming of innocent people by ignorant and fearful fools. She wouldn't choose to stand on the side of good or evil, so much as the side of reason and understanding.

I downloaded your book too, should be an interesting read. :)


One more note reading alignment is a very metagame reason: Most people who come together for a tabletop game of D&D (and probably many, many other games) are wanting to have fun as a team to complete objectives as a group and otherwise function as a team; otherwise, there'd be less or no need to act as a team. Intraparty conflict is something the GM and all those involved need to be OK with beforehand, since even if no one gets hurt, it may be disruptive to the rest of the party's enjoyment of killing and looting enemies and NPCs, and 'progressing' the game. That's somewhat like in World of Warcraft and many modern MMORPGs where PvP is in specific areas or on specific servers or requires prior player consent. That's sort of how people in general view those who dabble in fiend calling, summoning, consultation, and demonic stuff in-game.

I've always thought of alignments as a general idea for a character, but in the vaguest sense. You see one NG human and one NE human, you can likely assume some basic facts about them. This thread has been good at proving that works less and less, though. xD

That said, I agree with you there as well. No one wants to play in a disruptive game. I certainly wouldn't play a psychotic murderhobo in a party of good players just to "mess around". And I would only play morally questionable characters in the right party, with players understanding beforehand what they might expect. But I also like to think I play with some pretty open-minded people, too.

[Milo v3]

Did you read the whole thing? For either of them?

"Lying is not necessarily an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends."

"In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act."

I'm all for bashing BoVD when it deserves it, but if you're just going to skim you do nothing but hurt your own position.

.....
Those are the lines why I said they are listed as evil acts, even though the books says they aren't always evil acts.... :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

.....
Those are the lines why I said they are listed as evil acts, even though the books says they aren't always evil acts.... :smallsigh:

Neither of those say anything about "accomplishing more good than evil." They are just flat-out saying "these aren't evil under certain circumstances"; not "oh they're still evil, but you get +60 morality-bucks to offset the -50 morality-bucks penalty to your alignment which you can then cash in at the DM store and put towards your next purchase."

Alignment does not work the way it does in NWN; you can't help an old lady cross the street a dozen times every time you murder an innocent in order to remain neutral. If you kill routinely, as many adventurers do, it must be under very specific circumstances to maintain your alignment, specifically preventing imminent harm to innocent life when no other solution is feasible. And lying, while much less serious, functions similarly.

[Milo v3]

Neither of those say anything about "accomplishing more good than evil." They are just flat-out saying "these aren't evil under certain circumstances"

Umm.... The accomplishing more good than evil is required for something to be a good act, part of the definition. And the other times I specifically said that it says it can just simply be a neutral act. I am saying there are actions on that list aren't evil under certain circumstances, I don't understand why you are arguing when I am agreeing on this point.

[tadkins]

Neither of those say anything about "accomplishing more good than evil." They are just flat-out saying "these aren't evil under certain circumstances"; not "oh they're still evil, but you get +60 morality-bucks to offset the -50 morality-bucks penalty to your alignment which you can then cash in at the DM store and put towards your next purchase."

Alignment does not work the way it does in NWN; you can't help an old lady cross the street a dozen times every time you murder an innocent in order to remain neutral. If you kill routinely, as many adventurers do, it must be under very specific circumstances to maintain your alignment, specifically preventing imminent harm to innocent life when no other solution is feasible. And lying, while much less serious, functions similarly.

Aw, but it works that way in MMOs!

I can murder an elven guard in cold blood for no reason, but if I travel to the Underdark and kill a few Drow it's all forgiven. :)

[Sartharina]

Neither of those say anything about "accomplishing more good than evil." They are just flat-out saying "these aren't evil under certain circumstances"; not "oh they're still evil, but you get +60 morality-bucks to offset the -50 morality-bucks penalty to your alignment which you can then cash in at the DM store and put towards your next purchase."

Alignment does not work the way it does in NWN; you can't help an old lady cross the street a dozen times every time you murder an innocent in order to remain neutral. If you kill routinely, as many adventurers do, it must be under very specific circumstances to maintain your alignment, specifically preventing imminent harm to innocent life when no other solution is feasible. And lying, while much less serious, functions similarly.

Actually - it does work the way it does in NWN. You simply can't get a Good alignment if you consistently violate Good tenets or commit Evil. You can still end up Neutral. Except the motive for helping old ladies cross the street must be 'because it's the right thing to do and this woman needs help', not 'I need to offset my morality meter'.

Neutral people with power can be just as scary as Evil People on one of their bad days, and just as welcoming as Good people on their good days.

[Psyren]

Umm.... The accomplishing more good than evil is required for something to be a good act, part of the definition.

No it's not, not in D&D. Even if the end result is good, if the the means are evil it's still an evil act.

"In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve." - BoED pg. 9, "Ends and Means."


I don't understand why you are arguing when I am agreeing on this point.

The part I disagree with is the implied netting of good and evil to potentially achieve a non-evil result. Basically in D&D, the answer is "find another way to solve the problem," or alternatively, "take the hit, atone, and never do it that way again."


Actually - it does work the way it does in NWN. You simply can't get a Good alignment if you consistently violate Good tenets or commit Evil. You can still end up Neutral.

Per FC2 - No matter how much balancing you do, if you end up at Corruption 9 you're going to a lower plane. Two murders are all it takes - no amount of helping old ladies cross the street will get you into a neutral afterlife unless you atone, which requires sincere penitence.

[Milo v3]

No it's not, not in D&D. Even if the end result is good, if the the means are evil it's still an evil act.

"In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve." - BoED pg. 9, "Ends and Means."

You're misunderstanding me, I said that "accomplishing more good than evil is required for something to be a good act" not "if you do more good than evil it suddenly becomes a good act".

[squiggit]

I'm not sure why we're even talking about lying. Trustworthiness is explicitly part of the law/chaos axis, not the good-evil axis.

[Sartharina]

Per FC2 - No matter how much balancing you do, if you end up at Corruption 9 you're going to a lower plane. Two murders are all it takes - no amount of helping old ladies cross the street will get you into a neutral afterlife unless you atone, which requires sincere penitence.The Monster Manual(See - neutral intelligent monsters) and Players Handbooks (See Deities) disagree, and take precedence over some optional set of rules from a splatbook.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about lying. Trustworthiness is explicitly part of the law/chaos axis, not the good-evil axis.Actually, trust is also part of Good/Evil. Betrayal is an evil act. Lies can have extremely destructive and harmful power.

[Milo v3]

I'm not sure why we're even talking about lying. Trustworthiness is explicitly part of the law/chaos axis, not the good-evil axis.

Because it's on the list of evil acts in BoVD, despite wording from the entry itself making it obvious it shouldn't be on the list since most of the time it wouldn't be an evil act.

[squiggit]

Actually, trust is also part of Good/Evil. Betrayal is an evil act. Lies can have extremely destructive and harmful power.

The core books disagree. Trustworthiness, honor, and truthfulness is explicitly under the purview of Law. Lies can be destructive. You're right, the key part there is the can, which means they aren't necessarily... just like every other part of the law-chaos continuum.

[Sartharina]

Lies and trust themselves are not Evil or Good - but what you do with them are. Law and Chaos outline tools. Good and Evil say what you do with them.

[Psyren]

The Monster Manual(See - neutral intelligent monsters) and Players Handbooks (See Deities) disagree, and take precedence over some optional set of rules from a splatbook.

I don't see any disagreement. Where does it say in core where neutral intelligent monsters who commit murder go after death?

The question of whether core takes precedence would only even come up in the case of disagreement.

[Sartharina]

I don't see any disagreement. Where does it say in core where neutral intelligent monsters who commit murder go after death?

The question of whether core takes precedence would only even come up in the case of disagreement.A corrupt act requires a Devil to influence it.

[Psyren]

A corrupt act requires a Devil to influence it.

Nah, devils just encourage them; you can fall afoul of this even if you never encounter one. Any D&D setting which includes the Pact Primeval or equivalent (which includes Greyhawk, Faerun, and Eberron) is subject to those rules. They expand upon core, they do not countermand it.

[Sartharina]

Oh, wait. I see it now. Yeah, Lawful Neutral can go to Hell. But True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are safe. Non-lawful characters don't abide by the Pact Primeval.

[Taveena]

Disease and cancer are, as mentioned, caused by Ragnorra from Elder Evils. It's 'corrupted positive energy' - unchecked growth. But it also has the effects of standard positive energy - namely healing, temporary HP, and exploding.

Mind I'm learning a lot here - I didn't know about the soulfonts, after all! So a lot've my earlier statements may have been inaccurate, and I apologize for that. Still, it's kind of weird that only 'corrupted' positive energy does that, when really positive energy realistically seems like it should cause those effects regardless.

[Yahzi]

Yup, exactly. Basically, I just want to be a character that throws around balls of shadow, and summons a few scary monsters without feeling like I'm committing some horrible crime against the universe. xD
But if your doing so empowers darkness and tilts the universal balance towards evil, then you are. If every time you toss a ball of shadow, a demon gets its wings, then even if you're using the shadow to save a puppy it's still on balance an evil act. (Of course, what if that puppy will grow up to be a great Champion of Good? Then you're a bit grey, improving evil now for the chance to diminish it down the road).

Magic has very little cost or limitation in D&D. Alignment restrictions, as on of the few limiting factors, ought to be played to the hilt.

[tadkins]

But if your doing so empowers darkness and tilts the universal balance towards evil, then you are. If every time you toss a ball of shadow, a demon gets its wings, then even if you're using the shadow to save a puppy it's still on balance an evil act. (Of course, what if that puppy will grow up to be a great Champion of Good? Then you're a bit grey, improving evil now for the chance to diminish it down the road).

Magic has very little cost or limitation in D&D. Alignment restrictions, as on of the few limiting factors, ought to be played to the hilt.

Then fine, I'd be evil. DM can put whatever he/she wants on my sheet. She's still following a TN deity, not doing anything extremely heinous, and will not be damned to a lower plane when she dies. xD

All I'm trying to do is stick to the flavor of the character while still being a protagonist. Basically play a WoW Warlock in D&D.

[Sartharina]

You are True Neutral yourself - using Evil to Good ends in a manner that actually works (Good won't touch you because you use evil. Evil can't touch you because you do Good). Just don't be Lawful, and the Pact Primeaval can't touch you.

[tadkins]

You are True Neutral yourself - using Evil to Good ends in a manner that actually works (Good won't touch you because you use evil. Evil can't touch you because you do Good). Just don't be Lawful, and the Pact Primeaval can't touch you.

Did I just stumble upon the formula for a truly impervious character? xD

[Endarire]

TN is traditionally for people who dislike alignments or/and want more mechanical advantage. It's basically 'protection from alignment-based effects.'

[tadkins]

TN is traditionally for people who dislike alignments or/and want more mechanical advantage. It's basically 'protection from alignment-based effects.'

I've thought about this as well. People are complicated creatures, and hard to really shuffle into a single alignment. In most cases it's difficult to really pinpoint a single alignment for them. After all, we're mortals, not planar outsiders representing an aligned plane. We'll never be perfect aspects of our alignment like they are. Even my most CN character had to act with Lawfulness sometimes, and Good people are forced to be dark now and then.

[Sartharina]

Did I just stumble upon the formula for a truly impervious character? xDBy "touch" you, I mean "Hug you and take you in" for good, and "Wrap you in chains and drag you down" for evil. They'll still both (half-heartedly) smite you with (half of) all they've got.

You're True Neutral in the way Dread Necromancers can be True Neutral.

[Phelix-Mu]

I've thought about this as well. People are complicated creatures, and hard to really shuffle into a single alignment. In most cases it's difficult to really pinpoint a single alignment for them. After all, we're mortals, not planar outsiders representing an aligned plane. We'll never be perfect aspects of our alignment like they are. Even my most CN character had to act with Lawfulness sometimes, and Good people are forced to be dark now and then.

That's why alignment is prescriptive, not proscriptive. There are lines all over the place, and everyone crosses them once in a while. Evil people cross them and barely notice (or enjoy it). Good people cross them and feel remorse and repent, striving to do better next time. Lawful people cross them and submit to consequences, possibly analyzing the situation to see how they can react more in-line with the principles at stake the next time. Chaotic people may or may not care today, and aren't consistent about how they react to crossing the lines.

So alignment is a generalization of behaviors, more than a straightjacket. It's not an average, though; good and evil deeds don't generally cancel each other out (though the neutral territory twixt the two extremes is quite large, so it may seem like they cancel, leaving neutral). It's generally far easier to move in the direction of evil than good (the self-centered and corrupting nature of evil), while cultures vary widely about just how much individuality or conformity is typical.

EDIT: Evil creatures can do good, though. It's just that generally they find it distasteful, unnecessary, and/or a waste of effort. They are evil because they do evil, though, so there has to be some evil in there, and enough so that the person isn't neutral overall. But evil bastards can save orphans. They just can't make a habit of it, and probably don't find much reward in virtue (which is why they sink their effort into vices).

[Taveena]

I dunno, if you're repeatedly saving orphans /by/ subjecting the souls of the dead to unimaginable agony as you grind them up and shatter them for no reason other than to have a slight edge in combat

you're probably still evil.

[tadkins]

EDIT: Evil creatures can do good, though. It's just that generally they find it distasteful, unnecessary, and/or a waste of effort. They are evil because they do evil, though, so there has to be some evil in there, and enough so that the person isn't neutral overall. But evil bastards can save orphans. They just can't make a habit of it, and probably don't find much reward in virtue (which is why they sink their effort into vices).

Yep. Same with good doing evil, they'd do it very reluctantly and only when absolutely necessary, because it's against their nature.


I dunno, if you're repeatedly saving orphans /by/ subjecting the souls of the dead to unimaginable agony as you grind them up and shatter them for no reason other than to have a slight edge in combat

you're probably still evil.

I'd agree, that'd definitely fall under the "irredeemable evil" spectrum.

On a side note, I think I found the perfect PF Class/Archetype for this character. xD

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/arcanist/archetypes/paizo---arcanist-archetypes/occultist

The perspective of fiends can sometimes be just as useful as the knowledge of celestials.

[icefractal]

I guess I don't share your views at all.
What on alignment from the BoED or BoVD is contradictory?
What did you think is stupid?
I would agree there's some repulsive things discussed in the BoVD, but then, it's the Book of Vile Darkness, right?
Contradictory - a lot of things. Most obviously, "Poison is evil (even against living creatures), Ravages are good". Also, "Poison is evil because it causes suffering, things like barbed nets, clouds of flesh-melting acid, and suffocating people to death are all A-Ok".

Stupid - well, there's the implication (not stated directly, admittedly) that BDSM and piercings are evil.
The poison thing also features here as well. Shout out to the "always LG" Couatl with the poison sting. Really, "poison is always evil" has some unfortunate overtones, because it comes from chivalry for the purpose of keeping peasants from defeating knights. And I don't feel that the medieval feudal system was good-aligned.
There's a lot of stuff in the BoVD that's not objectionable, but it is eye-rolling in a juvenile way.

Disgusting - I'm not talking about intentionally disgusting. The winner there would have to be the Atropal, which isn't even from the BoVD. I'm talking about the moral system that's declared being disgusting.
The main culprit here is Sanctify the Wicked. Torturing people for a year so that you can magically reformat their personality is exalted good, apparently. :smallyuk:


Regarding undead creation being evil - I don't have a problem with that. It's not the only way to play, but it's a reasonable way to play. The only thing I think needs changing in that regard is that if undead are always evil, they need to act in a way that justifies that. If a skeleton is just an automaton that will never cause trouble if it isn't ordered to, that doesn't sound very evil. If even mindless undead harbor an eternal hatred of life, and will eventually go against their instruction to fulfill that, or if their very presence poisons the land, or if you change the fluff to say that they're animated by a trapped soul - not just pure negative energy, then that's a legit reason to say the spells are evil.

Sidebar - Shouldn't Golem creation be evil, come to think of it? Elementals are sapient, not just sentient, you're trapping one inside a construct that could last forever, and (as demonstrated by the Clay and Flesh golems) they're not happy about it. That sounds as bad or worse than making undead.

[Taveena]

Yep. Same with good doing evil, they'd do it very reluctantly and only when absolutely necessary, because it's against their nature.

Not /quite/. An Evil character does a Good act but doesn't get less Evil as a result - a Demon who kills a Devil isn't less evil. But a Good character performing an Evil act - even in the process of doing a greater good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheNeedsOfTheMany) has still slipped closer to evil. Evil is the easier but potentially harmful option. You can do Evil accidentally but not Good, basically, thus the Demon example. An Archon who kills an Eladrin has done something dramatically evil (well, provided the Eladrin was also trying to perform good) even if it means they get closer to their vision of a Lawful Good utopia BECAUSE they should have found a way to get that WITHOUT performing Evil.

Evil, on the other hand, doesn't have to go out of their way to find a more Evil way to end the Blood War. And that's why you don't have LG Steel Devils even though they perform little but (hypothetically) Good acts.

Basically what I'm saying is accidental good can be done without brownie points, while accidental evil gets you closer to damnation. (Thus why ATTEMPTING good, and not succeeding, is a Good act regardless, while accidentally or incidentally performing Good acts is neutral.)

[icefractal]

EDIT: Evil creatures can do good, though. It's just that generally they find it distasteful, unnecessary, and/or a waste of effort. They are evil because they do evil, though, so there has to be some evil in there, and enough so that the person isn't neutral overall. But evil bastards can save orphans. They just can't make a habit of it, and probably don't find much reward in virtue (which is why they sink their effort into vices).If you're talking about creatures made of evil, like Demons, Devils, etc, then yeah, doing good deeds is probably unpleasant to them and they'd avoid it. If you're talking about humans though ...

Bob is a woodsman. He's generous, kind, self sacrificing - he doesn't claim any divine mandate, but he acts pretty much how a Paladin would. Except for elves. For whatever reason, Bob hates elves, virulently, and he will kill any that he's able to, preferably after torturing them.

Bob is evil.

Because he lives in a small village without many visitors, and because he needs to keep the killings a secret, Bob has not killed very many elves. One a year or less. Certainly he does good deeds much more often than he goes elf hunting.

Bob is still evil.


People can be evil because they believe in evil, and make it their philosophy. They can also be evil because they do things that are horrific enough, despite being exemplary in all other ways. I would even say the second type is more common. It certainly is IRL - most people I'd call evil don't think of themselves as the bad guy.

[Phelix-Mu]

If you're talking about creatures made of evil, like Demons, Devils, etc, then yeah, doing good deeds is probably unpleasant to them and they'd avoid it. If you're talking about humans though ...

Bob is a woodsman. He's generous, kind, self sacrificing - he doesn't claim any divine mandate, but he acts pretty much how a Paladin would. Except for elves. For whatever reason, Bob hates elves, virulently, and he will kill any that he's able to, preferably after torturing them.

Bob is evil.

Because he lives in a small village without many visitors, and because he needs to keep the killings a secret, Bob has not killed very many elves. One a year or less. Certainly he does good deeds much more often than he goes elf hunting.

Bob is still evil.


People can be evil because they believe in evil, and make it their philosophy. They can also be evil because they do things that are horrific enough, despite being exemplary in all other ways. I would even say the second type is more common. It certainly is IRL - most people I'd call evil don't think of themselves as the bad guy.

But there might be an argument that, if all Bob does is hate elves, but never actually does anything about it, that he's not really evil, just leaning that way. Alignment is a composite of beliefs and actions, and the game kind of assumes that most characters will have the two more-or-less in sync, at least starting out.

The problem is that, if Bob really only killed one elf, hates elves, and is a bit of a bigot against them besides, but is otherwise a saint (and spends most of his time doing saintly stuff due to little contact with elves), he probably lands in neutral territory. There is room for a good bit of evil in neutral-ville, as long as it's not typical.

But if he styles himself evil, he can probably write that on his character sheet. Or just make it formal by telephoning Pazuzu or the local erinyes, like any responsible bastard would do.

In a sense, alignment is quite metagame. The problem (sensing a trend?) is that it's also very tangible; a spell detects what Bob is on his character sheet. Even worse, the spell actually detects his actual alignment, which may have drifted since the last time the player did an inventory of just how big a bastard Bob was.

One of my players wanted to play a guy that had done evil stuff, but all for a decent (but largely self-serving) reason, and pass it off as neutral, cause that's how his character viewed himself. It's okay to have an evil dude that thinks himself a decent bloke; that's even slightly less campy than Mr. Picks His Teeth With Bones of Children over there. But, even if that guy views himself as neutral, and had an okay argument to that effect, alignment in the game is absolute. If you, at the end of the day, were murdering bunches of drow (murdering, not slaying in open combat), then that is some black there, and you are Blackity McBlack, from the House of Blackenblack, in the County of Black, winner of last year's Blacker Than Black contest. Doesn't matter how you whitewash it; a spell in the game shows the truth of the matter, no matter the spin, and expect it to be objectively verifiable absent countermeasures (which is why any decent evil person isn't just good at lying, but has some kind of divination-foiling effect).

Hmm. I should design a special use of Bluff to fool the divination spells. That would actually help reduce the needlessly accurate spells. I'd have to do it without shafting pallies again, though. Hmm.

[icefractal]

But there might be an argument that, if all Bob does is hate elves, but never actually does anything about it, that he's not really evil, just leaning that way. Alignment is a composite of beliefs and actions, and the game kind of assumes that most characters will have the two more-or-less in sync, at least starting out.

The problem is that, if Bob really only killed one elf, hates elves, and is a bit of a bigot against them besides, but is otherwise a saint (and spends most of his time doing saintly stuff due to little contact with elves), he probably lands in neutral territory. There is room for a good bit of evil in neutral-ville, as long as it's not typical.He does act on his elf hatred, just doesn't get the chance very often. But more than once, and it wasn't temporary madness, he plans to continue doing it.

Also, I would not consider "will torture and murder any elf if he can get away with it" to be "a bit of a bigot". :smalltongue:

Regarding Detect Evil - the village where he lives doesn't have a Cleric in residence; nobody has ever cast that spell on him, or if they did they didn't inform him of the results.

I have a pretty hard time imagining this character as anything but evil. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be in a party with him if I wasn't evil (and acknowledging it) myself. You can construct an alignment system where "good" and "evil" mean something different than what we think of IRL, but I find that pointless - call them Red and Blue then, or whatever. Calling things Good and Evil and not actually having them mean that is just confusing.

[Phelix-Mu]

He does act on his elf hatred, just doesn't get the chance very often. But more than once, and it wasn't temporary madness, he plans to continue doing it.

Also, I would not consider "will torture and murder any elf if he can get away with it" to be "a bit of a bigot". :smalltongue:

Regarding Detect Evil - the village where he lives doesn't have a Cleric in residence; nobody has ever cast that spell on him, or if they did they didn't inform him of the results.

I have a pretty hard time imagining this character as anything but evil. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be in a party with him if I wasn't evil (and acknowledging it) myself. You can construct an alignment system where "good" and "evil" mean something different than what we think of IRL, but I find that pointless - call them Red and Blue then, or whatever. Calling things Good and Evil and not actually having them mean that is just confusing.

I think it's largely about characterization. If he's waiting for an opportunity to do it again, agreed, that's pretty evil. But if he's been non-plused by the murder, decided to go back to the bigotry (and, again, only ever actually harmed that one elf), then I'd say there's an argument for once-murderer, now just jerk who spends most of his time being nice ending up neutral.

My point is that you usually need a pattern of malfeasance to earn the evil. Or maybe it's that the less evil people are just pretty close to neutral. Detect evil, in the end, detects the overall alignment, and alignment is an art, not a science, so just because there is that one murder doesn't necessarily make that person ping (though it makes it much more likely, of course). The act itself is obviously evil, but whether a person stays evil or extends the trend depends on their reaction and future actions.

Clearly, some people that are neutral engage in evil behavior from time to time, yet remain neutral. Otherwise I think I much agree with you about the issues around good and evil.

Just finished a year-long Exalted (the gaming system, not BoED) game, and that is a system that stands on the opposite end of the spectrum, being shades of gray to D&D's black-and-white absolutism.

[Sartharina]

He does act on his elf hatred, just doesn't get the chance very often. But more than once, and it wasn't temporary madness, he plans to continue doing it.

Also, I would not consider "will torture and murder any elf if he can get away with it" to be "a bit of a bigot". :smalltongue:

Regarding Detect Evil - the village where he lives doesn't have a Cleric in residence; nobody has ever cast that spell on him, or if they did they didn't inform him of the results.

I have a pretty hard time imagining this character as anything but evil. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be in a party with him if I wasn't evil (and acknowledging it) myself. You can construct an alignment system where "good" and "evil" mean something different than what we think of IRL, but I find that pointless - call them Red and Blue then, or whatever. Calling things Good and Evil and not actually having them mean that is just confusing.

I'd say he's Neutral, if he really is a 'saint' the rest of the time. The problem you're having tryng to imagine him being anything but evil is because you are dismissing everything that makes him non-evil. Sure, you say 'he's a saint', but put as much thought into actually meaning it that you might as well have said 'he sometimes goes fishing' (Actually, that would probably require putting more thought on what else he does with his life than you did).

We're talking about a man, who, when kobolds kidnapped half the town's children, armed with only his trusty axe and protected by a simple plaid shirt and literhosen stormed the Kobold slave pits and got the children back at severe risk of life and limb, and with no thought of reward.

We're talking about a man who was the only man to care about the town drunk, supporting the other man come to terms with the death of his wife (After she was murdered by an elf for the crime of picking a beautiful flower from secret elf land), offering him a steady hand to lean on as he worked through and reformed his alcoholism. At considerable expense to himself, he also helped the town former drunk build and furnish a new home, so that the latter no longer had to live in little more than a box near the town pub. And even after the man was restored to being a functioning member of the village, the woodcutter hired the man as an assistant to ensure he had respectable and gainful employment.

When bandits moved into the area, he converted one of his woodcutting shacks into a 'guest house' to tend to and care for the people who ran afoul of the bandits and left for dead, assisted in helping those who lost all their material wealth to the bandits get back on their feet, and ultimately talked many of the bandits into giving up their life of violence and crime, turn on and overthrow the sadistic monsters in power, and worked with the villagers and reformed bandits to reconcile and ensure neither would be betrayed by the other.

And this is only a few of the things this woodcutter has done. Even though he still has a pathological hatred of those pointy-eared, unnatural fiends from another realm who, 7 times out of 10, will murder anyone who dares hunt any of the animals or harvest any of the trees from what deem to be their part of the forest (Without bothering to indicate that they are 'protecting' any land to anyone outside their insular retreats)

[Taveena]

If he's going to great personal expense to help the others? I'm inclined to agree he'd end up neutral, yes. If he was still a bigoted maniac but he held himself back, he'd probably be unambiguously good, just because of the rest of the acts he does. (You don't get brownie points for NOT committing evil, after all.)

[Heliomance]

I dunno, if you're repeatedly saving orphans /by/ subjecting the souls of the dead to unimaginable agony as you grind them up and shatter them for no reason other than to have a slight edge in combat

you're probably still evil.

Citation needed.

[aleucard]

Whether or not making undead is Evil depends on 2 things.

1, does the creation process involve anything beyond a glorified Golem creation process with negative energy instead of normal magical energy? If so, is it any worse or is at least justified (case by case in this instance)?

2, are the created undead inherently dangerous to people or the world as a whole by their very nature above and beyond what their creator directs them to do? Just being a predator alone does not count, because that doesn't fly for animals. Actual malice would have to be hard-coded into the undead for them to count as Evil.

So long as the above two are passed, the 'alignment' of the undead should be either the True Neutral of everything that is mindless or in lockstep with their creator.

[OldTrees1]

Whether or not making undead is Evil depends on 2 things.

1, does the creation process involve anything beyond a glorified Golem creation process with negative energy instead of normal magical energy? If so, is it any worse or is at least justified (case by case in this instance)?

2, are the created undead inherently dangerous to people or the world as a whole by their very nature above and beyond what their creator directs them to do? Just being a predator alone does not count, because that doesn't fly for animals. Actual malice would have to be hard-coded into the undead for them to count as Evil.

So long as the above two are passed, the 'alignment' of the undead should be either the True Neutral of everything that is mindless or in lockstep with their creator.

Also factor in that creating undead does not imply enslaving sapient beings(golem creation does imply enslaving sapient beings)

[aleucard]

Also factor in that creating undead does not imply enslaving sapient beings(golem creation does imply enslaving sapient beings)

It really depends on where the thinking capability of the undead in question comes from. There has to be SOME degree of processing power and comprehension in order for it to take orders. That may come from the spiritual equivalent of AI, or it may come from an enslaved soul (which is where the justifiability comes in, is it willing or a valid punishment?), or it may come from something in between. These questions don't really get answered in the official books, or the answers are vague and contradictory. Thus, it depends on the DM, though I can't see why they can't just say that different techniques are available.

[Taveena]

Citation needed.

Necrocarnum. WHEEEEEE.

[OldTrees1]

It really depends on where the thinking capability of the undead in question comes from. There has to be SOME degree of processing power and comprehension in order for it to take orders. That may come from the spiritual equivalent of AI, or it may come from an enslaved soul (which is where the justifiability comes in, is it willing or a valid punishment?), or it may come from something in between. These questions don't really get answered in the official books, or the answers are vague and contradictory. Thus, it depends on the DM, though I can't see why they can't just say that different techniques are available.

^This is why I said it "did not imply X" rather than say it "did imply not X".

[aleucard]

Necrocarnum. WHEEEEEE.

That's the MoI method. What about when the book does not apply, probably because it's a dogknotted mess by even the most conservative standards?

[icefractal]

And this is only a few of the things this woodcutter has done. Even though he still has a pathological hatred of those pointy-eared, unnatural fiends from another realm who, 7 times out of 10, will murder anyone who dares hunt any of the animals or harvest any of the trees from what deem to be their part of the forest (Without bothering to indicate that they are 'protecting' any land to anyone outside their insular retreats)Sounds like you have a bit of Favored Enemy (elves) yourself. :smalltongue: Would it change matters, in your opinion, if instead of elves he was targeting people with red hair?

And true, I glossed over in what ways he's Paladin-like. I also glossed over the evil part, because it seems unnecessarily disturbing for the thread. However ... take one of the SAW movies, or The Hills Have Eyes*. Bob is the antagonist, some elves (or redheads) are the victims. But seriously, he only does that for like, a few days a year, he's a really nice guy the rest of the time. Still non-evil?

Now if he stopped doing the evil stuff, could he become non-evil? Sure. And even as he is, it could be an interesting dilemma whether you slay/permanently imprison him to stop his crimes, thus depriving the village of a vital protector, or whether you try to rehabilitate him, knowing it might not work. Just doesn't affect whether he's evil in the first place, IMO.


*Disclaimer: I haven't seen those movies, I'm going off what I've heard about them. If there's some surprise plot twist where Jigsaw is actually the good guy or something, please assume I picked a better example.

[Wacky89]

couldn't you just refluff animating undead into animating deathless?
Then they're the good kind of undead :smallbiggrin:

[Taveena]

That's the MoI method. What about when the book does not apply, probably because it's a dogknotted mess by even the most conservative standards?

Then just use any of the other methods for consuming souls for power. Also? MoI might be badly organized but (save the Soulborn) it's one of the best designed and balanced subsystems released.

[Sartharina]

Sounds like you have a bit of Favored Enemy (elves) yourself. :smalltongue: Would it change matters, in your opinion, if instead of elves he was targeting people with red hair?Hmm... maybe. But not really.


And true, I glossed over in what ways he's Paladin-like. I also glossed over the evil part, because it seems unnecessarily disturbing for the thread. However ... take one of the SAW movies, or The Hills Have Eyes*. Bob is the antagonist, some elves (or redheads) are the victims. But seriously, he only does that for like, a few days a year, he's a really nice guy the rest of the time. Still non-evil?

Now if he stopped doing the evil stuff, could he become non-evil? Sure. And even as he is, it could be an interesting dilemma whether you slay/permanently imprison him to stop his crimes, thus depriving the village of a vital protector, or whether you try to rehabilitate him, knowing it might not work. Just doesn't affect whether he's evil in the first place, IMO.I think it does affect whether he's evil in the first place or not, and still consider it as balancing him out to Neutral - but just because he's not Evil doesn't mean killing him would not be justified.


*Disclaimer: I haven't seen those movies, I'm going off what I've heard about them. If there's some surprise plot twist where Jigsaw is actually the good guy or something, please assume I picked a better example.Well, to be fair, Jigsaw only targets people he feels 'deserves' his traps, and always ensures they have a chance of actually surviving, but yeah. He's still evil, though (LE)

[Finwaell]

Where is any of that said? :smallconfused:

It is generally accepted that necromancers raise undead by binding fragments of the creature's soul/spirit to the dead body, thus animating them, which tortures the spirit in the process. It is the only thing that justifies necromantic spells to be "Evil" as it is an atrocity against natural order of things.

The other way to look at it, taking them as mere constructs without any link to the souls that inhabited the bodies before, is not answering or explaining any of this.

I am also pretty sure I read that somewhere officially, but I am not sure now where it was.. either Libris Mortis or Forgotten Realms setting one of those I think.

But lets look closer to home. I guess Durkon is having a pretty good time right now, being caught in a dead body not getting to the afterlife with a negative energy being living from his memories...

[Pan151]

The other way to look at it, taking them as mere constructs without any link to the souls that inhabited the bodies before, is not answering or explaining any of this.


It is actually very easy to explain: all resurrection spells require that you have access part of the dead creature's body, even true resurrection (by RAW, if not by RAI, for the last one, as you are still required to touch the target dead creature in some fashion). The probem is, once the body has been raised as a zombie or whatever, it does not belong to the dead creature anymore, so you cannot "touch the dead creature" to cast the spell. Where its soul is at that point is irrelevant.

You can still use a wish to create a new body, not to mention that what "turned into an undead creature" actually refers to is debatable (do the soulless undead such as skeletons and zombies count as a creature turned undead, as opposed to an inanimate corpse turned undead, or is it just undead with souls such as vampires and wraiths? And, while we're at it, is the soul possessed by the vampire the same as the one possessed by its former living body, or is it a different one?)

[ThisIsZen]

And this is only a few of the things this woodcutter has done. Even though he still has a pathological hatred of those pointy-eared, unnatural fiends from another realm who, 7 times out of 10, will murder anyone who dares hunt any of the animals or harvest any of the trees from what deem to be their part of the forest (Without bothering to indicate that they are 'protecting' any land to anyone outside their insular retreats)

This might be my internal bias here, but honestly, all those things are fantastic. I'd still rank him as evil, not neutral, because I don't think literal sainthood can balance the scales against the amount of malice aforethought Bob is bringing to bear when he deals with that one unlucky elf who happened to be convenient this year. He could save all the children and puppies from the fire he wants to, but I honestly can't consider that as an equal counterbalance to [insert extremely graphic and multi-day extended torture spree commencing in murder you want here].

Because if given the opportunity to, Bob would do that every day. Bob clearly prioritizes it enough that, even given the possibly consequences should he be found out, he's willing to maim and murder elves for personal gratification.

But this is honestly just a demonstration of why alignment discussions tend to be fruitless. My authorial bias is different from your authorial bias, and we have a vague and internally-contradictory set of rules to work with in adjudicating which of us is correct and which of us is wrong, unless we defer to one of the several different mechanics created for this purpose.

Most of which lack nuance and are, IMO, narratively stifling. For instance, by the Corruption mechanics, after 9 elves, Bob's headed to Hell irreversibly. Possibly fewer, considering I imagine torture and murder both give Corruption, and multiple days of torture if he takes his time are probably worth even more. It's possible he could go to Hell on the weight of a single dead elf if he was horrific enough. That doesn't say to me that he's gonna be able to balance out his evil with good, no matter how saintly he is.

[OldTrees1]

It is generally accepted that necromancers raise undead by binding fragments of the creature's soul/spirit to the dead body, thus animating them, which tortures the spirit in the process. It is the only thing that justifies necromantic spells to be "Evil" as it is an atrocity against natural order of things.

Citation needed.

It is generally accepted that souled undead(Vampires, Liches, Ghosts, Ghouls ...) have a soul bound to the body.(Whether the old soul or a new soul)

[Milo v3]

It is generally accepted that necromancers raise undead by binding fragments of the creature's soul/spirit to the dead body, thus animating them, which tortures the spirit in the process. It is the only thing that justifies necromantic spells to be "Evil" as it is an atrocity against natural order of things.

The other way to look at it, taking them as mere constructs without any link to the souls that inhabited the bodies before, is not answering or explaining any of this.

I am also pretty sure I read that somewhere officially, but I am not sure now where it was.. either Libris Mortis or Forgotten Realms setting one of those I think.

But lets look closer to home. I guess Durkon is having a pretty good time right now, being caught in a dead body not getting to the afterlife with a negative energy being living from his memories...

None of that was in Libris Mortis, and if was in Forgotten Realms then it only matters for forgotten realms and is thus irrelevant (especially since 3.5e is in a completely different setting by default).

Also, the Giant actually said on a thread somewhere that Durkula doesn't follow the rules of 3.5e vampirism and instead follows the rules of "plot (inspired by 3.5e rules) like the rest of the comic. Will try and find a link to that if I have the time.

[Taveena]

TIME TO REREAD LIBRIS MORTIS!

If there IS no soul-binding, then creating undead should be no more evil than creating a fire elemental. If the issue with undead is that their power source makes the world a more inhospitable place, then Fire Elemental summoning is evil by the same reasoning.

[Heliomance]

Do it! :smallbiggrin:

Just a thought on what might be interesting in that vein: take some of whatever the freewheeling souls would be, build some fluff about a group that takes those souls into themselves in some form of binder/possessed by a fiend sort of way maybe.

Done it! Here you go! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386434-Fecund-Healer-(3-5-PrC)&p=18477485#post18477485)