Is Tsukiko Right?

[kpenguin]

I don't believe betraying your entire civilization and allying with an army bent on the destruction of the thousands is right, but I do not believe that it is right to simply judge that undead have no rights (intelligent undead at least). I sympathize with Tsukiko the same way I sympathize with Redcloak.

What do you think?

[Guts]

I dont know. For me it depends on whether undead are considered abominations in the OOTS world and for what reasons. In any case, she should have left Azure City if she knew that they would not like it, for it could be against their culture to disturb the dead and she said she's a graverobber (lord knows how she started her obsession. Thriller music video?)

[Ancalagon]

Before you do know what she actually did, it may be a bit early for that, don't you agree?

[FrostXian]

I kind of agree with her, now. Undead are fun, more fun than living beings in my opinion.

[Ancalagon]

Care to elaborate?

[evileeyore]

Is Tsukiko Right?No.









:smile:

[T.Titan]

She's right in the sense that she wasn't really betraying "her" civilization... other than that what can i say... even :xykon: knows it's disgusting.


Care to elaborate?

They don't fight back.... :smallbiggrin: :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[Paladin29]

undead are not natural beings, their destruction is an act of compassion. And Tsukiko is a sick evil *****. I don´t see any rest of moral reasons that i see in RC (and I think that RC is an evil being).

[Hasivel]

It all depends on the nature of the setting really. One of the most fun characters I ever played was when I got a DM to agree that there was nothing inherently evil about undead (If they didn't feed on living beings), they just tended to get used that way. Then I created a very civic necromancer who would used dozens of zombies and skeletons as workers to help the poor during the group's downtime. The reactions of other players and NPCs alike to seeing zombies construct an orphanage and rebuild an invaded city's smashed gate was priceless. My only regret was that, for health reasons, I was forced to keep his zombies away from food preparation after the other players complained about the finger in the soup. My undead never did anything disgusting although at one point I did dress them up in drag to pretend to be the Rajah's Harem as decoys while we helped the real Rajah and harem escape from an orcish horde. Poor zombies, I never saw them again. Apparently the Orcs didn't find it as funny as I did.

Of course the default DnD setting is that undead are evil, inherently and unredeemably evil, and creating them is an evil act. Anything like the above requires houserules. Unless and until we see a similar houserule in Oots Tsukiko is wrong, undead are objectively and observably evil.

The counter-argument to "always evil," on the other hand, is Eludecia. Ever since WotC put up their LG Succubus Paladin "Always Evil" has not quite had as much meaning.

[Iranon]

She expressly stated her desire to be evil. On the other hand, we've not seen much evidence for outright malice - that might simply stem from the experience that most Good people would persecute her for her preferences.

I assume our moral philosophy would be much much different if we lived in a D&D setting (more knowledge about things pertaining to the soul, less speculation. Gods whose existence isn't up to debate...).

An unusual attraction to the dead is likely to be dysfunctional - matters of taste and spiritual sensibilities aside, a corpse simply won't return any love. A peculiar attraction to the undead is trickier (mindless, enslaved, free-willed but warped, as free-willed as anyone alive... I think that status would matter a lot).
So far, Tsukiko's conduct regarding undead doesn't look particularly unhealthy: Maternal instincts towards the one she created, overt flirting with an independent one, apparently no impairments in her interaction with living beings. I might not quite get the sexual attraction, but hey... most people are weird in one way or another when it comes to that.

[Ichneumon]

I agree with Tsukiko, I agree with Redcloak, I agree with Miko. They have reason. They are right.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Tsukiko, the new "House of Horrors" pin-up girl!

[Alysar]

I dont know. For me it depends on whether undead are considered abominations

It's wrong that someone's rights should be determined by what others 'consider' you to be. :smallfrown: What does it mean to be an 'abomination' anyway? What's so important about being natural?

[Nargrakhan]

Heh... aren't vampires undead abominations too? Look how many people swoon over how "hawt" they are. Tsukiko just isn't as "prejudice" for a certain race of undead like the rest of you are. :smalltongue:

[Landon_Fox]

It's wrong that someone's rights should be determined by what others 'consider' you to be. :smallfrown: What does it mean to be an 'abomination' anyway? What's so important about being natural?

I'm gay and I get called an abomination whenever I poke my head into a related debate forum. I generally take it to mean, "EW YUCK! You're a horrible person because you're DIFFERENT than I am!" And yes, the reaction is almost exactly the same as some people's reaction to Tsukiko's necrophilia.

Interestingly enough, I don't mind getting called such names. In my observation, people eager to call others abominations tend to have a lot more issues than just that one. Usually it's best to laugh it off and leave if possible.

However, there is a larger point. When you take a certain group and decide to purposefully exclude them, it's not really a surprise when they react negatively. If you want others to treat you right, then you have to treat them right. When good turns their nose up at someone, you can bet that alternative parties will be looking to them for recruits.

[Paladin29]

the undead are considered in our real world mythos as well in more of the DnD settings as a damned situation, all undead are evil and all who creates them are evil, i consider a mistake equal Tsukiko´s "feelings" to a maternal feeling (a good emotion, born of the supreme and natural love of a mother). What Tsukiko does is prevent that the souls of that undead rest in their final destination and dishonor their corpse. About necrophilia, what can i say... if anyone find it a healthy feeling, well.. it´s a free country

[Landon_Fox]

Yes, but isn't the point of the comic to poke fun at DnD and associated mythos? That means undead are fair game.

[Paladin29]

ok, but in that case, all these so serious "moral threads" have no meaning, i´m only giving my opion about a topic that i don´t begin and you give your opinion as well.

[TheMeanDM]

Of course the default DnD setting is that undead are evil, inherently and unredeemably evil, and creating them is an evil act. Anything like the above requires houserules. Unless and until we see a similar houserule in Oots Tsukiko is wrong, undead are objectively and observably evil.

The counter-argument to "always evil," on the other hand, is Eludecia. Ever since WotC put up their LG Succubus Paladin "Always Evil" has not quite had as much meaning.

And, in BoED, they talk about "Sanctified Creatues":

When an evil creature is subjected to a sanctify the wicked spell,
it gives up special qualities, attacks, and abilities that are
inherently evil in exchange for more benevolent powers. The
sanctified creature’s appearance does not change to suit its
new outlook, nor does it immediately find acceptance among
other good creatures. For this reason, many sanctified creatures
choose to have their form magically altered so that their
good intentions and eager pursuit of repentance are not
obscured by their vile appearance.
Many sanctified creatures feel a burning desire to purge their
past evil deeds by performing selfless acts and heroic deeds.

There was also in one book (can't find it now, of course) detailed info on Good aligned Liches.

I remember it saying something like "sometimes these people become liches to protect a loved one, or some relic, or complete some important task..."

So a Lich doesn't have to be Evil, apparently.

So the argument could actually be made that any Intelligent undead could choose to not be evil. It just might be very, very difficult for them to *not* be evil, though.

[Alysar]

I'm gay and I get called an abomination whenever I poke my head into a related debate forum. I generally take it to mean, "EW YUCK! You're a horrible person because you're DIFFERENT than I am!" And yes, the reaction is almost exactly the same as some people's reaction to Tsukiko's necrophilia.

Interestingly enough, I don't mind getting called such names. In my observation, people eager to call others abominations tend to have a lot more issues than just that one. Usually it's best to laugh it off and leave if possible.

However, there is a larger point. When you take a certain group and decide to purposefully exclude them, it's not really a surprise when they react negatively. If you want others to treat you right, then you have to treat them right. When good turns their nose up at someone, you can bet that alternative parties will be looking to them for recruits.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I just want to say that the key difference is that homosexuality isn't unnatural for the simple reason that it is found in nature.

[Heroic]

I think that Tsukiko is not wight! :smallbiggrin:

(Sorry, had to be said)

[Meek]

Libris Mortis seems to suggest that intelligent undead have far more free will than we give them credit for, but if they go hungry for too long it drives them totally insane and then they HAVE to eat. Whether or not they can eat something aside from intelligent beings (say, animals, or monsters) I don't recall. But they're made out to be more tragic villains than "Always Evil" alignment would suggest.

But yes, in D&D, Undead and Undead-making are inherently evil. I always found that rather silly and houseruled it away, at least for the sake of the Vampire. They're already crappy enough despite their immense popularity without also having to forced into an alignment that doesn't always fit. After Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, Libris Mortis, and Eberron's Deathless (Good-Aligned undead you can create!) I've started thinking much less fondly about "Always" alignments. (Not that I ever thought fondly of it as a DM.)

[Crimson Avenger]

As an avid D&D palyer I would like to point out that unintelligent undead typically aren't evil by themselves.

Death Gate series by Hickman and Weiss. The one entire world that they travelled to undead were socially acceptable as a cheap labor force.

[sihnfahl]

What do you think?
I think it all depends on the morals of the person doing the judging.

[Alysar]

As an avid D&D palyer I would like to point out that unintelligent undead typically aren't evil by themselves.

Death Gate series by Hickman and Weiss. The one entire world that they travelled to undead were socially acceptable as a cheap labor force.

I played that game

[bluish_wolf]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I just want to say that the key difference is that homosexuality isn't unnatural for the simple reason that it is found in nature.

Er... actually it is. Animals in heat are also known to go after inanimate objects.



As an avid D&D palyer I would like to point out that unintelligent undead typically aren't evil by themselves.


But the spell that animates them is.

[mockingbyrd7]

Maybe it's my "paladin" sensor kicking in, but I don't think she's right. Why would a creature that is created by using foul and corrupt magic to defile a corpse and rip it out of the ground and breathe false necromantic life into it again, causing it to become a tool of evil and dark destruction be considered "right"?

I consider myself to be Chaotic Good, and it's hard for me to say honestly that I think anybody's freedom should be completely restricted with the exception of big time criminals. However, undead, I disagree with 100%. I mean, seriously, they're undead. Whether they're sentient or not, they're a blight on society, they're ALWAYS evil, and they're DEAD, just... no.


Libris Mortis seems to suggest that intelligent undead have far more free will than we give them credit for, but if they go hungry for too long it drives them totally insane and then they HAVE to eat. Whether or not they can eat something aside from intelligent beings (say, animals, or monsters) I don't recall. But they're made out to be more tragic villains than "Always Evil" alignment would suggest.

But yes, in D&D, Undead and Undead-making are inherently evil. I always found that rather silly and houseruled it away, at least for the sake of the Vampire. They're already crappy enough despite their immense popularity without also having to forced into an alignment that doesn't always fit. After Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, Libris Mortis, and Eberron's Deathless (Good-Aligned undead you can create!) I've started thinking much less fondly about "Always" alignments. (Not that I ever thought fondly of it as a DM.)

I agree with this for the most part; I hate the "Always" alignments as well. In fact, I like creating good undead characters, it's kinda fun.

[sihnfahl]

Er... actually it is. Animals in heat are also known to go after inanimate objects.
Err, no, it's not. No less than the National Geographic has published articles on homosexuality in nature. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)

[Alex Warlorn]

But yes, in D&D, Undead and Undead-making are inherently evil. I always found that rather silly and houseruled it away, at least for the sake of the Vampire. They're already crappy enough despite their immense popularity without also having to forced into an alignment that doesn't always fit. After Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, Libris Mortis, and Eberron's Deathless (Good-Aligned undead you can create!) I've started thinking much less fondly about "Always" alignments. (Not that I ever thought fondly of it as a DM.)

In fear of being off topic, what made vampires truly frightening is that they appear totally human, but are totally inhuman.

[Alex Kidd]

And I've read a paper on homosexual necrophilia in ducks(review the strangest biology paper you can find, twas a good assignment, I won a slab of beer for having the weirdest). So both are natural. At the same time too.

[FoE]

OK, I looked back at the Trial of Belkar Bitterleaf (abridged), and all it said was that Tsukiko was charged with "Acts of Unnatural Wizardry." I think she was tossed in jail for practicing necromancy, not necrophilia (although she probably did that as well). Necromancy is rightfully outlawed in most places because the undead, well, have a tendency to attack/eat the living. So in conclusion, Tsukiko is wrong. And demented.

[sihnfahl]

And I've read a paper on homosexual necrophilia in ducks(review the strangest biology paper you can find, twas a good assignment, I won a slab of beer for having the weirdest). So both are natural. At the same time too.
Ah, the 2003 Ig Nobel for Biology winner!

[FujinAkari]

Undead are literally created by channelling negative energy and using it to empower a corpse. Negative Energy is, I believe, literally pure evil. Thus, from a D&D standpoint, creating Undead is always an evil act, making her automatically wrong.

She is, admittedly, a rational and intellegent wrong, able to make her actions seem rational through some pretty twisted logic, but from a Good / Evil standpoint, the game specifies her action as Evil.

[ocato]

You know, other than Xykon's joke and Tsukiko's wink, there isn't a whole lot of reason to believe that Tsukiko's "love" of undead is anything more than the platonic motherly love for creatures she herself created. We've yet to see enough to know for certain, but Necrophilia may be a jump to conclusions at this point.

[sihnfahl]

You know, other than Xykon's joke and Tsukiko's wink, there isn't a whole lot of reason to believe that Tsukiko's "love" of undead is anything more than the platonic motherly love for creatures she herself created. We've yet to see enough to know for certain, but Necrophilia may be a jump to conclusions at this point.
She was flirting with Xykon.

[pendell]

Speaking less from a game and more of a mythic perspective ...

creating undead is Evil because one is typically either A) snatching someone's soul from their rightful rest or punishment and binding it to your service or B) bringing an evil spirit from Unthinkable regions Beyond and bringing it into the world of light where it does not belong.

If it werent' for this, zombies and skeletons etc. would be just another form of slightly organic robot. No one really cares about golems, right?

Which to me explains why creating undead are Evil in a fantasy game ... because it's the natural order or beings to live, die, and afterwards go on to the afterlife of their choice. Interrupting that, forcing spirits into your servitude or bringing up creatures from the infernal regions to possess dead bodies ... well, it's wrong.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[FoE]

You know, other than Xykon's joke and Tsukiko's wink, there isn't a whole lot of reason to believe that Tsukiko's "love" of undead is anything more than the platonic motherly love for creatures she herself created. We've yet to see enough to know for certain, but Necrophilia may be a jump to conclusions at this point.

What do you want, a strip depicting Tsukiko doing the nasty with one of her undead creations? Thanks but no, there's not enough brain acid in the world to erase that kind of image.

If Tsukiko is "wight," I would rather be wrong. :smalltongue:

[VetMichael]

Yes, she is. Unless she's not, in which case she's not. Unless her society says that she is, but the outside/dominant society says she isn't, in which case, she's situationally right, but predominantly not. Unless, of course, she's in a forest and nobody's around to hear her, then she's only theoretically right. Or wrong. Or neither.


Does that clear everything up?

[Crimson Avenger]

But the spell that animates them is.

True, but that's more of game flavor, than social commentary. As I pointed out above, in the Death Gate series there was a perfectly good explanation and reason for a mostly good society to harness the undead. Not that it turned out so good for them.

And I'm not claiming that reference as canon or anything, just giving a different perspective on a corpe, as raw material for the betterment of mankind.

[Nemesis67]

Well, technically, creating undead is more morally right act than creating a golem. Undead use negative energy as their life force while golems are an elemental bound against its will. I personally think everybody should read the first post in this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562) forum. It gives the two views of undead, one of evil, one neutrality (and is a great source of necromancy choices :smallbiggrin:).

Personally, I think creating undead should be a neutral act. Negative energy isn't evil just using death force (as positive is life force).

[Alysar]

What do you want, a strip depicting Tsukiko doing the nasty with one of her undead creations? Thanks but no, there's not enough brain acid in the world to erase that kind of image.

If Tsukiko is "wight," I would rather be wrong. :smalltongue:

Oh great, now the only way I'm going to get that image out of my head is by letting it drain out into my computer... and posting the result in HoH :smallamused:

[Callista]

A tiny minority of undead are not evil. (And there are exceptions. Ghosts, for example.) However, it's safe to say that Tsukiko's creations are evil, and creating something evil is an evil act, especially if you mean to use them to serve evil... Why was this even a question?

"Intelligent undead have rights"? I would say, no. Consider: An undead creature is someone who used to be alive, who probably did not want to become undead, and who could now be controlled by an evil master (considering that most necromancers are evil). That means that destroying them means either freeing their souls or keeping their bodies from being used for something they wouldn't want.

Similar case: If your friend accidentally put on a helm of opposite alignment, wouldn't you try to reverse the effect, knowing that's what he would want? Same goes for destroying intelligent undead. It's essentially brainwashing, and anybody who's good and/or chaotic probably hates the very idea of it.

In the case of someone who willingly became undead and is now independent of influence, of course one would judge them on the basis of their actions. Same goes for a body freely donated by someone who knew what would be done with it.

Incidentally, squickiness aside, Tsukiko has to be pretty messed up to want to get intimate with someone who could be seen as either a slave, a child, or an employee. Talk about taking advantage of your position.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Yeah!!!!!!

[FujinAkari]

Incidentally, squickiness aside, Tsukiko has to be pretty messed up to want to get intimate with someone who could be seen as either a slave, a child, or an employee. Talk about taking advantage of your position.

To be fair, Tsu has never been shown to want to get intimate with any of these things. She's only ever shown a lustful desire towards Xykon, not any of her own undead.

[Querzis]

I agree with this for the most part; I hate the "Always" alignments as well. In fact, I like creating good undead characters, it's kinda fun.

I hate the «Usually evil» alignement. Humans are capable of the best and the worse so any other sentient creature should too. There is absolutely no reason why an orc should tend to be more evil then a dwarf. They are both smart enough to take moral decisions regardless of their races.

...but I dont hate the «always evil» alignement at all. Magic in D&D can totally switch your alignement just if you touch an items or get bitten by a magical creature. Undead are animated by pure evil energy and becoming a Lich require an incredibly evil act. Yes positives energy undead exist (and they are called deathless I think) but I'm pretty sure we are not talking about them. Any magical creature or outsider can and probably even should have an «always» alignement. If you can change a mortal alignment with magic, then a creature that was entirely created by magic cant actually really change (at least not without lots of other magic). Undead are created by evil energy to be evil, there nothing else to say about it. Destroying undead is an act of compassion, you are destroying the evil energy and let the soul get to the afterlife.

Killing any non-magical creature like orcs or drow or goblins just because of their races? Now I consider that evil. I would make any paladins who do that fall and I really respect Redcloak goals (though hes still evil, at least I know why he is unlike Xykon who just decided to be evil because he could). But there is no way I would make a paladin fall no matter how many demons, vampires or golems he destroy. Its freaking magic, it can do anything. Just like the guy who became a werewolf will become Chaotic evil, there is no redeeming a vampire or a wight. Their simple existence is evil, they are animated and driven entirely by negatives energy, they cant be anything else then evil. The only way it could work is if you could somehow destroy the negatives energy inside a vampire to replace it with positive energy but that would just destroy him anyway.

[Ridureyu]

No, no, no, you're missing the point.

Anything done to kill or harm paladins is the right thing to do.

[kpenguin]

Sure they're evil and can't be anything else, but does being evil necessarily take away your rights? Evil can encompass a great deal of things. Evil could mean that you slaughter babies and eat live puppies, or it could mean that you extortionately price your wares. If the bartender is evil because he waters his drinks to make a quick buck at the expense of his patrons, is he more evil and deserving of death if he were a lich instead of a human?

You can still work for the greater good. Take King Kaius of Karrnath, for instance. While a vampire and evil, he's also a main proponent for peace in Khovaire and has brought order and stability to his nation, though under martial law. If his Chaotic Good elven wife can look past the fact that he is evil and a vampire, why can't we look past the fact that these wights are evil and undead?

[Demented]

"Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time? "
"Yeah, Frost, but the one you had was MALE. "
"It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!"

[SnowballMan]

I think she's half right. :smallbiggrin:

<crickets chirping>

Wow, tough crowd.:smallfrown:

[Querzis]

Sure they're evil and can't be anything else, but does being evil necessarily take away your rights? Evil can encompass a great deal of things. Evil could mean that you slaughter babies and eat live puppies, or it could mean that you extortionately price your wares. If the bartender is evil because he waters his drinks to make a quick buck at the expense of his patrons, is he more evil and deserving of death if he were a lich instead of a human?

...You consider THAT evil? Wow, that make it kinda impossible to be good really. Sorry but from the Player Handbook:

«Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.»

Thats evil in D&D. And once again to become a lich you have to do an incredibly evil act so its definitly more along the lines of eating live babies. Beside, the point with creatures like vampires, wight or werewolf who were mortals before is that they are pure creation of evil, are impossible to redeem and you'll actually do their souls a great favor if you destroy them. So I consider killing them is basically giving their souls freedom and rights, not the other way around.

And I have no idea who King Kaius of Karrnath is supposed to be.

Edit: Thank you wiki. http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/King_Kaius

So you consider that guy:

«King Kaius is the man who most wants peace in the Four Nations. This is, specifically, because he's patient enough to realize that he has centuries to plot out a takeover of Galifar's remnants along with the transformation of the Mournland from the undead wasteland that it is to a suitable paradise again. He has come to embrace his vampiric form and doesn't believe that anyone else is suitable for governing his homeland. The real King Kaius the Third exists solely so the King can draw blood from him for his illusion spells and possibly to sire a replacement when he needs a new person to impersonate.

King Kaius is a stunning racist and has created some truly ridiculous theories in the past century. These include that human beings and elves are the same race but improper breeding has reduced humanity's age. It is hope to slowly reintroduce elven blood into the upper ranks en masse and slowly transform Karrnath into a home of a new super-race that he believes will properly resemble the giants of old. To that end, he fosters pogroms and bounties for the murder of most humanoid races in Karrnath and never employed goblins in the Last War. Dwarves are largely given a wide latitude due to the Mror Hold's importance but every other species requires papers of transit to travel across the First Kingdom. Warforged are machines and no more attention is paid to them then you would an enchanted suit of armor. »

Is working for the greater good? Well if you are an elf or human hes not that bad but if you are any other humanoid race then you are gonna get killed and it really sucks to be the real king. Hes apparently actively working for the greater evil, the fact that he prefer to do things slowly and dont want the populace to rebel against him doesnt change that.

[Alfryd]

I don't believe betraying your entire civilization and allying with an army bent on the destruction of the thousands is right, but I do not believe that it is right to simply judge that undead have no rights (intelligent undead at least). I sympathize with Tsukiko the same way I sympathize with Redcloak.

What do you think?
I think that Tsukiko really shouldn't have been extricating people's corpses from their resting places and animating them as private pleasure slaves.

In the technical sense, if an undead creature
A. possessed free will and intelligence
B. was not responsible for their own undeadification
C. otherwise minded his/her/it's own beeswax without draining the life essence from other sentient beings

Then despite being technically 'evil,' sure, it has rights like anyone else. However, cases like these are relatively rare. And if Tsukiko has such respect for the undead, why isn't she setting them free?

Born Freeeee.... As Freee as the wind blows.... As Free as the grass grooows...

Where was I?

I think she's half right.
<crickets chirping>
Wow, tough crowd.
You have no idea.


...but I dont hate the «always evil» alignement at all. Magic in D&D can totally switch your alignement just if you touch an items or get bitten by a magical creature. Undead are animated by pure evil energy and becoming a Lich require an incredibly evil act.
Actually, I have exactly the opposite attitude. The idea of treating Good and Evil as fundamental forces of the universe is fairly meaningless, since they're definitionally considered aspects of sentient beings' free moral choice. A chest or a wand can't be 'Evil' anymore than you can accuse MS windoze of active malice against you. The programmers, maybe. But not the device itself.
Conversely, it is entirely possible for a species to have instinctive attitudes or cultural mores that tend, on balance, to promote Good or Evil behaviour as the norm. But if they had no choice at all, they couldn't be either.

You can argue that stripping aside your own flesh in order to prolongue your own existence is an act of intrinsic disrespect for the sanctity of life and death, but hey, it's your flesh, your business. If you're not bothering anyone else- and Liches, unlike many other undead, are not compelled to devour the living in order to sustain themselves- then I say live and let... uh... well... yeah.

[Rayzin]

Animating Dead is correct. If there dead there probably up there playing ping-pong or something. THey dont care about there body... unless there dwarfs

[Jayngfet]

you guys do realise there is more to the alignment than juse good/evil, we only knowthe alignment, and the players handbook does say that lawful evil characters do have morals, one of the examples is harming children, and wikipedia says that undead can be good, pretty much saying that there are good death knights, and to the above argument(s):


negative energy and positive energy don't inheritly do good or evil, randomly attacking drow with smite evil because the monster book says they are isn't good, and magic factors where in free will, unless it's a spell designed to control, or controll is innate then I see no reason for a eyrnes paladin, or do your ancestors alignments control yours.:smallannoyed:

I see nothin inheritly evil with necromancy, and with the definitions stated you make it seem like true ressurection, soul returning to the body and all

I'd take a nice lich over a jerk paladin any day of the week

[bluish_wolf]

you guys do realise there is more to the alignment than juse good/evil, we only knowthe alignment, [blah, blah, blah]:


negative energy and positive energy don't inheritly do good or evil, [blah, blah, blah.]

"Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm

[Jayngfet]

"Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm

you kinda missed the whole point, and aside from the label i don't see anything evil there, if you made the corpse yourself then I'd get that hell if you made zombie children I'd agree but we still get a vague statment.

[snoopy13a]

Animating Dead is correct. If there dead there probably up there playing ping-pong or something. THey dont care about there body... unless there dwarfs

Their families do though. So does their society. People want to bury or cremate their dead in a respectful manner. Creating undead violates this society norm and goes against the wishes of society. No one wants the body of their late great-aunt walking around doing some twisted wizard's bidding. This is basically why creating undead is usually an evil act. Necromancers are stealing and violating objects that others hold sacred.

[kpenguin]

But creating Deathless or casting Animate Objects on dead bodies is okay?

[Querzis]

Actually, I have exactly the opposite attitude. The idea of treating Good and Evil as fundamental forces of the universe is fairly meaningless, since they're definitionally considered aspects of sentient beings' free moral choice. A chest or a wand can't be 'Evil' anymore than you can accuse MS windoze of active malice against you. The programmers, maybe. But not the device itself.

Yeah except that in D&D items can actually have wills or think by themselves and magic does have intent (especially with clerics and paladin where magic is the intent of their gods). If someone do an incredibly smart robot and program it to save the world, I wont blame him if the robot decide the only way to save the world it is to destroy all humans (though if hes smart enough to create that robot, he should have seen that coming). Magic, energy and some magic items arent simple tools in D&D.


Conversely, it is entirely possible for a species to have instinctive attitudes or cultural mores that tend, on balance, to promote Good or Evil behaviour as the norm. But if they had no choice at all, they couldn't be either.

You know, if we actually look at all the real species that exist on Earth, there isnt any species as destructive, vicious, egoist and that kill each other as much as humans (well, maybe ants)...and we are using humans standard to describe good and evil in D&D. So yeah, they cant really have much worse instinct then us, otherwise they would have destroyed the world and/or themselves already (hell, thats what humans are doing anyway). It just show how much humans have crappy imagination because all the monsters or evil societies in D&D never do something worse then what some humans or some humans society have done in the past. In other word, we cant even imagine something more evil then us. But we cant imagine something more good then us either since every good action in D&D have already been done by a human. Some culture can be evil, thats true, but there is many different human culture so if dwarf would exist, they would have many different culture as well so I still dont see the point.


You can argue that stripping aside your own flesh in order to prolongue your own existence is an act of intrinsic disrespect for the sanctity of life and death, but hey, it's your flesh, your business. If you're not bothering anyone else- and Liches, unlike many other undead, are not compelled to devour the living in order to sustain themselves- then I say live and let... uh... well... yeah.

I'm not arguing, I'm saying you need to do an incredibly evil act (forcing someone to kill his brother because its funny for example) to become a lich. Go read the lich description.


But creating Deathless or casting Animate Objects on dead bodies is okay?

No casting animate object on dead bodies isnt okay. Sure the spell animate object isnt evil in itself since, unlike the spells to create undead, you can use it for something else. And I havent read the description of many Deathless creatures but all those I saw are souls who decided of their own free will to come back to the mortal plane for the greater good, not souls trapped with negatives energy. I'm pretty damn sure you cant create deathless.

[Jayngfet]

Their families do though. So does their society. People want to bury or cremate their dead in a respectful manner. Creating undead violates this society norm and goes against the wishes of society. No one wants the body of their late great-aunt walking around doing some twisted wizard's bidding. This is basically why creating undead is usually an evil act. Necromancers are stealing and violating objects that others hold sacred.

this isn't anywhere evil we're talking about here, lawful evil and to a lesser extent NE and true neutral require elements of a traditionalitst extent and some obvious acts of evil, violating social norms is chaotic, if this great aunt hangs puppies then it's evil. just having a skeleton walking down the street, though shocking isn't evil, the players handbook outrigh states that evil dosn't have differen't standerds for the individual, an evil gnome kissing a book in pelors temple will(in an ammusing manner for small humanoids) be proven evil, the Dungeonmasters guide and Players handbook say that an alignment isn't given at birth, you get it later through helping old lagies or punching handicapped babies, or if your neutral helping an old lady punch handicapped babies.


thank you, AND GOODNIGHT.

[MK Kilmarnock]

Having played as a palemaster, I can somewhat sympathize with Tsukiko. Of course, the matter of right or wrong is a stick and not well-drawn one, so I'll stay off that path. In short, she believes that the undead are more noble than the living, or at least a lot more fun to be around. As Palemasters say, "The undead aren't that bad once you get to know them"

[Renegade Paladin]

But creating Deathless or casting Animate Objects on dead bodies is okay?
Who creates deathless? In fact, I'm pretty sure the BoED specifically says that they only spontaneously occur; recall that the only two examples given (sacred watchers and crypt wardens) are positive energy spirits who remain behind to protect something of their own volition.

[Patashu]

ok, but in that case, all these so serious "moral threads" have no meaning, i´m only giving my opion about a topic that i don´t begin and you give your opinion as well.

Ah, but opinions are like buttholes.

[Patashu]

Undead are literally created by channelling negative energy and using it to empower a corpse. Negative Energy is, I believe, literally pure evil. Thus, from a D&D standpoint, creating Undead is always an evil act, making her automatically wrong.

She is, admittedly, a rational and intellegent wrong, able to make her actions seem rational through some pretty twisted logic, but from a Good / Evil standpoint, the game specifies her action as Evil.

How can a substance or material be pure evil? An action can be evil, and an entity can be evil by way of performing evil actions, but how does this work for dark energy? What makes dark energy so evil?

[monty]

How can a substance or material be pure evil? An action can be evil, and an entity can be evil by way of performing evil actions, but how does this work for dark energy? What makes dark energy so evil?

By that logic, mindless undead can't be evil either, because they're just an object (corpse) full of negative energy.

[the_tick_rules]

well a VERY few undead can become all right, but the vast majority of D&D undead are rather unplesant folk and need to be eliminated post haste.

[Jayngfet]

well a VERY few undead can become all right, but the vast majority of D&D undead are rather unplesant folk and need to be eliminated post haste.

Of course they do, usually due to the cultural norms a chaotic evil necromancer would be very common, and his creations would reflect such, but some necromancers are quite noble, like ones in the Abahorsen trilogy(though many are still evil), after all the first two acts of necromancy are bringing back a dead baby(free willed and living), and raising a dead bunny so the protagonists best friend wouldn't be traumatized, though the second was forbidden.

[kpenguin]

Who creates deathless? In fact, I'm pretty sure the BoED specifically says that they only spontaneously occur; recall that the only two examples given (sacred watchers and crypt wardens) are positive energy spirits who remain behind to protect something of their own volition.

Create Deathless is a spell.

[David Argall]

They are evil, and actively evil. Eliminate them.

That the undead are evil is not decisive, but it tells us where the bias should go. If you spare it today, it is likely to try to kill tomorrow. You don't need much more before you decide you might as well kill now.

Our undead, once past the zombie and skeleton, are active cannibals, and we are the food in one form or another. Tsukiko is not just wanting to keep a tiger in the city, she wants it not to have to bother even with lease laws. It really should not take any analysis to say she should not be allowed to do this.

Now we can argue for the exceptions, but they are that, the rare exceptions. You don't make rules based on the exceptions. You base your rules on the situations people will actually meet, which is routinely nasty undead who should be made just dead.

[Jayngfet]

They are evil, and actively evil. Eliminate them.

That the undead are evil is not decisive, but it tells us where the bias should go. If you spare it today, it is likely to try to kill tomorrow. You don't need much more before you decide you might as well kill now.

Our undead, once past the zombie and skeleton, are active cannibals, and we are the food in one form or another. Tsukiko is not just wanting to keep a tiger in the city, she wants it not to have to bother even with lease laws. It really should not take any analysis to say she should not be allowed to do this.

Now we can argue for the exceptions, but they are that, the rare exceptions. You don't make rules based on the exceptions. You base your rules on the situations people will actually meet, which is routinely nasty undead who should be made just dead.

for some reason I feel the need to shut up, support you....



...DARN YOU CHARM PERSON, DARN YOU TO HECK:smallbiggrin:!

[mp122984]

Not to vote one way or the other, but I can't help but be reminded of this. :smalltongue: Warning: Language (http://frzdragon.deviantart.com/art/Are-you-dead-67046962)

[Alysar]

What do you want, a strip depicting Tsukiko doing the nasty with one of her undead creations? Thanks but no, there's not enough brain acid in the world to erase that kind of image.



Oh great, now the only way I'm going to get that image out of my head is by letting it drain out into my computer... and posting the result in HoH :smallamused:

Voilà
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34493&page=42#post3720002)

[Milandros]

The undead argument always gets messed up because people argue Vampire: The Masquerade undead, or Anne Rice novels undead, or their favourite manga undead, rather than D&D undead.

D&D undead are evil. It's in the definition. Yes, a writer can make a one-off wierd exception - like the succubus paladin, or exhaulted mind flayer, just as a writer could give a human incredible superhuman strength able to lift up whole buildings - it doesn't change the general rule.

If your mother passed away, then three months later you see her shambling decaying corpse used as a slave creature, and that sight proves to you that your mother has been denied her eternal rest, do you think "hey, cool!" or are you convinced that it's evil? I suspect the latter.

Yes, there are non-evil undead in literature, and the recent deathless addition has messed up the definition further. Hopefully 4th ed. will clear it all up a bit. There are also plenty of examples of "are they evil or not, not sure" undead - C S Friedman's excellent Coldfire trilogy being a great example of this - but even they tend to gloss over the off-screen murders that took place in the past. It's a problem with "dark heroes" - we see them as the conflicted hero, but when that poor, misunderstood man is responsible for the death of you entire family then it probably looks quite different.

Actually, that's a good general rule on deciding if something is evil or not, make it personal - if it is done to you or the ones you love, was it evil or just unfortunate?

[Alfryd]

Yeah except that in D&D items can actually have wills or think by themselves and magic does have intent (especially with clerics and paladin where magic is the intent of their gods).
If it's an intelligent being of some sort, then sure, but that doesn't repel the query. If, say, a Demon, is literally incapable of performing truly Good acts (and thus shifting alignment,) then in a very real sense he lacks moral choice, and so, can't be Evil at all, any more than a tornado, bear trap, or rabid dog. He can be violent, destructive, or dangerous, but Evil implies the possibility that you can choose Good.


You know, if we actually look at all the real species that exist on Earth, there isnt any species as destructive, vicious, egoist and that kill each other as much as humans (well, maybe ants)...and we are using humans standard to describe good and evil in D&D. So yeah, they cant really have much worse instinct then us...
It's entirely possible for people to be short-sighted and fatally hostile to outsiders and remain True Neutral, provided that they kill or scour resources out of desperation or self-defence, and otherwise treat friends and relations decently.

But there is reasonable evidence to suggest there exist such things as a genetic predisposition for violence, or impulsive behaviour, or even a lack of conscience, and quite aside from this you might grow up in a culture that rewards cruelty and domination rather than industry and compassion.

I'm not arguing, I'm saying you need to do an incredibly evil act (forcing someone to kill his brother for example) to become a lich. Go read the lich description.
"The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life."

It says nothing about requirements for acts of Evil aside from becoming a Lich. Xykon did plenty of Evil things, but none were explicitly part of the process involved.



...violating social norms is chaotic...
But contempt for the dignity of sentient beings is Evil. Mildly so, but that's enough. She broke the law and violated the sanctity of death in order to satisfy her exclusively selfish impulses. She goes to jail, and quite rightly. The pity is that she didn't get referred to a shrink.


By that logic, mindless undead can't be evil either, because they're just an object (corpse) full of negative energy.
Yes. I don't think it makes sense to give mindless creatures an alignment. If anything, they should reflect the alignment of the caster than animated them, or revert to TN.


That the undead are evil is not decisive, but it tells us where the bias should go. If you spare it today, it is likely to try to kill tomorrow. You don't need much more before you decide you might as well kill now.
Right. Like eating goblin babies.

Actually, that's a good general rule on deciding if something is evil or not, make it personal - if it is done to you or the ones you love, was it evil or just unfortunate?
I recall, actually, that I once saw a fairly comprehensive and quite strict guide to paladin conduct that had the following to say about the undead:
If it's mindless, and was raised with the person's permission in life, then the body is merely being used as a tool. Not Evil.
If it's mindless, and was raised without such permission, then a corpse is being violated for selfish ends. Evil.
If it's intelligent, you must give it the benefit of the doubt until you see it do something hostile or malevolent, whther directly or by proxy.

This was probably in a setting with Undead PCs, though.

[T.Titan]

Tsukiko is not just wanting to keep a tiger in the city, she wants it not to have to bother even with lease laws. It really should not take any analysis to say she should not be allowed to do this.


Animals are all TN, ain't they?
Plus, don't most undead have to obey their maker to the letter?

[monty]

If it's an intelligent being of some sort, then sure, but that doesn't repel the query. If, say, a Demon, is literally incapable of performing truly Good acts (and thus shifting alignment,) then in a very real sense he lacks moral choice, and so, can't be Evil at all, any more than a tornado, bear trap, or rabid dog. He can be violent, destructive, or dangerous, but Evil implies the possibility that you can choose Good.

That's exactly why I hate the "always" alignments. If you're physically incapable of doing anything outside of your alignment (barring Sanctify the Wicked or a similar spell), how does that give you a moral or ethical position? If you have free will, you should be allowed a variable alignment. There could still be penalties for changing (same as a paladin), but you should at least have the capacity for change.

[Ganurath]

Tsukiko is right that all sapient beings should have rights and be treated as well as any other, not just those of living flesh. By that logic, Tsukiko is right in her choice of lovers, provided they are intelligent undead. She is also right in her allegiance, because she has no cause to be loyal to the traditional ruling government of Azure City and plenty of cause to join up with those who would cause drastic changes of policy favoring the rights of sapient undead.

[Paladin29]

Ah, but opinions are like buttholes.

No comments...

Well, the undead are evil in a 99% , Tsukiko is evil and insane, she and her pets are the bad guys, there´s no need to search some moral justification (that she hasn´t.. or more precisely she doesn´t care), without them there´s no story and no fun.

[kpenguin]

The undead argument always gets messed up because people argue Vampire: The Masquerade undead, or Anne Rice novels undead, or their favourite manga undead, rather than D&D undead.

D&D undead are evil. It's in the definition. Yes, a writer can make a one-off wierd exception - like the succubus paladin, or exhaulted mind flayer, just as a writer could give a human incredible superhuman strength able to lift up whole buildings - it doesn't change the general rule.

If your mother passed away, then three months later you see her shambling decaying corpse used as a slave creature, and that sight proves to you that your mother has been denied her eternal rest, do you think "hey, cool!" or are you convinced that it's evil? I suspect the latter.

Yes, there are non-evil undead in literature, and the recent deathless addition has messed up the definition further. Hopefully 4th ed. will clear it all up a bit. There are also plenty of examples of "are they evil or not, not sure" undead - C S Friedman's excellent Coldfire trilogy being a great example of this - but even they tend to gloss over the off-screen murders that took place in the past. It's a problem with "dark heroes" - we see them as the conflicted hero, but when that poor, misunderstood man is responsible for the death of you entire family then it probably looks quite different.

Actually, that's a good general rule on deciding if something is evil or not, make it personal - if it is done to you or the ones you love, was it evil or just unfortunate?

I accept that they are evil, but what gives an evil human more rights than an evil undead?

[Jayngfet]

made my will save, and kpenguin raises a point thats been previously raised, I believe he gets a +2 bonus due to aid another

[FilmNoir62]

I'm sorry but... rights? What rights?

This is a dictatorship headed by Xykon and Redcloak, who certainly don't seem to respect the "rights" of their followers (remember them feeding their followers to a monster with crackers?). Even if you take into account the recent change of heart Redcloak experienced towards hobgoblins, remember that in most hobgoblin societies Might makes Right. The strong rule, the weak are weeded out.

Undead have no special "rights," just power and (in this case) a special authority granted for the purpose of hunting down high-leveled opposition to the government. Similar to the thought police or the KGB.

So no "rights." Just might. A government headed by our favorite mystic theurge might have a different sort of system, but certainly not one ruled by Xykon and Redcloak.

"Redcloak, is this true?"
"No. Technically, I just ordered the elemental to kill all humans, and then 'forgot' to make an exception for her."
"Oh, man, that's even funnier."
"Heh, I know."
"Hey! You should discipline him!!"
"Listen, newbie, we're the villains. We play rough. You didn't die, so quit your whining and go do something useful."
"Yeah, like go animate some of the few thousand new corpses that just got created."

Edit: Even if we assume undead have rights (which i doubt) Thanh is treating the wights no differently from any other evil opposing force. Both wight and paladin are acting according to their nature. I've never heard of the "right of a combatant to not be destroyed by his/her/its opponents in war," let alone the "right to not be turned by an opposing force."

[Paladin29]

What "rights" are we talking about?

Edit: seems that someone post a second before me. :smalltongue:

[Doug Lampert]

Undead are literally created by channelling negative energy and using it to empower a corpse. Negative Energy is, I believe, literally pure evil. Thus, from a D&D standpoint, creating Undead is always an evil act, making her automatically wrong.

She is, admittedly, a rational and intellegent wrong, able to make her actions seem rational through some pretty twisted logic, but from a Good / Evil standpoint, the game specifies her action as Evil.
Negative Energy isn't evil. The Negative Energy plane doesn't have the Evil descriptor or subtype, and spells like Inflict Light Wounds (which use negative energy) don't have the Evil type either.

On the other hand the VAST majority of uses of negative energy are Evil and undead always detect as evil separately from the creature's actual alignment (which is also normally listed as Always Evil, note that the monster manual explicitely states that even always alignments can have exceptions, they're just very rare).

3.x doesn't actually tell us where the animating spirits come from or what effect animating someone has on their afterlife, but you can't True Resurect someone while their body is being used as an undead, so I'd say there probably is some effect on the person's soul.

Necromancy as always evil doesn't really bother me. It's a fantasy element in a fantasy game. We don't actually know enough about the details to make a reasoned judgement of the moral status, and the rule set DOES tell us what the moral status is. Animating undead, creating undead, and controlling undead are all typically Evil [Except strangely the Wizard spell Command Undead which doesn't have the Evil descriptor].

[David Argall]

If, say, a Demon, is literally incapable of performing truly Good acts (and thus shifting alignment,) then in a very real sense he lacks moral choice, and so, can't be Evil at all, any more than a tornado, bear trap, or rabid dog. He can be violent, destructive, or dangerous, but Evil implies the possibility that you can choose Good.
The rabid dog, you shoot. The bear trap you keep harmless until you are after a bear. The tornado, you dodge. Talk about their lack of moral choice, you ignore.
The demon is trying to kill and eat you, not necessarily in that order. You don't need to worry about its possible lack of free will. You need to worry about those teeth.

Now there are situations where the difference is important. If it can be reformed, there are times when you are morally required to try to. If it can't be, killing it is pretty much just a practical problem, not a moral one. But the lack of moral choice does not make it non-evil. We speak of evil days for valid reasons.


It's entirely possible for people to be short-sighted and fatally hostile to outsiders and remain True Neutral, provided that they kill or scour resources out of desperation or self-defence, and otherwise treat friends and relations decently.
Evil. Arguably not greatly so, but evil.
For any moral system we want to call good, the outsider is in fact a part of the society. He may well lack certain rights, but he retains those of being immune to unjustified attack. He may not have a claim on our aid, but he does have a claim not to be harmed.
Civilized life consists of living with strangers, letting them live their lives, and they letting you do the same. It is not sufficient to treat friends and relations decently. Maybe a society of a hundred or so can survive that way, but once you are in the thousands, much of your life consists of dealing with people you have never met before, and may not meet again. So the outsider must gain rights you must respect.
That you are desperate? Self-defense? These can be defenses that lessen the crime, but they are the same defense when we are merely talking about friends and family. If serving up Aunt Hilda as Sunday dinner is unacceptable, so is serving up the stranger you met on the street.



Animals are all TN, ain't they?
A D&D position that has more to do with D&D history than with morals or facts.



Plus, don't most undead have to obey their maker to the letter?

a-no. There are various ways of doing so, but they are not automatic, and not fail safe.
b-Those obedient to the letter are often not obedient to the spirit. And eventually the control ends, whether by end of spell or death of caster.

[Doug Lampert]

You know, if we actually look at all the real species that exist on Earth, there isnt any species as destructive, vicious, egoist and that kill each other as much as humans (well, maybe ants).

Congradulations, you've just defined two of the MOST cooperative and peaceful groups on earth as the most vicious.

A Chimp in the wild is MANY orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by another Chimp than a Human is to be killed by another Human. A wolf is more likely to be killed by another wolf than a man by another man. It also holds for a lion by another lion or a deer by another deer or....

Nature is for the most part bloody in tooth and claw. Humans and Ants are so cooperative and group oriented that when they do decide to kill someone else they may well do so by going to war and having thousands of us kill thousands of them, but the total killed in such actions compared to the total number is still relatively small.

[JonathanC]

Oy. Why is it that every time we see a cute antagonist in this comic, somebody comes along and tries to pretend like they're really good at heart, and those meanie heroes are just bullying them?

Tsukiko is a murderer, a necrophile, and judging by her preference for non-intelligent/subservient undead, probably a rapist as well. She is not a good person, nor is she right.

[Paladin29]

I agree 100% with Jonathan C. I cannot express it better.

[bluish_wolf]

Animals are all TN, ain't they?
Plus, don't most undead have to obey their maker to the letter?

Technically, if you have an intelligence lower than three (like most animals), you don't have an alignment... and aren't sentient either. The idea is that you lack the intellect to make moral decisions. Putting them as TN is really for bookkeeping purposes, or, I guess, if someone magically raised their intelligence.

[Jaguira]

Undead aren't inherrently evil- they're inherrently harmful.

When you get right down to it, when you create an undead, you're creating an essentially immortal (except maybe in the case of zombies, who, last I checked, deteriorate eventually) creature with a limitless appitite for living creatures and/or their lifeforce. They are gluttony personified (except for liches, who don't need to eat. And maybe mummies? I'm not sure).

Rare exceptions aside, this is the whole reason that they are considered "wrong" and "unnatural." They eat, and eat, and eat, and eat, and never stop unless they're destroyed. Living creatures eventually have to stop because they either: A. get full, or B. die.

But undead don't die (or get full). This is why, essentially, undead are harmful. I suppose some of the "sentient" undead that monitor their feeding responsibily aren't a threat to the natural order, but those are few and far between. Few undead realize the damage they do or care enough to change, if they possess the cognative abilities to care or realize anything in the first place.

In short, Tsukiko is not right. Those "little ones" of hers need to feed, and they need to do so almost constantly. Unless they start showing the ability and desire to restrict their feeding to only when they need it, I says they need to go. And fast.

-Your friendly neighborhood Druid :smallbiggrin:




A Chimp in the wild is MANY orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by another Chimp than a Human is to be killed by another Human. A wolf is more likely to be killed by another wolf than a man by another man. It also holds for a lion by another lion or a deer by another deer or....
Actually, no. Wolves, lions and chimps all have complex social structures and body languages that prevents such things from occuring. You know what happens when a wolf puts its tail between its legs and runs during a fight? The other wolf lets it go. Comparatively a human is fairly likely to give chase, and an ant is almost certain to. Lions, chimps and most other animals tend to let their opponent go as well, because in the long run it's more benneficial to the species as a whole to not kill eachother. They don't conciously recognize this, of course, but evolution has tempered them in such a way so to as to "program" them to not go after eachother.
As for the deer thing, that's just silly. Deer are naturally solitary creatures, only coming together to mate or when circumstances bring them together. When they compete in the mating season, the most they do is bash their antlers together. Any deaths that occur from that is when their antlers tangle permanently, which is rare. (If it was common, evolution would've gotten rid of antlers a long time ago.)

-The Off-Topic Monster, Jagz

[Querzis]

If it's an intelligent being of some sort, then sure, but that doesn't repel the query. If, say, a Demon, is literally incapable of performing truly Good acts (and thus shifting alignment,) then in a very real sense he lacks moral choice, and so, can't be Evil at all, any more than a tornado, bear trap, or rabid dog. He can be violent, destructive, or dangerous, but Evil implies the possibility that you can choose Good.

Interesting point but in D&D only actions are evil not intent. So a rapid dog would probably be considered evil anyway. You can say demons dont count as evil because of that but then we are not really talking about D&D at all anymore.


It's entirely possible for people to be short-sighted and fatally hostile to outsiders and remain True Neutral, provided that they kill or scour resources out of desperation or self-defence, and otherwise treat friends and relations decently.

If you wanna know if someone is good or evil, look how he threat stranger, not how he threat his friends and family. Except sociopath like Xykon or Belkar, evil people usually threat their friends and lovers very well. Sorry but I dont see how you can consider someone who hate and try to kill or hurt everyone different from him neutral or good, its evil.


But there is reasonable evidence to suggest there exist such things as a genetic predisposition for violence, or impulsive behaviour, or even a lack of conscience, and quite aside from this you might grow up in a culture that rewards cruelty and domination rather than industry and compassion.

I know, I'm just telling you that they cant really have worse genetic predisposition then us and that, just like there is many different humans culture, its a bit stupid to imagine that all the other sentient species like dwarf or orc would have only one culture.


"The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life."

It says nothing about requirements for acts of Evil aside from becoming a Lich. Xykon did plenty of Evil things, but none were explicitly part of the process involved.

Look the guy who has done unspeakable evil willingly to become immortal isnt likely to ever become a nice fellow, even if he doesnt really have to still do unspeakable evil after he became a lich.


Congradulations, you've just defined two of the MOST cooperative and peaceful groups on earth as the most vicious.

A Chimp in the wild is MANY orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by another Chimp than a Human is to be killed by another Human. A wolf is more likely to be killed by another wolf than a man by another man. It also holds for a lion by another lion or a deer by another deer or....

Nature is for the most part bloody in tooth and claw. Humans and Ants are so cooperative and group oriented that when they do decide to kill someone else they may well do so by going to war and having thousands of us kill thousands of them, but the total killed in such actions compared to the total number is still relatively small.

Lol I really hope you are kidding but I guess you arent right? Wolf, chimp and lions killing each other? Thats very unlikely. Wolf and lion kill to eat which isnt evil at all. And deers? Now I really hope you are kidding. Ants, on the other hand, automatically try to kill ants from other colonies and humans arent really better. Humans only have one natural enemy and its humans.

[Paladin29]

yeah, but only humans will help an stranger, will travel thousands of kilometers to bring food and medicine to people who don´t know of another country, only humans feel love (and i mean a non instinct based affection), only humans will risk their lives for an abstract cause like the "Freedom" or the "Justice", only humans can be altruistic, brave or kind (because only them have the choice to be)... Humanity is capable of the major atrocities but it´s capable of the major wonders too, don´t forget....

[Querzis]

yeah, but only humans will help an stranger, will travel thousands of kilometers to bring food and medicine to people who don´t know of another country, only humans feel love (and i mean a non instinct based affection), only humans will risk their lives for an abstract cause like the "Freedom" or the "Justice", only humans can be altruistic, brave or kind (because only them have the choice to be)... Humanity is capable of the major atrocities but it´s capable of the major wonders too, don´t forget....

Oh yes I know, if you read my first post you know that I said we cant imagine something more evil or more good then us, humans are capable of the best and the worse which is why I think other sentient being should too.

But its not true at all only humans are altruistic. Most animal would tend to help a stranger from the same species. Wolf help each others, as dolphins and whales does and those three species have actually sometimes saved the life of humans for no reasons at all (wolf raising lost young humans isnt a myth). There isnt anything more evil then us but there is actually many animals who are just as good at us. Well, not by D&D standard since they all have an int of 2 which is really stupid since whales for example are actually smarter then humans.

[Doug Lampert]

Actually, no. Wolves, lions and chimps all have complex social structures and body languages that prevents such things from occuring. You know what happens when a wolf puts its tail between its legs and runs during a fight? The other wolf lets it go. Comparatively a human is fairly likely to give chase, and an ant is almost certain to. Lions, chimps and most other animals tend to let their opponent go as well, because in the long run it's more benneficial to the species as a whole to not kill eachother. They don't conciously recognize this, of course, but evolution has tempered them in such a way so to as to "program" them to not go after eachother.
As for the deer thing, that's just silly. Deer are naturally solitary creatures, only coming together to mate or when circumstances bring them together. When they compete in the mating season, the most they do is bash their antlers together. Any deaths that occur from that is when their antlers tangle permanently, which is rare. (If it was common, evolution would've gotten rid of antlers a long time ago.)

-The Off-Topic Monster, Jagz
Actually YES. They've observed Chimps in the wild committing war, civil war, ambush killings and systematic canibalism. Male Lions are frequently mortally wounded in dominance fights, and Male Lions frequently commit systematic infanticide when they take over a pack. Fights within a single wolf pack typically end non-lethally, but one pack WILL systematically KILL wolves from outside the pack to enforce territory and when a pack splits there can be killings. Deer can and do kill each other in Male on Male fights over breading rights, they're not solitary all the time or there wouldn't be a NEXT generations. It's rare, but then murders amoung humans are absurdly rare compared to population.

1950s there were a lot of naturalists who thought the way you do. Today there are a lot more observations and the observations are a lot more systematic and it turns out that the peaceful nature viewpoint is romantisized crap.

[Mordokai]

I hate the «Usually evil» alignement. Humans are capable of the best and the worse so any other sentient creature should too. There is absolutely no reason why an orc should tend to be more evil then a dwarf. They are both smart enough to take moral decisions regardless of their races.

...but I dont hate the «always evil» alignement at all. Magic in D&D can totally switch your alignement just if you touch an items or get bitten by a magical creature. Undead are animated by pure evil energy and becoming a Lich require an incredibly evil act. Yes positives energy undead exist (and they are called deathless I think) but I'm pretty sure we are not talking about them. Any magical creature or outsider can and probably even should have an «always» alignement. If you can change a mortal alignment with magic, then a creature that was entirely created by magic cant actually really change (at least not without lots of other magic). Undead are created by evil energy to be evil, there nothing else to say about it. Destroying undead is an act of compassion, you are destroying the evil energy and let the soul get to the afterlife.

Killing any non-magical creature like orcs or drow or goblins just because of their races? Now I consider that evil. I would make any paladins who do that fall and I really respect Redcloak goals (though hes still evil, at least I know why he is unlike Xykon who just decided to be evil because he could). But there is no way I would make a paladin fall no matter how many demons, vampires or golems he destroy. Its freaking magic, it can do anything. Just like the guy who became a werewolf will become Chaotic evil, there is no redeeming a vampire or a wight. Their simple existence is evil, they are animated and driven entirely by negatives energy, they cant be anything else then evil. The only way it could work is if you could somehow destroy the negatives energy inside a vampire to replace it with positive energy but that would just destroy him anyway.

I'll just comment on this because I think that you... well, frankly, are bulls****. A whole lot, actually.

On "Usually" alignments, from MM:


The majority(more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural infuences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

And that is reason why most orcs are evil, and most dwarwes are good. There is a good reason for that "Usually". Yes, there are members of race that are different, they are just so rare that it almost isn't worth mentioning them.

There is similar thing with "Always" alignment, I'm just too lazy to qoute MM again, check it up if you're really interested in topic. Enought to say, I agree with those that said that "Always" alignments are far, far more stupid than "Usually". I seem to remember, from the back of my head, that Karnath has great respect for undead? While they are no less evil because of that(undead, that is), that just shows us that it all depends on who is observing the situation. And really, after Eludicia, Wizards themselves pretty much throw the "Always" alignment into the rubish bin. I mean, if succubus can become paladin then I see no reason that undead cannot be good. Baelnorms(spelling?) are good example of that.

About paladins and killing just for the sake ofthe race. Here we are at the "Usually" alignment again. Yes, if paladin kills any drow on spot, he deserves to fall. Especially after introducing Drizzt, when there appear to be more good than evil drows roaming the land. But, I'm missing from my point. The point is, most of the races you mentioned fall under "Usually evil" alignment. Even if paladin WOULD kill every drow, orc and goblin on spot, he would kill evil creature in more than 50% of cases. But, paladins are not stupid(shush, Miko haters!). They have Detect evil at their disposal, Diplomacy is a class skill for them and they have hight charisma. They are diplomats, negotiators and leaders and they are supposed to ask before killing. What you're describing are zealot paladins, the worst kind of paladins, and those kind don't stay paladins for long.

Please, check your facts next time, before you go around, spilling silly thing on forum.

[Paladin29]

Oh, yeah, i see much dolphins taking food to other starving dolphins in other seas....and yes, every day i see whales caring for other sick and stranger whales with a contagious sickness... com'on, no animal is as good or evil as humans, because we have the CHOICE to be good or evil.

[FilmNoir62]

It should be noted that fiendish types (dastardly demons, devils, daemons, etc.) have a choice between good and evil. It is in their nurture and nature that their path be evil. They are demons both by birthright and by choice.

Someone raised from birth to believe a certain thing (i.e. the world is flat) and who is never shown true evidence of a different idea will believe what they have been taught and what they have perceived. A demon is born into evil (and chaos), raised to evil, breeds evil and has been committing evil acts since its first tortured breath (at least those that DO in fact breathe). This does NOT suggest that the demon has no control over its actions, it merely states that in the VAST majority of cases the demon will do as it has always done: Evil.

It IS possible for a native of the alignment planes to be turned, but this would be a Herculean task on the level of convincing a hardened Spartan warrior that killing is wrong. The Spartan has a choice... but we can pretty well guess what answer he'll go with in MOST cases.

There are many fictions that involve an angel's fall or a devil's redemption. A sentient demon has complete control over his actions, and has the option of altruism at his disposal. An angel is perfectly capable of betraying and murdering his own kind. But it goes against almost everything these outsiders have ever experienced, perceived and learned.

That being said:

Undead are predominantly evil, but not always by choice. I think of it kind of like "Pet Sematary." These creatures have died, but their life's essence has been wrested back using negative energy, permanently warping them (either destroying their free will or creating a "chemical imbalance" of sorts on a grand scale). For the most part it is the contention of the game that these creatures are evil and cannot help being evil (house rules and campaign exceptions aside, notably Soon and his Sapphire Guard).

I think it would be conceivable for an undead creature to be somewhat affected by the caster's disposition, especially in the case of sentient undead (such as wights). The motherly disposition of a controlling force could possibly evoke a reaction such as the one exhibited by the wight in this comic. Granted their agenda is to destroy all life and hatred for all living things, but I think the necromancer that created and controls them could be an exception.

[monty]

And that is reason why most orcs are evil, and most dwarwes are good. There is a good reason for that "Usually". Yes, there are members of race that are different, they are just so rare that it almost isn't worth mentioning them.

So, if 49% of a population were good, with 51% evil (a "Usually Evil" group) you'd consider that almost not worth mentioning? A majority is not always a vast majority.

[Mordokai]

So, if 49% of a population were good, with 51% evil (a "Usually Evil" group) you'd consider that almost not worth mentioning? A majority is not always a vast majority.

I think you're splitting hairs here.

First, society like this would constantly be at odds with itself. One half would oppose the other half, leading to milder version of civil war(maybe even rought civil war, you never know), wiping that population out sooner or later. Rather sooner.

Second, and I'll again say that you're splitting hairs, I'm sure that when it says "more than 50%", you can be sure, and indeed, even know, that that means vast majority, 75% or more. And in case like that, yes, I find that 25% almost not woth mentioning. If it's big population(100k+ souls), it's not much. If it's small population(100 or less souls) I'm pretty sure that percentage will be even lower.

[Yami]

Just because something is Evil doesn't mean it's Wrong.

Unless wrong means something you wouldn't do (which does more often than not.) In which case, it definately isn't wrong.

[monty]

And in case like that, yes, I find that 25% almost not woth mentioning.

That's an interesting statement. The 2000 US census puts non-whites at around 20% of the total population. Do you find that "almost not woth mentioning"?

[FilmNoir62]

One thing also not accounted for here is the varying levels of evil. An orc bandit robbing innocent travelers is evil. A demon lord destroying an elven city to bring about his own dark godhood is EVIL.

Even if you say that the majority of orcs are evil, I doubt they're EVIL. Most of them are probably mildly evil due to the nature of their upbringing.

Of course it's hard to reconcile the idea of moral relativism with a concrete alignment chart. This chart is ingrained in the game to where it's exceptionally hard to do without (believe me, I've tried as a DM). Orcs are raised to fight for dominance; they are "evil" primarily due to their upbringing and culture, and possibly a slight genetic disposition (don't forget the effect of chemical levels in one's psychological profile).

[Mordokai]

That's an interesting statement. The 2000 US census puts non-whites at around 20% of the total population. Do you find that "almost not woth mentioning"?

In comparison to other 80%? Absolutely.

Lets put it another way. Everything not evil is not automaticaly good. In case of orcs, if we say that 75% of them are evil(nothing more than speculations), I'm willing to bet that of the rest of 25%, 20% are chaotic neutral, leaning towards evil, 3% are TN and LN, leaning towards good, and only 2% are what you consider good.

@FilmNoir62: there is truth in what you say. Sadly, in dnd there is no counting of evil, more evilest and so on. Everything is purely subjective, and diverges from person to person. Demons and devils are widely believed to be more evil then orcs, yet that doesn't stop paladins, and indeed, most other adventurers from killing them. Just on our last session of dnd(yesterday) we had a big in game fight over whenever killing goblins and their kids is ok or not. Of four people, my cleric is the ony one who believes in not killing just because they are mostly evil. Try convincing that to a CN thief and ranger with goblins as favoured enemy :smallannoyed:

[monty]

In comparison to other 80%? Absolutely.

Lets put it another way. Everything not evil is not automaticaly good. In case of orcs, if we say that 75% of them are evil(nothing more than speculations), I'm willing to bet that of the rest of 25%, 20% are chaotic neutral, leaning towards evil, 3% are TN and LN, leaning towards good, and only 2% are what you consider good.

You never actually refuted my statement. First, if you think 1/5 of a group is almost not worth mentioning, then minorities must hate you. Second, regardless of whether the orcs are neutral or good, they're still not evil. This is D&D; there's no "leaning toward" anything. You're either evil, neutral, or good. For roleplaying purposes, there might be gray areas, but mechanically, there's not. A Smite Evil is no more effective against "chaotic neutral, leaning towards evil" than against a being of pure law and good.

[Milandros]

Just because something is Evil doesn't mean it's Wrong.

Unless wrong means something you wouldn't do (which does more often than not.) In which case, it definately isn't wrong.

Erm... depending on your defiition, it's pretty much the definition of wrong.

"Wrong" is a fuzzy term. If "right" means "the action most likely to result in an improved situation for the individual concerned", then yes, there are times when evil actions such as rape, murder, genocide, fratricide, matricide, patricide, etc etc etc is right. After all, if there's no chance of punishment, murdering one's parents to steal their property might be considered "right", as it makes you wealthier and more powerful, as well as removing a potential drain on your resources once they reach their later years. It's sure as hell evil, though. And by most colloquial definitions, it'swrong.

[Milandros]

I accept that they are evil, but what gives an evil human more rights than an evil undead?

An evil human is capable of redemption. A living being is part of the natural world, and is not, by fixed nature, evil. Nor are they animated purely by an evil force (remember, we're talking D&D undead, not Vampire:TM). A living human makes choices - and in some ways, those who choose to be evil are more seriously punished than mere undead. An undead creature is put to rest, allowing the spirit to pass to it's original destination (which may well be a good-aligned plane). The evil human, when killed, is headed for the lower planes.

[David Argall]

A Smite Evil is no more effective against "chaotic neutral, leaning towards evil" than against a being of pure law and good.

But a Holy Smite is.

[monty]

Erm... depending on your defiition, it's pretty much the definition of wrong.

"Wrong" is a fuzzy term. If "right" means "the action most likely to result in an improved situation for the individual concerned", then yes, there are times when evil actions such as rape, murder, genocide, fratricide, matricide, patricide, etc etc etc is right. After all, if there's no chance of punishment, murdering one's parents to steal their property might be considered "right", as it makes you wealthier and more powerful, as well as removing a potential drain on your resources once they reach their later years. It's sure as hell evil, though. And by most colloquial definitions, it'swrong.

I'd call that "wrong" even by that definition. Yes, it might improve your position, but it also worsens the condition of your parents (and does so by a far greater amount than it improves yours), so it does not result in an improved situation for the individuals concerned.

[monty]

But a Holy Smite is.

Fallacy of reversibility:
It works the same way for evil spells like Unholy Blight.

My point is that neutral is not evil, no matter how much "leaning" there is.

[Milandros]

Undead aren't inherrently evil- they're inherrently harmful.


Generic undead, perhaps, and many people use this as a kind of house-rule, but technically D&D undead are always evil. The very act of creating one is evil.

Of course, evil as a tangible force is a bit of a difficult concept to begin with.

Perosnally, I can see an arguement over skeletons and probably zombies. They're basically just animated objects. The problem is that, according to the rules, an individual can't be returned from the dead if their body is undead - meaning that their soul is somehow bound up with the corpse (or held elsewhere). Which does make even skeletons and zombies evil, I suppose. I can't imagine anything much more evil than denying someone their judgement and eternal rest.

[Ganurath]

Just because something is Evil doesn't mean it's Wrong.

Unless wrong means something you wouldn't do (which does more often than not.) In which case, it definately isn't wrong.Considering that I've run a lich who was out to save the multiverse from Far Realms based annihilation because he didn't want to be destroyed* with the rest of the multiverse, I'll have to agree. He was being completely selfish and excessively violent, but I'd say it was the right thing to do.

[brilliantlight]

It all depends on the nature of the setting really. One of the most fun characters I ever played was when I got a DM to agree that there was nothing inherently evil about undead (If they didn't feed on living beings), they just tended to get used that way. Then I created a very civic necromancer who would used dozens of zombies and skeletons as workers to help the poor during the group's downtime. The reactions of other players and NPCs alike to seeing zombies construct an orphanage and rebuild an invaded city's smashed gate was priceless. My only regret was that, for health reasons, I was forced to keep his zombies away from food preparation after the other players complained about the finger in the soup. My undead never did anything disgusting although at one point I did dress them up in drag to pretend to be the Rajah's Harem as decoys while we helped the real Rajah and harem escape from an orcish horde. Poor zombies, I never saw them again. Apparently the Orcs didn't find it as funny as I did.

Of course the default DnD setting is that undead are evil, inherently and unredeemably evil, and creating them is an evil act. Anything like the above requires houserules. Unless and until we see a similar houserule in Oots Tsukiko is wrong, undead are objectively and observably evil.

The counter-argument to "always evil," on the other hand, is Eludecia. Ever since WotC put up their LG Succubus Paladin "Always Evil" has not quite had as much meaning.


LOL. Personally I would think that a demon who changed its ways would become a celestial. I can see a "risen demon" as a counterpart to "fallen angel". It is even more unlikely as it is far easier to be evil then to be good but if you are going to do that I think a former demon becomes an angel. That is how I would rule it if you used "sanctify the wicked" on a demon and it blew its saving throw and spell resistance after a year of game time passed.

[monty]

LOL. Personally I would think that a demon who changed its ways would become a celestial. I can see a "risen demon" as a counterpart to "fallen angel". It is even more unlikely as it is far easier to be evil then to be good but if you are going to do that I think a former demon becomes an angel. That is how I would rule it if you used "sanctify the wicked" on a demon and it blew its saving throw and spell resistance after a year of game time passed.

How does that work for undead, though? There really isn't an appropriate good counterpart. A sanctified lich becomes...what? Personally, I'd just leave it as a sanctified lich.

[Kish]

Second, and I'll again say that you're splitting hairs, I'm sure that when it says "more than 50%", you can be sure, and indeed, even know, that that means vast majority, 75% or more.
...Because? Really, those terms are defined very specifically for a reason. There are races which have alignment tendencies listed as "often," meaning a plurality but not a majority. There are races which have alignment tendencies listed as "usually." And there are races which have alignment tendencies listed as "always," though even that doesn't actually mean "always." And you're certain that there are no races which actually are "usually" meaning "simple majority" rather than "vast majority"? That strikes me as an absurd proposition; what is it about 51% that makes it impossible when both 30% and 75% are present?

[DreadSpoon]

First, it depends on the setting. Arguing anything in the general sense is useless. In a setting I'm very used to, the royalty are considered Good, no questions asked. They are the definition of Good. Treason is the definition of Evil. Because it is a game world that has no planar influence or other ways for the metaphysical to exert its influence, and because the people of that world are NOT modern 21st century democratic give-me-my-rights types, that definition of Good and Evil is as concrete as anything could be. (In truth, a player who starts trying to "role-play" a character that "knows" that humans have rights and such is instead to be considered an absolutely horrific role-player, because that kind of thinking flat out doesn't exist in that setting, and only exists with modern 21st century players try to force their personal opinions into a pre-made and well-defined settings.

So, in OOTS, if undead are Evil, they are Evil. There need be no further explanation. If the people, gods, and intrinsic planar beings consider undead to be Evil, then they are. Simple as that. Trying to argue the point would be nothing more than a bad player (or reader) trying to force his personal ideas into someone else's setting.

In some settings, undead are not Evil. Many settings have both intrinsicly Good and intrinsicly Evil undead. Other settings may base it on individual circumstance.

For example, I usually don't consider a regular skeleton to be undead in custom settings, as the magics are merely animations of bones. They're essentially constructs made of remains, not undead. Other creatuers might be formed by binding human souls to corpses, which are true undead. Since those magics generally are described as forcefully binding the soul to the body and placing it under the caster's will, it is unequivocably Evil according to the setting's rules of morality, as domination and subjugation are both Evil. Free-willed undead can vary. Ghosts and spirits are often beneficial, and thus not Evil. Most powerful undead, like vampires, are cursed Evil beings (I personally despise modern vampire theories that in any way imply that a vampire could possibly enjoy its existence).

It really all depends on the setting, though. Some settings take a modern personal approach to morality, while others take a highly religious approach or have concrete beings and planes which define Good and Evil.

[lord of pixies]

:smalleek: ... SHE'S A FRIGGEN NECROFELIAK(sp)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

evidence:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html

third row down

[Rutee]

(In truth, a player who starts trying to "role-play" a character that "knows" that humans have rights and such is instead to be considered an absolutely horrific role-player, because that kind of thinking flat out doesn't exist in that setting, and only exists with modern 21st century players try to force their personal opinions into a pre-made and well-defined settings.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. They're terrible /actors/ sure, but uh, roleplaying, storytelling, etc? None of that is supposed to make /you the player/ uncomfortable. If you wish to argue that a setting that makes players uncomfortable should be completely avoided, fair enough, but I found watching people transplant ideals to be fascinating, and can make for an interesting story.

More to the point though, GMs or players who will tell other people they are bad at roleplaying for not pretending to follow a point of view (Say, for an easy example, Slavery is okay;) that makes them personally uncomfortable, well.. that just strikes me as wtf. Holding people up to arbitrary beliefs history and modern ethics hold as wrong for the sake of glorifying your definition of RP might in fact be the greater evil..


So, in OOTS, if undead are Evil, they are Evil. There need be no further explanation. If the people, gods, and intrinsic planar beings consider undead to be Evil, then they are. Simple as that. Trying to argue the point would be nothing more than a bad player (or reader) trying to force his personal ideas into someone else's setting.

Isn't that predicated on infallible Gods? Granted that it's a homebrew adaptation of the Norse Gods, but if they're anywhere near what the Norse Gods are, infallible is not a word I would apply to them...


Anyway, that aside, I'm not going to bother with the Gods' decisions, until some reliable emissary for one speaks on the subject. Tsukiko 'should' have left, in theory, but it's entirely possible that as a serf, she didn't have that right. While I genuinely couldn't care less about the necrophilia or Necromancy (And just to clarify something found earlier in the thread? The LGBT struggle may or may not apply to necrophilia, but when you get to Necro/mancy/ it's completely irrelevant; The Walking Dead are genuinely unnatural, not "OMG I Say its unnatural because I disagree with it"), I consider her /fully/ within her human rights to rebel against the system. If the Gods say that's wrong, well, Screw Destiny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewDestiny).

Now turning back and oppressing Azure City right back is where her rights end, naturally...

[monty]

In truth, a player who starts trying to "role-play" a character that "knows" that humans have rights and such is instead to be considered an absolutely horrific role-player, because that kind of thinking flat out doesn't exist in that setting, and only exists with modern 21st century players try to force their personal opinions into a pre-made and well-defined settings.

Or they could just be playing a chaotic good character, a rebel who strongly opposes the standard ethical views of the time. Unusual roleplaying is not always bad roleplaying.

[Kraggi]

I will be succinct in my reasoning, and simply quote Buffalo Springfeild.

"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."

I'm not sure if that was appropriate use of apostrophes.

[Jaguira]

Generic undead, perhaps, and many people use this as a kind of house-rule, but technically D&D undead are always evil. The very act of creating one is evil.

Well, I imagine the fact that the act will lead to harming others, even indirectly, almost no matter what, is why the act of creating undead is considered evil. ...Well, that and the whole soul-thing you and a few other people have mentioned. That's pretty bad too.
-The Silly Druid who Insists Trix are for Rabbits, Too


I will be succinct in my reasoning, and simply quote Buffalo Springfeild.

"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."

I'm not sure if that was appropriate use of apostrophes.

It was :smallsmile:
-Lady Jaguira, Grammar-Freak Extroidinare (Who Coincidentally cannot Spell to Save her Life)

[hendrake]

If Tsukiko's right, I wanna be wrong.

But heck, that's the story of my life...

[JonathanC]

Just because something is Evil doesn't mean it's Wrong.

Unless wrong means something you wouldn't do (which does more often than not.) In which case, it definately isn't wrong.

Actually, that pretty much IS the definition of "Evil"...that which we think is "Wrong". I think you're confusing the fact that good people sometimes do the wrong thing with the wrong thing being right.

Assuming that you believe in the concept of Absolute Right and Wrong (and if you didn't, why bother capitalizing "Evil" and "Wrong"?), then by definition, something that is Evil is also Wrong.

And don't try to give me some crap about how Evil people think that doing Evil is the Right thing; Evil people don't really define themselves as Evil, not internally, at least. They may acknowledge that society at large views them that way but they consider themselves to be either in the Right, or above and beyond the definitions of Right and Wrong.

[dragoncmd]

I'm gay and I get called an abomination whenever I poke my head into a related debate forum. I generally take it to mean, "EW YUCK! You're a horrible person because you're DIFFERENT than I am!" And yes, the reaction is almost exactly the same as some people's reaction to Tsukiko's necrophilia.

Interestingly enough, I don't mind getting called such names. In my observation, people eager to call others abominations tend to have a lot more issues than just that one. Usually it's best to laugh it off and leave if possible.

However, there is a larger point. When you take a certain group and decide to purposefully exclude them, it's not really a surprise when they react negatively. If you want others to treat you right, then you have to treat them right. When good turns their nose up at someone, you can bet that alternative parties will be looking to them for recruits.

While I agree with you, I would like to point out how undead are treated in D&D morality. This isn't a simple case of necrophilia. AC is a city run by a strict paladin set of laws. This could mean that her crime is more is the bounds of associating with evil and proclaiming herself evil than any personal preferences. Also she has created undead, an act which in some campaign settings tortures the soul of the dead creature for eternity (talking unintelligent here).

Conclusion: EVIL (not due to necrophilia)

[Iranon]

Actually, there is a fundamental problem in many types of relationships that transcends mere bigotry: Responsibility, and the power to abuse it.

Gay couples are in fact on a more even footing than most (in most western countries, men and women are *not* equal in the eye of the law, much less in social expectations).
This is not true for many other commonly reviled lifestyles.



While relationships with mild imbalances (employer/employee) are merely frowned upon, those with major ones (adult/minor, guardian/ward) are not tolerated at all.
This isn't to say there can't be benign and loving lopsided relationships, but most societies consider the risk for abuse large enough to issue a blanket ban.

Undead in general have so many peculiarities to them, and are often enough dependent on/subservient to their creator that Tsukiko's preference would be met with society's ire for that reason alone.

[Lamech]

I would like to point out that in OotS "always evil" undead such as say liches are not irredeemable. In 193 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) the angel tries to redeem Xykon. That being said if Azure City placed Tsukiko in jail for "association" with undead, then she would be right (or at least, not wrong) to fight against that government. Although if she was placed in jail for something like animating people's corpses with out their permission, that would be a different story.

Of course, since Tsukiko says she wants to be evil when she met Xykon, assuming she was being truthful, Tsukiko probably has done other thing that make her wrong.

P.S. Where does it say casting spells with the evil descriptor are evil? Also using someones corpse isn't inherently evil. We do that today, with things like heart transplants.

[Paladin29]

One thing is a trasplant (a good action) and other necromancy (a evil action).

[Lamech]

Where does it say that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is evil (let alone a necromacy spell)?

I looked in the part on descriptors say (pg 174) says most descriptors have no game affect by themselves. I can't find anything that says casting a spell with a evil descriptor is an evil act.

[monty]

One thing is a trasplant (a good action) and other necromancy (a evil action).

Since when is necromancy evil? Take a look through the Book of Exalted Deeds and you'll see numerous examples of Necromancy (Good). That still leaves the question of exactly what the descriptors mean, though.

[Jayngfet]

One thing is a trasplant (a good action) and other necromancy (a evil action).

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html

head for the hills, the undead have risen.:smallamused:

[Kish]

Since when is necromancy evil? Take a look through the Book of Exalted Deeds and you'll see numerous examples of Necromancy (Good).

You don't have to go that far, even. You just have to observe that a wizard who specializes in the school of Necromancy has no alignment restrictions.

[Rebonack]

The only action that is expressly stated to be evil in Core RAW is the act of channeling negative energy. Remember, the alignment rules only say that murdering someone implies evil. Not that it is evil. As such, I don't find the argument that since RAW doesn't specifically state that using an [EVIL] spell is evil it must not be terribly convincing.

Yes, it is true that it doesn't expressly stipulate using Blasphemy is an evil act. But that giant [EVIL] tag certainly implies it. In the same sense RAW doesn't say that setting a box of kittens on fire is evil either, but it certainly says such actions imply evil.

[EvilElitest]

It all depends on the nature of the setting really. One of the most fun characters I ever played was when I got a DM to agree that there was nothing inherently evil about undead (If they didn't feed on living beings), they just tended to get used that way. Then I created a very civic necromancer who would used dozens of zombies and skeletons as workers to help the poor during the group's downtime. The reactions of other players and NPCs alike to seeing zombies construct an orphanage and rebuild an invaded city's smashed gate was priceless. My only regret was that, for health reasons, I was forced to keep his zombies away from food preparation after the other players complained about the finger in the soup. My undead never did anything disgusting although at one point I did dress them up in drag to pretend to be the Rajah's Harem as decoys while we helped the real Rajah and harem escape from an orcish horde. Poor zombies, I never saw them again. Apparently the Orcs didn't find it as funny as I did.

Of course the default DnD setting is that undead are evil, inherently and unredeemably evil, and creating them is an evil act. Anything like the above requires houserules. Unless and until we see a similar houserule in Oots Tsukiko is wrong, undead are objectively and observably evil.

The counter-argument to "always evil," on the other hand, is Eludecia. Ever since WotC put up their LG Succubus Paladin "Always Evil" has not quite had as much meaning.

1. sounds like a fun champion
2. Any undead who isn't evil and intelligent, doesn't feed on humans (vampires i'm looking at you) and aren't twisted mockeries of life might have rights but that only leave deathless and liches
3. I heard that WotC considered Eludecia non cannon
edit-wait i think the just gave her hte enlightened template


I'm gay and I get called an abomination whenever I poke my head into a related debate forum. I generally take it to mean, "EW YUCK! You're a horrible person because you're DIFFERENT than I am!" And yes, the reaction is almost exactly the same as some people's reaction to Tsukiko's necrophilia.

Interestingly enough, I don't mind getting called such names. In my observation, people eager to call others abominations tend to have a lot more issues than just that one. Usually it's best to laugh it off and leave if possible.

However, there is a larger point. When you take a certain group and decide to purposefully exclude them, it's not really a surprise when they react negatively. If you want others to treat you right, then you have to treat them right. When good turns their nose up at someone, you can bet that alternative parties will be looking to them for recruits.
I have no problems with homosexuals but different context
Contrary to some group's statments, being gay isn't a crime against nature
According to D&D, undeath is
Also, i think Necrophilia is as well an act against nature or at least a sign of a lack of mental instability

I hate the «Usually evil» alignement. Humans are capable of the best and the worse so any other sentient creature should too. There is absolutely no reason why an orc should tend to be more evil then a dwarf. They are both smart enough to take moral decisions regardless of their races.


Culture, orc culture and manner is CE, while Dwarf culture and manner is LG. Exceptions exist, but most Orcs ether become NE, or CN. Now LE, N,LN, are all more likely than NG,LG, and CG
Now if 90% of all common orcs are CE, and 90% of Dwarves are LG, then out of 10 % for orcs most will be NE, CN, with some LE, N, CG, and a few NG, LN and the rare LG, while with dwarves you will have mostly NG, LN, with some N, CG, LE, a few CN, NE, and the rare CE

from
EE

[EvilElitest]

That's exactly why I hate the "always" alignments. If you're physically incapable of doing anything outside of your alignment (barring Sanctify the Wicked or a similar spell), how does that give you a moral or ethical position? If you have free will, you should be allowed a variable alignment. There could still be penalties for changing (same as a paladin), but you should at least have the capacity for change.

I like always alignments but only for creatures like Demons, because i like the idea of them being the incarnations of Chaos and Evil ect. In my games, should a demon commit non CE acts for non CE purposes (saving a child for no reason at personal risk) they literally change into another being (angle for example)
from
EE

[monty]

I like always alignments but only for creatures like Demons, because i like the idea of them being the incarnations of Chaos and Evil ect. In my games, should a demon commit non CE acts for non CE purposes (saving a child for no reason at personal risk) they literally change into another being (angle for example)
from
EE

The problem with that is it doesn't allow for any medium values. To use your example, saving one child's life won't change a being of pure evil to anything other than evil, and it certainly won't make them an angel. However, at some point there needs to be room for change. If they save a child's life every day, they should eventually progress toward neutral and then good. I can't see a scenario where a demon saves a child, they cross the imaginary line, and *poof* they're an angel now. They should have alignment changes like normal characters.

From SRD description of alignments:

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
If you are incapable of not being evil, you shouldn't have an alignment.

[EvilElitest]

The problem with that is it doesn't allow for any medium values. To use your example, saving one child's life won't change a being of pure evil to anything other than evil, and it certainly won't make them an angel. However, at some point there needs to be room for change. If they save a child's life every day, they should eventually progress toward neutral and then good. I can't see a scenario where a demon saves a child, they cross the imaginary line, and *poof* they're an angel now. They should have alignment changes like normal characters.

From SRD description of alignments:

If you are incapable of not being evil, you shouldn't have an alignment.

But demons are in very embodiments of Chaos and evil, remember, it is actions> motive. Creatures that lack the intelligence to understand morals are except, but demons are intellegent and take pleasure in cruelty, pain, suffering, chaos and hurt. The pain of others is their real joy in life. To exist, they need to cause Chaos and Evil. They are the walking incarnations of CE. And they are not moral. Mortals have Free Will, they can choose to be good or evil, neutral, chaotic or lawful. When their souls die, they turn into (this is cannon by WOTC by the way) Angles, demons, devils or whatnot, depending on their alignment. At that point the are no longer mortal and have lost the ability to choose their actions. Demons ARE Chaos and Evil, they are CE because they are doing CE things, their existence is CE. Should one use its limited free will to choose to no longer be CE, then their "duty" as a demon is void and they become something new as their immortal soul changes.

Demons, Devil, Angles, Devas ects are not races, they are morals given form
from
EE

[Lamech]

2. Any undead who isn't evil and intelligent, doesn't feed on humans (vampires i'm looking at you) and aren't twisted mockeries of life might have rights but that only leave deathless and liches
Unless the undead is in a society where evil people are considered illegal, being evil isn't a convincing argument. Especially since an angel believed the best course of action was to try redemption, when dealing with Xykon.

Vampires feed on humans? I suppose they can, but so can humans. While vampires can feed on humans, they don't have to. The SRD says their blood drain works on living creatures, this would include things such as pigs, cows, rats, fish or similar creatures.

"Twisted mockery", that seems pretty subjective. Maybe a lich would consider a human twisted. Tsukiko probably considers the (former) Azure City government a twisted mockery of what a government should be like.

[Jayngfet]

ok I think we got out of hand here, all she said is that a pulse is not a prequisite to being loved, somthing like an elf saying the same thing about pointy ears, obviously she's saying somthing unpopular but I missed the part where she talks about every undead, said elf could hate the guy across the street but love the mailman like a brother.

[EvilElitest]

Unless the undead is in a society where evil people are considered illegal, being evil isn't a convincing argument. Especially since an angel believed the best course of action was to try redemption, when dealing with Xykon.

Vampires feed on humans? I suppose they can, but so can humans. While vampires can feed on humans, they don't have to. The SRD says their blood drain works on living creatures, this would include things such as pigs, cows, rats, fish or similar creatures.

"Twisted mockery", that seems pretty subjective. Maybe a lich would consider a human twisted. Tsukiko probably considers the (former) Azure City government a twisted mockery of what a government should be like.

1. Evil People being illegal? Don't you mean evil undead
2. Said society would require a lot of non evil undead and that doesn't leave very much
3. We know that a Lich can turn good, thus redemption for them is quite possible (after all, they chose to be undead)
4. Vampires are almost always evil and even the super rare non evil ones don't really like non human blood. Having a society of vampires would only work if they all were content with pig blood and weren't actively evil (a good society)
5. The human came first, undeath turns the human into something more, a perverse and ruined form of life, thus twisted mockery. Lichs are the exception
6. Good for Tsukiko, but that doesn't make it so. If what she considers a proper government is a despotism tyrant evil sociopathic lich running the city that enslaves, murders and kills innocent people, as well as undead who suck life out of people then that is an evil society and thus all undead involved are evil. Tsukiko can only be considered right if we can see evidence of good or non destructive undead
from
EE

[Milandros]

I'd call that "wrong" even by that definition. Yes, it might improve your position, but it also worsens the condition of your parents (and does so by a far greater amount than it improves yours), so it does not result in an improved situation for the individuals concerned.

Your changing the definition to "the individuals" instead of "the individual". The point I was making was that you haev to define "right" in non-moral terms - it has to be definined as something like "that which improves you happiness, opportunity, wealth, resources or influence no matter how much damage and suffering it causes to everyone else" in order to claim evil is "right".
It's a wied mathematical definition rather than a real-life one. It's silly.

[pendell]

If it's an intelligent being of some sort, then sure, but that doesn't repel the query. If, say, a Demon, is literally incapable of performing truly Good acts (and thus shifting alignment,) then in a very real sense he lacks moral choice, and so, can't be Evil at all, any more than a tornado, bear trap, or rabid dog. He can be violent, destructive, or dangerous, but Evil implies the possibility that you can choose Good.


Like to approach this from a myth perspective ...

... something we're missing is that evil is a trap. Remember ol' Yoda ...

"If once you start down the dark path, forever it will dominate your destiny".

And remember Darth Vader and Luke having their discussion in the Bunker ..

"Come with me".

"You don't know the power of the Dark Side. I must obey my master".

From this viewpoint, a person may once have had the capacity to choose good and evil equally, but evil is like the honey on a trap ... once taken, nearly impossible to shake free of. It takes a fairly phenomenal amount of energy to take a creature trapped in evil, break that bondage to evil, and make it a creature that can choose between good and evil equally. It's called "redemption".

And therein, I think, lies the difference between "usually" and "always" evil. For "usual" evil creatures, there is some redemptive mechanism that allows them to escape their bondage to evil and become good creatures. For 'always' evil creatures, no such mechanism exists. They may have one time had the free choice between good and evil, but by their own actions that no longer exists. Sorta like Darth Vader, they are in bondage to evil that cannot be broken.

Of course, this is D&D and not religion. So I can't imagine any reason why there shouldn't be a redemptive mechanism for *everything*, even Always Evil outsiders. Which would mean it would be a crime to destroy even Always Evil Outsiders unless they were actively causing some kind of harm.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Drakron]

Except Anakin Skywalker redeemed himself by saving Luke at the cost of his own life, forgot that part of the movie?

The reasons outsiders are usually of their origin plane alignment is because they are born of that plane, they are embodiments of the plane but when they are also intelligent they are capable of making moral decisions, if a Deva can fall so can a Demon rise ... it simply only happens once in a blue moon.

Alignment does equal racial traits, a LG demon will still have the same racial traits of its race, just like a CE Deva will have the same racial traits of a LG Deva.

[pendell]

Except Anakin Skywalker redeemed himself by saving Luke at the cost of his own life, forgot that part of the movie?


True, and no I hadn't forgotten it ... but it was a bad example. Maybe a better metaphor for what I'm aiming at are the Nine Riders of LOTR. They were once humans with all the free will that implied. They freely gave in to temptation, and that temptation resulted in the utter loss of their will in certain crucial areas. They are now no more than the slaves of the Ring, completely incapable of choosing Good of their own volition.

That's one of the big things that separates good from evil, doesn't it? Evil takes away the free will of it's adherents, making them into slaves unable to do anything but that which evil wills them to do.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Rutee]

"Twisted mockery", that seems pretty subjective. Maybe a lich would consider a human twisted. Tsukiko probably considers the (former) Azure City government a twisted mockery of what a government should be like.

Maybe the Lich considers a human twisted, but the human is a natural being. He /is/ an abomination on mother nature's intended order.

[Prince_Rohan]

There are some truly fascinating arguments about what constitutes Right and Wrong. Some of the posts display the type of moral vacuum reserved for lawyers and the lowest spawn of Hades.

If you find yourself making one of these arguments I humbly offer the following advice:

Step 1: :smallwink: Put the Laurell K. Hamilton book away for a day or two, it's not helping anything.

Step 2: :smallconfused: In the context of the game, think about what creating/maintaining undead entails.

Step 3: :smalleek: Ask yourself if you would want your own children doing this or have it done to them...

If at some point you don't shudder inside, seek out and enroll in the nearest law school. You have the potential to rake in millions making the lives of others miserable! :smallbiggrin:

[Lamech]

On the issue of undead being a "twisted abomination"
1) Coming first doesn't change anything. Otherwise, an earth elemental could call plants twisted abominations of dirt, and sentient plant creatures could call animals (including humans) twisted abominations of plants.
2) "Mother's natures intended order" what is that exactly? Are cities against the natural order? What about preservation of corpses in coffins or big mausoleums? Also in the OotS world, is the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD against mother nature's intended order seeing as it is artificial? Also there is no evidence that the gods all think that undead are against their will.


Evil People being illegal? Don't you mean evil undead
Err...
I mean that unless all evil people (living or undead) are criminalized, being evil is not a reason to criminalize undead.


We know that a Lich can turn good, thus redemption for them is quite possible (after all, they chose to be undead)
No more so than vampires, or demons. Liches are listed as evil; no exceptions.


Vampires are almost always evil and even the super rare non evil ones don't really like non human blood. Having a society of vampires would only work if they all were content with pig blood and weren't actively evil (a good society)
Does it say vampires prefer human blood somewhere? (I'm just using the SRD for monsters) If there isn't, then vampires preferring human blood is just a quirk of individual campaign settings. There is no evidence that vampires prefer human blood in the OotS. (Other than what might be in DnD source books I don't have.)

[Paladin29]

Evil people makes illegal themselves, at least in societies where all normal people like to live (LG, CG or NG). They are evil, they makes evil things to other people.. it makes them illegal and punishable, an undead more because they are beings out of the natural cycle.

[monty]

Evil Subtype

...Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype...

This implies that they also have the capacity to change. As for undead...they don't have the Evil subtype, so go nuts with Sanctify the Wicked. Nothing HAS to be evil.

[Dacia Brabant]

Vampires feed on humans? I suppose they can, but so can humans. While vampires can feed on humans, they don't have to. The SRD says their blood drain works on living creatures, this would include things such as pigs, cows, rats, fish or similar creatures.


Vampire, per the SRD, is a template that can only be added to humanoid or monstrous humanoid creatures. Since vampire spawn are created by vampires slaying mortal humanoids via their Energy Drain attack, typically done through their slam/grapple/blood drain attack routine (they get double the hit points back when they energy drain through their bite), and since vampire spawn contribute to their vampiric master's power base, it stands to reason vampires prefer humanoid targets. What's the most common humanoid race again?

Also, most undead are created against their will, and doing anything to someone else against their own will is a common definition of unlawful. Undead /can/ behave Lawfully (in alignment terms) but their actions and even existence is usually against the laws of (non-evil) human cities and states.

[Cute_Riolu]

Negative Energy is, I believe, literally pure evil.

It is never stated that negative energy is Evil. If that were the case, then wouldn't positive energy be Good? Which would make healing spells of all kinds have the [Good] descriptor. And they don't. So no.

[Dacia Brabant]

It is never stated that negative energy is Evil. If that were the case, then wouldn't positive energy be Good? Which would make healing spells of all kinds have the [Good] descriptor. And they don't. So no.

Are you sure about that?



Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.


Yeah, this is why Good clerics aren't permitted to rebuke/command or spontaneously cast Inflict spells, and why Evil clerics aren't permitted to turn/destroy or spontaneously cast Cure spells. Those particular spells may not have alignment descriptors, after all they can be cast by anyone, but being innately positively or negatively charged is in fact alignment-based.

[Alces]

And I've read a paper on homosexual necrophilia in ducks(review the strangest biology paper you can find, twas a good assignment, I won a slab of beer for having the weirdest). So both are natural. At the same time too.

Drop us the full citation for that in here, please. Also: beer in slab form, i.e. a frozen block? Now that's unnatural.

[sihnfahl]

Drop us the full citation for that in here, please.
My followup post would have given you that. It was the 2003 Ig Nobel Biology winner (http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&style=default).


Also: beer in slab form, i.e. a frozen block? Now that's unnatural.
Australian slang. Slab of beer = case of beer.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Right or wrong, can you possibly deny that the shoe wight is cute?


My followup post would have given you that. It was the 2003 Ig Nobel Biology winner (http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&style=default).


Australian slang. Slab of beer = case of beer.

Weeee! Fellow Aussie!

[sihnfahl]

Weeee! Fellow Aussie!
Nah, just someone who reads a lot and has an interest in linguistics.

I'm not the sort who'd get a tallie of VB over at the pub, now.

[monty]

Are you sure about that?


Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

Yeah, this is why Good clerics aren't permitted to rebuke/command or spontaneously cast Inflict spells, and why Evil clerics aren't permitted to turn/destroy or spontaneously cast Cure spells. Those particular spells may not have alignment descriptors, after all they can be cast by anyone, but being innately positively or negatively charged is in fact alignment-based.

I question your logic here. Just because turning undead is good and rebuking is evil doesn't mean that applies to other uses of positive and negative energy (that quote's taken out of context, so it might be misleading). If you can find a similar statement about cure and inflict spells, then I'll believe it. However, from BoED, page 83:

Healing spells do not carry the good descriptor, however, because their moral weight depends heavily on circumstances.

[Drakron]

True, and no I hadn't forgotten it ... but it was a bad example. Maybe a better metaphor for what I'm aiming at are the Nine Riders of LOTR. They were once humans with all the free will that implied. They freely gave in to temptation, and that temptation resulted in the utter loss of their will in certain crucial areas. They are now no more than the slaves of the Ring, completely incapable of choosing Good of their own volition.

You picked up another bad one.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Only the elven rings were untainted because Sauron never touched then, the others were tainted and so as the humans became the Nazgul it was not by their choice but by the rings corrupting power and that it was the whole point, the rings were a trick and as they worked on the humans they did not worked that well in the dwarves (they did affect their anger and greed).



That's one of the big things that separates good from evil, doesn't it? Evil takes away the free will of it's adherents, making them into slaves unable to do anything but that which evil wills them to do.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

You are not "evil" if you are going something evil without it being your choice, that is why being magical compelling spells does not change your aligment.

The matter is always choice and the intent of that choice and that goes both ways, a NE fighter that acts like a LG Paladin because he is under a Geass spell its still a NE if he does not intent to act in such way and only does because of the spell.

[Dacia Brabant]

I question your logic here. Just because turning undead is good and rebuking is evil doesn't mean that applies to other uses of positive and negative energy (that quote's taken out of context, so it might be misleading). If you can find a similar statement about cure and inflict spells, then I'll believe it. However, from BoED, page 83:
This point I will grant; it was glib of me to imply that Cure and Inflict spells hold to the same rules as turn/rebuke undead, though I didn't intend it to seem that way and if I did it was because I was responding to another user who made that implication overt.

Even so, while the act of channeling negative energy as a memorized spell may not be an Evil act (if it's not a spell with [Evil] descriptor or is not being used for Evil purposes), it is (usually) Evil to innately channel negative energy, and it most certainly is an Evil act to channel negative energy for the purpose of animating or controlling undead. That last point is the real issue here--whether Tsukiko is Evil for creating undead. The answer has to be that, in D&D terms, while not all uses of negative energy are Evil, all of them are Evil with respect to creating and commanding undead.

[Green and Red]

Its possible that some of this has been said before, but the discussion on a general level is nearly pointless. It heavily depends on the setting, mostly if negative energy is directly evil or not, which is not completly clear in core RAW, however the BoVD says that it is, but if you apply everything that book says is another matter altogether, because a few things in there are strange or even conflict with the core alingment system. On the whole its propably up to the individual dm, someone linked the article which basically gives the two options.

Whithin the OotS World, its hard to say, because we dont know if negative energy is inherently evil there, although most sentinent undead seemed to be.
The angel belived xykon could be redeemed, that means a lich isnt bond to evil forever, however if he could be good while remaining in that form is another matter, as a lich can be ressurected, or for that matter destroy himself. The only sentinent undead where one might question the morals was maybe the eye of fear and flame, which apparently didnt want to fight really, but i dont think we have enough to really nail down its alingment.( Remeber that soon and the ghost martyrs were no undead but something with positive energy (maybe deathless(?)))
For nonsentinent undead we cant really say, as i dont think we ever saw one uncontrolled.

[monty]

This point I will grant; it was glib of me to imply that Cure and Inflict spells hold to the same rules as turn/rebuke undead, though I didn't intend it to seem that way and if I did it was because I was responding to another user who made that implication overt.

Even so, while the act of channeling negative energy as a memorized spell may not be an Evil act (if it's not a spell with [Evil] descriptor or is not being used for Evil purposes), it is (usually) Evil to innately channel negative energy, and it most certainly is an Evil act to channel negative energy for the purpose of animating or controlling undead. That last point is the real issue here--whether Tsukiko is Evil for creating undead. The answer has to be that, in D&D terms, while not all uses of negative energy are Evil, all of them are Evil with respect to creating and commanding undead.

There's that "usually" again. It's not the energy itself that's evil, it's the actions it's used for. If creating undead is evil, that's one thing, but it doesn't make the negative energy evil, it's just using it for an evil purpose. For that matter, it's not like positive energy can't be bad. Look at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#positiveEnergyPlane for a description of what can happen if you get hit by too much positive energy.

[Lamech]

Actually, Green and Red, your probably right. With out knowing more about the campaign setting it will be difficult to judge if Tsukiko's actions (in regards to the undead) are evil.


Even so, while the act of channeling negative energy as a memorized spell may not be an Evil act (if it's not a spell with [Evil] descriptor or is not being used for Evil purposes), it is (usually) Evil to innately channel negative energy, and it most certainly is an Evil act to channel negative energy for the purpose of animating or controlling undead. That last point is the real issue here--whether Tsukiko is Evil for creating undead. The answer has to be that, in D&D terms, while not all uses of negative energy are Evil, all of them are Evil with respect to creating and commanding undead.
Okay, where does it specifically say creating undead is evil, and casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor is an evil act? (I don't have the BoVD or BoED and the core books are not the best formated for finding this kind of thing.) I still say that it depends on the individual campaign setting, unless someone can find something in one of the books.
Also even if negative energy is inherently evil, if it can be bound up in doing good; then one has accomplished two good things. 1) Something good is being done. 2) Pure evil is kept from doing its evilness.

[EvilElitest]

On the issue of undead being a "twisted abomination"
1) Coming first doesn't change anything. Otherwise, an earth elemental could call plants twisted abominations of dirt, and sentient plant creatures could call animals (including humans) twisted abominations of plants.
2) "Mother's natures intended order" what is that exactly? Are cities against the natural order? What about preservation of corpses in coffins or big mausoleums? Also in the OotS world, is the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD against mother nature's intended order seeing as it is artificial? Also there is no evidence that the gods all think that undead are against their will.


Please Quote me, i think your talking to me
1. But not an earth elemental and a plant are two different creatures, while an undead is a twisted mockery of what a human use to be, a human twisted, and mutlated until all that remains is a dead, soulless creature who hunts what they use to be
2. I didn't say mother nature, but the are against the natural order, they are twisted corrupted version of the living, nether living or dead


Err...
I mean that unless all evil people (living or undead) are criminalized, being evil is not a reason to criminalize undead.

I've very confused here as well

No more so than vampires, or demons. Liches are listed as evil; no exceptions.
nope there are good vampires in FR at least


Does it say vampires prefer human blood somewhere? (I'm just using the SRD for monsters) If there isn't, then vampires preferring human blood is just a quirk of individual campaign settings. There is no evidence that vampires prefer human blood in the OotS. (Other than what might be in DnD source books I don't have.)

I think it was in the book of undead but i'll need to check. But they are evil and tend to be natural hunters of teh living
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Evil people makes illegal themselves, at least in societies where all normal people like to live (LG, CG or NG). They are evil, they makes evil things to other people.. it makes them illegal and punishable, an undead more because they are beings out of the natural cycle.

Their is no crime to being evil, murder of evil people who are still innocent just for being selfish. Undead are a different matter
from
EE

[monty]

Please Quote me, i think your talking to me
1. But not an earth elemental and a plant are two different creatures, while an undead is a twisted mockery of what a human use to be, a human twisted, and mutlated until all that remains is a dead, soulless creature who hunts what they use to be
2. I didn't say mother nature, but the are against the natural order, they are twisted corrupted version of the living, nether living or dead

You're just repeating the same statements, with no logic or proof backing it up. What exactly makes them a "twisted mockery"? And what is your proof of this "natural order" that excludes undead? In a world of magic, how is anything against nature? If nature doesn't want it to happen (yes, I know I'm anthropomorphizing), then it won't.

[Dacia Brabant]

There's that "usually" again. It's not the energy itself that's evil, it's the actions it's used for. If creating undead is evil, that's one thing, but it doesn't make the negative energy evil, it's just using it for an evil purpose. For that matter, it's not like positive energy can't be bad. Look at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#positiveEnergyPlane for a description of what can happen if you get hit by too much positive energy.

Yeah, "Usually" is a definite problem in the D&D alignment system and it doesn't only crop up in creature descriptions--but it's a problem because it's a judgment call rather than a hard-and-fast rule. Still, there are some things involving alignment that are goverend by a general rule, and one of those is that rebuking/commanding undead--a form of channelling negative energy--is always evil, and I'll still contend that if the character channels it by nature, she's probably evil too.

As for the Positive Energy Plane, well my opinion of the way it's handled is it's a poor idea that was grandfathered in from 1st and 2nd edition (and with little in the way of explanation about the nature of its power), whereas IIRC in 3.0 Positive Energy in its pure form was an animating force that could give life even to inert objects. Oh well, even if that was the case it clearly was abandoned with 3.5, and I can't argue against its hostility. Of course, all of the Inner Planes are pure energy in some form or another and ergo hostile to (living) matter, but that was probably your point.


Okay, where does it specifically say creating undead is evil
I think I already cited that, with respect to rebuking/commanding undead. Maybe it can be argued that creating undead isn't the same thing as commanding them, but for many spells such as Animate Dead they are associated acts since the created undead are brought under the caster's command. As for whether it's an evil act to cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor:


Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
It takes an inferrence to go from "how the spell interacts...with alignment" to "Evil spells are Evil acts with respect to alignment", but I think it's a logical one.

[Lamech]

It takes an inferrence to go from "how the spell interacts...with alignment" to "Evil spells are Evil acts with respect to alignment", but I think it's a logical one.
Thats not how I took the line. I thought that interacting with alignment referred to things such as dispel (alignment), or detect (alignment) treat evil spells as evil. Or perhaps how the spells interact planes that are the embodiment of a certain alignment. Or perhaps why clerics of a certain alignment can not cast spells with opposed alignment descriptors.


I think I already cited that, with respect to rebuking/commanding undead. Maybe it can be argued that creating undead isn't the same thing as commanding them, but for many spells such as Animate Dead they are associated acts since the created undead are brought under the caster's command. As for whether it's an evil act to cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor:
I see no reason for it apply to anything other than the specific case it mentioned. Clerics using their ability to channel positive or negative energy.
Also channeling positive or negative energy is still a good or evil act even, if the energy is used for something that has nothing to do with undead. Since normally using negative energy spells isn't always evil, but channeling negative energy it always evil, that would imply that channeling is a special case.



Please Quote me, i think your talking to me
1. But not an earth elemental and a plant are two different creatures, while an undead is a twisted mockery of what a human use to be, a human twisted, and mutlated until all that remains is a dead, soulless creature who hunts what they use to be
Number two of your quote referred to someone else actually. The plants take dirt and alter it far more than going from human to undead. Same thing with animals and plants. One of those creatures could argue that is an even bigger twist and perversion.

[master ranger]

presonaly i think it's your actions that should deturmen how your treated not race, but then a again i'm from ebrron where there are CE gold dragons so i don't know how aligment work around here.:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Moonshae books by Douglas Niles have very strong ways of showing just how evil undead generally are: animals fleeing in terror, plants withering as they pass, etc.

the more recent WOTC book Fiendish Codex II has a list of Corrupt acts: acts evil enough to affect which afterlife you go to. The scale ran:

Evil descriptor spell: (undead, fiend summoning, soul trapping, etc) 1 pt
Humiliating underling: 1 pt (I assume this is gratuitous humiliation a la Carrie)

Robbing the needy: 2 pts
Betraying an ally for personal gain: 2 pts

Murder: 5 pts
Cold blooded murder: 6 pts
Murder for pleasure: 7 pts

9 pts unatoned for send all Lawful aligned characters to Nine Hells, even if they are not yet of Evil alignment.

A few others but these give you a rough idea: creating Undead or summoning Fiends is evil, but there are worse things.

Which Vile Darkness things are inconsistant with other references to alignment? From what I have seen, it is usually pretty reliable, in fact it is still considered the definitive source on evil alignment, according to various info on WOTC site.

[VetMichael]

To wheel this pregnant whale of a thread back on course:

Tsukiko is evil; she sides with evil forces intent on conquering the whole world while exploiting a rift in the prison of a god-slaying monster that seeks to undo all of creation. Her fetishes aside, she's an antisocial personality:

"Antisocial Personality (previously known as Psychopathic or Sociopathic Personality): People with an Antisocial Personality show callous disregard for the rights and feelings of others. They exploit others for material or personal gain or gratification. [s]uch people act out their conflicts impulsively and irresponsibly. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) They tolerate frustration poorly, and sometimes are violent and hostile. Despite the problems or harm they cause others by their behavior, they typically don't feel remorse or guilt. Rather, they glibly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) rationalize their behavior or blame it on others. Dishonesty and deceit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) permeate their relationships. Frustration and punishment rarely cause them to modify their behavior." (Merk Manual, P427)

"Antisocial people also tend to be highly narcissistic and have a sense of superiority and an exaggerated belief in their own importance...they feel they're entitled to have their needs attended to without waiting..."



Therefore, since there's really no provision for "not guilty by reason of mental defect or disability" in the D&D world, her actions are EVIL. If her actions are EVIL, then her deeds - no matter how much she spins them - are EVIL. If she's EVIL, and her prior actions (which we can only surmise based on her current actions) were EVIL, then she was rightfully imprisoned to protect the sanctity of life.


And, yes, Belkar deserves to be imprisoned as well - unless he undergoes a radical alignment shift (or another dose of Owl's Wisdom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html))

[Murderous Hobo]

I think Tsukiko is right in the same sense that animal-rights activists are right, which is also the crux of the problem. How do you define the difference and does the difference matter?

In a world of magic, when a person decides to become a Lich he's still very much the same person. He no longer needs body and is sustained by magic but his consciousness is still very much the same.
You could easily compare a Lich to somebody who replaces his body parts with mechanical substitutes, at no given point during the transformation he ceases to be human.

None the less, the predefined Dogma of DnD considers it evil - but the dogma is only there because some of the games mechanics rely on the good and evil labels and perhaps because fighting evil is a big theme in fantasy.
Now considering that these game mechanics are mostly just guide lines rather then rules, it's perfectly possible for the undead to be good and people have already mentioned good undead were written in with one the manuals (BoED?).

As such Good and Evil are what you make of it and a flexible, ambiguous system is far intellectually far more pleasing then trying to follow a dogma. Meaning that in the end you should be able to draw your own conclusions.


Just my two cents donation against rules lawyering over moralistic issue's.