Undead - An Alignment Question [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AlanBruce

2015-08-07, 11:12 PM

This is Moradin's Dogma, for your dwarf cleric:

Moradin is the father and creator of the dwarven race. Honor him by emulating his principles and workmanship in smithing, stoneworking, and other tasks. Wisdom is derived from life and tempered with experience. Advance the dwarven race in all areas of life. Innovate with new processes and skills. Found new kingdoms and clan lands, defending the existing ones from all threats. Lead the dwarves in the traditions laid down by the Soul Forger. Honor your clan leaders as you honor Moradin

Granted, the cleric is LG and would object to the undead, by virtue of being Good (the whole animating he dead and depriving the soul rest comes to mind).

Having said that, as long as the party's necromancer isn't animating dwarves into zombies, he should be fine.

I don't know what other classes are there, but as a general rule, if the necro is calling an army of the dead to follow you and they aren't killing innocents... you might let it slide.

Of course, if there is a paladin in the party, or if they wander into a town, expect problems.

Andezzar

2015-08-08, 12:44 AM

This is Moradin's Dogma, for your dwarf cleric:

Granted, the cleric is LG and would object to the undead, by virtue of being Good (the whole animating he dead and depriving the soul rest comes to mind).

Having said that, as long as the party's necromancer isn't animating dwarves into zombies, he should be fine. To make undead, especially mindless ones, generally you do not trap the soul in a corpse.

I don't know what other classes are there, but as a general rule, if the necro is calling an army of the dead to follow you and they aren't killing innocents... you might let it slide.

Of course, if there is a paladin in the party, or if they wander into a town, expect problems.Clerics are free to associate with evil characters. I also can't remember that not stopping someone from making undead is a gross violation of Moradin's code of conduct. AFAIK his dogma doesn't say much about undead at all.

On the other hand the other player can do whatever he wants, he can even object to your character's behvior if it is as meaningless as preferring wine over ale.

kalos72

2015-08-09, 03:46 PM

Thanks, I will have to read the discussion in the ToM.

There is discussion in the group of making undead fire giants or something to become shock troops for my city's army. The "commander" is going for an Azer Dwarf character and likes the irony. :)

SangoProduction

2015-08-09, 04:08 PM

Controlling undead is not Evil unless the DM says it is.
Even if the DM says it is Evil, it is not Evil enough to taint the Just ends unless the DM says it is.
Even if the DM says it is Evil enough to taint the Just ends does not mean the Dwarven Priest gets an alignment hit, unless the DM says it is.

I have Good undead and undead that lack alignment in my world(in addition to Evil undead). So I would not say controlling undead is evil(unless they are unjustly enslaving), but you are the DM of your world.

Exactly, this.
Also, just say "*** alignments" and be done with it. Everyone just acts as they are, and are how they act. No alignment is needed.
Have a session 0 so the players can work into eachothers' back stories.
So, boom, they now have a reason to be together, other than killing evil. And even if that IS the only thing your players can come up with, well, obviously he's pretty damned good at killing evil, or else they wouldn't team up in the first place.

Keltest

2015-08-09, 04:12 PM

In general, creating/controlling undead is no more an evil act than summoning an elemental. It depends on what you do with it. If youre in the Forgotten Realms, followers of Kelemvor are going to have a problem with you, so be aware of any setting-specific groups that don't like undead, but other than that just make sure you don't do anything evil with them and you should be fine.

Telonius

2015-08-09, 04:12 PM

The Tome of Necromancy's descriptions are a good start, but it does gloss over a couple of things. Necromancy, creating Undead, and manipulating Negative Energy are not exactly the same things. Yes, you can Create Greater Undead using Necromancy, but you can also do something as innocuous as Gentle Repose or as helpful as Death Ward. Good deities can even grant Inflict spells to their Clerics (though the Cleric can't spontaneously cast Inflict). It's only the [Evil] spells that are problematic.

For your situation, unfortunately all of the "create undead" -style spells are [Evil]. They're not [Evil] because they deal with negative energy; they're [Evil] because what they do has some effect on the person's soul in the afterlife. Namely, they can't be raised from the dead (even True Resurrected) as long as the body is being used by an undead. The creature has to be destroyed first. Why this might be ... is never really described. Each DM would probably have their own ideas about it; the current Vampire Durkon storyline in Order of the Stick is as good a take as any other I've seen.

As to whether the other characters would take an alignment hit, that's another "ask your DM" question. Would they be seen as partially responsible for (or an accessory to) the Necromancy? I could see that one going either way.

There is another potential issue. Aside from the Alignment hit, Clerics do have a code of conduct. It's not nearly as well-known as the Paladin's, since it's not nearly as strict, but it is in the rules:

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

Each deity has their own code. Actions that might not have any relevance to the Good/Evil or Law/Chaos axis might violate the code. I would imagine that a Cleric of Pelor (for example) would be "grossly violating the code of conduct" by palling around with a Necromancer. A Cleric of Moradin? Maybe not. It would certainly bring up a moral dilemma, but I'm not sure that they'd hold it to be quite as important as a Pelorite.

Blackhawk748

2015-08-09, 04:12 PM

(the whole animating the dead and depriving the soul rest comes to mind)

Except that animating them doesnt do this and any Necromancer worth his onyx knows this, its actually how i played a LN Dread Necro once. He just viewed the whole "animating the dead is evil" thing as a cultural taboo (which it is) and just chose to animate enemies. You get a lot less complaints.

Vogie

2015-08-09, 04:45 PM

I've always thought it would be interesting if a Necromancer was played as a Prison Warden of sorts. The guilty has been charged for X years of service, and the Necromancer is empowered by the state to make sure that sentence is served by that person, even after they are "dead". Similar to the "only raising enemy dead" idea above, but with a Caveat that the person should be Resurrected after time served.

Gives the idea of "multiple life sentences" a whole new meaning.

kalos72

2015-08-09, 05:16 PM

I need to look at the whole raise/control undead skills/spells scenario. Of everything DnD, that is the area I know the LEAST about.

kalos72

2015-08-09, 06:09 PM

I am thinking something like this might rock for the undead fire giant idea...

Uttercold Assault Necromancer

elonin

2015-08-09, 06:18 PM

Unless those spells have an evil descriptor then they aren't evil. Just being powered by negative energy doesn't imply evil. I also recall an undead race that is powered by positive energy. There is an example of a good lich given in the Libris Mortis.

Telonius

2015-08-09, 06:49 PM

I also recall an undead race that is powered by positive energy.

That's the Deathless, from the Eberron Campaign Setting.

kalos72

2015-08-10, 07:14 AM

Are there particular books that detail this sort of topic? Raising/controlling the undead? I need a Undead 101 course. :)

OldTrees1

2015-08-10, 07:26 AM

Are there particular books that detail this sort of topic? Raising/controlling the undead? I need a Undead 101 course. :)

Well, books are not the primary source for alignment questions since alignment refers to real world abstract concepts. That is why the alignment of an action is so DM dependent.

However I would recommend reading the following for alignment concerning undead:
Savage Species
Libris Mortis
Tome of Necromancy (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1059011)

For the mechanical 101 I would suggest reading
Player's Handbook
Libris Mortis
Dread Necromancer handbooks

Crake

2015-08-10, 07:34 AM

Except that animating them doesnt do this and any Necromancer worth his onyx knows this, its actually how i played a LN Dread Necro once. He just viewed the whole "animating the dead is evil" thing as a cultural taboo (which it is) and just chose to animate enemies. You get a lot less complaints.

If animating dead doesn't trap the soul, then explain why undead creatures can't be resurrected or even true resurrected until the undead is destroyed? What about undead that retain memories of their life, or hell, the entire emaciated spawn prestige class designed to let an undead regain a sense of it's former self?

Mindless undead I can understand where you might be coming from, and personally, i waive the whole can't be resurrected thing if the undead was a mindless one (but not raised, since the body has been tainted with too much negative energy). But for any intelligent undead much of the fluff seems to point toward the soul be trapped in the body (or in the case of incorporeal undead, twisted into an undead abomination).

Jack_Simth

2015-08-10, 07:35 AM

So, my group is mostly LG or LN type players but one person is thinking about starting some sort of Necormancer or something. He hasn't decided a class yet...

Would the LG characters, Dwarven Priest of Moradin for example, get an alignment hit if they worked/friends with a necro commanding undead even if the cause was just in the end?

I tend to think its fine...as long as the LG guys dont get too involved.

Thoughts?
Assuming by 'Necromancer' you're talking 'make use of zombies, skeletons, and similar': Depends on how it works 'under the hood', which is under DM purview.

First questions to answer:
Why does Raise Dead fail completely if a subject has been turned into a zombie or skeleton? Why is it that both Resurrection and it's True brother fails if the deceased's corpse is shambling around as a zombie elsewhere (bear in mind: True Resurrection requires no piece of the corpse at all) unless the zombie is first destroyed? Why is it that, despite that little problem, a Resurrection or True Resurrection, applied directly to the walking corpse still works (part of the undead type description)?

If raising an undead requires dragging the soul back from it's final reward to imprison it in a rotting corpse to power a mindless slave, then no, there's no such thing as a good necromancer. If some other mechanism is at work, then there might be.

Psyren

2015-08-10, 07:42 AM

If raising an undead requires dragging the soul back from it's final reward to imprison it in a rotting corpse to power a mindless slave, then no, there's no such thing as a good necromancer. If some other mechanism is at work, then there might be.

And even if the soul itself is not damaged, necromancy can still be evil if you go by the "thinning the Veil" explanation in Libris Mortis.

OldTrees1

2015-08-10, 10:38 AM

If animating dead doesn't trap the soul, then explain why undead creatures can't be resurrected or even true resurrected until the undead is destroyed? What about undead that retain memories of their life, or hell, the entire emaciated spawn prestige class designed to let an undead regain a sense of it's former self?

Mindless undead I can understand where you might be coming from, and personally, i waive the whole can't be resurrected thing if the undead was a mindless one (but not raised, since the body has been tainted with too much negative energy). But for any intelligent undead much of the fluff seems to point toward the soul be trapped in the body (or in the case of incorporeal undead, twisted into an undead abomination).

The non trapped soul world:
Resurrection spells require both the soul and the body(in various conditions including completely destroyed). If a body exists(so not destroyed, relevant for True Resurrection) but is unavailable then the resurrection could fail. This is consistent with casting such spells on the undead inhabited body(since it is available to target).

Now some undead retain the soul(Ghosts and Liches being the most obvious but there are others although it is possible that memory =/= soul). In these cases there is less known about whether the soul is trapped, changed, or merely in control. Obviously the moral character of creating such an undead relies on knowing which of these is the case and what(if anything) the soul consented to.

Basically when it comes to undeath, the DM needs to decide:
1) How the various kinds of undeath interact with the soul of the body. These interactions can vary from type to type(or even instance to instance but that is nitpicking). Including:
When is the soul still in/attached to the undead?
If attached is the soul in control?
Has the soul been changed in some way?
2) How the various means of causing undead interact with the world(if at all*).
3) The moral character of all the above.

*The "Thinning the Veil" is one of many possible interactions including the default(no interaction).

SangoProduction

2015-08-10, 11:11 AM

You could also take the "True Name" explanation (possibly linked to the Truenamer class, but not exactly what I'm referencing). In some cases, a spell requires knowing exactly who it's targeting. So, when there are 2 versions of you that are active (your body, and your soul), and they aren't the same person (ie, you're in your after life, and your body is walking around), then the spell is confused and can't "find" the actual target.

This is consistent with the idea of being able to raise an undead to true life, because when the spell is actually cast on the body (the undead), it eliminates it as a target, and thus there is only 1 target it can have, the soul, which can then be returned to life.

As far as that Spawn PRC, I will reference the Speak With Dead spell, which specifically says it does not contact the actual person, just lets the "body" speak with you. If you think along this line of thought, then yeah, you're just having the body recover its memories, rather than holding the soul.

That said, most raise dead spells are [Evil]. But, as I said, just say "screw alignments".

Brova

2015-08-10, 11:21 AM

I just want to step in to point out that trap the soul, which traps a soul, is not evil. Interestingly, neither is imprisonment. So it appears that trapping people's souls is not actually evil in D&D. That's certainly not what you'd expect, but it does appear to be how things work.

SangoProduction

2015-08-10, 11:24 AM

Taveena

2015-08-10, 02:54 PM

Overall, creating Undead is an evil act because it's RECKLESS - sort of like how we have environmental protection laws. Undead are basically walking holes in reality, draining life from the universe and leaving it a little more dead. Little portal to the Negative Energy Plane in each've them.

However, if the undead are consistently enough used for good and NEVER used for evil, the ends and the means can cancel out to result in a neutral-aligned Necromancer.

Moradin is likely to be rather against Undead, as creating undead without permission is... well, desecrating remains, and thus a Chaotic act. If you can Speak with Dead to get their permission, or otherwise do it in a LN-to-TN fashion, he has no real objection.

It takes a LOT of good deeds to cancel things out. And if your Necromancer doesn't do that, then... well, from an environmental perspective, he's screwing things up.

Now if he's flat-up binding souls and the like, he's not going to scrape out a neutral aligment at all.

Brova

2015-08-10, 03:12 PM

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-10, 03:20 PM

Overall, creating Undead is an evil act because it's RECKLESS - sort of like how we have environmental protection laws. Undead are basically walking holes in reality, draining life from the universe and leaving it a little more dead. Little portal to the Negative Energy Plane in each've them.
And yet summoning (or binding) "living" balls of negative energy (in the form of Energons) from the NEP is completely neutral.

If raising an undead requires dragging the soul back from it's final reward to imprison it in a rotting corpse to power a mindless slave, then no, there's no such thing as a good necromancer. If some other mechanism is at work, then there might be.
If raising an undead requires dragging the soul back, it wouldn't work on a corpse whose "owner" got soul trapped, or whose soul got destroyed. Don't recall any mentions of that in the various undead-creating spells...

Blackhawk748

2015-08-10, 04:35 PM

If raising an undead requires dragging the soul back, it wouldn't work on a corpse whose "owner" got soul trapped, or whose soul got destroyed. Don't recall any mentions of that in the various undead-creating spells...

This is the crux of the issue. The only Undead i know of that actually requires a soul to make is a Lich, and thats because you do it yourself. Vampires, Ghouls, Wights, Devourers, hell even Wraiths just require the body.

Maybe thats why they are Always Evil? because without a soul they have no empathy or true emotions, they are just minds with needs. Holy crap i may have just explained Evil undead in DnD.

Brova

2015-08-10, 04:45 PM

This is the crux of the issue. The only Undead i know of that actually requires a soul to make is a Lich, and thats because you do it yourself. Vampires, Ghouls, Wights, Devourers, hell even Wraiths just require the body.

Maybe thats why they are Always Evil? because without a soul they have no empathy or true emotions, they are just minds with needs. Holy crap i may have just explained Evil undead in DnD.

Except that there's zero chance animated objects have souls, and they aren't always evil.

Blackhawk748

2015-08-10, 04:53 PM

Except that there's zero chance animated objects have souls, and they aren't always evil.

Ok so i explained Intelligent Always Evil undead.

Brova

2015-08-10, 05:00 PM

Ok so i explained Intelligent Always Evil undead.

Honestly, most of those are evil because they eat people. A ghoul isn't evil because it's soulless and unable to feel empathy, it's evil because it's diet is "humans, preferably alive". Similarly vampires and shadows. Spawn creating undead are also evil because they kill people to reproduce. Exactly how evil that is depends on both how evil the basic critter is and on how much of the spawn's personality is overridden.

BWR

2015-08-10, 05:04 PM

If we're talking 3.5 or PF then Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor and zombies and skeletons are Always Neutral Evil. Animating and creating and controlling is Evil by BoVD. So yeah, it's evil if you run it by the book. Most settings assume that undead is pretty much always evil (unless specifically excepted, like baelnorns in FR). In fact, the only setting I can think of where it's less obvious is PS (and even there the main undead faction, the Dustmen, are as an organization NE. As for Good characters hanging out with evil ones and people saying it's ok because the rules don't forbid it, think about it: would a good person hang out with someone who consistently offended their sensibilities without good reason? Would a good god just blithely accept bad behavior from their representatives on earth just because a vague mechanical representation of that world doesn't spell out that "X loses powers if Y occurs" (never mind that bit about ex-clerics which people seem to forget or ignore).
So by the book, a Good person would not accept an undead master in the group except possibly under the direst of circumstances. Considering the rest of the design, the only reason I can think of that something like Command Undead isn't evil is because it was designed to be used by non-evil people to protect themselves ("Don't eat us!"), not as an aide to command hordes of undead to do your bidding.

Now, if the GM wants to run things differently in his/her game, that's fine but there is nothing I can see in the books or most settings that imply creating, commanding or otherwise cavorting with undead is in any way an ok thing.

Blackhawk748

2015-08-10, 05:10 PM

Honestly, most of those are evil because they eat people. A ghoul isn't evil because it's soulless and unable to feel empathy, it's evil because it's diet is "humans, preferably alive". Similarly vampires and shadows. Spawn creating undead are also evil because they kill people to reproduce. Exactly how evil that is depends on both how evil the basic critter is and on how much of the spawn's personality is overridden.

Except they dont need to. Nothing bad happens to a ghoul if it doesnt eat people, same with a vampire and all other undead.

Psyren

2015-08-10, 05:11 PM

Overall, creating Undead is an evil act because it's RECKLESS - sort of like how we have environmental protection laws. Undead are basically walking holes in reality, draining life from the universe and leaving it a little more dead. Little portal to the Negative Energy Plane in each've them.

Correct.

And yet summoning (or binding) "living" balls of negative energy (in the form of Energons) from the NEP is completely neutral.

Aren't these 3.0? One of the "minor adjustments" a GM might make is to make them mildly evil-aligned. And even if they don't, you could argue that animating undead is more evil because there are already so many of them on the material.

The point though is that it doesn't matter how you justify it - making or summoning undead is an evil act. You can accept the explanation in LM if you like, or reject it, but that doesn't change anything without houserules.

Faily

2015-08-10, 05:12 PM

Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor.

Book of Vile Darkness explicitly says that animating the dead or creating undeads is an evil act (pg.8).

Even Zombies, who have an Intelligence of - are stated as being Always Neutral Evil. The spell that gives Intelligence to mindless undeads in Libris Mortis also has the Evil-tag.

Sure, you could use them to do good, but you know what they say about the road to hell being paved with...

SkipSandwich

2015-08-10, 05:15 PM

Except that there's zero chance animated objects have souls, and they aren't always evil.

Animated objects typically aren't described as being fueled by negative energy though. But it still comes down to the crux of "is Negative Energy the Source of evil or just a Resource that evil uses because good finds it icky?"

Taveena

2015-08-10, 05:57 PM

Except they dont need to. Nothing bad happens to a ghoul if it doesnt eat people, same with a vampire and all other undead.

Libris Mortis, page 9, has a detailed list of what Undead dietary habits are from hunger, and which are from craving. If a Vampire doesn't drink blood for 3d6 months, it stops moving entirely.

Aren't these 3.0? One of the "minor adjustments" a GM might make is to make them mildly evil-aligned. And even if they don't, you could argue that animating undead is more evil because there are already so many of them on the material.

The point though is that it doesn't matter how you justify it - making or summoning undead is an evil act. You can accept the explanation in LM if you like, or reject it, but that doesn't change anything without houserules.

Also the rules are flat-up inconsistent, yes. Undead are evil but the Negative Energy Plane actively penalizes evil creatures (and all creatures that are not Evil). Creating a Golem powered by a Fire Elemental should be just as evil as creating a Zombie powered by Negative Energy. The main argument I've heard is "Negative Energy Provides No Benefit To Life, But Fire Can Cook Food", which... I feel isn't entirely appropriate, because Fire is cooking the food by destroying protein chains and killing bacteria, which surely the inevitable entropy of the universe should be able to do too.

Brova

2015-08-10, 06:01 PM

Also the rules are flat-up inconsistent, yes. Undead are evil but the Negative Energy Plane actively penalizes evil creatures (and all creatures that are not Evil). Creating a Golem powered by a Fire Elemental should be just as evil as creating a Zombie powered by Negative Energy. The main argument I've heard is "Negative Energy Provides No Benefit To Life, But Fire Can Cook Food", which... I feel isn't entirely appropriate, because Fire is cooking the food by destroying protein chains and killing bacteria, which surely the inevitable entropy of the universe should be able to do too.

I don't really buy the "but fire is a tool" argument either, because animate dead is also a tool. I can imagine a lot of uses for creatures that never tire, obey orders, and have opposable thumbs.

Psyren

2015-08-10, 06:03 PM

Taveena

2015-08-10, 06:11 PM

I'd say fire cooking is neutral because whatever bacteria it kills on the food, it's also sustaining the person eating it and all the millions of bacteria (https://xkcd.com/1543/) living inside them. Similarly, a lion pouncing on a gazelle is not evil. Something's got to give.

With undead though, anything consumed simply disappears. Nothing living is being sustained or propagated, and undead are never sated.

I totally agree that golem creation should be evil given the fluff though.

It's weird, isn't it? Negative Energy should be the PERFECT disinfectant. Kills 100% of life.
Unless you're giving the bacteria negative levels, which causes them to turn into Medium sized Wights, but Inflict Wounds shouldn't do that.

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-10, 06:18 PM

Aren't these 3.0? One of the "minor adjustments" a GM might make is to make them mildly evil-aligned.
They are - but a 3.5 source (Planar Handbook) refers us to their stats in MoP without mentioning an alignment change.

And even if they don't, you could argue that animating undead is more evil because there are already so many of them on the material.
So undead have a special kind of negative energy that is more dangerous? Otherwise this is like saying a match is more dangerous than a flamethrower because there are more of them ;P

The point though is that it doesn't matter how you justify it - making or summoning undead is an evil act. You can accept the explanation in LM if you like, or reject it, but that doesn't change anything without houserules.
Sure, it is RAW - but as was proven many, many times, RAW often ranges from silly to outright stupid, and the alignment rules are even worse...

Taveena

2015-08-10, 06:32 PM

Sure, it is RAW - but as was proven many, many times, RAW often ranges from silly to outright stupid, and the alignment rules are even worse...

It's also RAI. Not that that makes it less fallible...

One fascinating thing is the counterpoint of creating Deathless. Just... cause an overwhelming influx of Positive Energy into the world. Increase crop harvests and healthy births! And locust swarms! And cancer!
That deserves a [Good] tag, right?

Blackhawk748

2015-08-10, 06:40 PM

It's also RAI. Not that that makes it less fallible...

One fascinating thing is the counterpoint of creating Deathless. Just... cause an overwhelming influx of Positive Energy into the world. Increase crop harvests and healthy births! And locust swarms! And cancer!
That deserves a [Good] tag, right?

Ya Positive Energy is just as destructive as Negative Energy, its just looks nice before it kills you.

Also the argument that Negative Energy can only kill is bogus, Tomb Tainted Soul is a feat that makes you powered by negative energy, you just cant be good when you take it (which i think is dumb). So ya, Negative Energy can totally create life too, which is why i have never understood why unintelligent undead are Evil.

Libris Mortis, page 9, has a detailed list of what Undead dietary habits are from hunger, and which are from craving. If a Vampire doesn't drink blood for 3d6 months, it stops moving entirely.

Ok so that a thing, but do they have to eat sapient creatures? Cuz if not i return to my "lacking a soul, lacking empathy" argument for a valid reason as to why they are Evil. Hell im probably gonna use that explanation for why Shadows and Wraiths are evil.

Psyren

2015-08-10, 07:01 PM

So undead have a special kind of negative energy that is more dangerous? Otherwise this is like saying a match is more dangerous than a flamethrower because there are more of them ;P

A poor analogy because what matters here is the quantity of the insides - the fuel or the fire, which a flamethrower definitely has more of than a match.

Sure, it is RAW - but as was proven many, many times, RAW often ranges from silly to outright stupid, and the alignment rules are even worse...

Again, you can like that explanation or not. I happen to think it makes perfect sense. You don't and that's okay, houserule away. The Fun Police won't show up at your door to light your DM screen on fire.

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-11, 11:06 AM

A poor analogy because what matters here is the quantity of the insides - the fuel or the fire, which a flamethrower definitely has more of than a match.
I'd consider a being made just about fully out of negative energy to have more of said energy than a skeleton - hence the matches and flamethrower analogy.

That deserves a [Good] tag, right?
Of course - cancer cells and locust have a right to live and neither is powered by that vile negative energy.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 11:15 AM

I'd consider a being made just about fully out of negative energy to have more of said energy than a skeleton - hence the matches and flamethrower analogy.

And yet their type is "outsider" rather than "undead" - which to me suggests that, as literal "outsiders" to the material plane, perhaps only a fraction of that energy is actually affecting our realm. It's not the same as, say, a shadow or wight.

After all, if you cast banish/dismissal on a skeleton or zombie it sticks around, but if you banish a xeg-yi it's gone. There's an argument to be made that there is a difference between the connections to the NEP that they share, represented by their creature type. The LM provision only applies to undead after all. One theory is that the skeleton could presumably serve as more of an "anchor" for such evil energies than an energon could, whose link to our world is more tenuous and easily broken.

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 11:34 AM

And yet their type is "outsider" rather than "undead" - which to me suggests that, as literal "outsiders" to the material plane, perhaps only a fraction of that energy is actually affecting our realm. It's not the same as, say, a shadow or wight.

After all, if you cast banish/dismissal on a skeleton or zombie it sticks around, but if you banish a xeg-yi it's gone. There's an argument to be made that there is a difference between the connections to the NEP that they share, represented by their creature type. The LM provision only applies to undead after all. One theory is that the skeleton could presumably serve as more of an "anchor" for such evil energies than an energon could, whose link to our world is more tenuous and easily broken.

Point of Order: That LM provision is 1 optional(not default) theory of the several optional theories listed in LM of the many theories LM alludes to.

So while you might DM as Undead corrupting the material plane with negative energy, a better answer to the OP's question is that the DM needs to decide how undead work and then make moral judgments based upon that decision. That decision might even result in the opposite of that theory(aka animating is Good because it helps fight the positive energy corruption on the material plane).

Telonius

2015-08-11, 11:47 AM

Another weird thing thrown into the works are the Extraplanar Undead - things like Nightshades, Devourers, and Bodaks. Note that while they're native to other planes, their type is not Outsider, it's Undead (Extraplanar).

Necroticplague

2015-08-11, 11:58 AM

Who cares? It's not like being PC requires non-evil, and all the consequences of being an alignment are what spells punch you in the face harder and what afterlife you end up in.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 12:02 PM

Point of Order: That LM provision is 1 optional(not default) theory of the several optional theories listed in LM of the many theories LM alludes to.

So while you might DM as Undead corrupting the material plane with negative energy, a better answer to the OP's question is that the DM needs to decide how undead work and then make moral judgments based upon that decision. That decision might even result in the opposite of that theory(aka animating is Good because it helps fight the positive energy corruption on the material plane).

No - animating is evil no matter what theory you come up with, per BoVD. Furthermore, all the undead creation spells are [Evil], again regardless of the theory you come up with. This is all RAW. Making it a good act is a houserule.

Whichever LM theory you go with, or none at all, does not change the RAW. I happen to like that theory because it fits the RAW best, but it is not required.

Brova

2015-08-11, 12:13 PM

No - animating is evil no matter what theory you come up with, per BoVD. Furthermore, all the undead creation spells are [Evil], again regardless of the theory you come up with. This is all RAW. Making it a good act is a houserule.

Whichever LM theory you go with, or none at all, does not change the RAW. I happen to like that theory because it fits the RAW best, but it is not required.

Going by the [Good] or [Evil] alignment tags to determine morality is not a good idea. Such things as rewriting someone's personality (programmed amnesia), trapping their soul (trap the soul), boiling their blood (burning blood), or inflicting lethal pain over a period of more than a minute (power word pain) are not [Evil]. You know what is [Evil]? magic circle against good. You know what you need magic circle against good for? Acquiring the services of a creature that is explicitly [Good] via planar binding.

All that the [Evil] tag actually does is tell you what happens when a Good Cleric tries to prepare/cast/whatever the spell.

hamishspence

2015-08-11, 12:47 PM

I can't find "power word: pain" in the PHB. There's symbol of pain - but that has the [evil] tag.

You know what is [Evil]? magic circle against good. You know what you need magic circle against good for? Acquiring the services of a creature that is explicitly [Good] via planar binding.

And given that Planar binding involves trapping a being and coercing it into performing a service in exchange for its freedom - it's kind of evil anyway. Good clerics really shouldn't be coercing celestials.

Andezzar

2015-08-11, 01:30 PM

I can't find "power word: pain" in the PHB. There's symbol of pain - but that has the [evil] tag.It's in Races of the Dragon and does not have the [Evil] tag, but the application of that descriptor is really weird. A magical landmine that kills people (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) is not [Evil] but one that only causes pain but no lasting injury (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPain.htm) and a spell that tells you whether creatures in the area are alive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) are.:smallconfused:

And given that Planar binding involves trapping a being and coercing it into performing a service in exchange for its freedom - it's kind of evil anyway. Good clerics really shouldn't be coercing celestials.Exactly. But which spells can the good arcane caster use to call for extraplanar aid?

Brova

2015-08-11, 01:31 PM

I can't find "power word: pain" in the PHB. There's symbol of pain - but that has the [evil] tag.

Yes, there are certainly some spells that appear to both be obviously immoral and have the [Evil] tag. For example, both wrack and flensing are [Evil]. But it doesn't appear to be universal. mindrape and programmed amnesia are nearly the same spell, yet one is [Evil] and one is not. Summoning a creature which is compelled to serve you is [Evil], but only the summoned creature is [Evil]. Otherwise it could be a neutral or even [Good] act. Controlling someone's mind with dominate person, taking over their body with magic jar, or simply killing them instantly with slay living is not [Evil]. On the other hand, deathwatch, which simply allows you to tell if creatures are alive, is [Evil].

There's not actually any overall pattern though. Is a spell that deals electricity damage with a chance to stun evil? Apparently it is, because that's the mystic lash spell.

And given that Planar binding involves trapping a being and coercing it into performing a service in exchange for its freedom - it's kind of evil anyway. Good clerics really shouldn't be coercing celestials.

But actually casting planar binding to summon an angel is [Good]. By the logic people are using, actually calling the creature and forcing it to serve is good, but using protection is evil.

hamishspence

2015-08-11, 01:39 PM

As written, only wizards/sorcerers use the spell anyway.

The reason the spell has the alignment of the creature it summons, whatever it is, is probably that it introduces a big burst of that energy into the world.

So - a multiclass paladin of tyranny/wizard that summons a celestial, for whatever reason, breaks their code of conduct against "committing an good act" - and a paladin of honor/wizard also does so (against committing an evil act)- but by casting the magic circle spell first, to create the trap.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 01:48 PM

Going by the [Good] or [Evil] alignment tags to determine morality is not a good idea. Such things as rewriting someone's personality (programmed amnesia), trapping their soul (trap the soul), boiling their blood (burning blood), or inflicting lethal pain over a period of more than a minute (power word pain) are not [Evil]. You know what is [Evil]? magic circle against good. You know what you need magic circle against good for? Acquiring the services of a creature that is explicitly [Good] via planar binding.

All that the [Evil] tag actually does is tell you what happens when a Good Cleric tries to prepare/cast/whatever the spell.

1) I'm talking about RAW for the D&D game, not what may or may not be a "good idea," which is wholly subjective.
2) If you have to bind a good outsider to get its help, chances are that whatever you're using it for isn't very good. "The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom" doesn't exactly imply "respect for life."

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 01:48 PM

No - animating is evil no matter what theory you come up with, per BoVD. Furthermore, all the undead creation spells are [Evil], again regardless of the theory you come up with. This is all RAW. Making it a good act is a houserule.

Whichever LM theory you go with, or none at all, does not change the RAW. I happen to like that theory because it fits the RAW best, but it is not required.

1) I'm talking about RAW for the D&D game, not what may or may not be a "good idea," which is wholly subjective.

Sorry, but since when was RAW an authority on alignment questions asked by DMs? Animating is evil IFF the DM decides it is evil. Hiding behind RAW is a poor way to answer these kinds of questions. Sure it avoids subjectivity, but alignment questions demand recognizing subjectivity especially when it is the DM asking the question.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 01:50 PM

Sorry, but since when was RAW an authority on alignment questions asked by DMs? Animating is evil IFF the DM decides it is evil. Hiding behind RAW is a poor way to answer these kinds of questions.

It's common ground. If we talk about "well, my DM says animating undead is X" and the other guy says "my DM says animating undead is Y," then what is there to discuss? That's a conversation for you to have with your DM, not on a messageboard with people who don't game at your table and couldn't care less what your DM thinks.

Brova

2015-08-11, 01:52 PM

1) I'm talking about RAW for the D&D game, not what may or may not be a "good idea," which is wholly subjective.
2) If you have to bind a good outsider to get its help, chances are that whatever you're using it for isn't very good. "The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom" doesn't exactly imply "respect for life."

1) I don't think there's any indication that casting [Evil] spells makes your alignment stop being good. I mean, if you are a Paladin it's not a terribly good plan, but if you are a Wizard or Dread Necromancer it doesn't really seem to do anything.
2) Stop. That's the same logic you're rejecting as a justification for using animate dead for good. If it is sometimes morally not okay to cast a spell with the [Good] descriptor, it is also sometimes morally okay to cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 01:53 PM

It's common ground. If we talk about "well, my DM says animating undead is X" and the other guy says "my DM says animating undead is Y," then what is there to discuss? That's a conversation for you to have with your DM, not on a messageboard with people who don't game at your table and couldn't care less what your DM thinks.

If the OP were a PC rather than a DM, I would agree to disagree, but that is not the case.

Since the OP is a DM(and asking as a DM), then common ground(which isn't really common since many deviate from RAW alignment stupidity) is less useful a response than a diverse set of positions that the OP(a DM) can use to form their own position.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 01:57 PM

Since the OP is a DM, then common ground(which isn't really common since many deviate from RAW alignment stupidity) is less useful a response than a diverse set of positions that the OP(a DM) can use to from their own position.

Knowing RAW is always valuable, even if you plan to throw it out.

Besides, you won't even get consensus on whether this particular bit of RAW is stupid, much less what to do about it if you think that. Hoping thus is an exercise in futility.

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 02:02 PM

Knowing RAW is always valuable, even if you plan to throw it out.

Besides, you won't even get consensus on whether this particular bit of RAW is stupid, much less what to do about it if you think that. Hoping thus is an exercise in futility.

1) I agree stating RAW's position is valuable. I disagree about using it as a tool to "refute" other positions on a thread like this. Hence I pointed out that part of LM lists a bunch of different positions(and alludes to even more).

2) Why would we be looking for a consensus here? A diverse set of positions allows the OP to form their own opinion drawing upon the positions posted. A single consensus is less useful for this goal.

hamishspence

2015-08-11, 02:14 PM

1) I don't think there's any indication that casting [Evil] spells makes your alignment stop being good. I mean, if you are a Paladin it's not a terribly good plan, but if you are a Wizard or Dread Necromancer it doesn't really seem to do anything.

Dread Necromancers can't be good aligned anyway.

That said, to quote BoVD "Sometimes a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption and destruction."

Eberron Campaign Setting grants clerics a specific exemption from "cannot cast opposed alignment spells" - but in a way that suggests that casting them may still eventually cause alignment change:

p35:

A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric's alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments.

And Complete Scoundrel's Malconvoker PRC has, as a class feature, immunity to alignment change from regular casting [Evil] conjuration spells.

Psyren

2015-08-11, 03:01 PM

1) I agree stating RAW's position is valuable. I disagree about using it as a tool to "refute" other positions on a thread like this. Hence I pointed out that part of LM lists a bunch of different positions(and alludes to even more).

I wasn't refuting - just pointing out that non-evil undead animation is a houserule. There's nothing wrong with houserules, you know - so long as you're aware that's what they are.

2) Why would we be looking for a consensus here? A diverse set of positions allows the OP to form their own opinion drawing upon the positions posted. A single consensus is less useful for this goal.

Then why do you have an issue with me providing another perspective? The RAW stance is equally valid, however "stupid" you consider it to be.

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 03:06 PM

I wasn't refuting - just pointing out that non-evil undead animation is a houserule. There's nothing wrong with houserules, you know - so long as you're aware that's what they are.

You might want to work on your tone then if you are doing this unintentionally. Perhaps state RAW's position rather than focusing on proving everything else is not RAW?

Psyren

2015-08-11, 03:10 PM

You might want to work on your tone then if you are doing this unintentionally. Perhaps state RAW's position rather than focusing on proving everything else is not RAW?

Pointing that fact out isn't wrong, so I stand by my statements.

Regardless, as you stated, it's up to the OP what he wants to do; in the opening post he seemed fine with this sort of necromancy being evil, and was actually asking about associates' alignment rather than the alignment of the necromancer himself.

OldTrees1

2015-08-11, 03:19 PM

Pointing that fact out isn't wrong, so I stand by my statements.

I never said that it was wrong, merely that you (apparently unknowingly) are using RAW as a "refutation" to discredit non RAW positions in this thread which in turn is counter productive to the purpose of such a thread.

So I stand by my statements especially if the tone of your posts remains invisible to you.

Just, think about it. Have a good day(off to make spaghetti).

Taveena

2015-08-11, 03:57 PM

Eberron Campaign Setting grants clerics a specific exemption from "cannot cast opposed alignment spells" - but in a way that suggests that casting them may still eventually cause alignment change:

Eberron also somewhat distances cosmic morality from subjective morality.

hamishspence

2015-08-11, 03:59 PM

The rules are still basically the same - it's just that deities are far more distant, hence the "no such thing as an ex-cleric" principle (and monsters are more varied in alignment).

Psyren

2015-08-11, 04:10 PM

I never said that it was wrong, merely that you (apparently unknowingly) are using RAW as a "refutation" to discredit non RAW positions in this thread which in turn is counter productive to the purpose of such a thread.

So I stand by my statements especially if the tone of your posts remains invisible to you.

Just, think about it. Have a good day(off to make spaghetti).

Uh-huh.

Eberron also somewhat distances cosmic morality from subjective morality.

Eberron still considers casting evil spells (which most undead creation spells are) to be an evil act, and your alignment will shift if you do it too much, just like in standard D&D (ECS 35.) However, there is no actual penalty for your alignment shifting. Your church might censure you for it, but you won't lose any class features, and you can cast evil spells as a good cleric all day long and vice-versa. (Barring the potential shift mentioned above if you make a habit of it.)

Blackhawk748

2015-08-11, 05:18 PM

Hilariously creating a Zombie with Fell Animate isnt evil. So feel free to burn them to death with a Fell Animate Orb of Fire and then tell them to eat their buddies. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2015-08-11, 05:27 PM

Per BoVD, creating undead by any means is an evil act, whether or not you cast an [evil] spell to do it. (Doing it that way is just two evil acts instead of one.)

Blackhawk748

2015-08-11, 06:05 PM

Per BoVD, creating undead by any means is an evil act, whether or not you cast an [evil] spell to do it. (Doing it that way is just two evil acts instead of one.)

That seems ridiculousto me. How is creating a Skeleton more evil than summoning a Balor??

Psyren

2015-08-11, 06:26 PM

That seems ridiculousto me. How is creating a Skeleton more evil than summoning a Balor??

It's not - summoning a Balor would be two evil acts as well ("Casting Evil Spells" and "Consorting With Fiends.")

Blackhawk748

2015-08-11, 07:15 PM

It's not - summoning a Balor would be two evil acts as well ("Casting Evil Spells" and "Consorting With Fiends.")

Forgot about that second part. Still seems like it should be more evil though...

Taveena

2015-08-12, 04:31 AM

hamishspence

2015-08-12, 07:15 AM

I figure that, like malconvokers, they're special when it comes to certain [evil] magical effects.

So, a Good Hellbred cleric of a Good deity can cast [Evil] spells, getting around the normal cleric restriction.

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-12, 07:17 AM

Doesn't this imply that the rules of the universe are less than immutable?
Of course they are immutable - raising undead on the Negative Energy Plane (and leaving them there) is evil since you're bringing negative energy from the NEP into the area :smalltongue:

Psyren

2015-08-12, 08:08 AM

So here's a weird tangent: Hellbred. They can cast Evil spells regardless of their alignment, and do not suffer a penalty for not being Evil in regards to magic items.

Doesn't this imply that the rules of the universe are less than immutable?

The ability that lets them do so is called "Evil Exception." The use of "exception" supports the fact that there is indeed a rule.

Of course they are immutable - raising undead on the Negative Energy Plane (and leaving them there) is evil since you're bringing negative energy from the NEP into the area :smalltongue:

You joke, but actually yes - adding a negative to an existing negative only makes it stronger, even if only by the barest fraction. Strengthening the NEP will only have problems down the road for the living, because its hunger for life is limitless. In addition, there are unstable areas on the plane called Doldrums that are less negative than their surroundings, but adding more negative energy can cause even these relatively benign areas to collapse. This is what happened to the city of Death Heart, designed to be an isolated utopia where the innate hostility of the plane would keep foreigners away. The experiment failed rather spectacularly and undead overran it, devouring the inhabitants.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 08:28 AM

You joke, but actually yes - adding a negative to an existing negative only makes it stronger, even if only by the barest fraction. Strengthening the NEP will only have problems down the road for the living, because its hunger for life is limitless. In addition, there are unstable areas on the plane called Doldrums that are less negative than their surroundings, but adding more negative energy can cause even these relatively benign areas to collapse. This is what happened to the city of Death Heart, designed to be an isolated utopia where the innate hostility of the plane would keep foreigners away. The experiment failed rather spectacularly and undead overran it, devouring the inhabitants.

The problem is they are not actually ADDING negative energy. They are opening an extraplanar rift FROM the Negative Energy Plane TO the Negative Energy Plane. Arguably, concentrating some of the Negative Energy in one place centered around Undead would cause MORE Doldrums to form elsewhere on the plane.

There is no adding going on here, any more than scooping a bucket of water out of the lake and pouring it back in is making the lake deeper.

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-12, 08:32 AM

You joke, but actually yes - adding a negative to an existing negative only makes it stronger, even if only by the barest fraction. Strengthening the NEP will only have problems down the road for the living, because its hunger for life is limitless.
How exactly does it strengthen the NEP? LM claims the undead may "drain the energies of the Material Plane, sending it to the NEP", and logically an undead staying in the NEP cannot drain the Material - just NEP itself. So at most you're moving a bit of NE from one part of the plane to another, the total amount doesn't change - just like pumping some water from one side of a lake to the other won't create more water.

Edit - swordsage'd

Psyren

2015-08-12, 08:34 AM

The problem is they are not actually ADDING negative energy. They are opening an extraplanar rift FROM the Negative Energy Plane TO the Negative Energy Plane. Arguably, concentrating some of the Negative Energy in one place centered around Undead would cause MORE Doldrums to form elsewhere on the plane.

There is no adding going on here, any more than scooping a bucket of water out of the lake and pouring it back in is making the lake deeper.

Except you're not just scooping - you're casting a necromancy spell, thus you are adding energy - your own personal energy, in the form of your spell slots. Nothing would happen if you didn't do this, whereas if you do the number of undead on the plane increases.

The beauty about it is that it doesn't even matter whether you're undead yourself. If you're alive, the spell slots you have from being alive get converted into negative energy by the necromancy. If you're undead, there is no conversion of living energy to death, but you're still turning your spell slots into more undead. Either way, yes, you're definitely adding energy.

How exactly does it strengthen the NEP? LM claims the undead may "drain the energies of the Material Plane, sending it to the NEP", and logically an undead staying in the NEP cannot drain the Material - just NEP itself. So at most you're moving a bit of NE from one part of the plane to another, the total amount doesn't change - just like pumping some water from one side of a lake to the other won't create more water.

Edit - swordsage'd

See above.

Divayth Fyr

2015-08-12, 08:42 AM

Except you're not just scooping - you're casting a necromancy spell, thus you are adding energy - your own personal energy, in the form of your spell slots. Nothing would happen if you didn't do this, whereas if you do the number of undead on the plane increases.
Can't remeber any place stating that the spell gets turned into negative energy - have you a citation on that, or is it homebrew?

Taveena

2015-08-12, 08:47 AM

Except you're not just scooping - you're casting a necromancy spell, thus you are adding energy - your own personal energy, in the form of your spell slots. Nothing would happen if you didn't do this, whereas if you do the number of undead on the plane increases.

And that energy is opening a portal from the NEP to the NEP. Sure, that takes energy, but that's like saying that opening a portal from the Plane of Water to the Plane of Water makes the Plane of Water wetter.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 09:00 AM

Can't remeber any place stating that the spell gets turned into negative energy - have you a citation on that, or is it homebrew?

"Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place." - BoVD 8

"The world" there can be interpreted to mean the entire cosmology; no matter where in creation you are, animating undead there makes it a "darker and more evil place," even if such a place is as dark as can be already. (And from my earlier MotP pg. 81 cite, we know that the negative energy plane is in fact not yet as dark as it can possibly be - there are still pockets of relative safety.)

The fact that the spell is Evil whether you're in Celestia, Baator or even the NEP supports this interpretation of the RAW.

And that energy is opening a portal from the NEP to the NEP. Sure, that takes energy, but that's like saying that opening a portal from the Plane of Water to the Plane of Water makes the Plane of Water wetter.

If the portal itself were adding water, it would be. You're dealing with energy here, not matter, so the energy used to channel the energy is itself energy.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 11:19 AM

"Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place." - BoVD 8

"The world" there can be interpreted to mean the entire cosmology; no matter where in creation you are, animating undead there makes it a "darker and more evil place," even if such a place is as dark as can be already. (And from my earlier MotP pg. 81 cite, we know that the negative energy plane is in fact not yet as dark as it can possibly be - there are still pockets of relative safety.)

Oooor, alternatively, it could be interpreted as meaning 'brings it from the Negative Energy Plane to Somewhere Else'. I mean, we also know the Plane of Water has pockets of air and the Plane of Air has islands to float on. Your hypothesis falls somewhat flat if the destruction of Doldrums is such an evil act - if casting those spells on the Negative Energy Plane 'floods' those areas, then casting them on the Positive energy plane should CREATE safe areas. Nevermind that those Doldrums aren't necessarily good-aligned. Why it is an evil act to flood the catacombs of Orcus-cultists on the NEP with negative energy and wipe them all out? Why is it a GOOD act to create Deathless on the Positive Energy Plane and destroy the SAFE areas there?

Psyren

2015-08-12, 11:31 AM

The Positive Energy Plane is not "a needy, greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything that is vulnerable." Making it more positive doesn't actually do anything, because it's not trying to devour life.

There is already entropy in the multiverse - even on timeless planes like the Astral, things die (a lot). Thus, adding more negative to that entropy is never a good thing, and is at best neutral.

More life is thus redressing the cosmic balance, while more death (including undeath) is further upsetting it.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 11:32 AM

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 12:17 PM

So using negative energy - let's say, through an inflict spell, just for ****s and giggles - to stop someone on the PEP exploding is an Evil act?

According to the Positive Energy propaganda? Yes. However the negative energy is inherently evil theory is only 1 theory of the several listed in the Libris Mortis and the many more theories LM alludes to. (Not to mention DMs should make their own alignment decisions rather than blindly trust RAW alignment with all its contradictions)

Psyren

2015-08-12, 12:27 PM

So using negative energy - let's say, through an inflict spell, just for ****s and giggles - to stop someone on the PEP exploding is an Evil act?

Yes, but obviously the good act of saving them would far outweigh that. Evil acts can sometimes be justified.

I think (or rather hope) you'd agree that creating a bunch of skeletons or shadows is a pretty specious comparison to such a scenario though.

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 12:32 PM

Yes, but obviously the good act of saving them would far outweigh that. Evil acts can sometimes be justified.

I think (or rather hope) you'd agree that creating a bunch of skeletons or shadows is a pretty specious comparison to such a scenario though.

I don't know. In the RAW model those two means only differ in magnitude and duration. If the corresponding good act likewise differed in magnitude and duration in the same manner then it would be a rather apt comparison under the RAW model.

If not for magical create food traps, animating skeletons could be offset by creating a post-scarcity world(again under the RAW model).

Psyren

2015-08-12, 12:43 PM

I don't know. In the RAW model those two means only differ in magnitude and duration. If the corresponding good act likewise differed in magnitude and duration in the same manner then it would be a rather apt comparison under the RAW model.

If not for magical create food traps, animating skeletons could be offset by creating a post-scarcity world(again under the RAW model).

The duration matters more than you think, due to the thinning the veil consequence from both BoVD and LM. While a quick inflict to save a PEP traveler would not make the world "a darker and more evil place", filling it with a skeletal labor force would, and per LM would result in more undead you don't control popping up in random and remote locations. Thus, the two are not comparable.

For that matter, while inflict is a useful measure in the immediate term, a truly good character would try to get them out of there or insulate them against the plane's effects. Hosing down someone who keeps bursting into flame because they're standing near a lava flow might be a good act, but making no attempt to get them away from it shows remarkably little regard for their suffering.

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 12:48 PM

The duration matters more than you think, due to the thinning the veil consequence from both BoVD and LM. While a quick inflict to save a PEP traveler would not make the world "a darker and more evil place", filling it with a skeletal labor force would, and per LM would result in more undead you don't control popping up in random and remote locations. Thus, the two are not comparable.

I did not see any RAW on the thinning the veil. The only thing like that was the optional theory(of many) in LM. BoVD merely said that undead were evil.

However even if the thinning were RAW, you are merely talking magnitude which I already covered(by saying if the corresponding good act also differed in magnitude and duration in the same manner). So the two are naturally comparable or at the very least not specious.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 12:53 PM

I did not see any RAW on the thinning the veil. The only thing like that was the optional theory(of many) in LM. BoVD merely said that undead were evil.

LM offers a few theories, but BoVD agrees most strongly with one of them. Therefore I consider that one to be paramount (though note that all of the theories can actually be true simultaneously.) "Undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place" is RAW for the D&D game - this line comes from BoVD, not one of the LM theories.

However even if the thinning were RAW, you are merely talking magnitude which I already covered(by saying if the corresponding good act also differed in magnitude and duration in the same manner).

In the case of saving someone's life via inflict, yes - you commit an instantaneous act with an instantaneous result (saving their life.) Creating an undead however has an ongoing effect: "The very existence of even the weakest undead produces a constant drain on the energies of the Material Plane, which accounts for sensations of cold often attributed to the unliving." Note that this is presented as an observed effect to support the theory, not as theory itself.

Again, all I'm doing is citing the decisions the designers have made about the game as presented in their rulebooks. I'm not at all saying all undead in every game need to work this way, but that's how they work in D&D, at least by default.

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 01:01 PM

LM offers a few theories, but BoVD agrees most strongly with one of them. Therefore I consider that one to be paramount (though note that all of the theories can actually be true simultaneously.) "Undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place" is RAW for the D&D game - this line comes from BoVD, not one of the LM theories.
That line could also merely be referring to the energy that is in the Undead(which all undead have and no undead vary from so having). Don't try to pass off your house interpretation as RAW when trying to claim the authority of RAW. (It is fine to use that house interpretation and it is a valid possibility under RAW, but it is not RAW.)

In the case of saving someone's life via inflict, yes - you commit an instantaneous act with an instantaneous result (saving their life.) Creating an undead however has an ongoing effect: "The very existence of even the weakest undead produces a constant drain on the energies of the Material Plane, which accounts for sensations of cold often attributed to the unliving." Note that this is presented as an observed effect to support the theory, not as theory itself.

Again, all I'm doing is citing the decisions the designers have made about the game as presented in their rulebooks. I'm not at all saying all undead in every game need to work this way, but that's how they work in D&D, at least by default.

Instantaneous evil + instantaneous good is comparable to duration evil + duration good provided both the evil and the good differ in the same way and the same amount. If there is a constant good being caused by the constant drain then the comparison is apt.

Edit: Notice "comparable" is not the same as "equal to" merely similar/worthy of comparison.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 01:46 PM

That line could also merely be referring to the energy that is in the Undead(which all undead have and no undead vary from so having).

But if all undead have it, then you're agreeing with me - creating more of them (which invariably have it) is a bad thing.

Instantaneous evil + instantaneous good is comparable to duration evil + duration good provided both the evil and the good differ in the same way and the same amount. If there is a constant good being caused by the constant drain then the comparison is apt.

But the quantity can't ever be the same if uncontrolled undead are popping up and causing harm before they're caught. Every remote hamlet, thorp and village can become a mass graveyard before a cleric even knows what's happening. That's why this kind of necromancy is so dangerous and considered to be always evil.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 02:10 PM

According to the Positive Energy propaganda? Yes. However the negative energy is inherently evil theory is only 1 theory of the several listed in the Libris Mortis and the many more theories LM alludes to. (Not to mention DMs should make their own alignment decisions rather than blindly trust RAW alignment with all its contradictions)

That's what I've been implying this whole time, in part because D&D's own authors are INCREDIBLY inconsistent on this, like all alignment matters, resulting in a kludge of half-rules and fluff full of contradictions.

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 02:11 PM

But if all undead have it, then you're agreeing with me - creating more of them (which invariably have it) is a bad thing.

Um, there is a lot of difference from "Undead all contain negative energy" and "There exist undead that weaken the veil". Undead are artificial constructs that run off negative energy they all, by definition, contain negative energy. Thus they creating an undead invariably is making a container with an amount of negative energy in it. This is saying nothing of impacting the planes. For that you would have to go an select that specific one of many theory from Libris Mortis. As soon as you are selecting one of many you have exited RAW and moved to one of many RAW valid positions.

But the quantity can't ever be the same if uncontrolled undead are popping up and causing harm before they're caught. Every remote hamlet, thorp and village can become a mass graveyard before a cleric even knows what's happening. That's why this kind of necromancy is so dangerous and considered to be always evil.

I presume you meant this to be a generalized statement because it is perfectly possible to describe scenarios where the good caused overwhelms the damage the spawned uncontrolled undead can do. As a generalized statement it is a good rule of thumb. Since, under the Thinning the Veil theory, undead grow exponentially(with a really small base given the amount of extant undead in most settings). However the good of Post Scarcity also accumulates exponentially so we know that it is a good start.

A specific, though extreme example I could come up with is:
1) For some population of undead the Rate of destroying controlled undead = Rate of controlling uncontrolled undead = Rate of spawning uncontrolled undead.
2) This population increases with improvements to controlling and destroying infrastructure.
3) Denser population centers result in smaller chance of spawns inside, faster reaction time to internal spawns, and less danger from internal spawns.

Now the good to offset the initial animation, the spawns, and the control would have to be comparable to the evil under the RAW model. Saving lives is good as is other forms of helping and supporting people. A Post Scarcity world is better than a non post scarcity world in that:
1) Nobody lacks any necessities. There is no mass starvation, no homelessness, education would be readily affordable, there is enough of everything to go around, ... Basically most of the normal list of Utopian benefits without the presumption of it actually being a full utopia.

Am I saying that making an undead enabled post scarcity world is a net non-evil action? No. I am saying that it is comparable to the instantaneous example since it is a similar case of more good than evil but has a difference that can be compared.

That's what I've been implying this whole time, in part because D&D's own authors are INCREDIBLY inconsistent on this, like all alignment matters, resulting in a kludge of half-rules and fluff full of contradictions.
Yes. Things like this are why, although knowing the RAW stance is good, DMs are responsible for ruling on alignment themselves. It is also why it is important to recognize that there are many different models for things like undead and alignment that result in vastly different conclusions when evaluated.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 02:14 PM

Yes, but obviously the good act of saving them would far outweigh that. Evil acts can sometimes be justified.

I think (or rather hope) you'd agree that creating a bunch of skeletons or shadows is a pretty specious comparison to such a scenario though.

What if you were creating them to stabilize an area of the Positive Energy Plane to make it more livable?
Also, BoED (p 9) disagrees.
"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
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. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable."

Psyren

2015-08-12, 02:24 PM

What if you were creating them to stabilize an area of the Positive Energy Plane to make it more livable?

Even if that were possible, that would have enormous repercussions for the cosmology as a whole. If you took the source of all positive energy in the multiverse and made it less positive, that would mean less PE for everyone outside the PEP too.

I think where we differ is our conception of the game's premise. D&D is founded on the premise that darkness and evil are winning; there are infinite demons in the Abyss, so many that even other evil creatures (namely devils) are needed to fight them, or we would be overrun. On top of that, entropy is everywhere, even on timeless planes.

Life and goodness are already fighting a losing battle - thus more of that kind of necromancy would be frowned on at best and outright inexcusable at worst. And this is why heroes like the PCs are needed in the first place; if good and life were winning, or even just breaking even, they wouldn't be.

Also, BoED (p 9) disagrees.
"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
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. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats."

That passage supports me actually - it says exactly what I did, that casting an evil spell is an evil act no matter what good it does. A non-evil cleric who made a habit of it would fall. But to quote Hinjo, "there wouldn't be an atonement spell if it wasn't meant to be used once in awhile." That cleric would have a choice to make, and would be obliged to find another way as much as he could.

Um, there is a lot of difference from "Undead all contain negative energy" and "There exist undead that weaken the veil". Undead are artificial constructs that run off negative energy they all, by definition, contain negative energy. Thus they creating an undead invariably is making a container with an amount of negative energy in it. This is saying nothing of impacting the planes. For that you would have to go an select that specific one of many theory from Libris Mortis. As soon as you are selecting one of many you have exited RAW and moved to one of many RAW valid positions.

Again, the "make the world a darker and more evil place" line is not from a Libris Mortis theory, it is from BoVD.

Besides which, "theory" does not mean "unobservable/counterfactual phenomenon." Gravity is a theory too after all.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 02:30 PM

That passage supports me actually - it says exactly what I did, that casting an evil spell is an evil act no matter what good it does. A non-evil cleric who made a habit of it would fall. But to quote Hinjo, "there wouldn't be an atonement spell if it wasn't meant to be used once in awhile." That cleric would have a choice to make, and would be obliged to find another way as much as he could.
That's giving into the 'your soul is a commodity' theory, though. While I personally prefer to run with Hinjo's interpretation, I don't believe it's RAW. Atonement is intended for ACCIDENTAL evil acts.

Besides which, "theory" does not mean "unobservable/counterfactual phenomenon." Gravity is a theory too after all.

A theory is backed by evidence. A hypothesis is, uh, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 02:32 PM

Again, the "make the world a darker and more evil place" line is not from a Libris Mortis theory, it is from BoVD.

Besides which, "theory" does not mean "unobservable/counterfactual phenomenon." Gravity is a theory too after all.

Again, that line is not indicative of the Libris Mortis theory(although it does not contradict it) it is also describing the base case: Animating the skeleton brings in negative energy to power the skeleton and having more evil undead makes the world a darker(tone/setting) and more evil place without having to grasp at planar fluctuation.

"Theory" has many meaning. The Scientific "theory" is not the same as the here are a bunch of possibilities DMs, these might be useful in creating your worlds "theories". I beg you not to dilute the meaning of "theory" in the scientific context by misusing it outside of that context.

Segev

2015-08-12, 02:34 PM

This is "Segev's Headcanon," so take it as you will, but I tend to view "negative energy" as being exactly as real in the D&D setting as the "positive charge" flowing through a wire in a circuit in the real world.

For those who do not know, when we draw circuits and depict current flowing in a particular direction, the standard is to assume that the current is carrying positive charges towards a region where there is a dearth of them. That is, positive charge is moving to equalize the charge at the two ends of the power source.

In reality, that's exactly opposite of what's happening. It is actually negative charges (electrons) which are moving. So technically, the flow of actual particles is going the opposite direction to that which we have arbitrarily declared current to be moving.

Negative energy isn't a thing. Conceptually, it "exists" and can be thought of as doing things; that's a model that can be used to explain what's happening. But in reality, all there is is positive energy.

Negative energy is its absence.

The positive energy plane is a (functionally) infinite source of this energy; the negative energy plane is a (functionally) infinite sink. Positive energy naturally flows into the Material Plane, generally through living beings. Living beings are conduits of this energy, and the flow of it, much like current powers electronics, powers the forces of life that keep the living moving.

Objects - non-living things - are inert and do not have positive energy flowing through them. They're just there. This includes most corpses as much as it does sandwiches and swords.

The undead, conceptually, are viewed as similar conduits of negative energy into the Material Plane, and function off of that flow the way the living do off of the flow of Positive Energy. In reality, they're conduits to the Negative Plane...but what is flowing is positive energy out from the Material p=Plane to the Negative.

Positive energy heals the living because it supercharges the healing processes of life. It hurts the undead because it's like turning up the pressure on a hose not meant to handle that much flow. Negative energy hurts the living for a similar reason; the sudden dearth of positive energy causes a brief increase of the flow, which doesn't supercharge anything and instead burns it out a little bit. It heals the undead by smoothing the flow.

Thus, creating undead is creating conduits to the negative energy plane. Conduits which mimic the shape of the living conduits to the positive plane, but pull energy out rather than allowing it in.

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 02:41 PM

This is "Segev's Headcanon," so take it as you will, but I tend to view "negative energy" as being exactly as real in the D&D setting as the "positive charge" flowing through a wire in a circuit in the real world.

Neat headcanon.

I am not sure I buy your explanation for how undead heal/get damaged(wouldn't an inflict spell cut off an undead's source of siphoned energy and thus damage it similar to the living?), but that could be resolved by flipping the interaction(negative energy hurts, positive energy heals) and the idea of using the energy planes as sources/sinks is neat enough to be worth such a flip.

I am a bit curious how the other inner planes get worked into your idea but I don't know if this is the place for that.

Segev

2015-08-12, 02:46 PM

Extremely briefly: the elemental planes provide the Material that makes up the Material Plane.

As for the heal/harm of positive/negative energy, it does need some work, yeah.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 02:52 PM

That's giving into the 'your soul is a commodity' theory, though. While I personally prefer to run with Hinjo's interpretation, I don't believe it's RAW. Atonement is intended for ACCIDENTAL evil acts.

Deliberate/purposeful ones only require an XP cost from the caster, they are very much still allowed. It's one more reason for the cleric to not make such a choice lightly, and to find as many alternatives as he can, but it is an option even voluntarily.

A theory is backed by evidence. A hypothesis is, uh, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

The Libris Mortis lines are evidence. They are things that spellcasters in D&D settings have noticed. For example, they've noticed the prevalence of mindless, uncontrolled undead with no controlling necromancers giving them orders, or they've noticed that lands that tend to focus on necromancy tend to end up dark, dreary and evil. And that's just the mindless ones - worse are the intelligent ones, especially those with cravings, like Ghouls, Wights, Shadows and Vampires.

Again, that line is not indicative of the Libris Mortis theory(although it does not contradict it) it is also describing the base case: Animating the skeleton brings in negative energy to power the skeleton and having more evil undead makes the world a darker(tone/setting) and more evil place without having to grasp at planar fluctuation.

Let me ask you this then - why do you think it makes the world more evil, if all the evil comes and goes with the act of creation? The net effect of your interpretation does not fit with that line, whereas mine does.

"Theory" has many meaning. The Scientific "theory" is not the same as the here are a bunch of possibilities DMs, these might be useful in creating your worlds "theories". I beg you not to dilute the meaning of "theory" in the scientific context by misusing it outside of that context.

It's pretty clear to me that is the context being used in LM. That whole section is speaking in-universe - referring to "debates raging among scholars."

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 02:59 PM

Let me ask you this then - why do you think it makes the world more evil, if all the evil comes and goes with the act of creation? The net effect of your interpretation does not fit with that line, whereas mine does.
I refer you to the Skeleton statblock in the Monster Manual. There is evil left after the spell goes. (at least unless it is one of the rare exceptions as detailed in the Monster Manual and Savage Species)

It's pretty clear to me that is the context being used in LM. That whole section is speaking in-universe - referring to "debates raging among scholars."
It is pretty clear to me that the context being used in LM is "here are some fluff for some ideas for how you the DM could have undead work". So if you are using "theory" IC inside a game where the DM decided to add one of those ideas, then it makes sense to speak using the scientific "theory". However I, as a student of Genetics, beg you not to dilute the meaning of a scientific theory by making such a comparison outside of an IC in game statement(like how your post read).

Psyren

2015-08-12, 03:07 PM

I refer you to the Skeleton statblock in the Monster Manual. There is evil left after the spell goes. (at least unless it is one of the rare exceptions as detailed in the Monster Manual and Savage Species)

So you agree then that creating evil creatures is an evil act? (Actually, whether you agree or not, BoVD specifically calls this out too on page 9.)

OldTrees1

2015-08-12, 03:13 PM

So you agree then that creating evil creatures is an evil act? (Actually, whether you agree or not, BoVD specifically calls this out too on page 9.)

I have been saying that the RAW model does call it out as an evil act. I was just pointing out that the comparison was not specious.

However I don't always agree with RAW alignment for my games (especially the BoED and BoVD which are downright awful in some areas).

Taveena

2015-08-12, 03:40 PM

So you agree then that creating evil creatures is an evil act? (Actually, whether you agree or not, BoVD specifically calls this out too on page 9.)

Got it. Drow Sex is evil.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 03:48 PM

Got it. Drow Sex is evil.

Drow aren't "invariably evil" - I believe "usually" in D&D just means over 50%, though I forget the source for that. (Savage Species maybe?) This doesn't apply to skeletons though.

It's also unclear if children have alignment at all, though of course this doesn't apply to skeletons either.

Segev

2015-08-12, 03:52 PM

Got it. Drow Sex is evil.

Knowing their culture? They probably take pains to make it so.

Andezzar

2015-08-12, 04:00 PM

Drow aren't "invariably evil" - I believe "usually" in D&D just means over 50%, though I forget the source for that. (Savage Species maybe?)It's right there in the Glossary (MM1 p. 305)

Psyren

2015-08-12, 04:15 PM

It's right there in the Glossary (MM1 p. 305)

Ahh, thank you sir or madam.

@ Taveena: Note that per this page reference, it can also be due to "strong cultural influences." For the most part, these take effect after conception, thus Drow sex should be (or at least can be) fine.

Brookshw

2015-08-12, 04:40 PM

Wow, so the old axiom is true and everything comes back to sex. Why are undead evil? Because sex, that's why!

Psyren

2015-08-12, 04:46 PM

Wow, so the old axiom is true and everything comes back to sex. Why are undead evil? Because sex, that's why!

Hey, they don't call it "boning" for nothing :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

Segev

2015-08-12, 04:47 PM

Hey, they don't call it "boning" for nothing :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

Hey, Xykon isn't one of those sicko vitophiliacs!

Brookshw

2015-08-12, 04:54 PM

Hey, Xykon isn't one of those sicko vitophiliacs!

Not yet, but just wait til we take lich loved :smallbiggrin:

ExLibrisMortis

2015-08-12, 05:02 PM

As long as we're adding headcannons:

I personally think of it as cosmopolitics: imagine that the inner planes are arranged around the material plane as the six sides of a die, with positive and negative, fire and water, and earth and air, opposite to eachother (you can add more dimensions, like wood/metal). The good-aligned planes are across from the positive energy plane, from the perspective of the material plane, while the evil-aligned planes are across from the negative energy plane. Fire and air are chaotic, water and earth lawful, and the relevant planes are near their elemental associates. These inner planes are big, regenerating bags of energy, and a lot of magic runs on their power.

Now, originally, the inhabitants of the outer planes just used the closest convenient power source, without any moral ideas about that. Humans, being the positive energy-aligned simpletons they are, equated the use of negative energy (harmful to them, and their food) to evil, and from there, the association with the 'lower', 'evil' planes is easily made. The 'good', 'positive' deities have used a mixture of propoganda and development aid to keep humans, elves and dwarves quite solidly aligned with Team Positive.

Now, these kinds of oppositions - squabbles over material plane* influence - can turn sour pretty quickly, and today, there isn't much left of the original neutrality of positive and negative energy. Using one or the other is immediately taken as support for one side or the other, even if you didn't mean it that way. The evil deities 'tax' any negative energy channeling (being in the position to do so, close as they are), effectively gaining a small part of every negative spell's energy for themselves. The 'good' deities do the same with positive spells.

Detect evil, and its cousins, quite literally detect alignment - cosmic alignment, the flux of planar power channels surrounding a given creature or object. A skilled caster can trace the channels to a particular deity, if any, and even siphon or redirect power, with Ur-Priests as most extreme examples of hi-jacking deific power channels.

*Naturally, the material plane is equally close to all inner and outer planes, making it impossible for any deity to get a 'home ground' advantage.

Blackhawk748

2015-08-12, 05:10 PM

Necroticplague

2015-08-12, 05:33 PM

Also ive never understood how making undead makes the world "a darker and more evil place". So your telling me that taking a Neutral substance and sticking it in this corpse here is evil, but taking this other Neutral substance and sticking it in this body made of stitched corpse parts is Neutral? What. :smallmad: Its even worse when you realize that you can totally use a Negative Energy Elemental in your golem. So not only have you taken the nasty vile Negative Energy out of its plane, you took an intelligent being and rammed it into a large mechanical body to fight for you. Ya thats totally less Evil.

I don't think there are Negative Energy Elementals. The closest thing I can think of are Energons, which are outsiders (despite everything else about them that makes them seem like they should be elementals).

Blackhawk748

2015-08-12, 05:49 PM

I don't think there are Negative Energy Elementals. The closest thing I can think of are Energons, which are outsiders (despite everything else about them that makes them seem like they should be elementals).

....Thats just weird. Still if there were Negative Energy Elementals you could make a golem with them and it would be Neutral, because apparently pressganging intelligent beings is Neutral now.

Also Headcanon? Wonderful. :smallbiggrin:

Positive Energy is Life. Negative Energy is Death. Everyone knows this. What few know is that Lady Death truly does reside in the center of the Negative Energy Plane, and no one escapes her forever. You may run for centuries, even millennia, but all fall eventually.

The Material plane is affected by Planar "tides" when one plane is in ascendant in a certain area. Earth creates ground tremors, Air creates windstorms, Water creates torrential rains and flooding, Fire a drought. The Positive Energy plane creates good growing seasons and increases fertility, when it is particularly strong some Ravids may come through. When the Negative Energy Plane is in ascendant crop yields are poor and infertility is common, as the power grows undead begin to appear. This happens much sooner than with the Positive Plane because it takes much less power to create an Undead than to summon a Ravid.

The gods saw this ages ago and gave their followers the ability to fight the undead. This plus centuries of hatred and the strong cultural taboos against desecrating bodies has led to the belief that all undead are evil, when in fact only intelligent ones have any alignment at all. The are simply attracted to the nearest and largest source of Positive Energy and try to destroy it. This doesnt help their appearance

People have used the inability to resurrect those whose bodies are currently animated as proof that it is a vile and horrid practice, when in fact the reason that the soul cannot reenter the body is because the place where it would reside is occupied.

So the reason Unintelligent Undead are evil is because enough people have believed they are for long enough that it has become a sort of cosmological truth.

Jack_Simth

2015-08-12, 06:28 PM

Also ive never understood how making undead makes the world "a darker and more evil place". So your telling me that taking a Neutral substance and sticking it in this corpse here is evil, but taking this other Neutral substance and sticking it in this body made of stitched corpse parts is Neutral? What. :smallmad:You may want to read more closely (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#fleshGolem):
Construction

The pieces of a flesh golem must come from normal human corpses that have not decayed significantly. Assembly requires a minimum of six different bodies—one for each limb, the torso (including head), and the brain. In some cases, more bodies may be necessary. Special unguents and bindings worth 500 gp are also required. Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor.

Assembling the body requires a DC 13 Craft (leatherworking) check or a DC 13 Heal check.

CL 8th; Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, caster must be at least 8th level; Price 20,000 gp; Cost 10,500 gp + 780 XP. (Emphasis added)

Blackhawk748

2015-08-12, 06:30 PM

You may want to read more closely (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#fleshGolem): (Emphasis added)

This is what i get for skimming Golem creation.:smallredface:

Psyren

2015-08-12, 06:33 PM

Wow still going strong :smalltongue:

The whole "Undead are Evil cuz Negative energy kills people" argument bugs me. Yes it's the in universe explanation, and its still wrong. Negative Energy is just as capable as sustaining life as Positive Energy. (see Tomb Tainted Soul) Hilariously animals and other "natural" things can take this feat to also be powered by Negative Energy.

You still have a life force even with that feat; it alters it so that the likes of inflict don't hurt you anymore, but things like Enervation can still harm or kill you.

Also ive never understood how making undead makes the world "a darker and more evil place". So your telling me that taking a Neutral substance and sticking it in this corpse here is evil, but taking this other Neutral substance and sticking it in this body made of stitched corpse parts is Neutral? What. :smallmad: Its even worse when you realize that you can totally use a Negative Energy Elemental in your golem. So not only have you taken the nasty vile Negative Energy out of its plane, you took an intelligent being and rammed it into a large mechanical body to fight for you. Ya thats totally less Evil.

1) I agree that golem creation should be evil too (EDIT: And will you look at that, it is! Thanks Jack) - after all, earth elementals are sapient life. But that doesn't change anything regarding undead either way.
2) Negative energy has no purpose but to destroy life. To me it's like powering a suit with toxic waste - at best it's irresponsible of you and there are other sources you can use, nothing is forcing you to achieve your goals that way. But just because a solar would frown at you doesn't mean you have to stop, just be aware of the hit you're taking.

Jack_Simth

2015-08-12, 07:23 PM

1) I agree that golem creation should be evil too (EDIT: And will you look at that, it is! Thanks Jack) - after all, earth elementals are sapient life. But that doesn't change anything regarding undead either way.Warning: That quote is very specific to flesh golems. Most other golems do not have that clause (or a related spell).

Necroticplague

2015-08-12, 07:28 PM

Concerning flesh golems, I think the part where it refers to casting an evil spell is a reference to the following:

CL 8th; Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, caster must be at least 8th level; Price 20,000 gp; Cost 10,500 gp + 780 XP.
Bolded for emphasis. Other variants of golems are ethically O.K, even though they still have that 'enslave a sentiant elemental' problem, because they don't involve the Animate Dead spell.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 08:36 PM

2) Negative energy has no purpose but to destroy life. To me it's like powering a suit with toxic waste - at best it's irresponsible of you and there are other sources you can use, nothing is forcing you to achieve your goals that way. But just because a solar would frown at you doesn't mean you have to stop, just be aware of the hit you're taking.

Arguably, one of the best uses of toxic waste. You're making something productive out of it.

Taveena

2015-08-12, 09:06 PM

Ahh, thank you sir or madam.

@ Taveena: Note that per this page reference, it can also be due to "strong cultural influences." For the most part, these take effect after conception, thus Drow sex should be (or at least can be) fine.

Alas, nothing is Invariably Evil. The Walker in the Waste is a potentially Neutral undead, and Falls From Grace and Eludecia are non-evil Succubi. Vampires automatically become evil, but there's nothing preventing them from striving to become good again (like the Helm of Opposite Alignment). Really, FFG and Eludecia are proof that the Abyss is just very, very pervasive socialization towards cruelty.

Aldrakan

2015-08-12, 09:53 PM

So the reason Unintelligent Undead are evil is because enough people have believed they are for long enough that it has become a sort of cosmological truth.

My Golarion-specific explanation (Pathfinder yes, but this is a metaphysics discussion and it seems fairly easy to export) is that the power isn't inherently evil, but has been tainted by evil gods; the first undead was supposedly the depraved Urgathoa, and the plane of shadow is the seat of power of the even more depraved Zon-Kuthon. Their influence and the general "ickiness" of undead means that good people mostly shun the power and don't bother finding trying to find non-evil uses for it, while their dominion over negative energy has become pervasive and using it often invokes them.
Like if the first use of fire was a wicked god using it to kill his enemies and he was then sealed within the elemental plane of fire, a disproportionate number of fire spells might end up with the [Evil] descriptor too.

Essentially negative energy isn't inherently evil, but it's been corrupted to the extent that some otherwise innocuous spells are now tainted. This of course leaves the door open for someone to use non-corrupt versions of the spells.

Psyren

2015-08-12, 10:56 PM

Arguably, one of the best uses of toxic waste. You're making something productive out of it.

At massive risk to yourself + innocent bystanders, and with likely unforeseen consequences, with many safer alternatives available, yes. Spot on!

Alas, nothing is Invariably Evil. The Walker in the Waste is a potentially Neutral undead, and Falls From Grace and Eludecia are non-evil Succubi. Vampires automatically become evil, but there's nothing preventing them from striving to become good again (like the Helm of Opposite Alignment). Really, FFG and Eludecia are proof that the Abyss is just very, very pervasive socialization towards cruelty.

Indeed, every rule has exceptions - that doesn't mean calling up 100 fiends to get to the one good one isn't incredibly reckless on your part.