New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 745
  1. - Top - End - #361
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post

    But for 3.x purposes (and this is a 3.x subforum), that ruling was consistent with the rest of 3e's RAW.
    I think he overemphasised it compared to what other 3e authors wrote though - with, for example, baelnorns and archliches (undead that are neutral or even good, in Monsters of Faerun).

    And of course there's Good gods that occasionally create undead, like Tyr, who gave a paladin who'd failed in his duty and died, a second chance by bringing him back as undead.



    "It's evil, but not so evil that Good characters' can't do it without changing alignment - minor evil rather than great evil"

    would be how I'd judge Tyr's act.

    Though another way of looking at it, might be "That paladin is only undead because he's a 2e character. In 3.5e, he'd be a Deathless instead".

    Same might apply to archliches or baelnorns. Archliches cannot be turned by Good clerics, and when an Evil cleric attempts to rebuke/command them, they are turned/destroyed instead. Sounds very much like a prototype for the Deathless concept.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-16 at 07:06 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  2. - Top - End - #362
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    I think he overemphasised it compared to what other 3e authors wrote though - with, for example, baelnorns and archliches (undead that are neutral or even good, in Monsters of Faerun).

    And of course there's Good gods that occasionally create undead, like Tyr, who gave a paladin who'd failed in his duty and died, a second chance by bringing him back as undead.
    2 things:
    1- Individual settings may have deviations from Core assumptions. Everything you mentioned is Forgotten Realms.
    2- I didn't say all undead "were of Evil alignment". But a CG Baelnorn or archlich STILL radiates Evil under a Detect Evil spell. They may radiate Good and Chaos, too, but ALL creatures of the undead type detect as evil. That's in the 3.5e PHB. The Core Books also explain that some creatures' auras have to do with things intrinsic to their physical nature, not just their outlooks. The oft-vaunted Succubus Paladin? She's still an Outsider (Chaotic, Evil, Tanar'ri). So she radiates Good, Evil, and Chaos with powerful auras.

    These things do not contradict each other, but rather resonate with Core RAW and what's in the BoVD. The elves of Cormanthor judged it a worthwhile sacrifice to commit the evil act of making an undead creature, because of the greater good that could be accomplished by said creature.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "It's evil, but not so evil that Good characters' can't do it without changing alignment - minor evil rather than great evil"
    Again, no one said that it forced an alignment change. Just that -by the RAW- it is, immutably, an Evil act to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Though another way of looking at it, might be "That paladin is only undead because he's a 2e character. In 3.5e, he'd be a Deathless instead".

    Same might apply to archliches or baelnorns. Archliches cannot be turned by Good clerics, and when an Evil cleric attempts to rebuke/command them, they are turned/destroyed instead. Sounds very much like a prototype for the Deathless concept.
    [/quote]
    Deathless are different. You may want to review your BoED. Deathless are animated by positive energy. They are also TEMPORARY*. They either come into being with a specific purpose to fulfill, or they only animate in response to a threat to a place they are guarding.

    Baelnorns and archliches MAY have been a prototype for deathless, but that's speculation, and there's no proof. As it stands, they are undead. And the only special exception about them is how they respond to turn/rebuke attempts.

    *I know most people are familiar with deathless from Eberron. But Eberron deathless aren't actually different if you read all the 3.5e sourcebooks. Arenal (and specifically Shae Mordai) exists on a permanent Manifest Zone to Irian, the Eternal Dawn. The Deathless of Arenal require this constant, renewing stream of positive energy. That is the only reason they can last as long as they do. Deathless that accompany ambassadors to Sharn must return to this Manifest Zone frequently.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  3. - Top - End - #363
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    And Tyr's "undead paladin" Miltiades had a purpose - fulfil the task he couldn't fulfil in life. After he fulfils it, Tyr lets him pass on to the afterlife - at least till Tyr needs him again.

    The way archliches respond to the negative energy of a Rebuke attempt - it can Turn them, or even Destroy them if the rebuker is high enough level - is identical to the way Deathless respond to that Rebuke attempt.

    Hence the theory that they're only undead because they're early 3.0 - had they been properly updated into the context of 3.5's BOED, they'd be Deathless.


    If you do go by RAW though - you need to be able to explain why they're so vulnerable to negative energy, at least in that particular form. Possibly they're suffused with holy energy, and a Rebuke Undead attempt, being a mix of unholy energy and negative energy, disrupts it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    Again, no one said that it forced an alignment change. Just that -by the RAW- it is, immutably, an Evil act to do it.
    "One of the most heinous crimes that can be committed" is somewhat in alignment-change territory. Just like destroying souls, which is described as something that only evil people are ever willing to do.

    Hence people complaining that a Good undead must destroy themselves or change alignment to Neutral or Evil, if Monte Cook's words are taken literally.


    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Incidentally, I've been thinking about where to locate the evil - on the act of creating undead, or on the existence of those undead? And I think I prefer the former. Benefits:
    * You can have non-evil undead who aren't obligated to destroy themselves.
    * Less possible to circumvent.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-17 at 12:23 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  4. - Top - End - #364
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    And Tyr's "undead paladin" Miltiades had a purpose - fulfil the task he couldn't fulfil in life. After he fulfils it, Tyr lets him pass on to the afterlife - at least till Tyr needs him again.

    The way archliches respond to the negative energy of a Rebuke attempt - it can Turn them, or even Destroy them if the rebuker is high enough level - is identical to the way Deathless respond to that Rebuke attempt.

    Hence the theory that they're only undead because they're early 3.0 - had they been properly updated into the context of 3.5's BOED, they'd be Deathless.


    If you do go by RAW though - you need to be able to explain why they're so vulnerable to negative energy, at least in that particular form. Possibly they're suffused with holy energy, and a Rebuke Undead attempt, being a mix of unholy energy and negative energy, disrupts it.



    "One of the most heinous crimes that can be committed" is somewhat in alignment-change territory. Just like destroying souls, which is described as something that only evil people are ever willing to do.

    Hence people complaining that a Good undead must destroy themselves or change alignment to Neutral or Evil, if Monte Cook's words are taken literally.
    No need to go as extreme as destroying yourself.
    Just become a worms that walks then redeem?

  5. - Top - End - #365
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    How exactly is an undead created by Tyr, say, going to turn into a Worm That Walks? It's an alternate way of "being brought back after death".

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/mons...mThatWalks.htm

    Worm That Walks Characters
    By making eldritch preparations on a burial plot, a powerful spellcaster can improve the likelihood of a worm that walks emerging from the ground. The body is buried in an elaborate ritual that, the spellcaster hopes, will attract a critical mass of worms or maggots. The spellcaster performing the ritual must spend 10,000 gp in rare reagents for the ceremony. Furthermore, the ritual drains 2,000 XP from the spell-caster and requires the following spells: limited wish, polymorph any object, summon swarm (heightened to 7th level), and sympathy. Even if the ritual is performed correctly, there is only a chance that the deceased spellcaster will arise as a worm that walks. For each prepared but uncast arcane spell the deceased had at the moment of death (or unused spell slots if a spontaneous caster), there’s a 1% chance that a worm that walks will slither from the grave soil in 1d4 days. Some worms that walk arise spontaneously from ordinary burial plots, but such an event is exceedingly rare. And an epic spell can create worms that walk every time without fail.
    A character can't do it to themselves - someone else needs to do it to them. And it only works on spellcasters.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-17 at 10:49 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  6. - Top - End - #366
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    How exactly is an undead created by Tyr, say, going to turn into a Worm That Walks? It's an alternate way of "being brought back after death".

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/mons...mThatWalks.htm


    A character can't do it to themselves - someone else needs to do it to them. And it only works on spellcasters.
    By making eldritch preparations on a burial plot, a powerful spellcaster can improve the likelihood of a worm that walks emerging from the ground. The body is buried in an elaborate ritual that, the spellcaster hopes, will attract a critical mass of worms or maggots. The spellcaster performing the ritual must spend 10,000 gp in rare reagents for the ceremony. Furthermore, the ritual drains 2,000 XP from the spell-caster and requires the following spells: limited wish, polymorph any object, summon swarm (heightened to 7th level), and sympathy. Even if the ritual is performed correctly, there is only a chance that the deceased spellcaster will arise as a worm that walks. For each prepared but uncast arcane spell the deceased had at the moment of death (or unused spell slots if a spontaneous caster), there’s a 1% chance that a worm that walks will slither from the grave soil in 1d4 days. Some worms that walk arise spontaneously from ordinary burial plots, but such an event is exceedingly rare. And an epic spell can create worms that walk every time without fail.
    You can make yourself the preparations, Burry yourself since you are an undead, perform yourself the ritual from within the tomb then wait 1d4 days (since you are dead by virtue of being undead).
    No need to be destroyed.
    You still need to be evil but it happened naturally so you will do redemption right after the 1d4 days.
    For guaranteeing the result you need to get a custom item that grants 100 level 0 spell slots and using the use magic device skill to simulate being an arcane caster.
    for casting the listed spells wands and scrolls will probably work.
    Last edited by noob; 2020-10-17 at 11:20 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #367
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    It says "at the moment of death". An undead being died some time before, and "the moment of death" is some time before "the present".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  8. - Top - End - #368
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    It says "at the moment of death". An undead being died some time before, and "the moment of death" is some time before "the present".
    yes so you had to wear the ring before dying.
    or be a caster before dying.
    sorry for the mistake.(however the rule is only for spell slot counting and not for the transformation ritual)
    Last edited by noob; 2020-10-17 at 12:04 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #369
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Leaving aside the argument of whether being undead counts as being "dead," nothing stops the caster from preparing the ritual site, performing the ritual, and then, the next day, having rested thoroughly to have all his spell slots, ritually suiciding and having himself burried in the ritually-prepared plot.

    Because it's 1% per spell slot, independent of level he might want to make copious use of Mordenkainen's Lucubration, too.

  10. - Top - End - #370
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tula, Russia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    Just because free-willed undead can be non-evil doesn't make the force that animates them "non-evil". A Chaotic Good vampire who srtives to hurt no one and maintain his morality still radiates as Evil though (don't believe it? Look at the table for Detect Evil). They may also detect as Good, if they are Good in alignment, but all undead radiate Evil according to their Hit Dice. Their very creation -and continued existence- is a crime against nature.
    The fact Undead is always detected by Detect Evil is the obvious failure of game-design: why to have Detect Undead then?


    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    It just says that Limited Wish, Miracle, and Wish, will all free the trapped soul.
    OK, it's correct.
    Still, RAW for Imprison Soul and Soul Shackles don't says about any problems with resurrection of whosoever soul was imprisoned/shackled...

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    For that matter - I get the impression that "Evil clerics always use negative energy instead of positive energy" might be a 3e thing too. Did 2e or 1e have the same Turn Undead vs Rebuke Undead cleric dichotomy?

    BECMI's Rules Cyclopaedia certainly didn't - Chaotic clerics turned undead exactly the same way that Lawful clerics did. It was only "Chaotic travelling fighters" (avengers, the paladin's Chaotic counterparts) that got a Command Undead option, regarding their Turning ability.
    It was already said pre-3E only Evil (not Neutral) Priests could Rebuke/Command Undead
    Moreover:
    in the 1E, they could also Rebuke/Command less powerful fiends
    in the 2E, they lost that ability, but instead acquired ability to Turn... Paladins - yes, even living ones (just with penalty, and Turn only - not Destroy)


    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    Is that in the section for ALTERNATE setting options? As in, DEVIATION from standard default RAW?
    No, nothing indicates it.
    Besides, Nocturnus is kinda canon - because Necropolitans are from it

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    If the person has been resurrected, and is not a corpse, what are you using as the target for the Revive Undead?
    Resurrection (or Reincarnate) is required only "some small portion of the creature’s body" - the "remaining part" is a viable target to Revive Undead.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    OR, you know, the theory that doesn't require you to denigrate the creators of the game you're playing as "incompetent". That there is some connection between the soul of the person whose body was used and the skeleton/zombie.

    Like I initially said, it's circumstantial evidence, and thus this is not 100% RAW, but the soul of the person may be somehow "trapped" in the zombie or skeleton.
    Soul is absolutely not trapped in the Zombie, because:
    1. Magic Jar: "Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls."
    2. Putrefaction spell (Dragon #300): "When the victim dies, his body immediately animates as a zombie under the control of the caster. Additionally, the victim's soul transforms into a ghost that cannot move more than 30 feet from the caster."



    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    3e doesn't dwell much on what a skeleton or zombie does in the absence of orders.

    5e does. It states that a skeleton or zombie, because it is driven by hatred of the living, will attack them unless it has been given specific "do not attack the living outside of special circumstances" orders and is still under control.

    So they're not just automatons - they are hatred-consumed beings.
    I checked 5E SRD - Skeleton isn't Mindless there: Int 6
    For comparison: 5E Orc is Int 7, Ogre - Int 5
    Thus, since Skeletons in 5E are completely sapient creatures, no wonder they have their own ideas outside of the creator's commands


    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    It's mostly the same universe, regardless of the edition.

    2e Forgotten Realms, 3e, 4e, 5e - all the same place, just with different rulesets, each, imperfectly, representing it.

    3.0e skeletons are Neutral. 3.5e skeletons are Evil. But which is the outlier? This can be found by comparing the many editions. And in most of them, Skeletons are Evil. Or Chaotic, in Rules Cyclopaedia (Chaotic being mostly, but not always, synonymous with Evil in that edition).
    Spoiler: Really?
    Show
    OD&D Book 2, Monsters & Treasure:
    SKELETONS/ZOMBIES: Skeletons and Zombies act only under the instructions
    of their motivator, be it a Magic-User or Cleric (Chaos). They are usually only
    found near graveyards, forsaken places, and dungeons; but there is a possibility
    of their being located elsewhere to guard some item (referee’s option). There is
    never any morale check for these monsters; they will always attack until totally
    wiped out.
    AD&D Monster Manual (1979):
    SKELETON
    ...
    INTELLIGENCE: Non-
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral
    Monstrous Compendium (1989):
    Skeleton Animal Monster
    ... ... ...
    INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0) Non- (0) Non- (0)
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral Neutral Neutral
    Monstrous Manual (1993):
    Skeleton
    Skeleton Animal Monster
    ... ... ...
    INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0) Non- (0) Non- (0)
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral Neutral Neutral
    Skeleton, Giant
    INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral
    Skeleton, Warrior
    INTELLIGENCE: Exceptional (15-16)
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral evil
    TSR Trading Cards (1991):
    Warrior, Skeleton
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral evil
    INTELLIGENCE: Exceptional (16)
    TSR Trading Cards (1992):
    Skeleton
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral
    INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
    Warrior, Skeleton
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral evil
    INTELLIGENCE: Exceptional (15-16)
    TSR Trading Cards (1993):
    Skeleton
    ALIGNMENT: Neutral
    INTELLIGENCE: Non- (0)
    Add in D20 Modern - and 3.5/5E are clear outliers.


    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat View Post
    Ok, cool. So you've bolded what a mindless skeleton will do while under control. You have, however, failed to bold the last line, which directly contradicts your second point about the "-" in all diet columns, as well as undermines your idea that they're perfect little . Here's the part you failed to bold:

    That seems pretty in-line with the theory I discussed above. They consume/destroy/etc until they themselves are destroyed, because that's what they're created to do. They are created purely to destroy, which seems pretty much spot on supported by the idea that they are created using a connection to the negative energy plane, a plane that exists to consume, destroy, etc.
    Don't get too excited about this line: I checked 3.0 book - it was the first line in the "COMBAT" section
    Last edited by ShurikVch; 2020-10-17 at 07:08 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #371
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    I would and have ruled that Animate Dead type spells fail on remains where the soul is in a living body, such as True Resurrection, Clone, etc. As such, ambiguity is removed; the spell unambiguously soul traps the original owner.
    "We were once so close to heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals declaring us 'The nicest of the damned'.."
    - They Might Be Giants, "Road Movie To Berlin"

  12. - Top - End - #372
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    And Tyr's "undead paladin" Miltiades had a purpose - fulfil the task he couldn't fulfil in life. After he fulfils it, Tyr lets him pass on to the afterlife - at least till Tyr needs him again.

    The way archliches respond to the negative energy of a Rebuke attempt - it can Turn them, or even Destroy them if the rebuker is high enough level - is identical to the way Deathless respond to that Rebuke attempt.

    Hence the theory that they're only undead because they're early 3.0 - had they been properly updated into the context of 3.5's BOED, they'd be Deathless.


    If you do go by RAW though - you need to be able to explain why they're so vulnerable to negative energy, at least in that particular form. Possibly they're suffused with holy energy, and a Rebuke Undead attempt, being a mix of unholy energy and negative energy, disrupts it.
    You're leaving RAW territory here and supposing at RAI. I don't quite know what you're saying vis a vis the point. At least as far as a RAW discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "One of the most heinous crimes that can be committed" is somewhat in alignment-change territory. Just like destroying souls, which is described as something that only evil people are ever willing to do.

    Hence people complaining that a Good undead must destroy themselves or change alignment to Neutral or Evil, if Monte Cook's words are taken literally.
    Well, that's not explicit in the RAW, so...


    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    The fact Undead is always detected by Detect Evil is the obvious failure of game-design: why to have Detect Undead then?
    You can't have a RAW discussion when one person thinks "what the RAW says is in error and what I say is correct". That line of discussion is going nowhere.

    The RAW as they exist are coherent. Animating undead is an evil act. Evil magic is a part of their physical makeup. As evil is part of their physiology, the rules regarding creatures to whom evil is inherent to their nature supersedes the rules regarding mindless beings being incapable of having an alignment. Thus mindless undead still radiate evil, and are subject to damage from holy spells and Smite Evil.

    That's is consistent and coherent. Not a "failure of game design".

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    No, nothing indicates it.
    Besides, Nocturnus is kinda canon - because Necropolitans are from it
    Except the opening of that paragraph "in some extraordinary settings", thus implying that everything that follows is a deviation from "ordinary" setting rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    Resurrection (or Reincarnate) is required only "some small portion of the creature’s body" - the "remaining part" is a viable target to Revive Undead.
    I suppose that's true. Fair point. But if the resurrected person was to later die, they still have a full, viable corpse from which to be raised.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    Soul is absolutely not trapped in the Zombie, because:
    1. Magic Jar: "Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls."
    2. Putrefaction spell (Dragon #300): "When the victim dies, his body immediately animates as a zombie under the control of the caster. Additionally, the victim's soul transforms into a ghost that cannot move more than 30 feet from the caster."
    And yet if you are killed, your hand chopped of to be used for Resurrection, and let's say the rest of your body is turned into a zombie before your friends get that Resurrection. That zombie is placed somewhere that is cannot be located with divination, or summoned, or located physically (say, a lead lined coffin with dimensional-anchor and nondetection permanently cast on it, dropped into the ocean), then no mortal magic in the game can bring you back to life. Resurrection will not make a new body from the hand, True Resurrection will not make you a new body.

    Again, there is SOME connection. That is all I am saying. That is RAW.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  13. - Top - End - #373
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Referring back to somebody's comments about "true names," I think I understand where they were coming from better, now. Or, maybe I've come up with a different take based on their notion. Either way, thought I'd share the thought:

    "Billy the Halfling" and "Billy the Zombie" are still both "Billy the creature," Billy's just changed type (from humanoid to undead) and gotten a template. Now, the soul isn't there for Billy the Zombie - at least, not nearly enough of it to matter for most purposes - but Billy the Zombie is still Billy, and Billy is not dead: he's undead. Raise dead et al only work to bring the dead back to life. To turn the dead into a creature. Billy the Zombie is already a creature; hence, he can't be brought back from "dead" to "creature."

  14. - Top - End - #374
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Evil is a strong word!

    We necromancers prefer the term...HEY LOOK OVER THERE! (attempts to harvest your soul)
    "PO-SHUNS, CONJURASHUNS, & DIRT CHEAP EXORCIZIMS. INQYIRE INSIDE CAVE."

  15. - Top - End - #375

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeZero View Post
    I would and have ruled that Animate Dead type spells fail on remains where the soul is in a living body, such as True Resurrection, Clone, etc. As such, ambiguity is removed; the spell unambiguously soul traps the original owner.
    Sure, but again, that's not RAW. You certainly could rule things in a way that there is a single objective soul that is in one place at a time and has consistent interactions for all the various spells. But the rules clearly don't (or don't clearly) work that way now.

  16. - Top - End - #376
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    .. the rules clearly don't (or don't clearly) work that way now.
    But enough rules appear to use that assumption that it is simply extending the principle shown by the best known interactions to all interactions.
    Also, I don't actually care about a strict RAW so much as a coherent setting.
    "We were once so close to heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals declaring us 'The nicest of the damned'.."
    - They Might Be Giants, "Road Movie To Berlin"

  17. - Top - End - #377
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Referring back to somebody's comments about "true names," I think I understand where they were coming from better, now. Or, maybe I've come up with a different take based on their notion. Either way, thought I'd share the thought:

    "Billy the Halfling" and "Billy the Zombie" are still both "Billy the creature," Billy's just changed type (from humanoid to undead) and gotten a template. Now, the soul isn't there for Billy the Zombie - at least, not nearly enough of it to matter for most purposes - but Billy the Zombie is still Billy, and Billy is not dead: he's undead. Raise dead et al only work to bring the dead back to life. To turn the dead into a creature. Billy the Zombie is already a creature; hence, he can't be brought back from "dead" to "creature."
    That...is a fascinate treatise, Segev. It fits very nicely into RAW, as well. At least as far as adding understanding to RAW without invalidating any of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Sure, but again, that's not RAW. You certainly could rule things in a way that there is a single objective soul that is in one place at a time and has consistent interactions for all the various spells. But the rules clearly don't (or don't clearly) work that way now.
    "Don't clearly" is more correct here. While JusticeZero's ruling is not RAW, it simply adds an additional restriction to what the RAW say. As I said before, there is circumstantial evidence that links the soul of the person to be raised with the undead creature, by virtue of the person being unable to be raised.

    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeZero View Post
    But enough rules appear to use that assumption that it is simply extending the principle shown by the best known interactions to all interactions.
    Also, I don't actually care about a strict RAW so much as a coherent setting.
    However we are having a RAW discussion. The thrust of the thread is to explore the reasoning behind the RAW facts that assert that it is evil to create undead. Your houserule, while explaining things nicely as far as your game, has no bearing on the RAW.

    That's not to denigrate your houserule, however. I find it creative, intriguing, and it makes some of the interactions of magic make more sense. Please do not be offended. I appreciate that you shared it. Just know that it's more of a "huh, that's an interesting variant" than it is "that is a solid contribution to the primary discussion".
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  18. - Top - End - #378
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by RaafikSkald View Post
    Evil is a strong word!

    We necromancers prefer the term...HEY LOOK OVER THERE! (attempts to harvest your soul)
    While it is fashionable to have evil people be self-deluded, such that they feel justified in their actions by a hand-wave that lets them say either, "I am not evil," or, "I am only technically evil; look at all the good that my evil enables," in a setting like D&D, the unapologetically evil has its place, as well.

    "How can you justify enslaving the dead to your will and slaughtering innocents to add to your armies!?" some horrified hero might ask a vile necromancer. And, perhaps, the necromancer will mouth some justification: "They were worthless bottom-feeders; in my service, they do greater good," or, "The economic power I bring to our land far outweighs the pathetic drain they placed on society while alive." But the unapologetically evil necromancer's answer is straightforward: "They're more useful to me this way."

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    That...is a fascinate treatise, Segev. It fits very nicely into RAW, as well. At least as far as adding understanding to RAW without invalidating any of them.
    Thanks! It's not much more than a way to congeal the RAW with something of a coherent explanation beyond the exact "just so" wording of the RAW. I hope to maybe use it to further develop my "why animating skeletons is evil" theories. Which I do want to keep in line with all the visible, functional portions of the RAW, even if there's greater implications and more one could do narratively with the underlying rules.

  19. - Top - End - #379
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Xgya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Magic that creates a whole new body and can otherwise bring people back from complete disintegration cannot bring the deceased back to life until their undead forms, even mindless ones, are once again put to rest.

    Someone whose body parts were used to create a flesh golem can be resurrected by the Resurrection spell if you have an unused part of their dead bodies available.
    If it was raised as a lowly zombie, the mighty True Resurrection cannot do a thing.

    I'd say this is because undeath corrupts or captures the soul somehow.
    That being the case, stealing someone's afterlife is an evil act that deprives them of their own liberty.

    Even divine intervention from a god of life and death (using such as the Life and Death salient divine ability) is unclear as to whether it can resurrect someone who still walks the earth as a skeleton. It states it can resurrect someone whose soul is trapped, but otherwise works like True Resurrection, that works on people that got turned undead and then got destroyed, but not otherwise.

    As for the 'still the same creature' argument (which I like a lot for sure) then that just means undeath is a form of slavery. You're forcing someone to do a thing they didn't (or can't) agree to, and that interpretation makes it clear it's the same person.
    Also, unlike golems, whose purpose for creation was to mindlessly serve, Timmy the Barber, now Timmy the zombie, clearly was not.
    Unless undead creation creates a whole new creature, in which case we turn back to my soul corruption argument above :)
    Last edited by Xgya; 2020-10-19 at 09:48 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #380
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    D&D definitely has at least two components to Prime creatures (elementals and outsiders differ, maybe constructs do, too): body, and soul. Death is a split of these: body dies; soul goes to afterlife.

    There is also the mind. Not all things have minds.

    I’ve tentatively posited that the soul can be broken up.

    There’s also the possibility that “life force” (which liches store in their phylacteries) is a separate component.

    The notion of a creature being undead preventing resurrection being due to that creature being not-dead and thus an invalid target for bringing back to life leads to another possible component: identity.

    Identity and life force (or animus) might be linked, or might not be. It may or may not be tied to the mind. But if the identity stays with only the body or the soul, And the mind can go with either, you could wind up with identity in the undead mindless body and mind with the soul that suffers loss of identity.

    Maybe last rites sends the identity with the soul. And the petitioners who forget all about themselves didn’t get last rites.

    You could have an undead soul and an undead body with the mind only with the wraith and not the zombie. But then where is the identity?

  21. - Top - End - #381
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Raven777's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dominion of Canadia

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The difficulty with Team Jersey approaches to objective ethics and morality is that applying it arbitrarily manufactures MORE "muddy" situations, rather than clarifying the few that already exist. If it's "always good" to kill vampires (because they're always evil), then a vampire that is not hurting anybody, only drinks animal blood (or only takes blood donations from those who voluntarily give/trade it, without causing permanent harm to the donors), and is a good father-figure to his adopted family and possibly the noble protector of his town from a lantern archon-led bandit force that pillages and rapes (but is still doing good because they're following a lantern archon, and following archons is always good!)... that's incoherent to our definitions of "good" and "evil" in general.
    That's the thing though: playing devil's advocate to Gary Gigax' original intent, in the tabletop game of D&D where the rules of morality are objective, an [Evil] Vampire should never behave good, and a [Good] Archon should never behave evil. Following an Archon is always good because Archons should never be presented as evil to players. If the GM makes a morally questionable Archon, he's literally playing the game wrong. A good character would view the very idea of resorting to an [Evil] spell as unthinkable, and should be played to do everything in its power to avoid it. Failing that enough, it should become [Evil] and start behaving accordingly. Such a system is self-coherent, but it requires the GM and players play by its rules, not the real world's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    The professionally offended will always find something to be angry about.

  22. - Top - End - #382
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Xgya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven777 View Post
    That's the thing though: playing devil's advocate to Gary Gigax' original intent, in the tabletop game of D&D where the rules of morality are objective, an [Evil] Vampire should never behave good, and a [Good] Archon should never behave evil. Following an Archon is always good because Archons should never be presented as evil to players. If the GM makes a morally questionable Archon, he's literally playing the game wrong. A good character would view the very idea of resorting to an [Evil] spell as unthinkable, and should be played to do everything in its power to avoid it. Failing that enough, it should become [Evil] and start behaving accordingly. Such a system is self-coherent, but it requires the GM and players play by its rules, not the real world's.
    I'll say that Good is a concept that can have gray areas. In fact, Eberron shows it directly as such, by giving examples such as two Paladins being Lawful Good and generally acting as such, yet managing in opposing warfare to Smite Evil EACH OTHER, because they think the other side is definitely Evil.

    This generally falls upon morally gray areas, whereas a world with rules defining a clear line dividing Evil from Good HAS to pick a side, and automatically sees the other side as Evil.
    Give them the Trolley Problem, and you've got one Paladin saying the other side is Evil for pulling the lever, thus having their actions cause the death of someone, while the other Paladin saying the first side is Evil, for NOT pulling the lever, which would save more lives and refusing to save someone in danger is against their own code of ethics.

  23. - Top - End - #383
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    I'll say that Good is a concept that can have gray areas. In fact, Eberron shows it directly as such, by giving examples such as two Paladins being Lawful Good and generally acting as such, yet managing in opposing warfare to Smite Evil EACH OTHER, because they think the other side is definitely Evil.
    Eh, no, that's just showing that "Smite Evil" doesn't actually care what alignment the target is, only that the Paladin think the target is Evil.

    In true objective morality, if both Paladins behaved as you described, Smite Evil wouldn't work on either of them.

  24. - Top - End - #384
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    Magic that creates a whole new body and can otherwise bring people back from complete disintegration cannot bring the deceased back to life until their undead forms, even mindless ones, are once again put to rest.

    Someone whose body parts were used to create a flesh golem can be resurrected by the Resurrection spell if you have an unused part of their dead bodies available.
    If it was raised as a lowly zombie, the mighty True Resurrection cannot do a thing.
    The flesh golem note is a good catch. I'd forgotten about that.

    But remember, golems are explicitly animated by an elemental spirit, bound into the fabricated body.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    I'd say this is because undeath corrupts or captures the soul somehow.
    That being the case, stealing someone's afterlife is an evil act that deprives them of their own liberty.

    As for the 'still the same creature' argument (which I like a lot for sure) then that just means undeath is a form of slavery. You're forcing someone to do a thing they didn't (or can't) agree to, and that interpretation makes it clear it's the same person.
    Also, unlike golems, whose purpose for creation was to mindlessly serve, Timmy the Barber, now Timmy the zombie, clearly was not.
    Unless undead creation creates a whole new creature, in which case we turn back to my soul corruption argument above :)
    Careful, we're trying to have a RAW discussion here. We must acknowledge that there is only circumstantial evidence that undeath corrupts or captures the soul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    I'll say that Good is a concept that can have gray areas. In fact, Eberron shows it directly as such, by giving examples such as two Paladins being Lawful Good and generally acting as such, yet managing in opposing warfare to Smite Evil EACH OTHER, because they think the other side is definitely Evil.
    I'm sorry Xgya, but you're wrong. Even in Eberron, those Paladins couldn't use Smite Evil on each other. Even though Eberron changes a lot of default assumptions vis a vis "default alignment" of some creatures, it doesn't change the way those mechanics worked. Two Paladins serving the armies of opposing countries could, in fact, face each other on the field of battle. They could fight and kill each other with no loss of powers. But that didn't mean Smite Evil would work on non-evil targets.

    What Segev said in closing is right. Smite Evil would not work on either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    This generally falls upon morally gray areas, whereas a world with rules defining a clear line dividing Evil from Good HAS to pick a side, and automatically sees the other side as Evil.
    Give them the Trolley Problem, and you've got one Paladin saying the other side is Evil for pulling the lever, thus having their actions cause the death of someone, while the other Paladin saying the first side is Evil, for NOT pulling the lever, which would save more lives and refusing to save someone in danger is against their own code of ethics.
    Ugh. Foot's Trolley Problem is not, and never has been, about morality. Let alone "Good or Evil". It only tells you the priority of utilitarianism vs personal accountability in the person you are asking. It's also COMPLETELY USELESS when discussing alignment.

    The only clearly true thing is that a 3.5e Paladin in the Trolley Problem scenario would not fall for leaving the lever alone. Why? Because, according to RAW, it is ACTION and INTENT (shaped by CONTEXT) that determine the morality of an act. Paladins only lose their powers if they "intentionally commit an Evil act", or cease to be LG. Refusing to pull the lever is not "intentionally committing an Evil act", and therefore does not result in loss of powers.

    Now, it's debatable whether pulling the level would cause the Pally to lose powers, either. You see, by the RAW, the Evil of the whole scenario falls on the villain who put all 6 people in the deathtrap in the first place. The Paladin has NO AGENCY to actually "murder" anyone. As far as whether or not pulling a lever with the intent of trying to save a net of 4 lives, it would solely depend on the Code of Conduct of that Paladin's Order. A Paladin of the god Helm, for example, would in fact REQUIRE the Paladin to try and save the greater number of lives.

    Of course, the MOST GOOD thing a paladin could do is reject the offered choice, and throw his own armored body in front of the trolley to stop it. Or, you know, summon his armored, celestial clydesdale, 800+ lbs. of divine horseflesh should be able to stop a trolley.

    The only good variant of the Trolley Problem for D&D alignment purposes, is the Fat Man and Fat Villain variants. In the Fat Man variant, the trolley is headed for the 5 people tied to the track. Above the track is a bridge. On the bridge is a very obese man. This man is a total innocent, but he is massive enough that his bulk will stop the trolley. Do you push him off the bridge, thus killing an innocent man to save the 5 on the tracks? Now, for this example, the Paladin would actually lose his powers for pushing the man, because the Fat Man was not in the deathtrap. This time, the Paladin actually has agency to kill one innocent to save 5.

    The Fat Villain variant is very similar. But that obese gentleman? HE is the person who tied all 5 people to the tracks in the first place. And you, the person being asked, know this. Now, while it would still be a moral quandary in Real Life, in D&D terms, it is quite simple. A Paladin may push the Fat Villain into the path of the trolley without losing his powers. This is because, by D&D alignment mores, killing a villain who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people, and saving those innocents in the process, is not an evil act.
    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    D&D definitely has at least two components to Prime creatures (elementals and outsiders differ, maybe constructs do, too): body, and soul. Death is a split of these: body dies; soul goes to afterlife.

    There is also the mind. Not all things have minds.

    I’ve tentatively posited that the soul can be broken up.

    There’s also the possibility that “life force” (which liches store in their phylacteries) is a separate component.

    The notion of a creature being undead preventing resurrection being due to that creature being not-dead and thus an invalid target for bringing back to life leads to another possible component: identity.

    Identity and life force (or animus) might be linked, or might not be. It may or may not be tied to the mind. But if the identity stays with only the body or the soul, And the mind can go with either, you could wind up with identity in the undead mindless body and mind with the soul that suffers loss of identity.

    Maybe last rites sends the identity with the soul. And the petitioners who forget all about themselves didn’t get last rites.

    You could have an undead soul and an undead body with the mind only with the wraith and not the zombie. But then where is the identity?
    Solid question. No one's yet brought up a wraith (or shadow, or any other incorporeal undead that are created with the 'Create Spawn' ability), and the resulting body being left behind getting used to make a zombie.

    HOWEVER, I think the answer would be that the identity lies with the incorporeal one. As evidence, I cite the Emancipated Spawn Prestige Class from Savage Species. I know a lot of people don't like that book, but it IS official content. That 3-level PrC allows a created spawn (such as a shadow, which is the example character), to gradually regain their full identity, to include all their class levels (which will, of course, DRASTICALLY affect their ECL, because now they have the HD of their undead creature type, any Level Adjustment thereof, 3 levels of that PrC, and all of their original character levels).

    Granted, that can be used with corporeal undead, too. But since it requires the character to be turned into an undead creature with the Create Spawn ability (and the "master" to subsequently be destroyed), that means a singular undead creature if it's corporeal, because Create Spawn only works on living creatures killed by the undead. The only way it could be two is if it was incorporeal, and then the body was animated as something corporeal. And in that instance, the identity can be recovered by the one created with the Create Spawn ability.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  25. - Top - End - #385
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    Eberron shows it directly as such, by giving examples such as two Paladins being Lawful Good and generally acting as such, yet managing in opposing warfare to Smite Evil EACH OTHER, because they think the other side is definitely Evil.
    Actually, I've been rereading 3.5's Eberron rulebooks = and none of them mention anything like that. BoVD has a relative morality option - but it specifically states that it is not the standard.

    Two paladins might be stupid enough to try to use Smite Evil on one another without Detecting Evil first, but by RAW, neither will get the bonus damage, even in Eberron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven777 View Post
    That's the thing though: playing devil's advocate to Gary Gigax' original intent, in the tabletop game of D&D where the rules of morality are objective, an [Evil] Vampire should never behave good, and a [Good] Archon should never behave evil. Following an Archon is always good because Archons should never be presented as evil to players. If the GM makes a morally questionable Archon, he's literally playing the game wrong.
    That might have been true in 1e, but it's not true in 3.5. The MM specifically states that exceptions to "Always Good" and "Always Evil" creatures exist, but also that they are either unique, or rare. Some adventures (like the Sertruous adventure in Elder Evils) include an Evil celestial, for example.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-20 at 09:42 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  26. - Top - End - #386
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    My take on "creating undead is evil" has always been that it's based on the logic that your standard undead is hard coded to kill everything it sees. While you can keep undead under control (particularly mindless undead), it's still putting everyone around you at risk; should you die or otherwise lose control of them, they WILL hurt innocent people if given the opportunity. The few undead that don't fit this clause are, at least going by Pathfinder logic (which I have played the most), not evil to create. JuJu zombies (which are intelligent and not inherently evil; they have no drive to hurt others that is granted by the template, though a JuJu zombie created from an evil person would be evil) are the prime example.

    Going by the same logic, I'd say it is equally evil to keep some kind of other monstrous, cruel creature under control to sic on your enemies...which tracks with that typically being a villain trope.

  27. - Top - End - #387
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Xgya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Eh, no, that's just showing that "Smite Evil" doesn't actually care what alignment the target is, only that the Paladin think the target is Evil.

    In true objective morality, if both Paladins behaved as you described, Smite Evil wouldn't work on either of them.
    Fair enough, I remembered something about Paladins facing each other and morality being grayer than usual on Eberron, but my memory of it was blurry.
    Consider that part of my argument fully retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125
    Careful, we're trying to have a RAW discussion here. We must acknowledge that there is only circumstantial evidence that undeath corrupts or captures the soul.
    I'm all for the identity argument here, and simply keeping creating undead Evil as a form of slavery, permanent bodily mutilation, and/or a way to permanently make someone Evil (if you're creating sentient Undead, their default alignment is Evil), all of it done to an unwilling victim.
    I'll grant that some do undergo the transformation willingly, or at least offer their bodies for such a thing, but the fact they cannot change their state after the fact and must remain in service for the rest of their existence with no input of their own still makes it slavery.

    I was using the soul corruption argument in case someone found the identity part unconvincing, since the fact the creature cannot be brought back to life until it is dead again is undeniable. The reason why is questionable here.
    Then again, if we're just discussing Raw, creating undead is evil because Create Undead is an Evil spell :P

    There ARE, of course, exceptions - undead creation that isn't inherently Evil. I'll just name the Baelnorn here, but there are others. Baelnorns go under the procedure willingly and must be non-Evil to do it.

  28. - Top - End - #388
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Look I'll be honest with you:
    the only reason why anything is evil in DnD is because the creators think you need a clear visual indicator of Acceptable Enemy Target to kill things mindlessly like a murderhobo. to put it bluntly in tvtropes terms DnD is an action game and thus needs mooks for that action to happen on

    Problem is my experience the only people who actually need such clear visual indicators are DnD players. I don't see this attitude from Skyrim players-they just kill whatever attacks them without worrying much about it, they kill both human bandits and draugr by the truckload. like open world videogames shows very much that people are willing to kill whatever fictional thing without guilt. while superhero and action hero stories are full of people who are just normal human criminals get punched out by the capes or shot down by some guy with a gun. in short, DnD has this weird hang up that I don't see anywhere else.

    but still, DnD has it and thus zombies are made to be mooks so that you, the hero of the story and thus the most important person in that story can slaughter them without a second thought, term jersey morality is wrong because it assumes that Good is somehow narratively equal to Evil: its not, Evil exists to be Good's punching bag and foe and thus lesser than Good by being incredibly obvious to spot. I personally find this superfluous and unneeded. I can create my own black-and-white morality narrative thank you very much, and I don't need flashing neon signs to determine whether something is evil and kill them without guilt. If human bandits are attacking a caravan a detect evil spell is being overly cautious. A world where a necromancer has no alignment but still uses undead to do various horrible things so it can take over the world or something is still objectively evil. If you don't want moral complexity or well intentioned extremists, don't include them, its simple as that.

    in short, creating undead is evil because of this weird DnD attitude of being broken up about the things you kill if they don't have the right visual indicator flagging them as guiltless when the true guilt is self-created. Other franchises don't need such indicators, when I kill a raider in Fallout, I don't get broken up about how that raider was a living human who was trying to get by through taking stuff by force from others. Why would I? Screw that guy. I don't need him to be undead to kill him, loot him and be on my merry way. He attacked me, he deserved what he got.

    Meanwhile if I'm playing evil why would I care at all?

    the only reason the undead exist is to fulfill an enemy role in a combat game, when that role can be really be fulfilled by any mook without much trouble, as a lot of media demonstrate and the only reason it doesn't is because DnD is weird and builds a strange overwrought system of morality to do what other games accomplish without it; it thinks too much on why when good proper mooks aren't about why they are mooks, they just exist and attack then die. thinking on the why of a mook exists is already thinking too much. what matters is they do exist, they are attacking you and they're not going to stop attacking you.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  29. - Top - End - #389
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Look I'll be honest with you:
    the only reason why anything is evil in DnD is because the creators think you need a clear visual indicator of Acceptable Enemy Target to kill things mindlessly like a murderhobo. to put it bluntly in tvtropes terms DnD is an action game and thus needs mooks for that action to happen on

    Problem is my experience the only people who actually need such clear visual indicators are DnD players. I don't see this attitude from Skyrim players-they just kill whatever attacks them without worrying much about it, they kill both human bandits and draugr by the truckload. like open world videogames shows very much that people are willing to kill whatever fictional thing without guilt. while superhero and action hero stories are full of people who are just normal human criminals get punched out by the capes or shot down by some guy with a gun. in short, DnD has this weird hang up that I don't see anywhere else.

    but still, DnD has it and thus zombies are made to be mooks so that you, the hero of the story and thus the most important person in that story can slaughter them without a second thought, term jersey morality is wrong because it assumes that Good is somehow narratively equal to Evil: its not, Evil exists to be Good's punching bag and foe and thus lesser than Good by being incredibly obvious to spot. I personally find this superfluous and unneeded. I can create my own black-and-white morality narrative thank you very much, and I don't need flashing neon signs to determine whether something is evil and kill them without guilt. If human bandits are attacking a caravan a detect evil spell is being overly cautious. A world where a necromancer has no alignment but still uses undead to do various horrible things so it can take over the world or something is still objectively evil. If you don't want moral complexity or well intentioned extremists, don't include them, its simple as that.

    in short, creating undead is evil because of this weird DnD attitude of being broken up about the things you kill if they don't have the right visual indicator flagging them as guiltless when the true guilt is self-created. Other franchises don't need such indicators, when I kill a raider in Fallout, I don't get broken up about how that raider was a living human who was trying to get by through taking stuff by force from others. Why would I? Screw that guy. I don't need him to be undead to kill him, loot him and be on my merry way. He attacked me, he deserved what he got.

    Meanwhile if I'm playing evil why would I care at all?

    the only reason the undead exist is to fulfill an enemy role in a combat game, when that role can be really be fulfilled by any mook without much trouble, as a lot of media demonstrate and the only reason it doesn't is because DnD is weird and builds a strange overwrought system of morality to do what other games accomplish without it; it thinks too much on why when good proper mooks aren't about why they are mooks, they just exist and attack then die. thinking on the why of a mook exists is already thinking too much. what matters is they do exist, they are attacking you and they're not going to stop attacking you.
    It is false for the fallout example: in the early fallouts there was options in order specifically to reduce the number of killed raiders so it means that people are supposed to care about the raiders.
    It is just that the modern fallouts tries to encourage you being an horrible person: the vast majority of the population are raiders and you kill way more raiders than there is non raiders people (if you play long) so you had a really negative effect on the global population: you killed more people than the number of people you helped.
    It is the same problem as in GW2: char separationists represents way more population than the people you protect from a war between the chars and the humans: you kill way more char separationists than there is chars or of friendly people that would fear a war with the chars so it is obvious that the players are the bad guy in killing megatons of char separationists even if as a whole they are up to no good it is impossible that each of them was so awful that it justifies incredible mass murder.
    Also it is quite odd that the char separationists are a mix of char and humans that works together and are ready to die in droves for their common goal while their objective is supposedly to cause a war between chars and humans: it makes you wonder if it is their actual goal and if you are not being misled by someone or something else.
    If two countries have all their population except for 100 persons ally together in their quest to get war between the two countries then by killing all the people except that hundred person you are just making a bigger war in order to "prevent war".

    Now I wonder if the small farm that gets attacked by "bandits" every 30 minutes actually stole the cattle from the "bandits" and are in an everlasting feud to get the cattle except that the adventurers then murders all the people who wears bandit clothing.(Personally I think it would be hilarious to see a speech going the following way "all of your ancestors, thousands of them died in order to get back those specific animals so let us follow the manifest goal of our entire bandit civilisation and try to take back those cattle or die in the process")

    It is just that videogames by trying to make unlimited amounts of mooks just breaks their settings badly.
    If they used only undead the heroes would not be evil people: the villains would be just reusing the same minions and reanimating them over and over and it would be a select few that suffers from the wrath of many.
    Last edited by noob; 2020-10-21 at 12:30 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #390
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why is creating undead Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    The flesh golem note is a good catch. I'd forgotten about that.
    Worth noting that a flesh golem is also almost never going to be just ONE corpse. The ur-archetype is the movie version of Frankenstein's Monster, which is an amalgam of many corpses stitched together to form a complete body.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    Solid question. No one's yet brought up a wraith (or shadow, or any other incorporeal undead that are created with the 'Create Spawn' ability), and the resulting body being left behind getting used to make a zombie.

    HOWEVER, I think the answer would be that the identity lies with the incorporeal one. As evidence, I cite the Emancipated Spawn Prestige Class from Savage Species. I know a lot of people don't like that book, but it IS official content. That 3-level PrC allows a created spawn (such as a shadow, which is the example character), to gradually regain their full identity, to include all their class levels (which will, of course, DRASTICALLY affect their ECL, because now they have the HD of their undead creature type, any Level Adjustment thereof, 3 levels of that PrC, and all of their original character levels).

    Granted, that can be used with corporeal undead, too. But since it requires the character to be turned into an undead creature with the Create Spawn ability (and the "master" to subsequently be destroyed), that means a singular undead creature if it's corporeal, because Create Spawn only works on living creatures killed by the undead. The only way it could be two is if it was incorporeal, and then the body was animated as something corporeal. And in that instance, the identity can be recovered by the one created with the Create Spawn ability.
    As food for additional thought, one thing I thought was really cool from 2e (which is where I first saw it; no clue if it predates 2e) was the notion that the vampire and the crimson death mist were related by the latter being the former's soul. I've played around with a notion that vampire spawn can become true vampires by merging with their crimson death mists.

    In the identity thing, I'd actually go with the identity and mind sticking with the vampire (spawn), while the crimson death mist is the soul.

    Perhaps the soul contains volition? Hence why mindless undead and undead spawn are either without motivation (unless commanded) or are utter slaves to their creators: they lack their souls. Though this doesn't work very well for undead that ARE the soul. Wraiths creating and controlling more wraiths, and shadows creating and controlling more shadows.

    Well, for shadows, perhaps, it's not such a problem if the shadow IS the body, not the soul, and being drained of all strength leaves only a shadow of the being that was thus drained.

    I'm rambling a bit, here, but hopefully this is at least somewhat of use for further discussion on the subject.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •