PDA

View Full Version : The morality of Summon Undead? [3.5]



jcsw
2008-09-17, 06:16 AM
The Summon Undead series of spells in Libris Mortis are listed as evil spells, but I can't see anything evil about the spell at all.

As I understand it, only the creation of undead is evil, because of desecrating of the body, etc.
Since the undead you summon already exist, and are merely summoned from another plane (negative energy, I assume) just like any other summon, What evil deed did you commit by merely using undead that are already there, assuming you aren't using them for evil.

I understand that this is merely my opinion though, so... what's yours?

---

On a side note, this question can be extended to other evil summons...

EvilElitest
2008-09-17, 06:17 AM
personally i don't see the problem with raising minor undead, but what i think LM is trying to get at is that bringing the undead into our world/havesting negative energy is evil
from
EE

Kaihaku
2008-09-17, 06:23 AM
Glance at Frank K's Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D632562), the answer is depending on your view of negative energy.

If negative energy is evil, which DnD sometimes implies, then EE is dead on.
If negative energy is natural, which DnD also sometimes implies, then it's not an Evil act.

How alignment and positive/negative energy work need to be understood to resolve this confusion. The simplest answer is check with your DM to see how each campaign considers the matter...or just ignore it like WotC does.

FdL
2008-09-17, 06:25 AM
I think it's easier to see D&D as a game tending towards black and white morality. Within the context of a world where extremes for good and bad both exist (what with evil deities, undead, devils and demons, tangible manifestations of negative energies, etc), it makes sense.

In the case of undead I find it hard to see a side to it where it can not be considered an act of ultimate evil. If not for the desecrating part, for the involvement of negative energies and necromantic rituals, the disturbance of souls and whatnot. I mean, it's so plain to see that there's isn't really an explanation to that.

Quasi-scientifically (so to speak) negative energy IS concentrated evil.

Mastikator
2008-09-17, 06:30 AM
Find me one Undead that isn't listed as "Always Evil" +- chaotic/lawful.

Negative energy is not important, the undead are evil anyway.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-09-17, 06:31 AM
i think if you use the spell in the spell compendium i don't believe its evil? although i don't have the book with me at the moment.

KillianHawkeye
2008-09-17, 06:36 AM
I think that Mastikator hit this one on the head. Since the undead creatures summoned by the spell are always Evil, casting the spell is an Evil Act. Regardless of what you are using the undead to actually do, you are commanding an Evil, extraplanar creature.

Note that summon monster spells that are used to summon Evil creatures also carry the Evil descriptor, and thus casting them is an Evil Act.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 06:37 AM
Find me one Undead that isn't listed as "Always Evil" +- chaotic/lawful.

Negative energy is not important, the undead are evil anyway.

Mummies are not always evil. Neither are ghost.

Kaihaku
2008-09-17, 06:40 AM
Glance at Frank K's Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D632562), the answer is depending on your view of negative energy.


The Morality of Necromancy: Black and Gray
The rules of D&D attempt to be all things to all people, and unfortunately that just isn’t possible if you’re trying to make a system of objective morality. By trying to cater to two very different play styles as regards to the moral quandaries of the use of negative energy, the game ends up catering to neither – and this has been the cause of a great many arguments for which there actually are no possible resolutions. Ultimately therefore, it falls to every DM to determine whether in their game the powers of Necromancy are inherently evil, or merely extremely dangerous. That’s a choice which must be made, and has far reaching implications throughout the game. That’s an awful lot of work, and most DMs honestly just don’t care enough to be bothered with it, and I understand. Fortunately, we have collated those changes for you right here:

Moral Option 1: The Crawling Darkness
Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy in general, and undead in particular, be inherently Evil. So much so that we can capitalize it: Evil. And say it again for emphasis: Evil. That means that when you cast a negative energy wave you are physically unleashing Evil onto the world. When you animate a corpse, you are creating a being whose singular purpose is to make moral choices which are objectionable on every level.
That’s a big commitment. It means that anyone using Inflict Wounds is an awful person, at least while they are doing it. The Plane of Negative Energy is in this model the source of all Evil, more so than the Abyss or Hell. It’s Evil without an opinion, immorality in its purest most undiluted form.

Moral Option 2: Playing with Fire
Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy be a base physical property of the magical universe that the D&D characters live in – like extremes of Cold or Fire it is inimical to life, and it is ultimately no more mysterious than that. An animate skeleton is more disgusting and frightening to the average man than is a stone golem, but it’s actually a less despicable act in the grand scheme of things because a golem requires the enslavement of an elemental spirit and a skeleton has no spirit at all.
The Plane of Negative Energy in this model is precisely the same as all the other elemental planes: a dangerous environment that an unprotected human has no business going to.

Implications:
It’s not actually enough to simply make a sweeping generalization about the morality of Negative Energy and leave it at that. Like a butterfly flapping its wings, such changes will eventually cause Godzilla to destroy Tokyo. Or something like that, I stopped math at Calculus.
Creatures
Some monsters have been written up with the (incorrect) assumption that either “The Crawling Darkness” or “Playing With Fire” was the general rule. Others have been written in such a fashion that is actually incompatible with any possible interpretation of morality in D&D.

( There's a lot of interesting stuff on creatures here, I'll just toss in a highlight. )

Vampires: Vampires are the rockstars of the undead world, but also the most affected by the gulf between Playing With Fire and Crawling Darkness Necromancy. Either vampires are tragically cursed Euro-trash with nice outfits or they are blood hungry princes of death...heck, sometimes they are depicted as both, as in the case of the patron saint of DnD vampires, Strahd Von Zarovich.
Unlike most undead, vampires are morally affected by negative energy in a perversely contrary fashion; Zombies are evil if (and only if) negative energy makes zombies evil, but the opposite is true of the vampire. If Negative energy is a hungry and malevolent force that hungers for the light of the living, the vampire is a tragic figure compelled by dark desires he cannot control. He can even just be Good, but that’s not going to stop him from taking a nip from the farmer’s daughter. If negative energy is an objective force, then being a vampire is actually an evil act since you don’t have to eat babies for eternal life... you’re just a jerk.

Spells:
Animate Dead: If Negative Energy isn’t Evil, this spell isn’t either. Zombies and Skeletons are the only possible creations of this spell, so the alignment tag is contingent on Negative Energy itself being a moral choice. Interestingly, create undead and create greater undead stay [Evil] even if animate dead doesn’t. Regardless of the moral inclinations of negative energy in general, Ghouls and shadows are just not nice people – they are a disease that exists for no purpose but to consume the living. So those [Evil] tags are on no matter what skeletons do with their free time.

( There's a lot of interesting stuff on spells here, read it yourself. )


This topic can't be resolved without addressing the fact that WotC has been playing by two different sets of rules at once.

Tormsskull
2008-09-17, 06:41 AM
My opinion, Evil. I've seen people make arguments for almost anything being non-evil though, so I'm sure if you want to go that way someone will make up a reason for you.

bosssmiley
2008-09-17, 07:33 AM
Animate Dead can be morally neutral, if you follow Frank & K's "Playing with Fire" view of Negative Energy. The undead created by this spell are automatons animated by Negative Energy, rather than by the elemental spirits lodged in golems. They are incapable of moral choice or autonomous action and are thus neutral, not evil.

Create Undead, OTOH, is *always* evil, whether you're "Playing with Fire" or invoking "The Crawling Darkness". The caster is unleashing destructive, self-willed creatures antithetical to life upon the world. He is doing this deliberately and with malice aforethought. Sounds pretty much like evil to me.

jcsw
2008-09-17, 08:35 AM
But what about summoning undead?

It differs from animation in that:
1. You are not actually imbuing corpses with negative energy, you are merely summoning corpses which have already been imbued. Imbued whether you like it or not, and summoning them makes no difference to the fact that they have already been imbued. Even if animating the dead is evil, trapping the soul, desecrating the corpse, etc, you still had no part in it.

2. The undead do not remain behind, they return to where they came from after a short time. The only net effect would be damaging(or tanking, grappling, etc) the enemy.
Even if they are killed, they immediately return to their plane, like other summons.

---
And why is summoning evil creatures inherently evil? Surely what you do with them matters more. I can use undead to kill the evil wizard in the same way that I can use Celestial Owls to.
Yet using celestial creatures is not evil, and is somehow good, wheras using an evil creature to do the same job evil?

There also seems to be a major discrepancy with healing spells. They channel positive energy just as using undead channel negative. Yet they are not [Good] spells, and BoED states that it is not inherently good either. Seeing as [evil] and [good] spells have the potential to change your alignment, a game effect, this hardly seems fair.
(I know about malconvoker, but why do you need a PrC to do this?)

Blackfang108
2008-09-17, 08:42 AM
There also seems to be a major discrepancy with healing spells. They channel positive energy just as using undead channel negative. Yet they are not [Good] spells, and BoED states that it is not inherently good either. Seeing as [evil] and [good] spells have the potential to change your alignment, a game effect, this hardly seems fair.
(I know about malconvoker, but why do you need a PrC to do this?)

I think the reason healing spells are not inherently Good has nothing to do with what they do, but so that Evil Parties can have a healer on hand without having to spring for a Wand of CLW+.

That's my two cents.

IIRC, the Inflict counterparts are not evil, either. Merely necromatic.

Oslecamo
2008-09-17, 08:43 AM
Animate Dead can be morally neutral, if you follow Frank & K's "Playing with Fire" view of Negative Energy. The undead created by this spell are automatons animated by Negative Energy, rather than by the elemental spirits lodged in golems. They are incapable of moral choice or autonomous action and are thus neutral, not evil.


Except the part where the mortal soul of the owner of the body gets locked for eternity, unable to ressurect or enjoy the afterlife.

Do remember, people turned into undeath can't be returned by any means untill the undead is destroyed, and then only high lv magic can do the trick.

Triaxx
2008-09-17, 09:58 AM
Baelnorn aren't evil. Or at least not Always Evil.

Keld Denar
2008-09-17, 10:25 AM
Baelnorn aren't evil. Or at least not Always Evil.

Baelnorn also acend to this state without impinging on the souls of others. Becoming one is voluntary action, similar to becoming a doctor or scholar. There are no vile rituals, evil components, or even negative energies (IIRC). Baelnorn were a way for powerful elven wizards to extend their already long lives to serve a purpose or continue research. There is no maligned intent associate with it.

That's the primary difference between traditional liches and Baelnorn. Liches typically ascend for personal reasons, power, knowledge, immortality, etc. Baelnorn ascend for more benevolant reasons, generally the betterment of elvenkind in some way or another.

puppyavenger
2008-09-17, 10:26 AM
Except the part where the mortal soul of the owner of the body gets locked for eternity, unable to ressurect or enjoy the afterlife.

Do remember, people turned into undeath can't be returned by any means untill the undead is destroyed, and then only high lv magic can do the trick.

where exactly does it say that the soul is locked out of the afterlife?

How is this eviler than binding an elemental to serve you against it's will for eternity? (golems)

proof that negative energy isn't evil. Look up the negative energy plane in your DMG, is it evil-aligned? see, proof.


Baelnorn also acend to this state without impinging on the souls of others. Becoming one is voluntary action, similar to becoming a doctor or scholar. There are no vile rituals, evil components, or even negative energies (IIRC). Baelnorn were a way for powerful elven wizards to extend their already long lives to serve a purpose or continue research. There is no maligned intent associate with it.

That's the primary difference between traditional liches and Baelnorn. Liches typically ascend for personal reasons, power, knowledge, immortality, etc. Baelnorn ascend for more benevolant reasons, generally the betterment of elvenkind in some way or another.

couldn't someone become a lich for the same reasons a elf becomes one? couldn't an elf become a Baelnorn for selfish reasons?

Shazzbaa
2008-09-17, 10:27 AM
I'm making a very useful device. The problem is that I had to kill 50 orphans to make my fantastically useful device.

Creating this device was clearly an EEEEEVIL act. But I made a bunch of them, and now they're just kind of laying around.

So you can totally use one if you want. I'm pretty sure that since you didn't kill the orphans, it's not Evil if you use it.

...

I'm pretty sure any 3e Paladin that took that deal would fall.

But more to the point -- if you agree with the above reasoning, then no, summoning undead is not Evil, because you didn't make them. If you disagree with the above reasoning, and feel that using something created through very Evil means is at best questionable, then summoning Evil creatures, or animated undead, is probably also Evil.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-17, 10:36 AM
For me, the mores and morals taught in the setting supercede what's in the book--whether good or evil.

In my campaign world, the creation/summoning of/interaction with undead is evil because it unbalances the natural cycle, which hurts the Mother Goddess. Get enough undeath energies going, and you can end the world. This is a widely known and taught fact--Anyone participating in that even in a small bit is contributing to a great act of evil, because they are knowingly doing harm (or potential harm over time).

In a world where death is regarded differently or using negative energy in this way is balancing to uses of positive energy, I can see it not being inherently evil.

Generally, judging it on a case by case basis is probably the best way to go.

Mastikator
2008-09-17, 10:41 AM
Mummies are not always evil. Neither are ghost.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm
Alignment: Usually lawful evil

Ghosts (which to my knowledge aren't created through necromancy) don't tend toward evil.

And the mummies are possibly non-evil. But the rest of all undead are invariably evil.

I'd say it's safe to say summoning or creating undead is evil. If not for the danger of the undead, but then for the desecration of other beings bodies.
Though, creating undead usually involves the mutilation of the soul of the creature (such as creating wraiths and allips), rather than just the body (as if that's not bad enough). I have read somewhere that even something as "benign" as animating zombies and skeletons involve coercively binding the dead body's soul to it and torturing it, resulting in a extremely hateful and angry undead.


Yeah, I would say that as a whole, necromancy tends toward evil. And it has nothing to do with negative energy.

puppyavenger
2008-09-17, 10:53 AM
umm, whats wrong with desecrating bodies? adventures make a living grave-robbing, usually just after they made graves necessary.

TheCountAlucard
2008-09-17, 11:46 AM
Usually lawful evil.

Usually is definitely not Always. Usually might mean the majority of them are evil, but it's not the vast majority like Always is. Perhaps sixty percent of Usually creatures are the alignment described, IIRC.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-17, 12:00 PM
umm, whats wrong with desecrating bodies? adventures make a living grave-robbing, usually just after they made graves necessary.

There is a difference bettween looting a fallen foe and desecrating a propery interred body. Usually that difference requires a shovel. :smallwink:

NecroRebel
2008-09-17, 12:05 PM
I have read somewhere that even something as "benign" as animating zombies and skeletons involve coercively binding the dead body's soul to it and torturing it, resulting in a extremely hateful and angry undead.

I have seen other people make this claim before, but no one seems to be able cite their source. Personally, I do not believe it exists, and for this belief I cite the higher-level ressurection magics.

Lower-level resurrection spells all require the body. They do not function on undead until the undead is destroyed. However, they also do not function on the living, even if the body belongs to the soul you are attempting to return (for in the case of Magic Jar, Mind Switch, and related magics). Therefore, we can safely posit that it is not the fact that the body is undead that prevents these spells from working, but rather the fact that the body is occupied. It's like trying to fill a cup full of water with oil; you cannot do it without first getting rid of the water.

The higher-level ressurection spells, on the other hand, do not require the body, function even on people who have been raised as undead, and leave the original (now-undead) body completely unharmed after casting. This implies that nothing is happening to the soul in the creation or maintenance of the undead. Again, we can go back to the metaphor of the cup; the undead body is full, but what was in there originally is free to be poured into a new body.

Hence, why any and all of my games do not assume that undead are inherently evil, do not assume that negative energy is inherently evil, and do not assume that necromancy is inherently evil.

mostlyharmful
2008-09-17, 12:11 PM
It's for much the same reason that in Knights of the Old Force-Choke is Eeeeevil while
Force-Throw-mook-off-cliff is meh, and that reason is unfortunately "Because".

There really isn't any coherent thinking on undead in 3.5, it's all down to particular DMs to decide how they like to work around this. Personally I go down the playing with fire line.

Oslecamo
2008-09-17, 12:19 PM
I have seen other people make this claim before, but no one seems to be able cite their source. Personally, I do not believe it exists, and for this belief I cite the higher-level ressurection magics.

Lower-level resurrection spells all require the body. They do not function on undead until the undead is destroyed. However, they also do not function on the living, even if the body belongs to the soul you are attempting to return (for in the case of Magic Jar, Mind Switch, and related magics). Therefore, we can safely posit that it is not the fact that the body is undead that prevents these spells from working, but rather the fact that the body is occupied. It's like trying to fill a cup full of water with oil; you cannot do it without first getting rid of the water.

The higher-level ressurection spells, on the other hand, do not require the body, function even on people who have been raised as undead, and leave the original (now-undead) body completely unharmed after casting. This implies that nothing is happening to the soul in the creation or maintenance of the undead. Again, we can go back to the metaphor of the cup; the undead body is full, but what was in there originally is free to be poured into a new body.


Are you sure of that?

Ressurection, the best come back to life spell:

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age.


You need to destroy the undead body to release the soul. Point.


Raise dead:
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell

If someone's turned into undead, you better start looking for a 17th level cleric.

And finnally, reincarnation:

A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be returned to life by this spell

This is the most important case, because reincarantion actually gives you a completely new body, so it means the soul is indeed locked in the undead body.

Puppyavenger:I'm not saying that negative enrgy is evil. And as you can see above, turning a body into an undead will seriously mess up the respective soul.

As for elemental biding, it's just as wrong to make a golem as to plow the earth or use a fire for cooking. Elementals aren't mortals. They're part of raw nature.

Frosty
2008-09-17, 12:22 PM
I'm making a very useful device. The problem is that I had to kill 50 orphans to make my fantastically useful device.

Creating this device was clearly an EEEEEVIL act. But I made a bunch of them, and now they're just kind of laying around.

So you can totally use one if you want. I'm pretty sure that since you didn't kill the orphans, it's not Evil if you use it.

...

I'm pretty sure any 3e Paladin that took that deal would fall.

But more to the point -- if you agree with the above reasoning, then no, summoning undead is not Evil, because you didn't make them. If you disagree with the above reasoning, and feel that using something created through very Evil means is at best questionable, then summoning Evil creatures, or animated undead, is probably also Evil.

I'd say it's a waste to not use that device for the cause of good. Delicious irony that something made for an evil purpose is turned to good. If it's not doing any harm right now and using it won't do any harm, then there is no problem using it for good. In fact, you have an obligation to use it for good if you're the Good type.

Stormageddon
2008-09-17, 12:43 PM
The undead are a perversion of life. The creation or use of undead is almost always considered to be evil because it involves a disrespect for the natural order of life.

neoseph7
2008-09-17, 12:50 PM
It seems that there is a question still remaining on the evilness of animate dead (though create undead seems to be clearly evil). Specifically, is the soul tortured or otherwise altered by the spell? The Book of Vile defines messing with souls (altering, trading, stealing, destroying, etc.) as the most evil of evil acts. Even destroying the soul of someone inherently evil and vile is considered an evil act (Because he has the chance for redemption, right?)

Does animate dead mess with the soul? What has a soul? Humanoids and intelligent creatures almost always have souls in DnD. What about animals? Vermin? You can animate these critters, and doing so messes with the natural order of things, sure. But is that an evil act?

Tormsskull
2008-09-17, 12:57 PM
The Book of Vile defines messing with souls (altering, trading, stealing, destroying, etc.) as the most evil of evil acts.

Usually people of the "Undead are just misunderstood" line of thought disregard the BovD as trash.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-17, 01:09 PM
Usually people of the "Undead are just misunderstood" line of thought disregard the BovD as trash.

Yep. The BoeD too. Those books are not so good if you want a D&D game without a black and white natural law moral system.

OldSchoolGamer7
2008-09-17, 01:17 PM
I'd say it's a waste to not use that device for the cause of good. Delicious irony that something made for an evil purpose is turned to good. If it's not doing any harm right now and using it won't do any harm, then there is no problem using it for good. In fact, you have an obligation to use it for good if you're the Good type.

This is why I love rolling Malconvokers.

On the subject: like most people say, it is dependent on the DM. Personally, I would houserule it that a necromancer CAN use Animate Dead as a more neutral alternative by making a bargain with the spirit he intends to pour into the skeleton or zombie. I like the idea of a Good character with an army of vengeful skeletal warriors marching onward.

Besides, for Animate, most people raise monster corpses...and everyone knows that screwing with their souls doesn't matter.

Create Undead, though, I will agree is a different story.

snoopy13a
2008-09-17, 01:18 PM
I'd say it's a waste to not use that device for the cause of good. Delicious irony that something made for an evil purpose is turned to good. If it's not doing any harm right now and using it won't do any harm, then there is no problem using it for good. In fact, you have an obligation to use it for good if you're the Good type.

By using it, you could be considered as increasing the market for the device, thus encouraging others to produce more.

TheCountAlucard
2008-09-17, 01:25 PM
Are you sure of that?
Ressurection, the best come back to life spell...

No, no, no, True Resurrection is the best come-back-to-life spell. And the only reason that the undead has to be destroyed is because, like NecroRebel said, the body is occupied.

Frosty
2008-09-17, 01:37 PM
By using it, you could be considered as increasing the market for the device, thus encouraging others to produce more.

It doesn't exactly work that way because it isn't exactly a free market for this kind of product, and plus I didn't pay for it. Also, if there is competing demand for this product, I will be crusading to kill those people who want more of these to be made.

puppyavenger
2008-09-17, 01:44 PM
As for elemental biding, it's just as wrong to make a golem as to plow the earth or use a fire for cooking. Elementals aren't mortals. They're part of raw nature.

...so is enslaving a celestial to heal your evil hordes worse than enslaving an earth elemental to feed said hordes? both creatures are spaient, both are extrplaner.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 03:27 PM
There is a difference bettween looting a fallen foe and desecrating a propery interred body. Usually that difference requires a shovel. :smallwink:

So as long as we don't use a shovel it is okay?! Sweet!

allonym
2008-09-17, 03:34 PM
I'm making a very useful device. The problem is that I had to kill 50 orphans to make my fantastically useful device.

Creating this device was clearly an EEEEEVIL act. But I made a bunch of them, and now they're just kind of laying around.

So you can totally use one if you want. I'm pretty sure that since you didn't kill the orphans, it's not Evil if you use it.

...

I'm pretty sure any 3e Paladin that took that deal would fall.

Really?

I, with my party, storm the fortress of an evil warlord and slay him and his minions, thwarting their plot and looting their bodies and armoury. I take the warlord's magical greatsword and go on to use it to slay more evil.

Now, this greatsword was forged using nasty magic, involving the blood of virgins and so on. But unless I commissioned it, or allowed its creation, or made it myself, or unless, say, it's cursed to make me turn evil, using it isn't evil unless I use it in an evil way. Happens all the time where the good guys use something created via evil means to perform good.

By summoning undead, you aren't encouraging people to make more of them, or condoning that they did.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-17, 03:43 PM
So as long as we don't use a shovel it is okay?! Sweet!Yep. I just captured a Hellhound and forced it to obey me, it can dig and I don't need a shovel.

@The OP:Summoning evil creatures, including undead, is always Evil. Why? I don't know, but that's the case with Summon Undead 1 and Summon Monster 9. It's dumb and pointless, but it's the RAW.

On Animate Dead: It only interferes with resurrection spells in that it prevents the use of the body as a material component. Spells that bring people back without the body aren't affected by it.

Keld Denar
2008-09-17, 03:55 PM
Really?

I, with my party, storm the fortress of an evil warlord and slay him and his minions, thwarting their plot and looting their bodies and armoury. I take the warlord's magical greatsword and go on to use it to slay more evil.

Now, this greatsword was forged using nasty magic, involving the blood of virgins and so on. But unless I commissioned it, or allowed its creation, or made it myself, or unless, say, it's cursed to make me turn evil, using it isn't evil unless I use it in an evil way. Happens all the time where the good guys use something created via evil means to perform good.

By summoning undead, you aren't encouraging people to make more of them, or condoning that they did.


Using vile means to combat evil doesn't make them any less vile. Prince Arthas of Warcraft history was overcome by zeal to thwart the growing Scourge that he took up the blade Frostmourne to give him the power to purge the land. Questing for and wielding this vile weapon further corrupted him, until he became a Death Knight under the control of the Lich King. Was he already a little unhinged before he took up the sword? Possibly. Did the evilness of the weapon further corrupt him? Most definitely. Did his justification for using this tool of evil further jade his mindset? Most definitely! Using evil tools helps the wielder validate their use, which in turn conditions him to validate other evil methods. Evil corrupts...thats just the way it is.

Frosty
2008-09-17, 03:58 PM
But that's Frostmourne. We're talking a tool that *doesn't* corrupt. Just because the creation process and/or the history of usage of said tool involved a lot of bad things happening doesn't mean that the tool itself corrupts.

charl
2008-09-17, 05:18 PM
About the argument that raising undead is against the natural order of life and therefore evil: If you buy this, then resurrection spells are one of the worst and most evil crimes against nature imaginable, since the "natural" order (as applicable as that is to a fantasy setting) is that dead things are supposed to stay dead.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-17, 05:56 PM
Using vile means to combat evil doesn't make them any less vile. Prince Arthas of Warcraft history was overcome by zeal to thwart the growing Scourge that he took up the blade Frostmourne to give him the power to purge the land. Questing for and wielding this vile weapon further corrupted him, until he became a Death Knight under the control of the Lich King. Was he already a little unhinged before he took up the sword? Possibly. Did the evilness of the weapon further corrupt him? Most definitely. Did his justification for using this tool of evil further jade his mindset? Most definitely! Using evil tools helps the wielder validate their use, which in turn conditions him to validate other evil methods. Evil corrupts...thats just the way it is.

The corrupting effect of Frostmourne was kinda the whole reason the weapone existed in the first place - or at least why the Lich King let it get separated from him. It was also an artifact, which follow totally different rules than normal items.

If this hypothetical warlord's sword was a Vile sword (as in, it did Vile damage from the BoVD), then I'd agree that wielding it would be an Evil act - but if it was just an ordinary +Whatever Greatsword that was crafted using Liquid Pain (the stuff that reduces XP costs in crafting, right?) the item itself wouldn't have any Evil properties.

BRC
2008-09-17, 05:58 PM
Yep. I just captured a Hellhound and forced it to obey me, it can dig and I don't need a shovel.

@The OP:Summoning evil creatures, including undead, is always Evil. Why? I don't know, but that's the case with Summon Undead 1 and Summon Monster 9. It's dumb and pointless, but it's the RAW.


Oddly enough, in complete scoundrel there is the Malkonvoker, a class built around good-aligned clerics summoning demons and tricking them into doing good.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-17, 06:02 PM
Oddly enough, in complete scoundrel there is the Malkonvoker, a class built around good-aligned clerics summoning demons and tricking them into doing good.I know. I'm playing one now, in fact. But seeing as they get a class feature that makes them not risk their alignment to summon evil creatures, all mentioning them would do is confuse the discussion, no matter how much the class rocks.

BRC
2008-09-17, 06:05 PM
I know. I'm playing one now, in fact. But seeing as they get a class feature that makes them not risk their alignment to summon evil creatures, all mentioning them would do is confuse the discussion, no matter how much the class rocks.

Confusing discussions is a pastime of mine :smallbiggrin:

Inhuman Bot
2008-09-17, 06:10 PM
Find me one Undead that isn't listed as "Always Evil" +- chaotic/lawful.

Negative energy is not important, the undead are evil anyway.

All those things like Baelnorns, Arch-Liches(?), etc are not evil. Maybe not undead. Lemme check..

Xenogears
2008-09-17, 06:13 PM
The corrupting effect of Frostmourne was kinda the whole reason the weapone existed in the first place - or at least why the Lich King let it get separated from him. It was also an artifact, which follow totally different rules than normal items.

If this hypothetical warlord's sword was a Vile sword (as in, it did Vile damage from the BoVD), then I'd agree that wielding it would be an Evil act - but if it was just an ordinary +Whatever Greatsword that was crafted using Liquid Pain (the stuff that reduces XP costs in crafting, right?) the item itself wouldn't have any Evil properties.

Actually I believe that in the BoVD it says that any weapon forged using souls, liquid pain, or darkcraft exp/gold is inherently evil. So wielding a weapon that is itself evil (despite not having intelligence...) is usually considered evil. Also BoVD says that summoning/creating undead increases the level of negative energy on the materiel plane. This is evil because negative energy is evil (because it is anti-life basically). Positive energy heals and creates life. Negative energy hurts and destroys life. You can say that they are natural and balancing but that doesn't make it any less evil to increase the level of harmful energy on the world. Unless you want to rule that Negative Energy no longer hurst any living creature than creating/summoning undead is evil (and so is becoming that "good" version of a lich elves can apparently do.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-17, 06:16 PM
Actually I believe that in the BoVD it says that any weapon forged using souls, liquid pain, or darkcraft exp/gold is inherently evil. So wielding a weapon that is itself evil (despite not having intelligence...) is usually considered evil.The problem is that there is no logical reason why this should be so. We're talking about an enchanted piece of metal here. It may have been forged with the screams of children, but it kills just as well as any other enchanted piece of metal. Why does using it hurt anything any more than it should?

puppyavenger
2008-09-17, 06:17 PM
Actually I believe that in the BoVD it says that any weapon forged using souls, liquid pain, or darkcraft exp/gold is inherently evil. So wielding a weapon that is itself evil (despite not having intelligence...) is usually considered evil. Also BoVD says that summoning/creating undead increases the level of negative energy on the materiel plane. This is evil because negative energy is evil (because it is anti-life basically). Positive energy heals and creates life. Negative energy hurts and destroys life. You can say that they are natural and balancing but that doesn't make it any less evil to increase the level of harmful energy on the world. Unless you want to rule that Negative Energy no longer hurst any living creature than creating/summoning undead is evil (and so is becoming that "good" version of a lich elves can apparently do.)

soo, is a fireball evil, becuase making a 30 ft. ball of fire isn't usually to warm people upp..

and NEGATIVE ENERGY ISN'T EVIL!!!!!!!

are inflict spells evil? no, is energy drain.enervation evil? no, is the negative energy plane evil? no

Keld Denar
2008-09-17, 06:37 PM
Justifying lesser evils in the pursuit of the "greater good" is greater evil slowly corrupting good into doing evil. Over time, it becomes easier and easier to justify your lesser evils, and moderate evils are only a little bit worse, so as long as the intent is good, the act is justified in the mind of the user. Pretty soon, the good is forgotten and all that is left is the accumulation of evil deeds and corruption.

Justifying the use of undead, even summoned undead, is a slide toward greater evil. I remember hearing about a Baelnorn who ended up going insane due to the corruption of the negative energies he used to forge his immortality, and his last sane act was to encourage adventurers to destroy him and his phylactery. Evil is a slippery slope, and justifying it is only casting grease on the surface.

Singhilarity
2008-09-17, 06:44 PM
The Summon Undead series of spells in Libris Mortis are listed as evil spells, but I can't see anything evil about the spell at all.

As I understand it, only the creation of undead is evil, because of desecrating of the body, etc.
Since the undead you summon already exist, and are merely summoned from another plane (negative energy, I assume) just like any other summon, What evil deed did you commit by merely using undead that are already there, assuming you aren't using them for evil.

I understand that this is merely my opinion though, so... what's yours?

---

On a side note, this question can be extended to other evil summons...

If you're merely summoning them, it's perfectly neutral.

I could easily see a devout Paladin/Cleric summoning undead and destroying them as soon as they arrived - it's pure time saver.

Or summoning them to somehow extract information from them.

There are countless things to do to undead. Merely bringing one to your current location has no evil implications. What you plan to do from there is another mater entirely.

Keld Denar
2008-09-17, 06:52 PM
If you're merely summoning them, it's perfectly neutral.

I could easily see a devout Paladin/Cleric summoning undead and destroying them as soon as they arrived - it's pure time saver.

Or summoning them to somehow extract information from them.

There are countless things to do to undead. Merely bringing one to your current location has no evil implications. What you plan to do from there is another mater entirely.

Except that the Summon Undead N spells are not Conjouration (Calling) spells, thus the undead summoned this way return to their previously scheduled task upon destruction by the summoner. Also, Summon Monster N spells ARE aligned, as explicitely called out in the spell discription. Summoning a fire creature makes it a [Fire] spell, and summoning a fiend makes it an [Evil] and [Chaotic] spell. It has a descripter, thus is aligned. Since all of the undead summoned by Summon Undead N are evil, Summon Undead is an [Evil] spell. Thats just the way the devs designed it.

Singhilarity
2008-09-17, 06:56 PM
Except that the Summon Undead N spells are not Conjouration (Calling) spells, thus the undead summoned this way return to their previously scheduled task upon destruction by the summoner. Also, Summon Monster N spells ARE aligned, as explicitely called out in the spell discription. Summoning a fire creature makes it a [Fire] spell, and summoning a fiend makes it an [Evil] and [Chaotic] spell. It has a descripter, thus is aligned. Since all of the undead summoned by Summon Undead N are evil, Summon Undead is an [Evil] spell. Thats just the way the devs designed it.

Ah, yes, well, I though there might be something to that effect.
I'm not overly familiar with mechanics outside of core, and far from masterful of those mechanics as it is. Still, I get the gist of how Summon spells work...

That said - I was just talking "events as they are witnessed", not including any of the intricacies of spell descriptions, which, depending on who you're playing with, have maleability.

Collin152
2008-09-17, 07:04 PM
No, no, no, True Resurrection is the best come-back-to-life spell. And the only reason that the undead has to be destroyed is because, like NecroRebel said, the body is occupied.

I thought the description of the Undead type indicatesthat Ressurection or True Ressurection on an undead creature will restore it to its previous, mortal, living state?

Oslecamo
2008-09-17, 07:53 PM
...so is enslaving a celestial to heal your evil hordes worse than enslaving an earth elemental to feed said hordes? both creatures are spaient, both are extrplaner.

And if free, one of them would be helping people, and the other would be burning/entombing/drowning/suffocating them.

As long as the celestial is bounded by the evil guy, he's unable to help the people who actually need it, but the elemental really doesn't care who gives him orders as long as he can spread his own element.


TheCountAlucard:true ressurection creates a whole new body. Same for reincarnation. Both don't work as long as the old body is undead.

Geez, surely the soul is just being picky and stubornly refuses to go to his shiny new body while his old body is not avenged. Of course it's not the fact that the soul is actually too busy being traped in the undead body to be able to enter his new shiny body.

Of course all the troubles there is to return the soul of someone whose body has been turned to undeath have nothing to do with the soul, where had I my head oh?

Just like liches are all goody two shoes despite needing to make acts of unspeakable evil to create their phylactries.

Collin152
2008-09-17, 07:58 PM
TheCountAlucard:true ressurection creates a whole new body. Same for reincarnation. Both don't work as long as the old body is undead.




Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.


Check your sources, people.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-17, 09:25 PM
Since the undead you summon already exist, and are merely summoned from another plane (negative energy, I assume) just like any other summon, What evil deed did you commit by merely using undead that are already there, assuming you aren't using them for evil..

Since the slave you've purchased was already a slave, and are merely being purchased from another owner just like any other purchase of property, what evil deed did you commit by merely using a slave that was already enslaved (assuming you aren't using them for evil)?


personally i don't see the problem with raising minor undead, but what i think LM is trying to get at is that bringing the undead into our world/havesting negative energy is evil

Whether the creation of undead is inherently evil probably depends on two things:

(1) Do you consider the desecration of a corpse to be evil?
(2) What are the larger cosmological effects of creating an undead?

In D&D the default assumption is that the creation of undead is a perversion of life. Since that's antithetical to respect for life, it's classified as an evil act.

In my personal campaign, there is a religious belief that at the end of the world the Nine Gods shall raise the dead to fight at their side. When a corpse is raised as undead, however, the dead are prevented from that blessed ending. Hence, the creation of any undead is an evil act.

But, yeah, I can definitely see a cosmos in which the dead are nothing but dead flesh. And using that raw material is no more or less evil than using any other raw material.

Frosty
2008-09-17, 09:41 PM
Since the slave you've purchased was already a slave, and are merely being purchased from another owner just like any other purchase of property, what evil deed did you commit by merely using a slave that was already enslaved (assuming you aren't using them for evil)?



Whether the creation of undead is inherently evil probably depends on two things:

(1) Do you consider the desecration of a corpse to be evil?
(2) What are the larger cosmological effects of creating an undead?

In D&D the default assumption is that the creation of undead is a perversion of life. Since that's antithetical to respect for life, it's classified as an evil act.

In my personal campaign, there is a religious belief that at the end of the world the Nine Gods shall raise the dead to fight at their side. When a corpse is raised as undead, however, the dead are prevented from that blessed ending. Hence, the creation of any undead is an evil act.

But, yeah, I can definitely see a cosmos in which the dead are nothing but dead flesh. And using that raw material is no more or less evil than using any other raw material.

However, keeping slaves itself is evil because it hurts innocent people (namely, the slaves). As long as the creation of undead in your world doesn't actually harm anyone (you don't trap their souls or what not), then it's totally fine.

Gaiwecoor
2008-09-17, 11:21 PM
Check your sources, people.

They did.


Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm)
...
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. ...


True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm)
...
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. ...

So long as the body remains undead, nothing is going to bring the creature back to life. Once the undead is destroyed, only Resurrection and True Resurrection will suffice. Now, why Raise Dead and Reincarnate don't work ... :smallconfused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-17, 11:30 PM
So long as the body remains undead, nothing is going to bring the creature back to life. Once the undead is destroyed, only Resurrection and True Resurrection will suffice. Now, why Raise Dead and Reincarnate don't work ... :smallconfused:
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.wordiness.

Collin152
2008-09-17, 11:34 PM
wordiness.

Which is exactly what I said.
Why on earth diddn't it get read the first time, I wonder?
No respect, I get no respect.

Gaiwecoor
2008-09-17, 11:39 PM
Exactly right. Resurrection and true resurrection do "turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." Once they're done being undead. You have to destroy them, first. See the spell description for details. I believe they qualify as the more specific rule than the undead creature type.

As for the rest of this discussion, I would love to see this in the context of vegetarians (some varieties) and meat eaters:

V: "You're eating a cow! That's absolutely vile!"
M: "But it was dead anyway! Me eating it now doesn't change the fact that somebody killed it ..."

Just for some perspective :smalltongue:

Collin152
2008-09-17, 11:42 PM
Exactly right. Resurrection and true resurrection do "turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." Once they're done being undead. You have to destroy them, first.

Once they're destroyed, they're no longer Undead creatures, they're objects.

This is clearly an internal rules conflict.

Knaight
2008-09-17, 11:43 PM
Or cannibalism. Although provided that they aren't killing the person first and the dead person is OK with it(it showed up in their will or something), I personally don't have any problem, seeing other peoples reactions could be hilarious.

Khanderas
2008-09-18, 02:16 AM
Find me one Undead that isn't listed as "Always Evil" +- chaotic/lawful.

Negative energy is not important, the undead are evil anyway.
Zombie ? Skeleton ? Any non-sentient Undead really ?
If not self-aware, or aware of morality, they cannot be anything but neutral. Think carnivores. A cat is not evil, objectivly speaking.

charl
2008-09-18, 02:18 AM
Keeping slaves itself isn't evil in a medieval setting. Being unusually cruel towards them is, but slavery as a concept in a setting based on 15th century Europe is only natural. Sorry people, history is a cruel thing. The idea that keeping slaves itself is an evil act only ever developed in the 19th century. Before that...

turkishproverb
2008-09-18, 03:32 AM
Once they're destroyed, they're no longer Undead creatures, they're objects.

This is clearly an internal rules conflict.

Bingo. Editing in the SRD was never great. Then again, book organization was one of the bad things about 3.5 in general.

Tormsskull
2008-09-18, 05:50 AM
I'd have to look over the rules in specific again, but it seems to me the intent of the rules are that if you die:

All raise dead/rez/reincarnate spells work.

If you die, get turned into a zombie, and then get destroyed:

Only resurrection and True resurrections (or splat book spells that uses the same language) work (which restore the target back to their original, pre-zombified self).

Gaiwecoor
2008-09-18, 12:54 PM
Only resurrection and True resurrections (or splat book spells that uses the same language) work (which restore the target back to their original, pre-zombified self).

I think you're right on with this one. The whole point of the "turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead" in the Undead type description is to specify that resurrect and true resurrection does not raise the destroyed undead back to undead status; it comes back as a living creature.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-18, 01:01 PM
I think you're right on with this one. The whole point of the "turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead" in the Undead type description is to specify that resurrect and true resurrection does not raise the destroyed undead back to undead status; it comes back as a living creature.The intent instead seems to me to be that Zombifying something counts as destroying the body for all intents and purposes, which makes it no worse than dumping the body in lava in terms of actually hurting anything.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-18, 01:07 PM
Keeping slaves itself isn't evil in a medieval setting. Being unusually cruel towards them is, but slavery as a concept in a setting based on 15th century Europe is only natural. Sorry people, history is a cruel thing. The idea that keeping slaves itself is an evil act only ever developed in the 19th century. Before that...

I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't really fly too well. Unless you accept a fully relativistic picture of morality then the fact that slavery was common, and not generally considered evil, in a particular era doesn't mean that it wasn't evil. It just means that there were more evildoers. Enough to make an evil thing common place.

Also, even if true, the moral sentiments that pervaded 15th century europe aren't the same as those built in a D&D game. A lord having their way with peasant women when they came of age was also something that wasn't markedly uncommon. No canon D&D setting is going to consider rape a neutral act.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-18, 01:22 PM
I am playing Pathfinder, which is based rather strongly on 3.5, and I play a cleric of Pharasma. Come 8th level, I will be able to call Undead as a domain power, and at 16th, Create Undead. I took Healing as my other domain. However, for calling undead, I have 'explained' that in the graveyard there is a small crypt set aside for those who have chosen to donate their body's to the Service of Pharasma, even after they themselves no longer have use of it. Kind of like Organ Donation.

Eldran
2008-09-18, 03:05 PM
Maybe I can contribute a new argument to the OP-discussion:

Isn´t it better to summon and place an undead in harms way than to do the same thing with a living creature?

In our group we allowed a good caster to summon owlbear skeletons in order to protect the party. We agreed though that only undead versions of non intelligent creatures should be used in this way (in order to avoid the more unsteady morale ground).

@Ravens_Cry
That is an interesting concept and imho it circumvents most of the problems associated with the creation of undead. In a homebrew setting of mine a certain culture even makes it the norm that everyone donates his body to the "defense force" of the city after his death. It is though of as a waste and as stupid too to dispose of such valuable resources without using them. The citizens even like the thought that their remains (after being properly treated and preserved) will protect their friends and loved ones.

Keld Denar
2008-09-18, 03:32 PM
In our group we allowed a good caster to summon owlbear skeletons in order to protect the party. We agreed though that only undead versions of non intelligent creatures should be used in this way (in order to avoid the more unsteady morale ground).


Slippery slope. Why does it have to be an undead? Why couldn't he summon an elemental or animal? See, this is the kind of justification I was talking about in my previous post. Once you justify summoning undead for protecting your friends, its not hard to justify creation of undead so you have a more persistant guardian, and then maybe using the undead to fight monsters for you, or perform quests for you, or slaughter innocent townsfolk for you. Slippery slope...slippery slope.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-18, 03:38 PM
Slippery slope. Why does it have to be an undead? Why couldn't he summon an elemental or animal? See, this is the kind of justification I was talking about in my previous post. Once you justify summoning undead for protecting your friends, its not hard to justify creation of undead so you have a more persistant guardian, and then maybe using the undead to fight monsters for you, or perform quests for you, or slaughter innocent townsfolk for you. Slippery slope...slippery slope.How do you go there from that? Good act accomplished with an evil servant, good act accomplished with an evil servant, KILLL TEH BABBYS!!!1!

Really, how is that logical?

Ravens_cry
2008-09-18, 04:01 PM
How is enslaving a creature to do your bidding any more or less ethical then doing the same thing to the former body of some being? While in your service, a elemental or summoned animal is likely to get severely injured and will be feeling pain, yet it must serve you. The unintelligent undead do not feel pain. Only if the very act of creating undead were an act the caused great pain to the former owner of the body, would it become reprehensible in my view.
I think the resurrection restrictions on undead are a balancing issue, otherwise you could be raised, be vampired, and so forth till you have a hoard of blood sucking copies of yourself.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-09-18, 04:13 PM
Negative energy itself is a neutral force, just like positive energy. Check the DMG entries on the +/- planes, and you'll see that they are both neutral planes. I've never read in any of the books that negative energy is an evil energy.

That said, I think casting summon undead is evil in the same way that casting summon monster X to summon demons/devils is evil.

As for my opi on the 'Paladin kills evil warlord and takes his sword... that was also created through evil means', mechanically this is a non-issue. If I were that paladin in-game, I'd break the sword into tiny bits. If the evil warlord made an evil statue in his likeness that controls weather, would you put that in your front yard and use it? It's useful, but it's a constant reminder of everything the evil dude stood for.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 04:21 PM
As for my opi on the 'Paladin kills evil warlord and takes his sword... that was also created through evil means', mechanically this is a non-issue. If I were that paladin in-game, I'd break the sword into tiny bits. If the evil warlord made an evil statue in his likeness that controls weather, would you put that in your front yard and use it? It's useful, but it's a constant reminder of everything the evil dude stood for.


Wait, Lawn ornaments are wrong now?

Maybe we like his picture. He couldn't have always been evil: even Hitler did good stuff before he was out of work and ran for office.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-09-18, 04:26 PM
Wait, Lawn ornaments are wrong now?

Maybe we like his picture. He couldn't have always been evil: even Hitler did good stuff before he was out of work and ran for office.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that in my opinion, it's not a simple matter of "I'm going to use the sword of 1,001 orphan souls because it'll be used for good". As for Hitler, the 'good stuff' he did was VERY dependant on who you were. Good stuff for some is extremely bad stuff for others. That and I don't think I could get away with a Hitler statue in my front yard, no matter what it did, with a couple of exceptions.

Keld Denar
2008-09-18, 04:42 PM
Using evil tools for good purposes is just evil working its subtle tendrils into you, conditioning you to accept it as normal, and eventually rationalize it as a viable tool, and perhaps, the only tool for every situation. Sure, you could be completely aloof from it, but constant interaction with undead (always evil, or at least always detecting as evil) is corrupting. You become numbed to the horrors required to create them, that they may have actually been real people with real emotions and real families. Its like the kids these days growing up thinking violence is cool, because they see it on TV (screw movies, I'm talking about the Channel 3 news).

Another literary reference. Faramir could have taken the Ring from Frodo, easily. But he knew, better than Boromir, that the Ring was a weapon of pure evil, and would rather it be destroyed than used by the forces of good for whatever end. In the end, they triumphed, and because they didn't use the Ring, the victory was more complete. If they had used it, its corrupting effect might have lead to another warlord, more terrible than Sauron, as Lady Galadril predicted.

So, even if you do successfully overcome your obsticles by consorting with undead, you have tainted yourself by their evil, numbed yourself to the growing corruption that results from your actions.

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 04:47 PM
And if free, one of them would be helping people, and the other would be burning/entombing/drowning/suffocating them.

As long as the celestial is bounded by the evil guy, he's unable to help the people who actually need it, but the elemental really doesn't care who gives him orders as long as he can spread his own element.


so, why would a true neutral sapient creature go around randomly killing stuff, according to the MM, they mostly just like being left alone.

and being good is a requisite for protection from slavery Now?:smallconfused:

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-18, 04:51 PM
Negative energy itself is a neutral force, just like positive energy. Check the DMG entries on the +/- planes, and you'll see that they are both neutral planes. I've never read in any of the books that negative energy is an evil energy.

That said, I think casting summon undead is evil in the same way that casting summon monster X to summon demons/devils is evil.

Okay, but if negative energy is not evil, what makes the undead inherently evil? After all, the reason summoning demons is evil is that they are formed at least in part from raw evil, and bringing raw evil into the world is evil. But if undead are formed from raw, neutral energy, then what is the inherently evil part?

BRC
2008-09-18, 04:51 PM
The way I see it. Undead are not neccessarily evil, but they involve negative energy. Negative energy is not neccessarily evil, but it is dangerous.

Everytime you create or summon undead, you bring a little negative energy into the world that will kinda leak out and generally make things less healthy. Kind of like radiation. Because it's an evil act to harm Neutral or good people without provocation, and the majority of living things are neutral or good, there for the general less-healthening of the world is more likely to affect a neutral or good person, ergo, it's an evil act.

"But BRC" I hear you saying "Then why isn't inflict wounds an evil spell". Good question, and I'll explain in a roundabout manner.

You see, Negative energy and positive energy cancel each other out perfectly, when Five HP of negative energy and five HP of positive energy meet, they both just vanish or become neutral energy or somthing. The point is they are gone. So if you cast Inflict Wounds on somebody, you are directly shoving negative energy into their positive energy, negating both, so there isn't any leakage. Casting Inflict wounds is therefore evil or good depending on who the target is and why you are using it.

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 04:58 PM
so for every skeleton you raise you have to open a gate to the positive energy plane? also, too much positive energy would be just as bad, see exploding.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-18, 07:14 PM
Using evil tools for good purposes is just evil working its subtle tendrils into you, conditioning you to accept it as normal, and eventually rationalize it as a viable tool, and perhaps, the only tool for every situation. Sure, you could be completely aloof from it, but constant interaction with undead (always evil, or at least always detecting as evil) is corrupting. You become numbed to the horrors required to create them, that they may have actually been real people with real emotions and real families. Its like the kids these days growing up thinking violence is cool, because they see it on TV (screw movies, I'm talking about the Channel 3 news).


You have expressed well your belief that 'consorting with the undead' is evil, but I see little to explain why such an act is evil. The persons body, yes was once a person. But they have left it, and no longer have need of it. If it is wrong to use use a goblins skeleton for an undead walking bone pile, how come it isn't wrong to slaughter him in the first place? His family will miss him just as much.
And people have always thought violence was cool. In ye good old days that ye see romantically portrayed in yonder renaissance fair, families would go to execution's as a form of entertainment, laughing as the traitors guts were pulled out and displayed to the viewing public. If violence held no fascination apart from the influence of television and other media, we would not have started watching in the first place.

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 07:30 PM
interesting fact, undead also detect as good, lawful and chaotic.

Oslecamo
2008-09-18, 07:37 PM
so, why would a true neutral sapient creature go around randomly killing stuff, according to the MM, they mostly just like being left alone.



First, because there's nothing saying they mostly like to be left alone. They just don't like to talcka acording to the MM, wich actually suports that they don't give a damn about who gets hurt with their actions.

Second, acording to the manual of the planes, elementals love to spread their own element.

Earth elemtnals hate open spaces, and will colapse any tunnels and caves they find, whitout caring who gets burried on the way.

Air elementals, on the other hand, love open spaces and will target any kind of structure being built in a previously open space.

Fire elementals will simply burn whatever comes close, because they're, well, on fire. They really can't prevent it. And they really don't care if some flesh creatures are in their way when they move, being neutral and all.

And water elementals love to spread bodies of water, woe to anyone who gets in their way.

Just like wolfs eat adventurers and bears maul them to death, despite being neutral. Is their nature. Heck, they literally are nature. And nature doesn't really care about colateral damage. You don't ask why an hurricane or a tsunami is going to destroy your house or why your city is struck by an earthquale or a volcano. You run from it! Or you build some massive structure to try to contain it, and sometimes even use it for your advantage.

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 07:48 PM
First, because there's nothing saying they mostly like to be left alone. They just don't like to talcka acording to the MM, wich actually suports that they don't give a damn about who gets hurt with their actions.

Second, acording to the manual of the planes, elementals love to spread their own element.

Earth elemtnals hate open spaces, and will colapse any tunnels and caves they find, whitout caring who gets burried on the way.

Air elementals, on the other hand, love open spaces and will target any kind of structure being built in a previously open space.

Fire elementals will simply burn whatever comes close, because they're, well, on fire. They really can't prevent it. And they really don't care if some flesh creatures are in their way when they move, being neutral and all.

And water elementals love to spread bodies of water, woe to anyone who gets in their way.

Just like wolfs eat adventurers and bears maul them to death, despite being neutral. Is their nature. Heck, they literally are nature. And nature doesn't really care about colateral damage. You don't ask why an hurricane or a tsunami is going to destroy your house or why your city is struck by an earthquale or a volcano. You run from it! Or you build some massive structure to try to contain it, and sometimes even use it for your advantage.

Yet, they must do some helpfull things, otherwise they'd be Ne. Anyway, how does this make it more moral than say..enslaving an NE druid?

RebelRogue
2008-09-18, 07:58 PM
interesting fact, undead also detect as good, lawful and chaotic.
Err, where do you get this?

Anyway: I think the rules are pretty clear regarding positive and negative energy: they are, in themselves neither Good nor Evil. Both are dangerous. Positive Energy represents vitality and powers living creatures. Negative energy represents "lack of vitality" (there must be a better term) and powers undead creatures.

So, negative energy is not what makes undead Evil. Their hatred of living creatures and the fact that an undead creatures "locks up" the soul of the original creatures (as have been demonstrated earlier in this thread) does! There may be a few exception (those creatures that are not "Always Evil" must somehow circumvent this, I guess), but they are rare, and usually unfitting from a genre convention viewpoint too.

As for the whole debate on using Evil for Good, you have to remember that this is a world where Good and Evil are objective and iconic. It's heroic fantasy! Evil will always creep in. In short, it's simply not something Good characters are supposed to do!

Regarding the "why is summoning an Evil creature Evil?" debate the same logic applies to some extent, but one may also look at it sort of the other way around: in general, an aligned creature will tend to want to help characters of the same alignment. Celestial creatures want to help Good characters further their causes without further ado. If it has to help Neutral (or even Evil) characters it will eventually demand some change of heart of the summoner. In this light what the Malconvoker does is fooling the summoned creature(s) to believe he/she is Evil. That pretty much explains all the Bluff Checks!

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 08:02 PM
Err, where do you get this?


Detect good and co. say they function as detect evil except with good outsider, people and clerics instead of evil ones. They never mention that they stop detecting undead.

RebelRogue
2008-09-18, 08:07 PM
Detect good and co. say they function as detect evil except with good outsider, people and clerics instead of evil ones. They never mention that they stop detecting undead.
Well, that's a pretty nitpicky reading of a poorly worded spell! I'd say it's understood that the detected creature should have the corresponding alignment!

puppyavenger
2008-09-18, 08:09 PM
Well, that's a pretty nitpicky reading of a poorly worded spell! I'd say it's understood that the detected creature should have the corresponding alignment!

but detect evil picks up an LG level 50 paladin ghost.

and yes it's a nitpick

RebelRogue
2008-09-18, 08:17 PM
Ok, I just checked the actual wording:

You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
<snip>
An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.
So actually it needs to be an Evil Undead for the spell to work.


This spell functions like detect evil, except that it detects the auras of good creatures, clerics or paladins of good deities, good spells, and good magic items, and you are vulnerable to an overwhelming good aura if you are evil. Healing potions, antidotes, and similar beneficial items are not good.
Since this depends on the wording for Detect Evil, only Good Undead would be detected with this spell, although they would detect as "more Good than normal".

Eldran
2008-09-19, 06:54 AM
A key question in this discussion seems to be the matter of the soul. If the soul of a being is imprisoned during the creation of an undead creature then the process is clearly evil. If that is not the case then there is room for discussion.

The various texts quoted here clearly show that lower level ressurection magic is blocked by the "absence" of the body but they cannot prove that the soul is actually imprisoned.

My personal impression upon reading said texts leans much into the direction of a "non-sould-imprioning" process.


Possible Solution:
We could distinguish between intelligent and non intelligent undead creatures.


An intelligent undead being represents a case where the soul is imprisoned in the body.


Mindless things like Skeletons and Zombies are only automatons powered by negative energy, the sould has left those empty shells and can dwell in the afterlife.

Heliomance
2008-09-19, 08:01 AM
And yet an intelligent undead has the ability to choose not to be evil.

RebelRogue
2008-09-19, 08:11 AM
And yet an intelligent undead has the ability to choose not to be evil.
Most intelligent Undead are still "Always Evil". And even the ones that are "Usually Evil" points in the direction that being turned into an Undead changes your outlook on existence somewhat! As I interpret it, only examplars of Good with exceptional willpower will manage to stay non-Evil in undeath.

Recaiden
2008-09-19, 08:30 AM
If it imprison's the soul, then it is evil, however, this is never explicitly said and the rules are even contradictory on the point.
However, intelligent undead are different than unintelligent undead in this respect:
Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.
This means that a sentient undead is the same person, only using negative energy instead on positive, and usually driven to evil.
If being undead does trap the soul, then creating unintelligent undead is evil.
Creating most intelligent undead requires negative energy to be evil to automatically be an evil act. (certain types of undead are exceptions).

Summon undead, though is only evil by RAW, and has no real reason to be so. It calls undead that are already in existance, quite possibly using them for a good purpose. It is ultimately up to the DM how they want their campaign to work.

RebelRogue
2008-09-19, 09:53 AM
Summon undead, though is only evil by RAW, and has no real reason to be so. It calls undead that are already in existance, quite possibly using them for a good purpose. It is ultimately up to the DM how they want their campaign to work.
Well, yes in the end the DM decides, no doubt about that. But once again: using Evil for a Good purpose is still an Evil act! That's the way D&D and similar Heroic fantasy settings traditionally works. Personally, I like this idea of keeping Good pure. That doesn't mean I don't like grittier games, just that if you want to use Undead as tools, you proabably should not play Good characters (unless your DM views things drastically different from RAW, of course).

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-19, 09:59 AM
Well, yes in the end the DM decides, no doubt about that. But once again: using Evil for a Good purpose is still an Evil act! That's the way D&D and similar Heroic fantasy settings traditionally works. Personally, I like this idea of keeping Good pure. That doesn't mean I don't like grittier games, just that if you want to use Undead as tools, you proabably should not play Good characters (unless your DM views things drastically different from RAW, of course).

How is it "Drastically different"? Its effectively changing one word(unintelligent undead are evilneutral) to reflect one side of contradictory fluff(the side that seems to have the most support from the crunch).

RebelRogue
2008-09-19, 10:02 AM
How is it "Drastically different"? Its effectively changing one word(unintelligent undead are evilneutral) to reflect one side of contradictory fluff(the side that seems to have the most support from the crunch).
Hmm, ok maybe drastic is too drastic to use here :smallbiggrin: I guess I'm a little biased there, as I like my D&D classic and somewhat "plain", including Evil Undead.

Oslecamo
2008-09-19, 10:28 AM
How is it "Drastically different"? Its effectively changing one word(unintelligent undead are evilneutral) to reflect one side of contradictory fluff(the side that seems to have the most support from the crunch).

Crunch-animate dead and summond undead are evil. Skeletons and zombies are evil. Point. It's clearly written.


I would say that your view has almost zero suport from the crunch. Your only defense is part of the fluff and some very bizzare interpretations of the cruch.

jcsw
2008-09-19, 10:32 AM
Crunch-animate dead and summond undead are evil. Skeletons and zombies are evil. Point. It's clearly written.


I would say that your view has almost zero suport from the crunch. Your only defense is part of the fluff and some very bizzare interpretations of the cruch.

When has anything related to Morality every had any support from the Crunch? DnD has opressive crunch in terms of Morality.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-19, 11:06 AM
Crunch-animate dead and summond undead are evil. Skeletons and zombies are evil. Point. It's clearly written.


I would say that your view has almost zero suport from the crunch. Your only defense is part of the fluff and some very bizzare interpretations of the cruch.

Sorry, I thought that if the discussion is "why do the rules say that summoning the undead is evil" then the argument "because the books say summoning undead is an evil act" don't count. So, why, besides the rule that says that undead are evil, are they evil? So far it seems like you're simply using the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Can you show anything that supports your side?

jcsw
2008-09-19, 12:33 PM
Sorry, I thought that if the discussion is "why do the rules say that summoning the undead is evil" then the argument "because the books say summoning undead is an evil act" don't count. So, why, besides the rule that says that undead are evil, are they evil? So far it seems like you're simply using the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Can you show anything that supports your side?

Other than authority, you mean?

Sadly, I've switched all my celestial summons with anarchic versions (Chaotic Neutral Malconvoker-in-training), so I can't even summon good creatures to shift my alignment back...

Xenogears
2008-09-19, 02:09 PM
Sorry, I thought that if the discussion is "why do the rules say that summoning the undead is evil" then the argument "because the books say summoning undead is an evil act" don't count. So, why, besides the rule that says that undead are evil, are they evil? So far it seems like you're simply using the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Can you show anything that supports your side?

But you're using the talking out of your arse fallacy. The one where two posts ago you said that summoning undead is NOT supported by the crunch when in fact it is.

Heliomance
2008-09-19, 02:43 PM
And that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-19, 03:13 PM
But you're using the talking out of your arse fallacy. The one where two posts ago you said that summoning undead is NOT supported by the crunch when in fact it is.

Heliomance already covered one side of this, so let me tackle the other part by providing a quote:

Sorry, I thought that if the discussion is "why do the rules say that summoning the undead is evil" then the argument "because the books say summoning undead is an evil act" doesn't count. So, why, besides the rule that says that undead are evil, are they evil? So far it seems like you're simply using the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Can you show anything that supports your side?
And now for some commentary just to make sure this is clear:
This discussion is based on the fact that some feel that the book's rules regarding undead are inconsistent with the fluff/crunch, and thus in this case the rules that specify that all undead are evil are suspect. Thus, using them in the argument itself is an appeal to authority(as the very definition of one is an appeal to a suspect source that can be doubted). Simply put, for the purposes of this discussion those rules don't exist.

hamishspence
2008-09-19, 03:26 PM
We know they decided that in 3rd ed, Skeletons and Zombies were evil, despite being mindless.

Tying this into negative energy is slightly suspect, since the plane itself isn't evil, nor are Inflict spells, or Energy Drain. However, using Rebuke attempts is defined as an evil act: check books.

Maybe its that while negative energy itself is a natural feature of the multiverse, bringing it to the material plane, long term, is hazardous to it, hence, Evil: the idea that all mindless undead are pumping out negative energy continously, as long as they exist on Material Plane. There is support for this in some D&D novels: Black Wizards by Douglas Niles, sequel to Darkwalker on Moonshae, has plants wither under feet of undead, and animals fleeing in terror.

It could be for the same reason, that summoning fiends using Summon Monster spells is Evil: sure, there might be non-evil fiends, but these are very much the exception, and you cannot contact them with a summon spell. In exactly the same way, summoned undead are always evil, and leave a trace of evil on spot they are summoned to: consistant with suggestion in Vile Darkness, that casting evil spells/doing evil acts, can damage the environment.

BRC
2008-09-19, 05:04 PM
Personally, I go with the idea that Summoning demons is evil because of what they do, and summoning undead is evil because of what they are (Negative energy plane connection). This helps explain the Malkonvoker class.
Summoning Undead to do Good Deeds is still considered evil , the good of the deeds may outweigh the evil of the summoning, but the act of creating undead is, in itself, evil because of the negative energy leakoff/more negative energy being thrown around.

On the other hand, Summoning Fiends is in itself not an evil act. However, Fiends will only perform evil acts even after they are summoned. The Malkonvoker, who summons fiends and then tricks them into doing good, is therefore not doing evil.

I think alot of people get confused between the Summoning/creation of undead, and the acts done with those undead. When we say "Creating undead is evil", we don't mean that it is impossible to create a mindless undead and do good things with them, what I mean is that the act of creating the undead is evil.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-19, 05:51 PM
I think alot of people get confused between the Summoning/creation of undead, and the acts done with those undead. When we say "Creating undead is evil", we don't mean that it is impossible to create a mindless undead and do good things with them, what I mean is that the act of creating the undead is evil.
Why, besides that fact that the books say its evil, and no houserules this time!:smallwink:


I think the main point of contention is that in the straight DnD world, undead could be either good or evil(just if you're looking at the reasons why something is X alignment). Thus, the only reason that undead have to be evil is that undead are evil, and that kind of logic tends to bug people. Its only once you start adding stuff(like the negative plain examples) that it tends toward one alignment over another.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-19, 05:55 PM
Why, besides that fact that the books say its evil, and no houserules this time!:smallwink:


I think the main point of contention is that in the straight DnD world, undead could be either good or evil(just if you're looking at the reasons why something is X alignment). Thus, the only reason that undead have to be evil is that undead are evil, and that kind of logic tends to bug people. Its only once you start adding stuff(like the negative plain examples) that it tends toward one alignment over another.Precisely. The problem is that negative energy isn't evil(there's an entire plane of the stuff that's unaligned), Undead can be used for good or evil, like any other tool, and essentially the books just say "They're evil, so kill them". I hate stuff like that. It's WotC, so it doesn't surprise me, but it does annoy me.

Oslecamo
2008-09-19, 05:59 PM
I think the main point of contention is that in the straight DnD world, undead could be either good or evil(just if you're looking at the reasons why something is X alignment). Thus, the only reason that undead have to be evil is that undead are evil, and that kind of logic tends to bug people. Its only once you start adding stuff(like the negative plain examples) that it tends toward one alignment over another.

If you ignore the MM, the gods phanteon, the ressurection spells, the cleric class, Book of Exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, sure, undeads can be good no problem.

Wow, this is really an easy way to win a discussion. Every argument that suports your oponent's view is automatically considered invalid. Woot!

Just out of curiosity, why do you ahve trouble with undeads being evil, but don't have trouble with undeads existing in the first place? Or magic? Or everything else that doesn't work by real world logic? The rules are there for a reason. And the rules say they're evil. If you don't want to use the rules, then you're not playing the game anymore.

BRC
2008-09-19, 06:02 PM
If you ignore the MM, the gods phanteon, the ressurection spells, the cleric class, Book of Exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, sure, undeads can be good no problem.

Wow, this is really an easy way to win a discussion. Every argument that suports your oponent's view is automatically considered invalid. Woot!
The thing isn't lack of official materials saying "undead are teh evils!" The problem is that they rarely explain WHY undead are evil, just saying that they are. It's like this.

"Why are undead evil"
"because the book says so, right here"
"Why does the book say that monster is evil"
"Because the monster is an undead, and undead are evil"
ect ect.


Kind of like the "Why is it okay to kill goblins but not halflings" question.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-19, 06:11 PM
If you ignore the MM, the gods phanteon, the ressurection spells, the cleric class, Book of Exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, sure, undeads can be good no problem.

The resurrection spells only requirement seems to be that the body must be available. So, deny the body for a resurrection spell is evil now? And what is gained from the other books? So far, I haven't seen another argument besides " they're evil because they are evil" out of you.



Wow, this is really an easy way to win a discussion. Every argument that suports your oponent's view is automatically considered invalid. Woot!

This is known as the Strawman Fallacy. In other words, purposefully using a weaker argument to try and discredit your opponent. Still waiting on evidence besides because X said so.


Just out of curiosity, why do you ahve trouble with undeads being evil, but don't have trouble with undeads existing in the first place? Or magic? Or everything else that doesn't work by real world logic? The rules are there for a reason. And the rules say they're evil. If you don't want to use the rules, then you're not playing the game anymore.
Eh, I like consistency, and the undead/negative energy stuff is pretty inconsistent. And just to make this clear, consistency within a world Does Not Equal consistent with our world. Only that the world itself is consistent.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-19, 06:12 PM
If you ignore the MM, the gods phanteon, the ressurection spells, the cleric class, Book of Exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, sure, undeads can be good no problem.

Wow, this is really an easy way to win a discussion. Every argument that suports your oponent's view is automatically considered invalid. Woot!

Just out of curiosity, why do you ahve trouble with undeads being evil, but don't have trouble with undeads existing in the first place? Or magic? Or everything else that doesn't work by real world logic? The rules are there for a reason. And the rules say they're evil. If you don't want to use the rules, then you're not playing the game anymore.What the problem is is we want our world to make sense. A Cleric falling from his god's graces because he uses zombies to defend the city so that human soldiers aren't hurt makes no sense to me, but that's what the RAW says happens. It irks me.

Frosty
2008-09-19, 07:00 PM
That's why it feels GOOD to be the DM. You can change *anything* you want. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2008-09-20, 12:26 AM
What the problem is is we want our world to make sense.
Well, then, you shouldn't be playing D&D. :smalltongue:

Seriously, I agree with you. RAW should say why it happens. Like, every time you create Undead, you weaken the barrier between the Negative plane and here, allowing evil to leak over (for instance, there's a 5% chance of creating extra, uncontrolled dead a thousand miles away).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-20, 12:27 AM
Well, then, you shouldn't be playing D&D. :smalltongue:

Seriously, I agree with you. RAW should say why it happens. Like, every time you create Undead, you weaken the barrier between the Negative plane and here, allowing evil to leak over (for instance, there's a 5% chance of creating extra, uncontrolled dead a thousand miles away).But the Negative Energy Plane isn't evil.That's half the problem.

Eraniverse
2008-09-20, 12:51 AM
It is lethal though. Poking holes in a dam above a city is not a good act even if you're using the water to quench the thirst of orphans. Note that water isn't inherently evil in this example either simply inimical to life in the form of a rushing torrent of death.

Find another way.

That's the biggest point. There should be another way. Evil is the one who uses whatever means are handy. Good attempts to hold itself to a standard.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-20, 01:06 AM
It is lethal though. Poking holes in a dam above a city is not a good act even if you're using the water to quench the thirst of orphans. Note that water isn't inherently evil in this example either simply inimical to life in the form of a rushing torrent of death.

Find another way.

That's the biggest point. There should be another way. Evil is the one who uses whatever means are handy. Good attempts to hold itself to a standard.

So, wouldn't doing this with any of the elemental planes do it(even the positive plane has some effects associated with it). Yet its not evil to summon elemental.

charl
2008-09-20, 02:30 AM
Since good and evil is largely based on what the Gods say in DnD (well, basically, anyway), and the Gods seem to agree that undead always equals evil...

Although I would just leave it up to the GM.

Jayngfet
2008-09-20, 02:31 AM
If good is whatever the gods say then why are their evil gods?

quillbreaker
2008-09-20, 02:39 AM
Of course, does the ethical question reverse if you fully intend for and are quite certain that the summoned being is going to die horribly? I once had a plot device pointed at my ship which was going to blow it in two - think disintegrate beam fueled by deus ex machina. I summoned a celestial whale, gave it flight, and told it to get in the way of the beam.

Would it have been more or less ethically wrong an act if I had used a skeletal whale instead? It certainly would have been less chunky with a skeletal whale.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-20, 02:46 AM
Of course, does the ethical question reverse if you fully intend for and are quite certain that the summoned being is going to die horribly? I once had a plot device pointed at my ship which was going to blow it in two - think disintegrate beam fueled by deus ex machina. I summoned a celestial whale, gave it flight, and told it to get in the way of the beam.

Would it have been more or less ethically wrong an act if I had used a skeletal whale instead? It certainly would have been less chunky with a skeletal whale.Yes, but then you would have had more shrapnel.

And that's part of the reason my Malconvoker only summons evil creatures. You take something away from it's home, interrupting it's life, then have it fight for you, get badly injured, and probably die. and then it has to spend a day re-forming. Why wouldn't she summon an evil creature to do that rather than a good one?

quillbreaker
2008-09-20, 03:57 AM
Yes, but then you would have had more shrapnel.


It's either normal damage and it bounces off the protection from arrows, or it's magic damage and I have a neat new tactic, exploding skeletons.