Can a good character cast Animate Dead without issue?

[LordBlade]

So we're being told that using spells with the Evil descriptor will eventually make your character evil. Is this true?
Do you change alignment by casting certain spells?
Does it matter if you're doing non-evil stuff in the mean time?

How does this alignment mechanic work?

[Necroticplague]

So we're being told that using spells with the Evil descriptor will eventually make your character evil. Is this true?
Yes, if you consistently cast them.

Do you change alignment by casting certain spells?
Yes, if you make a habit of it.

Does it matter if you're doing non-evil stuff in the mean time?
Only somewhat. If they are incredibly rare in your life, so you could''t describe it as habitual, then yes. If it's habitually used, it's just like if you habitually torture people: your good deeds start to become irrelevant under the weight of your sins.

How does this alignment mechanic work?
The same as most other parts of it: vaguely.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes.

Out of curiosity, where can I find the info that states that?

[Venger]

So we're being told that using spells with the Evil descriptor will eventually make your character evil. Is this true?

if your gm isn't a jerk, then no. your character's alignment ought to be dictated with how they behave, not what spells they cast. animate dead is a perfect example. you can have your undead slaves build hospitals or till fields for people. spells are tools. it's how you use them that's good or evil. no one argues using a sword makes you evil even if in theory you could use it to kill or hurt people who don't deserve it.



Do you change alignment by casting certain spells?

if you're playing in faerun, yes (though there's no actual rules for how many times you have to cast [evil] spells to suddenly "turn evil" like a joss whedon character, and the rules are silent on whether you flip your good/evil rating immediately, or if you have to make a pit stop in neutral first, or if so for how long)

if you're playing in eberron, or a good setting, then no. your character's alignment is dictated by their behavior and not what kinds of monsters they summon to kill their enemies.



Does it matter if you're doing non-evil stuff in the mean time?
in faerun, no
otherwise, yes


How does this alignment mechanic work?
this alignment mechanic simply doesn't work. it's an excuse for your gm to block off your powers or tell you you're playing the game wrong, and it only seems to be a problem for good or neutral characters. when have you ever heard of someone's gm saying they were casting too many [good] spells, and if they kept it up he'd forcibly change their alignment on the good/evil axis to good? never.

for this reason if you're stuck playing in that kind of campaign, just start out evil and your gm will mostly leave you alone.


Out of curiosity, where can I find the info that states that?

You can't. They do not exist. As Necroticplague said, it only says if you cast them "consistently" then you're in danger of being deprotagonized. There is no RAW definition for what "consistently" means or how many [good] spells you need to cast to balance it out, whether it's a 1:1 ratio, etc.

[Ghen]

Alignment shifting has some very vague rules around it, at best. Mostly, it's up to your DM when your alignment actually switches to something other than what it was.

Generally speaking, doing something evil once or twice will not flop you over from Good to Evil overnight, but making a habit of it will probably eventually make you slip into Neutrality, and eventually Evil. Of course, this is also mitigated by doing "good" activities in the meantime.

Note that doing just one Evil act can have some bad consequences for Paladins (obviously), and I don't think that Clerics of good deities are capable of casting evil divine spells at all (don't quote me on that).

[hamishspence]

BoVD (which is not tied to any one setting) has some "casting evil spells can eventually give you evil alignment" text.

For that matter, so does the Eberron Campaign Setting book.

Heroes of Horror is your go to for "it is possible to balance evil deeds with good intentions and maintain a Neutral alignment".


In 2e, and in 5e, the usual phrasing is "casting animate dead is not a good act, and only evil spellcasters cast it regularly."

[ColorBlindNinja]

You can't. They do not exist. As Necroticplague said, it only says if you cast them "consistently" then you're in danger of being deprotagonized. There is no RAW definition for what "consistently" means or how many [good] spells you need to cast to balance it out, whether it's a 1:1 ratio, etc.

Can you tell me where I can find this text that says that talks about "consistently" casting evil spells?

[Venger]

BoVD (which is not tied to any one setting) has some "casting evil spells can eventually give you evil alignment" text.

For that matter, so does the Eberron Campaign Setting book.

Heroes of Horror is your go to for "it is possible to balance evil deeds with good intentions and maintain a Neutral alignment".


In 2e, and in 5e, the usual phrasing is "casting animate dead is not a good act, and only evil spellcasters cast it regularly."

bovd is tied to faerun. it's got all those gods and demon lords in it.

I was under the impression that eberron allowed you to ignore alignment descriptors with regards to spells and let everyone act like faerunian arcane casters in that regard. could you direct me to the relevant passage?

LordBlade, are you asking about how alignment rules function in 3.5?

[hamishspence]

bovd is tied to faerun. it's got all those gods and demon lords in it.

Actually, all the BOVD gods are Greyhawk gods.

Its demon lords exist in both Greyhawk and Faerun (and can be included without much difficulty in Eberron as rakshasa rajahs).

[Bakkan]

At the risk of getting to far into the weeds, the answer to the question in the OP will depend upon whether your GM and group hold to a consequentialist or deontological view of morality in the D&D universe.

An example of a consequentialist point of view is that espoused by Venger above: an action is Good or Evil if its consequences are positive or negative. Under this view, using undead to build orphanages would likely be counted as Good (or at least not Evil) since the results of the spell are overall positive.

On the other hand, deontological morality states that actions are Good or Evil based on a set of rules, very commonly the tenets of a religion (this is specifically referred to as Divine Command Theory). This is the position typically taken by the writers of D&D. Under this point of view, because the Animate Dead spell has the [Evil] tag, casting it is inherently an evil act. The rules for this can be found in the Book of Vile Darkness, and likely in the Book of Exalted Deeds as well, though I haven't checked that one recently. Usually, the writers of D&D present the forces of Good and Evil as universal forces, and so saying that casting the spell Animate Dead is Evil is just as objective as saying that a given object has a certain mass.

It is common for people who hold to one of these two points of view to strongly disagree with someone who holds the opposite, as their criteria for calling something Good or Evil are very different.

[Karl Aegis]

As always, check your individual class for how your casting mechanic works.

[Venger]

Actually, all the BOVD gods are Greyhawk gods.

Its demon lords exist in both Greyhawk and Faerun (and can be included without much difficulty in Eberron as rakshasa rajahs).

excuse me, you are correct. I always have trouble keeping greyhawk and faerun straight.

[hamishspence]

I don't think that Clerics of good deities are capable of casting evil divine spells at all (don't quote me on that).

Correct actually:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells
A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one).

Eberron is the exception among campaign settings in this respect.



I was under the impression that eberron allowed you to ignore alignment descriptors with regards to spells and let everyone act like faerunian arcane casters in that regard. could you direct me to the relevant passage?



For clerics (and only clerics) it does. But that doesn't affect the "alignment change" rules:

page 35:

"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 forbid their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information on Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful spells on page 33 of the Player's Handbook."

[Necroticplague]

At the risk of getting to far into the weeds, the answer to the question in the OP will depend upon whether your GM and group hold to a consequentialist or deontological view of morality in the D&D universe.

No, it doesn’t. Alignment is not morality. At best, they correlate at points, but not remotely perfectly.

[Venger]

@hamishpence, thank you for the citation


Can you tell me where I can find this text that says that talks about "consistently" casting evil spells?
fiendish codex 2, page 30. cast 9 evil spells, and you're going to hell if you have a lawful alignment.

EDIT: these do not forcibly alter your alignment, they just damn you to the nine hells

At the risk of getting to far into the weeds, the answer to the question in the OP will depend upon whether your GM and group hold to a consequentialist or deontological view of morality in the D&D universe.

An example of a consequentialist point of view is that espoused by Venger above: an action is Good or Evil if its consequences are positive or negative. Under this view, using undead to build orphanages would likely be counted as Good (or at least not Evil) since the results of the spell are overall positive.

On the other hand, deontological morality states that actions are Good or Evil based on a set of rules, very commonly the tenets of a religion (this is specifically referred to as Divine Command Theory). This is the position typically taken by the writers of D&D. Under this point of view, because the Animate Dead spell has the [Evil] tag, casting it is inherently an evil act. The rules for this can be found in the Book of Vile Darkness, and likely in the Book of Exalted Deeds as well, though I haven't checked that one recently. Usually, the writers of D&D present the forces of Good and Evil as universal forces, and so saying that casting the spell Animate Dead is Evil is just as objective as saying that a given object has a certain mass.

It is common for people who hold to one of these two points of view to strongly disagree with someone who holds the opposite, as their criteria for calling something Good or Evil are very different.
Well summarized.

Faerun's rules are deontological. Even if you summon a succubus to help you kill bad guys, it still puts a black mark on your permanent record. In a setting like eberron, or one your gm builds himself, in my experience, the universe having a consequentialist perspective is more common.

[ColorBlindNinja]

fiendish codex 2, page 30. cast 9 evil spells, and you're going to hell if you have a lawful alignment.

Thank you. Are there any other pieces of text beside that one that speak of this subject?

[hamishspence]

fiendish codex 2, page 30. cast 9 evil spells, and you're going to hell if you have a lawful alignment.


It's possible to atone (or die "completely repentant" without having atoned, and become a hellbred)

but yes, Corruption is portrayed as something that sticks unless removed, and potentially makes a difference to your afterlife destination.
Thank you. Are there any other pieces of text beside that one that speak of this subject?
The Malconvoker PRC from Complete Scoundrel is specifically immune to alignment change from [Evil] summoning spells, at least.

[Venger]

Thank you. Are there any other pieces of text beside that one that speak of this subject?
Not with any quantifiable data like fc2 has, no. As others have said, it's vaguely alluded to in a couple of books, such as bovd and champions of ruin, but there's nothing substantive there for a theoretical gm who wanted to go strictly "by the book." if you're having spells forcibly change pc alignment, then you're going to have to make that decision on your own.


It's possible to atone (or die "completely repentant" without having atoned, and become a hellbred)

but yes, Corruption is portrayed as something that sticks unless removed, and potentially makes a difference to your afterlife destination.
The Malconvoker PRC from Complete Scoundrel is specifically immune to alignment change from [Evil] summoning spells, at least.

That certainly is true. Is it somehow inconsistent with something I said earlier?

hellbred can also freely cast [evil] spells and use evil magic items without it being able to forcibly change their alignment.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Not with any quantifiable data like fc2 has, no. As others have said, it's vaguely alluded to in a couple of books, such as bovd and champions of ruin, but there's nothing substantive there for a theoretical gm who wanted to go strictly "by the book." if you're having spells forcibly change pc alignment, then you're going to have to make that decision on your own.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

[hamishspence]

Using Heroes of Horror as precedent, you can make a case that it's possible to "halt the alignment slide" at Neutral through having the right motives.

But staying Good and committing evil acts on a regular, routine basis - kind of goes against the fluff.

[Venger]

well, if you want to play the alignment minigame, that's what atonement's for (though even it says pcs changing alignment ought to be up to the players)

[JNAProductions]

Using Heroes of Horror as precedent, you can make a case that it's possible to "halt the alignment slide" at Neutral through having the right motives.

But staying Good and committing evil acts on a regular, routine basis - kind of goes against the fluff.

To me, the disconnect here is saying Animate Dead is inherently evil. Even in settings where uncontrolled undead just seek to murder, that doesn't make it evil. Very, very dangerous and potentially disastrous, but so are a lot of things. And in some settings, uncontrolled undead are almost identical to golems-and why isn't creating a golem evil? You're typically enslaving an elemental to power it-that's way worse than just using a dead body to build houses for refugees!

[ColorBlindNinja]

To me, the disconnect here is saying Animate Dead is inherently evil. Even in settings where uncontrolled undead just seek to murder, that doesn't make it evil. Very, very dangerous and potentially disastrous, but so are a lot of things. And in some settings, uncontrolled undead are almost identical to golems-and why isn't creating a golem evil? You're typically enslaving an elemental to power it-that's way worse than just using a dead body to build houses for refugees!

I honestly have no idea. Maybe the idea is that undead = always evil, so therefore, you're bringing more evil creatures into the world?

That does make one ask why undead are always evil, but I doubt there's a satisfying answer to that.

(Maybe to keep undead creation out of the PCs' hands?)

[Venger]

To me, the disconnect here is saying Animate Dead is inherently evil. Even in settings where uncontrolled undead just seek to murder, that doesn't make it evil. Very, very dangerous and potentially disastrous, but so are a lot of things. And in some settings, uncontrolled undead are almost identical to golems-and why isn't creating a golem evil? You're typically enslaving an elemental to power it-that's way worse than just using a dead body to build houses for refugees!
it's not.

there is no setting where they behave that way. even in faerun, they'll obey their last command if their master forgets about them or is killed, so once more, if you command them to do normal stuff, then you haven't done anything wrong.

faerun has no problem with slavery.


I honestly have no idea. Maybe the idea is that undead = always evil, so therefore, you're bringing more evil creatures into the world?

That does make one ask why undead are always evil, but I doubt there's a satisfying answer to that.

(Maybe to keep undead creation out of the PCs' hands?)

yeah, faerun's pretty necrophobic.

undead aren't always evil. karrnathi zombies, karrnathi skeletons, and necropolitans, for example, can be of any alignment.

undead creation isn't out of pc hands, though? if the designers didn't want you to have it, they wouldn't have put it on your spell list.

[JNAProductions]

I honestly have no idea. Maybe the idea is that undead = always evil, so therefore, you're bringing more evil creatures into the world?

That does make one ask why undead are always evil, but I doubt there's a satisfying answer to that.

(Maybe to keep undead creation out of the PCs' hands?)

It's why I don't really use alignment. Admittedly, I play 5E mostly, which has basically nothing mechanical involving alignment, but here's basically what I say to my players about it:


Alignment is how you think your character will act. Are you a hero? Good. Are you a selfish, look out for number one at all costs kinda of person? Evil. Are you not overly concerned with people who aren't your friends or family, but won't hurt them unless forced to? Neutral. Then, for Law-Chaos, are you strict with your values, and are slow to change? Lawful. Free-willed and more independent of rule? Chaotic. And if you can't figure out, that's fine. The Law-Chaos axis is weird and not well-defined.

Once you decide your alignment, I expect your character to act consistently with it... For the most part. If you're Lawful Good, but absolutely hate goblins, I'm okay with you burning that goblin village down with everyone inside. But, if you consistently do that to everybody... You're not Lawful Good. Which is fine-I'll just require you to rewrite your alignment.

Basically, your actions decide your alignment, not the other way around. And if you want to act against your alignment, while I might ask "Are you sure your character would do that?" I won't tell them no. I'll just let them know that they're acting against their alignment, and if they do that enough, they change alignment.

[ColorBlindNinja]

undead creation isn't out of pc hands, though? if the designers didn't want you to have it, they wouldn't have put it on your spell list.

I suspect they didn't want a good sized chunk of the Book of Vile Darkness to be used by the players, either, but they still can.

[ericgrau]

Yeah it's fine unless you're a cleric. Your DM might have something to say, but the [Evil] descriptor isn't that specific on what it does to non-clerics. 5e says it's an inherently evil act so good characters shouldn't do it too often, but otherwise it's ok. I've always thought of it as using evil energies to do possibly a good thing. So even if your skeletons do nothing but help out orphans, you did something vile to them when you made them. In a campaign I'm running their souls are actually trapped until the animated dead are destroyed. But as long as your DM says it's fine, no there aren't any specific rules that will cause you trouble. Even the effects of the [Evil] descriptor are undefined, and many DMs treat that as meaning [Evil] has no effect at all. Many DMs think the whole thing is stupid and eagerly ignore it.

So basically ask your DM and see what he thinks. He may say go right ahead without any restrictions at all and no alignment change, or you might find out something you'd want to know before you create your character.

[Karl Aegis]

I honestly have no idea. Maybe the idea is that undead = always evil, so therefore, you're bringing more evil creatures into the world?

That does make one ask why undead are always evil, but I doubt there's a satisfying answer to that.

(Maybe to keep undead creation out of the PCs' hands?)

Wait, do we really not know why things that hunt people explicitly for the pleasure of consuming their flesh are evil? That's ghouls. They spontaneously rise from the dead bodies of people who kill people explicitly for the please of consuming their flesh. They don't always rise, but the chance increases if other undead presences were in the area recently. It's why Good people cleanse and purge undead whenever possible. It quickly escalates to the point you're buried in Devourers, Dread Wraiths and Mohrgs.

[Venger]

Wait, do we really not know why things that hunt people explicitly for the pleasure of consuming their flesh are evil? That's ghouls. They spontaneously rise from the dead bodies of people who kill people explicitly for the please of consuming their flesh. They don't always rise, but the chance increases if other undead presences were in the area recently. It's why Good people cleanse and purge undead whenever possible. It quickly escalates to the point you're buried in Devourers, Dread Wraiths and Mohrgs.

ghouls ≠ all undead

ghouls can be of any alignment too, due to the existence of emancipated spawn.

you can target any corpse with create undead to turn them into a ghoul regardless of their actions in life.

the idea of a cannibalistic humanoid spontaneously arising as a ghoul is only a rumor and is not actually true.

Good people may commit hate crimes, but good people don't.

[ryu]

Eh. Good and Evil only ever existed to tell you whether you're supposed to murder angels or demons and whatever in between. You become good or evil by following a set of often arbitrary rules likely to get into a few prestige classes with fickle requirements. Personally I deliberately play chaotic neutral on the grounds that I will murderhobo whatever I damn well please and not take flak for any random bouts of kindness.

[Venger]

Eh. Good and Evil only ever existed to tell you whether you're supposed to murder angels or demons and whatever in between. You become good or evil by following a set of often arbitrary rules likely to get into a few prestige classes with fickle requirements. Personally I deliberately play chaotic neutral on the grounds that I will murderhobo whatever I damn well please and not take flak for any random bouts of kindness.

yeah. proscriptive gms never seem too interested in forcibly changing your alignment to Good if you do enough nice things, do they?

[ColorBlindNinja]

yeah. proscriptive gms never seem too interested in forcibly changing your alignment to Good if you do enough nice things, do they?

Honestly, enforcing alignment like that will just lead to stupidity.

Evil PC: Darn! I saved a town of innocents from a dragon! I'd better kick a few puppies so that I stay EVIL!

[Venger]

Honestly, enforcing alignment like that will just lead to stupidity.

Evil PC: Darn! I saved a town of innocents from a dragon! I'd better kick a few puppies so that I stay EVIL!

well, yeah, that's why you shouldn't do it.

[ryu]

yeah. proscriptive gms never seem too interested in forcibly changing your alignment to Good if you do enough nice things, do they?

If I ever meet one I've contingencies involving a demiplane absolutely lousy with puppies to kick/kittens to eat alive. Similarly another full ambrosia farms and craft factories to make wands of food production for orphans. It's just points on an arbitrary scale after all.

[Venger]

save money and have it just be one plane of cute animals and free snacks and toys

[ryu]

save money and have it just be one plane of cute animals and free snacks and toys

But if the children SEE me eating the kittens they'll be too traumatized to accept their gifts thus ruining the good getting portion. No. Business and pleasure must be kept separate.

[Jack_Simth]

To me, the disconnect here is saying Animate Dead is inherently evil. Even in settings where uncontrolled undead just seek to murder, that doesn't make it evil. Very, very dangerous and potentially disastrous, but so are a lot of things. And in some settings, uncontrolled undead are almost identical to golems-and why isn't creating a golem evil? You're typically enslaving an elemental to power it-that's way worse than just using a dead body to build houses for refugees!

It boils down to "How does Animate Dead function 'under the hood'", which is not specified in RAW.

There's hints at dark things going on, but they're not handled consistently. E.g., when you animate someone's body, and someone elsewhere casts True Resurrection to bring them back... nothing happens. If the True Resurrection spell is applied directly to the skeleton, on the other hand, then you get the original living person back (it's a weird clause in the Undead type) (as an example of "not handled consistently": Clone does not have this limitation). A normal corpse can be revived via Reincarnate or Raise Dead without issues, but if it's spent any time as an undead, neither will work and you'll need stronger magic.

So if a DM settles on something like: Casting Animate Dead (or any other such spell) involves dragging the soul back from it's eternal reward to imprison it in a cage of rotting flesh and torture it to power your new minion (which would explain most the "hints at dark things" listed above), then it's a very evil act. If, on the other hand, a DM settles on "It's just a cheap golem, really, powered by negative energy" then it's much less so (if at all). Your mileage may vary.

[Feantar]

So we're being told that using spells with the Evil descriptor will eventually make your character evil. Is this true?
Do you change alignment by casting certain spells?
Does it matter if you're doing non-evil stuff in the mean time?

How does this alignment mechanic work?

Evil spells are evil acts. They can ALSO be tools, but they are also evil. Think murder not just killing. Thus, no, you cannot cast an evil spell consistently and remain good, however becoming evil doesn't mean that you are a cackling maniac. Alignment is descriptive (you are evil because you've done evil, and not the opposite).

Doing good without repentance for evil brings you to a maximum of neutral. So you could be neutral.

Sole exception to this: Eberron. There the alignment descriptor seems to mean nothing.

Finally, note that unless you're going for exalted, a single casting won't probably get you to neutral or evil.

[Venger]

Evil spells are evil acts. They can ALSO be tools, but they are also evil. Think murder not just killing. Thus, no, you cannot cast an evil spell consistently and remain good, however becoming evil doesn't mean that you are a cackling maniac. Alignment is descriptive (you are evil because you've done evil, and not the opposite).

Doing good without repentance for evil brings you to a maximum of neutral. So you could be neutral.

Sole exception to this: Eberron. There the alignment descriptor seems to mean nothing.

Finally, note that unless you're going for exalted, a single casting won't probably get you to neutral or evil.

no they're not.

even if you're like the designers and hate all undead, summon monster and deathwatch exist.

[Bakkan]

no they're not.

even if you're like the designers and hate all undead, summon monster and deathwatch exist.

You're using a consequentialist theory of alignment, whereas the designers and, e.g., Feantar above express a deontological theory. It is an evil act to cast deathwatch, per the rules.

[JNAProductions]

You're using a consequentialist theory of alignment, whereas the designers and, e.g., Feantar above express a deontological theory. It is an evil act to cast deathwatch, per the rules.

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

[Bakkan]

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

It is evil because of certain rules that say it is evil, namely the ones that include the [EVIL] tag in the spell description.

Imagine a religion whose deity commanded that wearing purple is evil. Devout followers of that religion would tell you that wearing purple is evil precisely and simply because a set of rules, namely the tenets of the religion, deems it so.

[JNAProductions]

It is evil because of certain rules that say it is evil, namely the ones that include the [EVIL] tag in the spell description.

Imagine a religion whose deity commanded that wearing purple is evil. Devout followers of that religion would tell you that wearing purple is evil precisely and simply because a set of rules, namely the tenets of the religion, deems it so.

Right...

The issue is, alignment CLAIMS to be morality, or at least couches itself in morality's terms. If alignment was Law/Chaos and the other axis was Upper/Lower (as in, the planes) it'd make more sense. But it's not.

[Amaril]

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

It's Evil because it has consequences that will inevitably lead to more evil in the world. Casting the spell involves taking the same energies that fuel the undead into yourself, to grant yourself their sight. You can't touch that power without being affected by it, changed by it. Accepting it, even that little bit, makes you just a little more like the undead, a little closer to those creatures that sustain their existence past their appointed time by feeding on innocent lives. Casting it once, twice, might not change you much, but do it enough, it'll start to warp you more and more, until you forget who you are and become no different than any cannibalistic ghoul or bloodthirsty vampire.

How's that?

[Venger]

You're using a consequentialist theory of alignment, whereas the designers and, e.g., Feantar above express a deontological theory. It is an evil act to cast deathwatch, per the rules.
I heard you the first time. It's an [Evil] act, but it's certainly not an evil one. what the heck can you even do with deathwatch aside from sweep a collapsed building for survivors or similar?


But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.
nothing, which is why I used it as an example.

right, which is why that's not a very good way to run games.


It is evil because of certain rules that say it is evil, namely the ones that include the [EVIL] tag in the spell description.

Imagine a religion whose deity commanded that wearing purple is evil. Devout followers of that religion would tell you that wearing purple is evil precisely and simply because a set of rules, namely the tenets of the religion, deems it so.

wearer of purple does require an evil alignment. good example


It's Evil because it has consequences that will inevitably lead to more evil in the world. Casting the spell involves taking the same energies that fuel the undead into yourself, to grant yourself their sight. You can't touch that power without being affected by it, changed by it. Accepting it, even that little bit, makes you just a little more like the undead, a little closer to those creatures that sustain their existence past their appointed time by feeding on innocent lives. Casting it once, twice, might not change you much, but do it enough, it'll start to warp you more and more, until you forget who you are and become no different than any cannibalistic ghoul or bloodthirsty vampire.

How's that?

cool houserule. not sure what it has to do with raw though

[Bakkan]

Right...

The issue is, alignment CLAIMS to be morality, or at least couches itself in morality's terms. If alignment was Law/Chaos and the other axis was Upper/Lower (as in, the planes) it'd make more sense. But it's not.


I heard you the first time. It's an [Evil] act, but it's certainly not an evil one. what the heck can you even do with deathwatch aside from sweep a collapsed building for survivors or similar?


It sounds to me like you're claiming that any system of morality is necessarily one based on outcomes. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Amaril]

cool houserule. not sure what it has to do with raw though

If RAW presents it as fact that casting spells with the evil descriptor will eventually make one evil, regardless of how those spells are used, I find it more logical to ask "okay, why might that be the case" than to just assume the premise is stupid and wrong.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with stripping spells of alignment tags and saying it's all about consequence, either. If your setting's undead are just golems powered by impersonal negative energy, then yeah, I can't see why that should be evil. But by RAW, that's not the default, so it seems logical to me to assume that something about how undead are created and/or how they function inherently makes their use unethical, no matter what purpose they're put to, until told otherwise.

[Feantar]

Right...

The issue is, alignment CLAIMS to be morality, or at least couches itself in morality's terms. If alignment was Law/Chaos and the other axis was Upper/Lower (as in, the planes) it'd make more sense. But it's not.

On whether I would feel that these spells are evil, I'm with you. However, D&D is fundamentally different than our world. In D&D [Evil], and [Good], are actual physical things. There's a literal evil-o-meter (Detect Evil) in the world. So when you cast an evil spell you channel evil through you. It isn't the result of the spell that is evil (it might also be, but that's another story); it is the spell itself.

And yes, it feel ridiculous sometimes, especially in spells that are not even remotely evil (deathwatch would be fantastic for a healer who tries to save lives after an accident). But morality in D&D is objective, while in the real world it's subjective. See Book of Exalted Deeds / Vile Darkness for the epitomy of this approach.

If it helps, write a subjective morality system's polar opposites as Good and Evil and D&D's as Góód and Ëvīl and consider them nothign but homophones. They only have a remote connection to each other, and only in a limited number of morality systems of today.

[Venger]

It sounds to me like you're claiming that any system of morality is necessarily one based on outcomes. Am I understanding you correctly?
any sound and valid one, yes. the categorical imperative and its ilk are not good role models.


If RAW presents it as fact that casting spells with the evil descriptor will eventually make one evil, regardless of how those spells are used, I find it more logical to ask "okay, why might that be the case" than to just assume the premise is stupid and wrong.
My experience has taught me it's better to assume that the premise is stupid and wrong when it comes to D&D rules versus what actually makes any sense


Not that I think there's anything wrong with stripping spells of alignment tags and saying it's all about consequence, either. If your setting's undead are just golems powered by impersonal negative energy, then yeah, I can't see why that should be evil. But by RAW, that's not the default, so it seems logical to me to assume that something about how undead are created and/or how they function inherently makes their use unethical, no matter what purpose they're put to, until told otherwise.
that is how undead work by default raw, though. there are many kinds of undead whose creation doesn't carry an [evil] tag associated with it, such as necropolitans or karrnathi zombies or skeletons. animate dead being [evil] is an arbitrary assignment of a mundane act, like rebuking an employee, as JNAProductions says. the actual act of creating undead isn't by raw, or it would be all the time.


On whether I would feel that these spells are evil, I'm with you. However, D&D is fundamentally different than our world. In D&D [Evil], and [Good], are actual physical things. There's a literal evil-o-meter (Detect Evil) in the world. So when you cast an evil spell you channel evil through you. It isn't the result of the spell that is evil (it might also be, but that's another story); it is the spell itself.

And yes, it feel ridiculous sometimes, especially in spells that are not even remotely evil (deathwatch would be fantastic for a healer who tries to save lives after an accident). But morality in D&D is objective, while in the real world it's subjective. See Book of Exalted Deeds / Vile Darkness for the epitomy of this approach.

If it helps, write a subjective morality system's polar opposites as Good and Evil and D&D's as Góód and Ëvīl and consider them nothign but homophones. They only have a remote connection to each other, and only in a limited number of morality systems of today.

yeah, that's why it's important to differentiate in alignment thread between rules terms [good] and [evil] and normal english good and evil. helps avoid confusion.

[Amaril]

My experience has taught me it's better to assume that the premise is stupid and wrong when it comes to D&D rules versus what actually makes any sense

I don't entirely disagree. However, on this specific point at least, I think you're being too black-and-white about things. You seem to be arguing that there is no reasonable way to justify spells with the [Evil] tag being universally evil in D&D. My suggestion above (which, while you called it a houserule, wasn't actually a rule at all, just fluff) was meant to show that whether or not you like them or think they're ridiculous, it is possible to come up with such explanations that are internally consistent. You're free to think they and the whole alignment system are bad as a matter of personal taste--I don't like alignment either. But don't act like it's objectively impossible to write an internally consistent setting where [Evil] spells actually are evil even when used for good ends, because it's not.


that is how undead work by default raw, though. there are many kinds of undead whose creation doesn't carry an [evil] tag associated with it, such as necropolitans or karrnathi zombies or skeletons. animate dead being [evil] is an arbitrary assignment of a mundane act, like rebuking an employee, as JNAProductions says. the actual act of creating undead isn't by raw, or it would be all the time.

Can you create non-Evil undead with animate dead or create undead? Looking at the spell, it looks to me like it can only be used to create Evil undead types. I would assume, then, that non-Evil undead are meant to be exceptions to the rule, and to require special methods to create. Granted, if they then have those non-Evil undead be healed by negative energy and harmed by positive like the Evil ones, thus implying that they're powered by the same forces but somehow not automatically evil even though everything else is, then I would call that BS, but then I'd say the problem was writing non-Evil undead into the rules to contradict everything that had been established before about undeath being inherently evil, not the original premise of undeath being evil itself.

[Venger]

I don't entirely disagree. However, on this specific point at least, I think you're being too black-and-white about things. You seem to be arguing that there is no reasonable way to justify spells with the [Evil] tag being universally evil in D&D. My suggestion above (which, while you called it a houserule, wasn't actually a rule at all, just fluff) was meant to show that whether or not you like them or think they're ridiculous, it is possible to come up with such explanations that are internally consistent. You're free to think they and the whole alignment system are bad as a matter of personal taste--I don't like alignment either. But don't act like it's objectively impossible to write an internally consistent setting where [Evil] spells actually are evil even when used for good ends, because it's not.
Fair enough. Glad we've got some common ground at least.

If that's the impression I've given off, I apologize. In that case, I haven't been clear enough elucidating my points.

I don't think that's true of all [evil] spells. My point is that there's some, such as the aforementioned deathwatch that are completely harmless, or ones that are the same as a non[evil] spell, such as summon monster, where the distinction is arbitrary. so I kill the duke of darkness's security guards a fiendish dire rat instead of a celestial monkey. who cares? this may perhaps be a more convincing argument for you since it doesn't involve undead.

I referred to it as a houserule because we're under the umbrella of a proscriptive dm forcibly changing alignment due to what spells a player casts, so it'd have some potential to affect meaningful mechanical change. I certainly agree that you could come up with an explanation that makes sense in your campaign, and in actual practice I'm all for that kind of thing. What I have a problem with is when people act like this kind of thing is actually part of the rules, and consequently, everyone should act with that assumption in their games.

I wasn't acting that way, though? Like you, I don't think that. if for whatever reason you wanted a setting with [evil] spells where they lost a character good boy points, that's certainly possible, I just think you ought to be less liberal about how many spells arbitrarily receive the [evil] tag.


Can you create non-Evil undead with animate dead or create undead? Looking at the spell, it looks to me like it can only be used to create Evil undead types. I would assume, then, that non-Evil undead are meant to be exceptions to the rule, and to require special methods to create. Granted, if they then have those non-Evil undead be healed by negative energy and harmed by positive like the Evil ones, thus implying that they're powered by the same forces but somehow not automatically evil even though everything else is, then I would call that BS, but then I'd say the problem was writing non-Evil undead into the rules to contradict everything that had been established before about undeath being inherently evil, not the original premise of undeath being evil itself.
with animate dead, just karrnathi zombies and karrnathi skeletons, to my knowledge. they retain their alignment from life. outside of those, the ritual of crucimigration again lets you keep your alignment from when you were alive.

if you're a non-evil aligned undead, then yes, you are healed by negative and damaged by positive. there is nothing inherently evil or [evil] about negative energy. check out the inflict line and their lack of the [evil] tag. undeath being synonymous with evil is a bias the game designers have, but it's never been an actual rule in 3.5. even before the introduction of necropolitans or karrns, there is no requirement for a ghost, for example, to be evil-aligned. this wasn't something that was added in late in 3.x's run.

[Talakeal]

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

IIRC the prevailing opinion is that this is a typo, that the [evil] tag was meant for death knell and got put on deathwatch by accident.


The 3.5 revision seems to have noticed how weird it was to give the [evil] descriptor to deathwatch, a spell that will be used for triage more often than not, and added a bunch of flavor text about the foul sight of the undead to evil it up.

[Malphegor]

It'd depend on the DM.

I imagine that animating the dead is considered a horrendous, evil act in most universes, and religions would find it distasteful.

But are you evil for doing it? That's complicated.

Alignments are weird, as they're clearly a fluff mechanic that we treat as a crunch mechanic.

Ultimately I'd say it depends how it's done- Aragorn compelling a ghost horde to defeat his proveably evil foes? Good. Egdaline Price animating armies of Britain's dead soldiers to fight the Nazis? Good.

If you want to stay good, maybe get some magics to talk with the dead and negotiate their services willingly?

[Venger]

IIRC the prevailing opinion is that this is a typo, that the [evil] tag was meant for death knell and got put on deathwatch by accident.


The 3.5 revision seems to have noticed how weird it was to give the [evil] descriptor to deathwatch, a spell that will be used for triage more often than not, and added a bunch of flavor text about the foul sight of the undead to evil it up.

That's interesting, but death knell already had the [evil] tag in 3.0. it wasn't something that was added in the 3.5 revision.

even in 3.5, the designers still don't actually think deathwatch is evil, and outright forgot it was [evil], since it's on the healer spell list, and they're supposed to all retain a Good alignment.

[Necroticplague]

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

EXACTLY! That's the point!

[Quertus]

That does make one ask why undead are always evil, but I doubt there's a satisfying answer to that.

(Maybe to keep undead creation out of the PCs' hands?)

I always thought it was to encourage players to play Evil PCs. :smalltongue:


If I ever meet one I've contingencies involving a demiplane absolutely lousy with puppies to kick/kittens to eat alive. Similarly another full ambrosia farms and craft factories to make wands of food production for orphans. It's just points on an arbitrary scale after all.

Just use Mindrape on yourself to remove any pesky morals that surface after to many good deeds.

Oh, Mindrape, what problems can't you solve?

Note that it also keeps you good after casting Animate Dead too many times.


no, you cannot cast an evil spell consistently and remain good

Except for the aforementioned Mindrape. :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

To me, the disconnect here is saying Animate Dead is inherently evil. Even in settings where uncontrolled undead just seek to murder, that doesn't make it evil. Very, very dangerous and potentially disastrous, but so are a lot of things. And in some settings, uncontrolled undead are almost identical to golems-and why isn't creating a golem evil? You're typically enslaving an elemental to power it-that's way worse than just using a dead body to build houses for refugees!

Creating a golem can be plenty evil too without anything like a descriptor tag.


cool houserule. not sure what it has to do with raw though
See that's the problem, everyone is willing to accept RAW except when it is a spell descriptor with no explanation. RAW says it's evil. We have to fill in that explanation when there is none given in the books. But that doesn't mean there is no explanation. More like you're doing some kind of undescribed evil thing as you cast the spell and the authors didn't want to get into how puppy souls are being tainted or whatever. So... we can leave it at that. Something is happening and we don't know what. The DM can fill in that something, but it's no more correct than a different DM's something. That doesn't mean the DM is wrong for specifying it, it means we don't have an answer on what's actually right.

I do like 5e's way of saying someone who is good shouldn't cast animate dead too many times. But you can still cast it.

If you're a DM running 3.5e you should come up with your own explanation. Which is why I told the OP to ask his DM. When RAW doesn't specify something that doesn't mean there's no effect. It only means it's undefined.

[ryu]

Eh. I'll just keep the position that the alignment system is stupid and arbitrary, and the sooner you figure out a method to make it literally irrelevant the happier you'll be. The major downside of clerics and druids is having some measure of alignment requirement making it impossible to make that nonsense irrelevant. Yes I know you can have clerics of any alignment. You still have requirements once you pick which ball and chain you're tied to.

[Amaril]

See that's the problem, everyone is willing to accept RAW except when it is a spell descriptor with no explanation. RAW says it's evil. We have to fill in that explanation when there is none given in the books. But that doesn't mean there is no explanation. More like you're doing some kind of undescribed evil thing as you cast the spell and the authors didn't want to get into how puppy souls are being tainted or whatever. So... we can leave it at that. Something is happening and we don't know what. The DM can fill in that something, but it's no more correct than a different DM's something. That doesn't mean the DM is wrong for specifying it, it means we don't have an answer on what's actually right.

Precisely what I was getting at. The fluff I wrote was just one suggestion for such an explanation.

[JNAProductions]

EXACTLY! That's the point!

Which I find an issue, since they're couched in moral terms. Again, if it was Upper/Lower alignment, with the Upper side GENERALLY being good and the Lower side GENERALLY being evil, then I'd find it much less objectionable.

[Venger]

Eh. I'll just keep the position that the alignment system is stupid and arbitrary, and the sooner you figure out a method to make it literally irrelevant the happier you'll be. The major downside of clerics and druids is having some measure of alignment requirement making it impossible to make that nonsense irrelevant. Yes I know you can have clerics of any alignment. You still have requirements once you pick which ball and chain you're tied to.

That's why I like eberron.

[ryu]

That's why I like eberron.

There's a point, but what about deliberately antagonizing zealots on both sides for fun? Have you ever gotten into a heated morality debate with an angel in the middle of a metropolis and successfully humiliated it? So satisfying.

[ericgrau]

Eh. I'll just keep the position that the alignment system is stupid and arbitrary, and the sooner you figure out a method to make it literally irrelevant the happier you'll be. The major downside of clerics and druids is having some measure of alignment requirement making it impossible to make that nonsense irrelevant. Yes I know you can have clerics of any alignment. You still have requirements once you pick which ball and chain you're tied to.

It's a common and good houserule to make alignment optional. Not because it doesn't exist, but because drawing the borders leads to long debates. Even then, that doesn't mean that there aren't horribly evil people in the world doing terrible things that the PCs must stop. It only means we don't want to bother with the details except when we have to.

The other common solution is to put something down on your character sheet but don't pay much attention to it until you're hit with an axiomatic weapon or spell. Or until the PC does something(s) extremely extremely flagrant to change it. Which happens about once every 10 campaigns. Total for all the players. Otherwise you say "I don't know if that's exactly right, but who cares? Close enough."

[ColorBlindNinja]

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

Amusingly, the Healer gets Deathwatch, but the class is required to be good-aligned.

[Necroticplague]

Which I find an issue, since they're couched in moral terms. Again, if it was Upper/Lower alignment, with the Upper side GENERALLY being good and the Lower side GENERALLY being evil, then I'd find it much less objectionable.

Indeed. I believe naming them Good and Evil was a large mistake. It would be much more clear if they used some words without baggage.

[Bakkan]

any sound and valid one, yes. the categorical imperative and its ilk are not good role models.


I understand you. I disagree and believe there are valid deontological morality systems, but in order to avoid breaking forum rules against discussing real-world religion, I will forego further argument here.

[Zanos]

I don't really mind the objective alignment system. There are clear mistakes due to multiple authors, like most parts of the system. But I don't think you can have alignment be a physical, elemental force and have it still be subjective.

To actually answer OPs question, the RAW answer is that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act. But alignment is descripitive, not prescriptive, so you can be a Good intentioned necromancer and be Neutral or Evil, so long as your class features aren't alignment powered.

[Menzath]

Worst case scenario just get the feat consecrate spell from BoED to give it the good descriptor and you are on the gravy train!

[Florian]

But why is it evil? What about Deathwatch deserves the [EVIL] tag?

And, if it's not determined by actions, then Good/Evil really are just sides. They're not moralities-they're teams.

Yes, the alignment system is deontologist by nature and describes sides of a cosmic conflict. When you're firmly aligned with your side, you're doing something right and that's all that is required.

You're wrong in not understanding them as moralities, tho. Intention, method of execution and outcome all play into it, just not on the level that individual actions are judged, except at the point when things come into it, that are directly keyed to an alignment (by way of descriptor).

It helps to take a look at Warhammer and L5R. In both cases, you're firmly on the side of Humanity and using the tools of or being affected by the tools of Chaos, the Shadowlands or the Lying Darkness will garner you corruption, taint or darkness points, no matter what your intentions are, up to the point that you're not longer considered to be a part of Humanity, but rather Chaos, Lost or Consumed. D&D is a bit less harsh in this regard, because alignment shifting often has less drastic effects, with the exception of power sources that are directly alignment-keyed, ex Pally, Monk, Cleric.

Maybe it helps to understand it more as Outer Planes first, Inner Planes second, Prime Material last, when it comes to how important things are. (It also helps to keep in mind that True Neutral is the standard for humans)

[Jack_Simth]

Worst case scenario just get the feat consecrate spell from BoED to give it the good descriptor and you are on the gravy train!
Technically, Consecrate Spell does not remove pre-existing descriptors, and thus a Consecrated Animate Dead has both the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors. So a character that has restrictions on casting [Evil] spells will still have problems.

[Venger]

Technically, Consecrate Spell does not remove pre-existing descriptors, and thus a Consecrated Animate Dead has both the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors. So a character that has restrictions on casting [Evil] spells will still have problems.

Pretty sure he was joking. You're right, of course, but that'd mean an [Evil], consecrated spell would gain a character 1 good boy point and lose them 1 good boy point at the same time, so their place on the alignment chart would remain immobile.

[Necroticplague]

Pretty sure he was joking. You're right, of course, but that'd mean an [Evil], consecrated spell would gain a character 1 good boy point and lose them 1 good boy point at the same time, so their place on the alignment chart would remain immobile.

You wouldn't gain one good mark and lose a good mark. You'd gain a good mark and a bad mark.

[ryu]

You wouldn't gain one good mark and lose a good mark. You'd gain a good mark and a bad mark.

Which cancel out same dif.

[Venger]

You wouldn't gain one good mark and lose a good mark. You'd gain a good mark and a bad mark.

Which cancel out same dif.

yeah, you'd go up and down a step, whatever.

[Zanos]

Which cancel out same dif.
I don't think Evil and Good cancel 1:1. At least, a person that murders 10 people and saves 10 people still seems to go to hell.

[Venger]

I don't think Evil and Good cancel 1:1. At least, a person that murders 10 people and saves 10 people still seems to go to hell.

while that may be true, we're talking about casting a [good],[evil] spell. whatever your schema is, assuming some similar schema for good boy points when casting [good] spells exists (which it doesn't) then you'd be at net 0

[AnimeTheCat]

Pretty sure he was joking. You're right, of course, but that'd mean an [Evil], consecrated spell would gain a character 1 good boy point and lose them 1 good boy point at the same time, so their place on the alignment chart would remain immobile.


You wouldn't gain one good mark and lose a good mark. You'd gain a good mark and a bad mark.


Which cancel out same dif.


yeah, you'd go up and down a step, whatever.


I don't think Evil and Good cancel 1:1. At least, a person that murders 10 people and saves 10 people still seems to go to hell.


while that may be true, we're talking about casting a [good],[evil] spell. whatever your schema is, assuming some similar schema for good boy points when casting [good] spells exists (which it doesn't) then you'd be at net 0

You're looking at it all wrong. It's not that alignment is a + shaped scale where you plot your alignment using your coordinates as (((good+bad)/2), ((Law+chaos)/2)) as your coordinates. It's a + shaped scale where your use the median of the two! So, you have to keep track of the various different number of points you get at any given time for each action, arrange them in order from greatest to smallest to arrive at the median. For Example:

Kicking Puppies: -2
Saving a cat from a Tree: +1
Slaying the vile tyrant of a realm and supporting his holy userper: +15
Stealing the artifact of a good deity and killing his/her high priest: -20

Those acts would give you a median value of -.5 which means you're primarily neutral, but you lean evil. It's up to the DM to assign point values to actions on the Law/Chaos, Good/Evil scale.

[ryu]

Medians actually support hilariously large numbers of low impact actions guaranteeing a neutral alignment more than neutral. Good. Easier to make it irrelevant that way.

[AnimeTheCat]

Medians actually support hilariously large numbers of low impact actions guaranteeing a neutral alignment more than neutral. Good. Easier to make it irrelevant that way.

yeah, that was my though process... It's all arbitrary anyway and most people tend to be more neutral anyway so I think it's pretty good for this. It's just overall easier to maintain your position on the scale too, do lots and lots of bad things, an you can afford to do some good things occasionally.

[Venger]

@AnimetheCat, yeah, but all that stuff has its arbitrary numerical value decided by dm fiat. casting an [evil] spell is at least actually codified in that casting one 9 times damns you, even if that is totally stupid


Medians actually support hilariously large numbers of low impact actions guaranteeing a neutral alignment more than neutral. Good. Easier to make it irrelevant that way.
the sooner the better if you can't just start play that way.

[Menzath]

Pretty sure he was joking. You're right, of course, but that'd mean an [Evil], consecrated spell would gain a character 1 good boy point and lose them 1 good boy point at the same time, so their place on the alignment chart would remain immobile.

I was sort of joking, I mean if you are barred from casting evil tagged spells it's a worthless feat.

And to be honest if any DM pays attention to every evil tagged spell, then his game world wouldn't have any good aligned clerics, and don't get me started on paladins.

It's an extremely situational feat that seems to be made for thematic campaigns where evil spells are like black mages hadoken.


https://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/11/27/8-bit-chronicles-3-of-3/


To lazy to actually post the image.

[denthor]

If you create undead as a good cleric.

How do you control them to get them to work?

Rebuke undead is how evil does it. Total control.

A good cleric either destroys them or makes them run away.

Now let say you cast the spell then order till the field. They could make one row. Since they are unintelligent and unable to do anything without another command.

This is why it eventually turns you evil. Multiple uses of negative energy that makes it possible to control those made

[Jack_Simth]

If you create undead as a good cleric.

How do you control them to get them to work?

Rebuke undead is how evil does it. Total control.

A good cleric either destroys them or makes them run away.

Now let say you cast the spell then order till the field. They could make one row. Since they are unintelligent and unable to do anything without another command.

This is why it eventually turns you evil. Multiple uses of negative energy that makes it possible to control those made
You only need Command Undead to ursurp control, not to give orders.

[AnimeTheCat]

@AnimetheCat, yeah, but all that stuff has its arbitrary numerical value decided by dm fiat. casting an [evil] spell is at least actually codified in that casting one 9 times damns you, even if that is totally stupid

Well, aside from the one reference mentioned, there don't seem to be any other references of "do this X times and you're damned". Animate Dead has the arbitrary "if you do this a lot/consistently you'll become evil" and leaves it at that. Not even a "you become tainted slowly by being a conduit for the negative energy that powers the torturing of a soul bound to an undead body" (which would totally make sense and put this whole discussion to bed), but just "do this and you become evil".

Joking aside, if I were to create some system that was point based, I would make it mean based as opposed to average based. Then it's basically net actions and value of those actions that determine your alignment, which is how it should be. based off of your actions, if you do good and evil, chaotic and lawful actions, you're neutral. You don't hold a strong allegiance to any alignment. If you consistently support the law, and seek the just and lawful way to resolve a situation while keeping the lives, livelihoods, and wellbeing of all parties involved, consistently trying your best not to stopp to backstabbing, subterfuge, or other deconstructive actions, you would be in the realm of lawful good, even though sometimes your actions may not follow the law, you're consistantly acting with the law in mind.

Basically, since there's no actual rules to define how one becomes evil or if it's just a superficial thing for detection spells or what have you, there's no real grounds for the argument that animate dead makes you evil if you're doing good things. The only reason this is even a discussion is because it has the [Evil] tag and a line of flavor text says "if you do this too much you are evil", but there's literally no mechanical changes being made. The only time this becomes an issue is when you're a cleric and the way you get around that is by being a cleric of a neutral deity that supports good and evil clerics such as Wee Jas.

[denthor]

You only need Command Undead to ursurp control, not to give orders.
I know it is a 2nd level mage spell. Is there a clerical equivalent?

Also the mage version gives a save to undead with any intelligence. In pathfinder.

[JNAProductions]

If you create undead as a good cleric.

How do you control them to get them to work?

Rebuke undead is how evil does it. Total control.

A good cleric either destroys them or makes them run away.

Now let say you cast the spell then order till the field. They could make one row. Since they are unintelligent and unable to do anything without another command.

This is why it eventually turns you evil. Multiple uses of negative energy that makes it possible to control those made

First off, I'm pretty sure you can order them to make more than one row. Maybe "Make ten rows and then stop" is too complex, but you could just keep an eye on them and say "Make rows till I tell you to stop."

And second off, why is negative energy evil? Sure, it hurts living people, but so does fire. "But," I hear you say, "Fire is useful! It keeps people warm and cooks food!"

To which I respond, negative energy lets you till fields better, through undead servants, harvest crops better, fight against invaders without losing actual people's lives... Yeah, negative energy is useful too.

[Venger]

Well, aside from the one reference mentioned, there don't seem to be any other references of "do this X times and you're damned". Animate Dead has the arbitrary "if you do this a lot/consistently you'll become evil" and leaves it at that. Not even a "you become tainted slowly by being a conduit for the negative energy that powers the torturing of a soul bound to an undead body" (which would totally make sense and put this whole discussion to bed), but just "do this and you become evil".
How many times does a rule need to be written down?

I mean, I think it's stupid too, but it does exist.


Basically, since there's no actual rules to define how one becomes evil or if it's just a superficial thing for detection spells or what have you, there's no real grounds for the argument that animate dead makes you evil if you're doing good things. The only reason this is even a discussion is because it has the [Evil] tag and a line of flavor text says "if you do this too much you are evil", but there's literally no mechanical changes being made. The only time this becomes an issue is when you're a cleric and the way you get around that is by being a cleric of a neutral deity that supports good and evil clerics such as Wee Jas.
Right.

[AnimeTheCat]

How many times does a rule need to be written down?

I mean, I think it's stupid too, but it does exist.


Right.

Those rules aren't about evil or making you evil... they're only about where your soul goes in the afterlife and even then one can repent for the action or actions.

For example, murder is on the list right? Well, is it evil to murder an evil tyrant who is antagonizing his subjects? Regardless of any acts he has done to deserve it, murder is murder and setting out specifically to murder him, regardless of the reason, is calculated cold-blooded murder. That's 6 corruption points that nearly every character has. Add the murder of a couple of kobolds in and now every adventurer is going to Baator.

I don't think those are the rules you're looking for because the only mention of alignment is that those only apply to lawful characters and that casting evil spells will send you to baator. It doesn't say "your alignment shifts to evil and you go to baator." Just that you go there.

[denthor]

First off, I'm pretty sure you can order them to make more than one row. Maybe "Make ten rows and then stop" is too complex, but you could just keep an eye on them and say "Make rows till I tell you to stop."

And second off, why is negative energy evil? Sure, it hurts living people, but so does fire. "But," I hear you say, "Fire is useful! It keeps people warm and cooks food!"

To which I respond, negative energy lets you till fields better, through undead servants, harvest crops better, fight against invaders without losing actual people's lives... Yeah, negative energy is useful too.

Neither skeletons or zombies have a mind with a functioning brain. They're considered mindless Undead and the second level Mage spell controls them instantly. They're incapable of following more than one command so till 10 rows are done at 35 ft each is beyond the comprehension of that Undead.

Now if you want to make sentient Undead then you are enslaving a mind to do your bidding. That would be evil. See V versus the black dragon mom.

As for negative energy being evil. It is considered anything that focuses on death which is an enemy of life. Would be evil second anything that causes crushing despair as negative energy does is evil

A poem of a lich from the book of vile Darkness

Let the darkness around you let it Hollow you out/CENTER][/RIGHT]

Does that sound like something you would want for yourself?/LEFT]

[Venger]

Neither skeletons or zombies have a mind with a functioning brain. They're considered mindless Undead and the second level Mage spell controls them instantly. They're incapable of following more than one command so till 10 rows are done at 35 ft each is beyond the comprehension of that Undead.

Now if you want to make sentient Undead then you are enslaving a mind to do your bidding. That would be evil. See V versus the black dragon mom.

no [Evil] tag, so it's not Evil, even if it a scummy thing to do, like charm and dominate. no one ever had their gm forcibly write an E on their sheet over using those.

[zergling.exe]

The only time this becomes an issue is when you're a cleric and the way you get around that is by being a cleric of a neutral deity that supports good and evil clerics such as Wee Jas.

This doesn't help you actually. A cleric can't cast spells opposed to their deity's or their own alignment:

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions (see Chapter 11: Spells).

[darkela5]

Or you could be a hellbred and completely ignore all of the alignment nonsense as an Ex ability ''Evil Exception (Ex): A hellbred does not act against its alignment by employing spells with the Evil descriptor, and is treated as Evil for the sake of using Evil magic items, irregardless of its actual alignment.''

[AnimeTheCat]

This doesn't help you actually. A cleric can't cast spells opposed to their deity's or their own alignment:

Ok, counterpoint, be a neutral cleric of a neutral deity. Cast your good and your evil and channel according to which way your neutral deity swings.

[Karl Aegis]

So what's the problem with the idea a cleric devoted to evil, taking the Evil Domain, is able to animate more corpses with a casting of Animate Dead than an equal level cleric that is not devoted to evil, without the Evil Domain? Is this somehow problematic from a mechanics perspective?

[Jack_Simth]

I know it is a 2nd level mage spell. Is there a clerical equivalent?

No, but yes. In 3.5, Evil Clerics (or neutral clerics of an evil deity, or neutral clerics of a neutral deity who pick that option) get Rebuke Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#evilClericsandUndead) which has the Command option. In Pathfinder, it's a feat (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/command-undead-final/).

However that wasn't the intended point of my post. When working with Animate Dead (both in Pathfinder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) and Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm)), the created undead stay under your control until other circumstances change that (the three most common in no particular order: you hit your control limit, someone else gains control of them via spell or class feature, they're destroyed). You'd said a cleric needs to keep using negative energy to give them more commands. That's untrue. Both the 3.5 and Pathfinder version have the same clause: "The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely." Once an undead you created via Animate Dead finishes it's first order, you can just tell it to do more stuff, no additional negative energy required (at least, not from you).

[Esquire]

All alignment-based content is massively dependent on setting specifics and/or DM rulings. Therefore, the most correct answer to 'can a Good character cast animate dead without issue?' is: maybe. :smallsmile:

[Zanos]

And second off, why is negative energy evil? Sure, it hurts living people, but so does fire. "But," I hear you say, "Fire is useful! It keeps people warm and cooks food!"

To which I respond, negative energy lets you till fields better, through undead servants, harvest crops better, fight against invaders without losing actual people's lives... Yeah, negative energy is useful too.
Negative energy is antithetical to life. So you're bringing more...entropy or whatever into the material plane. I also think creating mindless servants from people's corpses is generally frowned upon, and making yourself immortal to escape the flow of souls to the outer planes that keeps the planes turning is also probably bad. Not that it would stop me.

Besides that, I think there's some goofy text in either BoED or LM about how negative energy subtly makes the world worse in some abstract undefined way.



As for negative energy being evil. It is considered anything that focuses on death which is an enemy of life. Would be evil second anything that causes crushing despair as negative energy does is evil
I don't disagree that there's logic that supports undead being Evil, but V creating an undead head isn't evidence of how undead creation works in the 3.5 ruleset(there's no application of create greater undead that works like that), and V creating that head is probably the least Evil thing that happens in that arc.

[Necroticplague]

Negative energy is antithetical to life. So you're bringing more...entropy or whatever into the material plane.
If that was the reason, Calling Xeg-Yi (or Xeg-Ya. Whichever Energon is the negative one) would also be Evil. As would the vast majority of the Necromancy school debuffs, like Touch of Fatigue, since those spells explicitly work by bringing in negative energies.


I also think creating mindless servants from people's corpses is generally frowned upon, Simply being frowned upon generally doesn't make anything Evil.


Besides that, I think there's some goofy text in either BoED or LM about how negative energy subtly makes the world worse in some abstract undefined way.I believe those two have it in some abstract way, but BoVD has this explicit in a more concrete way. The prescence of enough undead, or powerful enough dead, counts for Lingering Evil, which has deleterious affects on the area. So a Lich simply being in an area for a while will begin to plague it with nightmares and blight the land. Therefore, it's very existence is intrinsically harming others.

[Venger]

If that was the reason, Calling Xeg-Yi (or Xeg-Ya. Whichever Energon is the negative one) would also be Evil. As would the vast majority of the Necromancy school debuffs, like Touch of Fatigue, since those spells explicitly work by bringing in negative energies.

Simply being frowned upon generally doesn't make anything Evil.

I believe those two have it in some abstract way, but BoVD has this explicit in a more concrete way. The prescence of enough undead, or powerful enough dead, counts for Lingering Evil, which has deleterious affects on the area. So a Lich simply being in an area for a while will begin to plague it with nightmares and blight the land. Therefore, it's very existence is intrinsically harming others.

xeg-yi are indeed the negative ones. xag-ya are positive.

[Zanos]

Aren't those both Eberron creatures, though?

[hamishspence]

Nope. Planar Handbook creatures.

The Negative Energy plane itself seems to be Neutral - but whatever process allows clerics to draw from the Negative Energy Plane, seems somehow connected to Evil.

[Florian]

The Negative Energy plane itself seems to be Neutral - but whatever process allows clerics to draw from the Negative Energy Plane, seems somehow connected to Evil.

It´s actually worthwhile to take a closer look at how PF/Golarion has revamped the Great Wheel cosmology and then revisit the 3E/D&D version of it, because they did a better job at explaining the fundamental connections and workings than, say, Planescape or Manual of the Planes did.

[Venger]

Aren't those both Eberron creatures, though?

no? I'm curious what monster you're thinking of now. let me know if you figure it out. nothing springs to mind for me.

[Mordaedil]

Ok, counterpoint, be a neutral cleric of a neutral deity. Cast your good and your evil and channel according to which way your neutral deity swings.
Pretty sure that's a druid, not a cleric.

[hamishspence]

Yup - Neutral clerics have to choose:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

A cleric who is neither good nor evil and whose deity is neither good nor evil can convert spells to either cure spells or inflict spells (player’s choice). Once the player makes this choice, it cannot be reversed. This choice also determines whether the cleric turns or commands undead.

[Necroticplague]

Pretty sure that's a druid, not a cleric.

?

A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

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

I don't see any reason a neutral cleric of a neutral god couldn't cast [evil] and [good] both, and Control or Turn as they desire when being created.

[hamishspence]

Cast Evil and Good spells, yes.

Control or Turn, they have to pick one when created and cannot change that, unless they change alignment.

[Necroticplague]

Cast Evil and Good spells, yes.

Control or Turn, they have to pick one when created and cannot change that, unless they change alignment.

Thus the 'when being created'.

[Mordaedil]

?
I guess the joke is a bit lost here.

The idea is that if you want to commit to an extreme alignment you chose to be a cleric and if you wish to be more wishy-washy, you play a druid, with how the rules are written. It was funnier 15 years ago.