Guess That Alignment!

[SangoProduction]

So, I've got another character for whom I'm not so sure about the alignment for. I'm thinking of True Neutral, or maybe even Lawful Neutral.

He's a dwarven doctor. Well, of sorts. A cleric. Of Artifice and Death. He uses healing for all cases where he can, but is none-too-miffed about using "alternative" replacements for lost body parts. Regeneration's very expensive, after all. Better a skeletal or metal arm than no arm. He even keeps his pet dog, Grace, "alive" as an undead familiar, and is a loving owner.

He works on pirate ships. Well, most of the time. He prefers the more... legal shipsmen, but the number of times he's been gang pressed to service astonishes all who hear of it. He does his job, and does it well regardless... probably a reason why this keeps happening. His current crewmates are solidly in the Evil territory.

He wants to explore the vast seas. He hopes to find the secrets of immortality, health, joy, knowledge, happiness, and so on. There is so much we don't know. Even if his exploration takes place on a pirate's ship...it's ultimately serving a good cause. The desire for immortality and health was what lead him down the path of "trans-personism"... as in transhumanism, but for demi-humans as well...not trans people. (In before people call the character evil for that last bit.)


So...Yeah. That's about it so far. Haven't really gotten to "get in to character" and really get playing. Things tend to evolve a bit more during play, but this is what I've got.

[Crake]

If he toys with undeath, and undeath is inherently evil in your campaign setting (that is the default stance on undeath), then he would be tending toward, if not outright evil.

[Hackulator]

If he toys with undeath, and undeath is inherently evil in your campaign setting (that is the default stance on undeath), then he would be tending toward, if not outright evil.

Per Heroes of Horror, a Necromancer who uses evil magic in the pursuit of good falls solidly in the neutral category.

Probably should got True Neutral as I feel like it's hard to be a lawful pirate, though not impossible.

[AvatarVecna]

A man willing to flirt with necromancy in pursuit of wellness and the betterment of man is solidly Neutral on that side. A man who sees the pirates who pressganged him as vehicles for his explorations, as fit as any other people to sail with, is solidly Neutral on that side as well (he at least partially can't choose who he sails with, but he can choose how he feels about them, and he seems to see pirates as no better or worse an option of crew than non-pirates from your description). Strong strong argument for true neutral, IMO.

[Crake]

A man willing to flirt with necromancy in pursuit of wellness and the betterment of man is solidly Neutral on that side. A man who sees the pirates who pressganged him as vehicles for his explorations, as fit as any other people to sail with, is solidly Neutral on that side as well (he at least partially can't choose who he sails with, but he can choose how he feels about them, and he seems to see pirates as no better or worse an option of crew than non-pirates from your description). Strong strong argument for true neutral, IMO.


Per Heroes of Horror, a Necromancer who uses evil magic in the pursuit of good falls solidly in the neutral category.

Probably should got True Neutral as I feel like it's hard to be a lawful pirate, though not impossible.

Both of these sound strongly like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or "The ends justify the means". Doing evil things for good reasons doesn't make the evil things you do any less evil.

[AvatarVecna]

Both of these sound strongly like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or "The ends justify the means". Doing evil things for good reasons doesn't make the evil things you do any less evil.

That's a view some people hold. Not all. That's literally the point of the trolley problem, a philosophical debate about whether "minimizing evil done" is about never action to cause small evils (even if inaction causes greater evil) or acting to minimize the total evil (even if it means that the small evils that happened are definitely your fault). Also as Hackulator pointed out, it's a canonical philosophy to some degree. Although if you want to turn this into a more general thread about morality and ethics, we could just declare that Miko did nothing wrong, get the thread locked now, and save everybody several hours they'll never get back?

[Crake]

That's a view some people hold. Not all. That's literally the point of the trolley problem, a philosophical debate about whether "minimizing evil done" is about never action to cause small evils (even if inaction causes greater evil) or acting to minimize the total evil (even if it means that the small evils that happened are definitely your fault). Also as Hackulator pointed out, it's a canonical philosophy to some degree. Although if you want to turn this into a more general thread about morality and ethics, we could just declare that Miko did nothing wrong, get the thread locked now, and save everybody several hours they'll never get back?

This is less about taking necessary evils, and more about taking evils for convenience. He doesn't have to perform these acts of evil, they just make his job easier/more convenient. They don't directly enable him to do anything he couldn't otherwise do, but he's doing them anyway, because...... he can I guess?

Also, snarky comments like your last line are the reason threads get closed, not because of actual debate, since last I checked (which was just now) discussion about morality and ethics aren't against the forum rules. Also, some people enjoy reasonable debates about topics like this, if you don't like it, then nobody's forcing you to be involved.

[hamishspence]

A mixture of Evil and Good behaviour is compatible with a Neutral alignment - but the Good needs to be pretty strong to counterbalance the Evil.

"using evil magic" (I.E animate dead, create undead, etc. spells - is, according to Fiendish Codex 2, pretty minor in the scale of things - 1 pt Corrupt acts, the minimum to appear on the Corrupt Acts chart.

That's fairly consistent with the "you can be a user of evil magic and still maintain a Neutral alignment" theme of Heroes of Horror.

[zlefin]

to me the person sounds neutral good; but probably reduced to true neutral (if the setting has necromancy spells have the evil tag, as most do)

[Crake]

A mixture of Evil and Good behaviour is compatible with a Neutral alignment - but the Good needs to be pretty strong to counterbalance the Evil.

"using evil magic" (I.E animate dead, create undead, etc. spells - is, according to Fiendish Codex 2, pretty minor in the scale of things - 1 pt Corrupt acts, the minimum to appear on the Corrupt Acts chart.

That's fairly consistent with the "you can be a user of evil magic and still maintain a Neutral alignment" theme of Heroes of Horror.

Except it takes what, 9 corruption points to be damned to hell? That's not a whole lot, and removing corruption takes active acts of good, not some lofty, far off goal of general goodness that may never be achieved, not to mention once your corruption hits 4+, it takes an atonement spell ontop of those active acts of good.

[noob]

Except it takes what, 9 corruption points to be damned to hell? That's not a whole lot, and removing corruption takes active acts of good, not some lofty, far off goal of general goodness that may never be achieved, not to mention once your corruption hits 4+, it takes an atonement spell ontop of those active acts of good.
Yes now the question is: does he gives food to the hungry people or heal people or some other regular active good stuff?
When he makes an artificial skeletal hand for someone that needed a hand for its job(example: a lumberjack) he is helping this person a lot and it could arguably be good.(which could make it equally evil and good)

[Crake]

Yes now the question is: does he gives food to the hungry people or heal people or some other regular active good stuff?
When he makes an artificial skeletal hand for someone that needed a hand for its job(example: a lumberjack) he is helping this person a lot and it could arguably be good.(which could make it equally evil and good)

That is the question indeed. I suspect he doesn't do that very often, considering he's on a pirate ship, and any people he could help would instead be murdered and plundered by his associates, perhaps he did it beforehand. Also, the acts of good must be recompense for the acts of evil, righting your wrongs, not just performing equal acts of good. So if you maim and injure person A, but help person B, you've done an act of good, but the corruption point remains until you right the wrong you did to person A.

[noob]

That is the question indeed. I suspect he doesn't do that very often, considering he's on a pirate ship, and any people he could help would instead be murdered and plundered by his associates, perhaps he did it beforehand. Also, the acts of good must be recompense for the acts of evil, righting your wrongs, not just performing equal acts of good. So if you maim and injure person A, but help person B, you've done an act of good, but the corruption point remains until you right the wrong you did to person A.

To who is the wrong inflicted if you animate the hand of a lumberjack and give it back to the lumberjack in question?
Is giving back the hand you animated a reparation to the evil act of animating the hand?

[The Kool]

There is an unanswered question in 3.5 about whether necromancy is inherently evil. Some sources say yes, but others suggest no, so it's really for the DM to decide. If yes, then simple using it at all causes a pull of evil on the user, regardless of what they do with it. If no, then it can be disregarded in the discussion.

However, I think that either way we get the same answer. Here we have someone who prefers the company of lawful person but has no objections to working with nonlawful persons, or even outside the confines of the law himself, and so he is neutral on that axis. Similarly, he prefers the company of and personally seeks out good acts, but has no real issues associating with and using evil to achieve his goals, so he's neutral on that axis as well. True Neutral is the alignment you're after here, and I'm not sure I've ever seen such a great example of it.

[GrayDeath]

Not every necromancy Spell has the Evil Tag.

if he uses those that DO more than when he "has to" he will develop towards Evil, unless he counteracts that with a LOT of Good Deeds (TM).

Even if he does that though, if you use the Corruption Rules He Is Already Damned (stupid Rules imo, but they exist).


I had a similar Character once, who started as neutral Good, realized his abilities to do good increased with necromancy, quickly fell towards true neutral, but never QUITE fell to Evil, as he never ahd any enjoyment in others suffering or did it when he had other valid options.

[Crake]

There is an unanswered question in 3.5 about whether necromancy is inherently evil. Some sources say yes, but others suggest no, so it's really for the DM to decide. If yes, then simple using it at all causes a pull of evil on the user, regardless of what they do with it. If no, then it can be disregarded in the discussion.

However, I think that either way we get the same answer. Here we have someone who prefers the company of lawful person but has no objections to working with nonlawful persons, or even outside the confines of the law himself, and so he is neutral on that axis. Similarly, he prefers the company of and personally seeks out good acts, but has no real issues associating with and using evil to achieve his goals, so he's neutral on that axis as well. True Neutral is the alignment you're after here, and I'm not sure I've ever seen such a great example of it.


Not every necromancy Spell has the Evil Tag.

if he uses those that DO more than when he "has to" he will develop towards Evil, unless he counteracts that with a LOT of Good Deeds (TM).

Even if he does that though, if you use the Corruption Rules He Is Already Damned (stupid Rules imo, but they exist).


I had a similar Character once, who started as neutral Good, realized his abilities to do good increased with necromancy, quickly fell towards true neutral, but never QUITE fell to Evil, as he never ahd any enjoyment in others suffering or did it when he had other valid options.

Not all necromancy no, but you'll find every necromancy spell involved with undeath does have the [evil] tag. Note I never said necromancy was inherently evil, I said undeath was.


To who is the wrong inflicted if you animate the hand of a lumberjack and give it back to the lumberjack in question?
Is giving back the hand you animated a reparation to the evil act of animating the hand?

That's too subjective a question for me to really answer, the only answer I can give is my own opinion on the matter. If I were the DM in question, and undeath was inherently evil (I actually run undeath as not being inherently evil in my campaign setting, but that is a houserule), then the evil would be against nature/the material plane itself (since I believe that is the fluff behind why undeath is inherently evil, you are saturating and degrading the material plane with negative energy), and the only act of reparation would be the destruction of the undead hand, but I'm sure the answer to this question would really vary wildly from DM to DM.

[Hackulator]

Both of these sound strongly like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or "The ends justify the means". Doing evil things for good reasons doesn't make the evil things you do any less evil.

No, but it can counterbalance them. Regardless, this is a question about D&D, not life, and it is explicitly stated in the book with the Necromancer class that you can be neutral.

[Karl Aegis]

Neutral with a leaning towards Carceri. Never forget how expensive creating half-golems is compared to a casting of Regenerate! Always remember there are Inevitables out there to get you, especially Maruts, Gantrenachts and Varakhuts! Really, just get a new familiar.... on a cleric. Doesn't really sound like a dwarf, either; why are they on a boat. Death as one on your domains might actually get you into the Abyss in the thrall of Orcus instead of a relatively benign one in Carceri. I suppose there is Nerull, but you kind of have that whole anti-disease thing going on with your healing magicks. But the whole technological singularity thing that ends the world is definitely a no-no. You'll fit right in in a chaotic-evil aligned plane!

[Crake]

No, but it can counterbalance them. Regardless, this is a question about D&D, not life, and it is explicitly stated in the book with the Necromancer class that you can be neutral.

Can be does not mean will be. If using undeath is your only source of evil, and you regularly perform acts of good, then maybe, but if undeath is just one of your sources of evil, and you literally travel with a band of marauding pirates doing nothing to stop them... Yeah, you wouldn't be neutral in my books.

Additionally, neutral people can still end up in hell.

[The Kool]

Not all necromancy no, but you'll find every necromancy spell involved with undeath does have the [evil] tag. Note I never said necromancy was inherently evil, I said undeath was.

Apologies, that is what I meant by necromancy. I conflate the two sometimes. Still my claim stands. Designers can't even agree on why, because some imply that negative energy is inherently evil but most claim it isn't. For example, it's tied alignment-wise to good/evil clerics, but the cure/inflict spells do not actually have alignment tags. Nor are the positive/negative energy planes good or evil aligned.

[Crake]

Apologies, that is what I meant by necromancy. I conflate the two sometimes. Still my claim stands. Designers can't even agree on why, because some imply that negative energy is inherently evil but most claim it isn't. For example, it's tied alignment-wise to good/evil clerics, but the cure/inflict spells do not actually have alignment tags. Nor are the positive/negative energy planes good or evil aligned.

Negative energy being evil or not, it's clear that despite that, undeath itself is decidedly evil, at least by standard game mechanics, as all spells that create undeath have the [evil] tag, and undead register as evil to detect evil.

[ezekielraiden]

Is alignment deontological or consequential?

If the former, he's Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. Using undeath is Just Evil deontologically, and aiding and abetting pirates is *at least* Chaotic if not also Evil. Your results are meaningless in such a framework.

If comsequentialist? At best, True Neutral, but heavily flirting with both Evil and Chaos. Aiding people who steal and murder without really trying to stop them strongly implies you're okay with what they're doing, and that's not actually compatible with a Neutral alignment. Further, using "cheaper"/"easier" methods in any but pressing circumstances, and being okay with the unfortunate consequences, isn't super great either. To reference the trolley problem above, it's one thing to reluctantly pull the lever (saving five by killing one), it's quite another to enthusiastically sign up for lever-pulling jobs and seek out situations where pulling such a lever might be required. And that, to me, is what having the Death domain does; this guy *actually reveres* death, not just seeing it as a tool with uses but as a thing worthy of veneration in its own right.

If you want the mechanics to match the fluff, I'm pretty sure his domains should be Artifice and Healing (or some equivalent to express his, you know, alleged preference for healing). Clerics still get some Necromancy spells without that domain, and...well, I hate to break it to you but the Death domain has only one spell that doesn't hurt, kill, or terrify others (death ward). All 8 other spells (cause fear, death knell, create undead, etc.) have exactly the opposite effect, as does the granted domain power. Further, almost all gods with this domain are evil themselves, so unless you worship no god, you almost surely *can't* have it. (Wee Jas is a rare exception but she doesn't grant Artifice, no non-Evil god has both, only Eberron's Dark Six.)

So...yeah. If you're a Cleric of a philosophy that literally reveres death and dying, I don't think you can be Good, and If you're using Cleric slots to cast death knell and cause fear on the reg, you aren't Neutral either. Being pretty chill about getting "press-ganged" by pirates, apparently more than once, is...pretty not-Lawful. That preference for legitimacy isn't very strong. Especially if "Hey, I get to see the world either way!" is why you're okay with it.

Basically, I think your death domain choice clashes with every other part of the character's description (using necromancy as a sometimes tragically necessary tool and being okay with that, not literally worshipping death and dying), and I don't think he can be Lawful and also just chilling with pirates even if he'd rather not.

Does he try to escape? Does he admonish them for their sins? Does he pull a Father Brown and slowly educate them as to moral good without condemnation, while still repudiating their wicked deeds? If he does at least some of this and you ditch the Death *domain* but not the "will use necromancy when reasonably necessary" aspect, Lawful Neutral or True Neutral both make perfect sense. Even Chaotic Neutral (he doesn't play by society's rules, he'll do whatever it takes to fix problems and learn more about the world.)

Also, you aren't really going for "immortality, health, joy, [and] happiness" if you actually create undead. They're literally the antithesis of health, joy, and happiness: they cause decay and corruption, they often lose the ability to feel positive or healthy emotions, and are only "immortal" because of the grim, depressing, hungry negative energy comprising their being. Undeath is Bad News, and willingly making a whole one is Bad for good reason. (Hence why Eberron introduced the deathless, who are more embalmed than undead proper though they still are undead. They're also expressly not inherently evil.)

Also...*are* there any spells that do what you describe? Create just undead limbs, without corrupting the "patient" as well? That sounds like it should be at least as tough as regeneration.

[Crake]

Also...*are* there any spells that do what you describe? Create just undead limbs, without corrupting the "patient" as well? That sounds like it should be at least as tough as regeneration.

I was wondering this too, but it seems that undead grafts don't actually have any side effects, which I found really strange. Still, crafting a graft is going to almost always be more expensive than crafting a scroll of regenerate, just throwing it out there, so unless you lack the capability to cast cast/craft regenerate, it's a pretty poor argument.

[noob]

If the problem is the accumulation of negative energy you might try to find a way to destroy negative energy or to return it to the negative plane of energy and once you create such device using negative energy stops being that much problematic.

[Crake]

If the problem is the accumulation of negative energy you might try to find a way to destroy negative energy or to return it to the negative plane of energy and once you create such device using negative energy stops being that much problematic.

Well, generally the destruction of the negative energy means the destruction of the undead construct.

[noob]

Well, generally the destruction of the negative energy means the destruction of the undead construct.

The main problem is that undead radiate negative energy which then gets in the environment and weaken living things and make the world darker and so on.
If we can extract the negative energy from the environment and return it to the plane of negative energy the problems due to undead are lessened.

[ezekielraiden]

Also, regenerate has no material components. A skeletal hand graft requires a feat and 3000 gp. A scroll of regenerate is 7×13×25 = 2275 gp to purchase, or 1137.5 gp to craft. It is, in fact, less expensive to regenerate a lost limb than to make an undead one. If you make sure to have at least 17 Wis by level 13 (not too hard, means a minimum starting 14 and putting all 3 level up points into it, manageable even in bare minimum point buy), you can cast it at least once a day. And before 13? If 3k isn't too expensive, 2.3k surely can't be...and I'm skeptical that a lack of regenerate scrolls will exist at the same time as access to the training and materials needed for a skeleton hand graft.

[Karl Aegis]

Huh, looking at the Half-Golems, divine casters don't have the ability to attach limbs made of metal or bone, nor the ability to create them. They can attach Stained Glass or Stone Golem parts, but can only maybe create the parts if they have the right skills and spells (and a month's time instead of three rounds for Regenerate). "Possessed by an angry elemental spirit" is not a condition a Good person inflicts on someone when they can just prepare Regenerate instead.

[The Kool]

Is alignment deontological or consequential?Aiding people who steal and murder without really trying to stop them strongly implies you're okay with what they're doing, and that's not actually compatible with a Neutral alignment. Further, using "cheaper"/"easier" methods in any but pressing circumstances, and being okay with the unfortunate consequences, isn't super great either. To reference the trolley problem above, it's one thing to reluctantly pull the lever (saving five by killing one), it's quite another to enthusiastically sign up for lever-pulling jobs and seek out situations where pulling such a lever might be required.

I'm going to settle in and contest you on a few points here. Let's start with this one. The character was not described as enthusiastically signing up in any way, so your claim to that can be thoroughly stricken from the argument above (though it relates below to a distinct argument, we'll get to that). It may not have been intended to relate, but it was placed in the paragraph in such a way to sound like it does. Moving to the meat of the matter though, apathy does not equal endorsement. Failure to actively oppose chaos does not make you chaotic. Failure to actively oppose evil does not make you evil. Those are good arguments for Not Lawful and Not Good, respectively, but cannot be taken so far as to be arguments for Chaotic and Evil. For that, we'd need additional evidence.


To reference the trolley problem above, it's one thing to reluctantly pull the lever (saving five by killing one), it's quite another to enthusiastically sign up for lever-pulling jobs and seek out situations where pulling such a lever might be required. And that, to me, is what having the Death domain does; this guy *actually reveres* death, not just seeing it as a tool with uses but as a thing worthy of veneration in its own right.

To revere Death is not to revere Undeath, and please do not make the mistake of half the designers (like whoever put this domain together) by conflating the two. Many deities that have the Death domain are in fact peaceful gatekeepers and stewerds, overseeing and protecting the passage from this life into the afterlife. Wee Jas, for example, has books upon books of burial rites and various rituals for revering the dead. Nothing about that is inherently Evil.


If you want the mechanics to match the fluff, I'm pretty sure his domains should be Artifice and Healing (or some equivalent to express his, you know, alleged preference for healing). Clerics still get some Necromancy spells without that domain, and...well, I hate to break it to you but the Death domain has only one spell that doesn't hurt, kill, or terrify others (death ward). All 8 other spells (cause fear, death knell, create undead, etc.) have exactly the opposite effect, as does the granted domain power. Further, almost all gods with this domain are evil themselves, so unless you worship no god, you almost surely *can't* have it. (Wee Jas is a rare exception but she doesn't grant Artifice, no non-Evil god has both, only Eberron's Dark Six.)

While you make half of a good point, you're once again stretching it too far. Firstly, one can have the Death domain without worshiping an Evil deity (as you need not worship one at all), and even if worshiping an Evil deity need not actually be Evil themselves (as you don't have to match your Deity's alignment exactly). Secondly, while many of the spells can easily be used for evil, they are not inherently so. Less than half of the spells on the list are Evil spells, and wouldn't you say that making someone run away and need a change of trousers is Good compared to murdering them because they insist on being in the way? Even the spells that kill someone do so mercifully and painlessly the majority of the time, or end someone's suffering as in the case of Death Knell.


So...yeah. If you're a Cleric of a philosophy that literally reveres death and dying, I don't think you can be Good, and If you're using Cleric slots to cast death knell and cause fear on the reg, you aren't Neutral either. Being pretty chill about getting "press-ganged" by pirates, apparently more than once, is...pretty not-Lawful. That preference for legitimacy isn't very strong. Especially if "Hey, I get to see the world either way!" is why you're okay with it.

Basically, I think your death domain choice clashes with every other part of the character's description (using necromancy as a sometimes tragically necessary tool and being okay with that, not literally worshipping death and dying), and I don't think he can be Lawful and also just chilling with pirates even if he'd rather not.

Once again, Not-Lawful does not equal Chaotic, and Not-Good does not equal Evil. I think an alternative version of a Death domain might fit the character better, but other than that, you hit the nail on the head in these two paragraphs. You just fall victim to the Either/Or fallacy

[Crake]

I'm going to settle in and contest you on a few points here. Let's start with this one. The character was not described as enthusiastically signing up in any way, so your claim to that can be thoroughly stricken from the argument above (though it relates below to a distinct argument, we'll get to that). It may not have been intended to relate, but it was placed in the paragraph in such a way to sound like it does. Moving to the meat of the matter though, apathy does not equal endorsement. Failure to actively oppose chaos does not make you chaotic. Failure to actively oppose evil does not make you evil. Those are good arguments for Not Lawful and Not Good, respectively, but cannot be taken so far as to be arguments for Chaotic and Evil. For that, we'd need additional evidence.

To be fair, it's not like he's just tagging along with the pirates, he's their doctor. By healing them and fixing them up, he's directly supporting their future endeavours toward evil acts. But even then, apathy would be seeing the pirates doing evil and deciding "yeah, nah, I'm not having any part of that". Joining up with them and watching them do evil all day long is not the same thing. You're associating with them, and basically supporting their decisions and acts.


Even the spells that kill someone do so mercifully and painlessly the majority of the time, or end someone's suffering as in the case of Death Knell.

You have no real basis for that claim, let's be honest. Just because it's quick, doesn't mean it's merciful or painless.

[The Kool]

You have no real basis for that claim, let's be honest. Just because it's quick, doesn't mean it's merciful or painless.

Fair, I looked closer and apparently that's just a headcanon. But neither do you have any basis for a claim to it being merciless or painful in most cases. A quick death in and of itself is often a mercy, so it would entirely be within the realm of reason to use the spells in that fashion.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm going to settle in and contest you on a few points here. Let's start with this one. The character was not described as enthusiastically signing up in any way, so your claim to that can be thoroughly stricken from the argument above (though it relates below to a distinct argument, we'll get to that).

As I understood it, in order to have a pair of domains that aren't offered by any specific deity, you must be a cleric of a philosophy which deeply, fervently supports that domain's focus and nature. It can't just be "oh, this is a useful tool I wish I didn't have to use." It's, "This is vital to my worldview." To whit, 3.5e PHB, page 30: "Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. ... A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may...extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy." You can't have the Death domain unless youa re devoted to death. That is what I was referring to as "enthusiastically signing up."

And, yeah, if you are literally a death-worshipping Cleric--whether because of your deity or because of your philosophy--I'm gonna say you emphatically can't be Good. More on this later.


Moving to the meat of the matter though, apathy does not equal endorsement.


Failure to actively oppose evil does not make you evil.

Very strong philosophical claim there. I won't ask you to back it up because IRL issues etc. But this position? At the very least contentious. The ethic of reciprocity has two forms, the negative and the positive, and at least one has been accepted in every human culture. The negative is, "avoid doing to others what you would not want done to you," and tells you not to inflict things on other people, but provides no duty of care. The positive--and the one which has, generally speaking, almost completely supplanted the negative form despite being rather "newer"--is, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It does entail that a failure to stop evil is, itself, a form of evil--lesser, perhaps, but still. (Unless you're really committed to the idea that people should not help you fight off an assailant trying to kill you? I suppose that's possible...)


Those are good arguments for Not Lawful and Not Good, respectively, but cannot be taken so far as to be arguments for Chaotic and Evil. For that, we'd need additional evidence.

Which...is what they were. You seem to be taking many of my arguments beyond the words I used; I explicitly referenced "not-Good" at least once to make that clear, and I am a little frustrated at that being ignored.


To revere Death is not to revere Undeath, and please do not make the mistake of half the designers (like whoever put this domain together) by conflating the two.

I wasn't assuming they were revering undeath. I was assuming that having the Death domain means, in a very colloquial way of saying it, "F**K YES, I get to HURT PEOPLE BY TOUCHING THEM, and SCARE people, and create undead, and THAT IS THE BEST THING."

You're also treading on some dangerous ground, here--you seem to be asserting that the Death domain has some status it should "really" be, which the designers failed to implement. But all we have is the designers' description of it. Death, as a domain, is literally chock full of spells that hurt people, and has a domain power that hurts people. Whatever domain you're talking about is something else. Now, you may have an argument for why the designers were wrong to make this the Death domain rather than the Undeath domain, but as it stands...that's what it is, and that's what the player in question is signing up for (again, the enthusiasm being "this character is sufficiently supporting the philosophy embodied by this domain that he can spontaneously manifest these powers").


Many deities that have the Death domain are in fact peaceful gatekeepers and stewerds, overseeing and protecting the passage from this life into the afterlife. Wee Jas, for example, has books upon books of burial rites and various rituals for revering the dead. Nothing about that is inherently Evil.

Eeeeeeeexcept that Wee Jas is explicitly Evil in some supplements, and even where she is neutral, she has "Evil tendencies."

I will, however, admit that there are gods-of-death that aren't like that. None of them offer Artifice as a domain. Further, you'd have to do some pretty serious convincing to prove to me that these "stewards" of the line between life and death would be okay with their clerics using undeath (like making skeleton hands) to "help" the living.


While you make half of a good point, you're once again stretching it too far. Firstly, one can have the Death domain without worshiping an Evil deity (as you need not worship one at all), and even if worshiping an Evil deity need not actually be Evil themselves (as you don't have to match your Deity's alignment exactly).

I had moved on from the philosophical perspective (which was the main thrust of the prior stuff) and to "do you have a deity that could offer this stuff." I am of course quite well aware of the philosophy cleric angle.


Secondly, while many of the spells can easily be used for evil, they are not inherently so. Less than half of the spells on the list are Evil spells, and wouldn't you say that making someone run away and need a change of trousers is Good compared to murdering them because they insist on being in the way? Even the spells that kill someone do so mercifully and painlessly the majority of the time, or end someone's suffering as in the case of Death Knell.


Part of this has already been touched on by someone else, so I won't do so myself. But no, I would not consider Cause Fear Good--ironically, you have fallen into the very trap you keep seeing in my post. Just because something isn't Evil, doesn't mean it's Good either. You've also forced a false dichotomy between either scaring someone or murdering them. There are plenty of other options, many of which are less bad, and some of which are actually Good.

Death Knell at the very least is explicitly Evil anyway, so that's less of a concern. I do admit, 5 of the 9 spells are not Evil-tagged...but all of the ones that deal with undeath are so tagged. Destruction might not be capital-E Evil, but it's hardly Good either. Further, for this character, whom the OP explicitly described as seeking "the secrets of immortality, health, joy, knowledge, happiness, and so on," inflicting abject terror or slaying people? Even most of the non-Evil spells are not a good fit!

Incidentally, for clerics who respect this boundary, there is another domain: Repose (https://www.realmshelps.net/deities/domain/Repose), which has no [Evil] spells in it (though some versions give deathwatch, which I find confusing but whatever, it's the designers' game.) Still, though, is it realy appropriate for someone who genuinely prefers healing, but is willing to consider drastic measures as a last resort, to always have death-causing spells prepared every single day? There's a mismatch there.


Once again, Not-Lawful does not equal Chaotic, and Not-Good does not equal Evil. I think an alternative version of a Death domain might fit the character better, but other than that, you hit the nail on the head in these two paragraphs. You just fall victim to the Either/Or fallacy

My point was: Good is almost certainly ruled out, with rare and frankly highly unusual exceptions. So we can, in general, comfortably assume this character is non-Good. He has also willingly assisted pirates. Oh, sure, he'd "rather" not be there, but the number of times he has been so is "shocking" to others--and he does his job, regardless of whether the people he's helping are Good, Evil, or Neutral. So...he's already very clearly not-Good, and he appears to have no real qualms about helping Evil people and not doing a damned thing about their Evil. Yes, I consider that a (weaker, smaller) form of Evil. And I hate to break it to you, but providing medical assistance willingly (we have no reason to believe these "many" voyages have all been under constant threat of death) makes him an accessory to piracy. He has repeatedly aided and abetted pirates, and doesn't care. That's at the very least flirting with Chaos, and may be stepping over that line.

[SangoProduction]

His Death domain is more his devotion to Undeath as a means of transcending mortal limitations more than a devotion to slaughter and mayhem and wanton death.
And he does try and leave the pirate ships when he can. But when you're out in the briny sea, and a bunch of murdering robbers are telling you to be their doctor...you don't really have a choice. The fact that he figures it may as well be for the greater good is a different fact entirely.
Just to get that misconception out of the way.

[ezekielraiden]

His Death domain is more his devotion to Undeath as a means of transcending mortal limitations more than a devotion to slaughter and mayhem and wanton death.
Just to get that misconception out of the way.

How many D&D universes draw any distinction between the two, *when* transcending mortal limitations is done through undeath? Undeath is inherently corrupting in nearly all places it occurs. Even if negative energy weren't literally a hungry maw into which life falls and does not come out, undead things feed on living things.

And, as noted, an undead graft literally is more expensive than a casting of regenerate. So...yeah. Undeath is the Bad People way to transcend mortal limits.

[The Kool]

-snip-

Not to get into this because I'm getting in over my head philosophically and can't hold my ground in a drawn out debate like this, even though I love having them and learning through them, I'll just make a couple points.

I would argue that "This is vital to my worldview." is not the same as wanting to "extol the virtues of a [certain] life". One of these is stated more strongly than the other, and it's not the PHB.

You weren't ignored about the not-good and not-lawful parts, but based on previous statements this seemed like an alternate phrasing to understate the position you already declared, of the subject being Chaotic and Evil. Apologies for misunderstanding.

Wee Jas is LN leaning LE, yes, but the Evil is explicitly called out as being due to her anything-goes approach to power-hunger. Any references to Undeath with her are in a very reverential way. Did you get permission of the body's owner? Did you perform proper burial rites? Did you adhere to all local laws? Did you treat the corpse with respect? Then yeah sure, do whatever with the corpse, it doesn't matter anymore because the soul has moved on. If there was ever a not-evil approach to undeath... hers is it.

Repose domain... that's fantastic. But it's not from the core books, so some people (like me) might not know it exists. I did unfairly make the distinction between philosphy implied by the title, and powers claimed therein, so once again... good point.

Were we only looking at the domains chosen, I would agree that the subject utilizing the death domain is most-likely-evil, but given the greater context of the character I believe it has been moved just far enough away to be not-quite-evil. This character could easily slide that direction, and I have a sneaking suspicion he will.

[SangoProduction]

Yeah. Didn't get in the specifics, precisely because I didn't know the specifics. But Animate Object (and I assumed necromancy had its equivalent small-scale animation) was 1 level lower than Regenerate, and easier to access as a result. Same with Permanency. So he believes in the ideal that the two routes will transcend mortality. Not neccesarily that it does. Facts don't need to be consistent with belief.

And undeath, in the form of Lichdom, Vampirism, or Ghosthood, among others, transcends mortality while maintaining your mind. Though settings have it so such undead are abominations driven to madness by their undeath, it is not a universal truth. The aristocratic Vampire is a famous trope that subverts the idea. And nothing about the various templates necessitates insanity, or even reduces mental stats.

But for the purposes of this thought experiment, assume undeath is not "inherently evil/corrupting".

[Karl Aegis]

Yeah, settling with the easy way of undeath instead of achieving true immortality is Evil. Not even worth the time of stronger Inevitables.

[Crake]

Fair, I looked closer and apparently that's just a headcanon. But neither do you have any basis for a claim to it being merciless or painful in most cases. A quick death in and of itself is often a mercy, so it would entirely be within the realm of reason to use the spells in that fashion.

It is worth noting that being killed by a death effect (such as slay living) wracks your body and soul horribly enough that raise dead will no longer be able to bring you back to life, just sayin.

[Bohandas]

If he toys with undeath, and undeath is inherently evil in your campaign setting (that is the default stance on undeath), then he would be tending toward, if not outright evil.

or he would have an evil aura at any rate. Nothing about his personality need be evil. Necromancy being evil in 3.5 seems to be an arbitrary quirk of karmic mechanics, rather than a consequence or harmful action or malevolent thought.

[Feantar]

Since we're going by the RAW of Evil spells have [Evil] tags:


Not all ways of creating undead are evil. In Complete Mage there are two spells that allow the creation of undead without the evil tag. Specifically the Seed of Undeath spells. The difference with those spells is that they are used on a living person and they bestow undeath (and control) when, and if, death occurs. Which I find peculiar. Maybe the negative energy leak that harms the material plane happens only upon the invocation of the spell and their living bodies prevent it? The spell specifies You plant a kernel of negative energy in a subject, which is held in check by the positive energy inherent to the subject's own life force. So the Prime Material isn't harmed by it? If this is the case then undead grafts would also not be evil, if attached to living beings.
Controlling undead isn't evil. Case in point, Control Undead, Command Undead, Crown of the Grave(PHB II), Touch of the Graveborn (Complete Mage), Undead Lieutenant(SpC) don't have the evil tag. I am not arguing that using them to burn down an orphanage isn't evil, just that the spell isn't inherently evil. So you can use undead that you encounter or animate through non-evil means.

[Crake]

or he would have an evil aura at any rate. Nothing about his personality need be evil. Necromancy being evil in 3.5 seems to be an arbitrary quirk of karmic mechanics, rather than a consequence or harmful action or malevolent thought.

Personality and alignment aren't necessarily reflective of one another. Alignment is descriptive of your actions, and every time you cast an evil spell, you're performing an evil act knowingly, on par with dumping chemical waste into the swamp if you liken negative energy with chemical waste based on it's effect on the material plane. Personality is irrelevant honestly, you can be charming and wonderful, but still secretly be a serial prostitute murderer.


Since we're going by the RAW of Evil spells have [Evil] tags:


Not all ways of creating undead are evil. In Complete Mage there are two spells that allow the creation of undead without the evil tag. Specifically the Seed of Undeath spells. The difference with those spells is that they are used on a living person and they bestow undeath (and control) when, and if, death occurs. Which I find peculiar. Maybe the negative energy leak that harms the material plane happens only upon the invocation of the spell and their living bodies prevent it? The spell specifies You plant a kernel of negative energy in a subject, which is held in check by the positive energy inherent to the subject's own life force. So the Prime Material isn't harmed by it? If this is the case then undead grafts would also not be evil, if attached to living beings.

Going by RAW, seed of undeath doesn't have the evil tag no, but when the subject rises as a zombie, as the animate dead spell which does have the evil tag, you're still performing an evil action when the zombie arises.


Controlling undead isn't evil. Case in point, Control Undead, Command Undead, Crown of the Grave(PHB II), Touch of the Graveborn (Complete Mage), Undead Lieutenant(SpC) don't have the evil tag. I am not arguing that using them to burn down an orphanage isn't evil, just that the spell isn't inherently evil. So you can use undead that you encounter or animate through non-evil means.


That does seem to be correct as so much as casting dominate monster on a demon/devil would not be evil either, but that's not really the case of what's going on here. Again, as I mentioned earlier, nothing about the entire necromancy school itself is evil, just the act of creating undeath.

[Feantar]

Going by RAW, seed of undeath doesn't have the evil tag no, but when the subject rises as a zombie, as the animate dead spell which does have the evil tag, you're still performing an evil action when the zombie arises.

Is there a passage which specifies that animating undead is always evil, or are we deriving this from the spell's evil tag? Because, if we are, then animating a zombie this way isn't inherently evil. For some reason.

[Karl Aegis]

Is there a passage which specifies that animating undead is always evil, or are we deriving this from the spell's evil tag? Because, if we are, then animating a zombie this way isn't inherently evil. For some reason.

It's unnatural to the point you will get an Inevitable after you for cheating death.

[Feantar]

It's unnatural to the point you will get an Inevitable after you for cheating death.

That... has nothing to do with good and evil. That is law vs chaos.

[Karl Aegis]

That... has nothing to do with good and evil. That is law vs chaos.

Is it? Natural things don't really seem that lawful, to be honest.

[Feantar]

Is it? Natural things don't really seem that lawful, to be honest.

Oh, I meant the inevitable part is lawful. Inevitables have nothing to do with good (or evil).

On the natural part, something being natural is just that. Natural. It isn't good or bad. Otherwise it would be an evil act to, for example, planeshift. Since it isn't your natural environment. Or it would be evil to create constructs.

[Crake]

Is there a passage which specifies that animating undead is always evil, or are we deriving this from the spell's evil tag? Because, if we are, then animating a zombie this way isn't inherently evil. For some reason.

I'm deriving it from the spell's evil tag, and while seed of undeath doesn't have the evil tag, so casting it in itself isn't evil, animate dead has the evil tag, so it's still referentially evil, in that, when the animation takes place, that's still an evil act. In other words: Planting the seed isn't evil, but letting it grow is.

[Feantar]

I'm deriving it from the spell's evil tag, and while seed of undeath doesn't have the evil tag, so casting it in itself isn't evil, animate dead has the evil tag, so it's still referentially evil, in that, when the animation takes place, that's still an evil act. In other words: Planting the seed isn't evil, but letting it grow is.

I disagree with that assessment. There are spells that do similar things but don't both share the evil tag (Usually spells that instantly kill). Thus the result of the spell isn't what is evil (necessarily) but the spell itself is evil (using evil energies - see darkbolt for example). So if you can avoid using said energies the action isn't inherently evil.

That being said, I have an very faint memory of a mention in BoVD or BoED that animating the dead is inherently evil (in their respective chapter) but I don't currently have access to them so I can't be sure. I'd probably be able to check tomorrow.

[OgresAreCute]

I disagree with that assessment. There are spells that do similar things but don't both share the evil tag (Usually spells that instantly kill). Thus the result of the spell isn't what is evil (necessarily) but the spell itself is evil (using evil energies - see darkbolt for example). So if you can avoid using said energies the action isn't inherently evil.

That being said, I have an very faint memory of a mention in BoVD or BoED that animating the dead is inherently evil (in their respective chapter) but I don't currently have access to them so I can't be sure. I'd probably be able to check tomorrow.

Hmm...


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.

Well, they sure didn't leave room for nuance, so there you have it.

On the next page from this one there's also a paragraph detailing how creating evil creatures (not necessarily undead) is also an evil act. Allowing your underlings to create spawn or spread lycanthropy is also considered evil.

[Crake]

I disagree with that assessment. There are spells that do similar things but don't both share the evil tag (Usually spells that instantly kill). Thus the result of the spell isn't what is evil (necessarily) but the spell itself is evil (using evil energies - see darkbolt for example). So if you can avoid using said energies the action isn't inherently evil.

This isn't what's happening here though, seed of undeath isn't merely similar to animate dead, it references the spell directly, and says it animates as per the animate dead spell, which includes the [Evil] portion of animate dead.

[Pleh]

So, I've got another character for whom I'm not so sure about the alignment for. I'm thinking of True Neutral, or maybe even Lawful Neutral.

He's a dwarven doctor. Well, of sorts. A cleric. Of Artifice and Death. He uses healing for all cases where he can, but is none-too-miffed about using "alternative" replacements for lost body parts. Regeneration's very expensive, after all. Better a skeletal or metal arm than no arm. He even keeps his pet dog, Grace, "alive" as an undead familiar, and is a loving owner.

He works on pirate ships. Well, most of the time. He prefers the more... legal shipsmen, but the number of times he's been gang pressed to service astonishes all who hear of it. He does his job, and does it well regardless... probably a reason why this keeps happening. His current crewmates are solidly in the Evil territory.

He wants to explore the vast seas. He hopes to find the secrets of immortality, health, joy, knowledge, happiness, and so on. There is so much we don't know. Even if his exploration takes place on a pirate's ship...it's ultimately serving a good cause. The desire for immortality and health was what lead him down the path of "trans-personism"... as in transhumanism, but for demi-humans as well...not trans people. (In before people call the character evil for that last bit.)


So...Yeah. That's about it so far. Haven't really gotten to "get in to character" and really get playing. Things tend to evolve a bit more during play, but this is what I've got.

Okay, I'll suggest that you've worked pretty hard to make sure we aren't exploring the character's breaking points, which is really where I see alignment getting made with dichotomous characters like this.

When he gets mad, does he indulge in the dark powers that surround him?

How does undeath work in this setting? In many common ones, keeping his undead dog for sentiment might require some dilusions because undeath produces a Stephen King's Pet Sematary effect where what comes back is not the creature that died. If undeath allows the creature to resemble a dessicated version of the same creature, it's arguably already a much less evil form of undeath. Here, the stigma against necromamcy is only that: just a stigma.

For one thing, this character seems rather distinctly neither Good nor Lawful, as they travel with definitively Evil pirates and feel no compunction to leave or compulsion to stay. He lacks the true malice or callousness of evil, though his disregard for social conventions and his Jack Sparrow dream of freedom of the sea puts him squarely chaotic in my estimation.

But he's so close to the borderline on each side that we need to know which ways he trends. If he's prone to violence due to the rough company he keeps, likely more evil. If he just never gets violent even when provoked and spares enemies when possible, he's closer to good.

Not sure much anything will push him lawful with how deep chaotic he already is. At most, might push neutral? But there's just nothing besides his academic discipline that seems lawful, and knowledge isn't intrinsically lawful. Chaotic characters can have a personal code and still be chaotic, seems the same with knowledge, or else Wizards would have the Non Chaotic alignment restriction.

Overall, not knowing his breaking point reactions, he seems Chaotic Neutral from a Balance perspective on Good/Evil neutrality.

[Feantar]

On the next page from this one there's also a paragraph detailing how creating evil creatures (not necessarily undead) is also an evil act. Allowing your underlings to create spawn or spread lycanthropy is also considered evil.

Yup, thank you. Then yes, it is unavoidable, creating undead is evil in all cases.


This isn't what's happening here though, seed of undeath isn't merely similar to animate dead, it references the spell directly, and says it animates as per the animate dead spell, which includes the [Evil] portion of animate dead.

Indeed, but casting evil spells is evil. You didn't cast an evil spell. Even if it mimics another evil spell, the evil tag is absent. Of course, that's neither here nor there since animating undead is always evil as OgresAreCute quotes from the BoVD, so yeah, can't do anything to avoid it.

[The Kool]

Yup, thank you. Then yes, it is unavoidable, creating undead is evil in all cases.

Unless the DM rules otherwise for their world, which in the case of the OP, we seem to have.

[fallensavior]

Is alignment deontological or consequential?

I'm sure various splatbooks muddy the waters presenting variant alignment schemes and alternative points of view, but the core rules at least make it very clear that actions are what matter, not intent.

"Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players." -DMG 134

[hamishspence]

Intent and context still matter though, even if some actions have an intrinsic alignment.

"Accidentally bringing about a calamity" isn't an evil act - at least, not if one took reasonable precautions but the calamity still happened:


http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

[The Kool]

I prefer the stance where actions are the driving factor, but obvious intent and immediate consequence can sway the outcome. OK so lying isn't lawful. But what if the player was agonizing out loud over whether to lie or not, eventually deciding to lie to protect someone? I would say that intent is good. What if someone goes back in time to kill baby Hitler? OK so killing a baby is evil, right? But you're doing it with the clear intent of saving hundreds of thousands of lives. So... less evil (but not good lol you're still killing a baby). What if you ignore someone sneaking a weapon into an audience chamber? Well ignoring them isn't evil, but the immediate consequence which should have been obvious is that the king gets assassinated, so I'd call that kinda evil.