| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| oldskool |
Posted - 19 Jan 2005 : 10:00:05
OK, this may not seem like a "grey" moral issue, but for some reason, some of my players are up in arms about my ruling.
One of the spellcasters just got to the level at which Animate Dead became available. I run a "no evil PC" campaign, for many reasons. He (and another player) is arguing that animating skeletons and zombies is not inherently evil.... While my ruling was that in 95% of cases or more, animating dead is evil.
His argument is this: "I'm not harming their soul - since it is already departed. And it really shouldn't be a big deal when I animate fallen evil foes."
My argument is that any use of this spell is considered at LEAST equivalent to grave robbing, and at worst, a perversion of all things good and holy. Also, why do good priests bless the newly dead in order to keep them from being animated in this way, if using their bodies as some kind of junior-league golems ISN'T an evil act?
I have one half of the party ready to "take their ball and go home" if I make using "animate dead" an evil act, and the other just as likely to bug out if I cave in. I realize that I, as DM, should have the final say, but people can be really ego-centric about their little pet conceptions of D&D morality.
Talking this out and reasoning does not seem to be helping this situation. And "laying down the DM law" might be even worse. What to do?
oldskool
possibly a goody-two-shoes |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 13 Feb 2005 : 08:26:47
Personally I deal with it differently. I have a series of characters who are evil or neutral, and nobody plays good characters. I take a bit of a more realistic stand on it, they may very well be evil, i dont really care, but if they dont keep themselves in line people will catch on and then theyre Funked if you know what i mean. Then they dont feel all limited and get whiney, but they still have to face facts that if they butcher the mayors daughter, theyre likely to be hung. etc. that gets less complaining and alot of alterior motives behind their nicer actions. even if just to cover up.
but they do get the alignment shifts. i basically keep track of their alignment in a numbered system, 1-20 bad 21-40 neutral 41-60 better. it applies to law/chao and good/evil. so if they steal something they may get like a -4 to their law/chaos. but they dont see the change till they cross over a line. they dont see the numbers.
Anyways im not too big on evil chars either but i dont like restricting their actions much. they want to play evil characters, ill change the plot accordingly and they may be hunted down by a group of good adventurers, or enslaved by demons of the abyss after they die, whichever suits your fancy. If the whole group dies, its not game over because then i get to play out the afterlife unless they want to make new chars.
so my advice is do the alignment change in one way of another for the evil spells, and let them suffer the consequences for being evil.
so do as you will, but those are my two cents.
~Sylrae. |
| Troll |
Posted - 13 Feb 2005 : 04:53:30
You need to look in the rules under "Raise Dead" and "Resurrection". These spells do not work on a subject that has been turned into an undead. The "Resurrection" spell will work if the undead body is destroyed.
Why?
Because the Animate Dead spells binds the soul to the body to animate it! This prevents it from going on to its proper place after death. That is why the spell "Animate Dead" is Evil. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Feb 2005 : 05:50:50
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Anyway, sticking to the Realms... We can see that even in the interests of justice, the dead are not raised. There are cases of criminals being executed, but no one raises the corpse to have it pay its debts to society -- all accounts, if you will, are considered final when the person dies.
Where do we see this, that the injuried are not compensted by those that injured them? If you want to apply modern standards, IMO you should play modern games.
When certain modern standards are already present in the game, I will apply them.
We do see criminals paying for their offenses. But sometimes that payment is death. A criminal could burn down a home and kill three people, for example. That criminal would then be executed. But, in no part of the Realms that I can think of, would that criminal then be raised to rebuild the home. Once they're dead, all bets are off.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Besides, it's not the body that was responsible for the crimes, it's the soul that was in it -- the body was just a vehicle.
Well could argue for compelling the soul to pay damages, in the dame setting just is harder to do so. The body as useless matters to no one as long as it repairs damage the soull caused.
But the body is not responsible! If we take your example, why not require the dagger to give compensation for the life it took? Or why not punish the tree that provided the wood for the arrow that slew the mayor?
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Even with the ability to raise the dead for various purposes, we do not see it happening. What we see is the dead being treated with respect and the body being consigned to some sort of rest, be it interment or cremation. And in the Realms, no matter how it happens or the cause behind it, undead are considered an abomination by most civilized people. Therefore, raising the dead to pay the debts of the departed soul is an argument that won't carry much weight in the Realms. Undeath is unnatural, and the average person will shrink from it.
We see dead, souless bodies raised all the time. We see some "good" choosing to become undead. As for treatment of the dead it varies even with the "good" people. I rarely see adventurers worring about the goblins they killed, I rarely see them burying even inocents killed by the goblins. Perhaps you as a DM move the PCs alingment to Evil.
Adventurers are a different case. Usually, taking the time to bury their foes is not an option...
I was referring to mainstream society. In cities and villages, the dead are revered, not reused.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
As for undead being unnatural one could even debate that, as it appears vampires are very natuarl just disliked greatly within the game system.
The natural order is that everything that is born dies and stays that way. If it doesn't die or dies but doesn't stay dead, its not natural... It's pretty simple.
To back up this argument, look at Kelemvor. He emphasizes that death is natural. As part of this, his followers are tasked with returning the undead to their rest. Why? Because according to the deity of death, undeath is unnatural.
Further, deities who rule over nature don't like the undead, either. So those who embody the natural world think of undeath as unnatural...
It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
The point I do strive for here is the game does not model Real Life in many aspects. The PCs rountinely kill, rob and distroy in the name of good in such a manner that modern society would not condone. This of course depends on the campaign the DM runs.
But they usually do not do so within the boundaries of society! Much of the Realms is land where the law begins and ends with your sword...
And I have already conceded that the Realms do not fully parallel the real world. However, it must also be admitted that in many ways, it does parallel our modern, Western sensibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I see no problem with using flesh that is no longer harming to the soul as non evil, the game system says it is evil. I see a good spell that can be used to do evil by killing non evil creatures. The descriptors are either in error as sometimes an evil can be nuetral and sometimes a good can do evil or I do not understand good of evil IRL or in FR. *sighs*
You are partially correct. Evil can and has been done in the name of good. But that's not what we're discussing. We are discussing an act that would not be condoned by any deities of neutral or good alignment, nor by any civilized society. I don't see what else we could use as a standard to judge whether or not an act is good or evil...
Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to agree with each other... |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 12 Feb 2005 : 03:28:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Anyway, sticking to the Realms... We can see that even in the interests of justice, the dead are not raised. There are cases of criminals being executed, but no one raises the corpse to have it pay its debts to society -- all accounts, if you will, are considered final when the person dies.
Where do we see this, that the injuried are not compensted by those that injured them? If you want to apply modern standards, IMO you should play modern games.
quote:
Besides, it's not the body that was responsible for the crimes, it's the soul that was in it -- the body was just a vehicle.
Well could argue for compelling the soul to pay damages, in the dame setting just is harder to do so. The body as useless matters to no one as long as it repairs damage the soull caused.
quote:
Even with the ability to raise the dead for various purposes, we do not see it happening. What we see is the dead being treated with respect and the body being consigned to some sort of rest, be it interment or cremation. And in the Realms, no matter how it happens or the cause behind it, undead are considered an abomination by most civilized people. Therefore, raising the dead to pay the debts of the departed soul is an argument that won't carry much weight in the Realms. Undeath is unnatural, and the average person will shrink from it.
We see dead, souless bodies raised all the time. We see some "good" choosing to become undead. As for treatment of the dead it varies even with the "good" people. I rarely see adventurers worring about the goblins they killed, I rarely see them burying even inocents killed by the goblins. Perhaps you as a DM move the PCs alingment to Evil.
As for undead being unnatural one could even debate that, as it appears vampires are very natuarl just disliked greatly within the game system.
The point I do strive for here is the game does not model Real Life in many aspects. The PCs rountinely kill, rob and distroy in the name of good in such a manner that modern society would not condone. This of course depends on the campaign the DM runs.
I see no problem with using flesh that is no longer harming to the soul as non evil, the game system says it is evil. I see a good spell that can be used to do evil by killing non evil creatures. The descriptors are either in error as sometimes an evil can be nuetral and sometimes a good can do evil or I do not understand good of evil IRL or in FR. *sighs* |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Feb 2005 : 02:19:15
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Western rules of what is evil and good are hardly a standard I would apply to realms or most other games. If I applied modern standards to adventures they all would be up on charges of murder by time they achieved 3rd level or at least of lessor crimes (such as grave robbing, defiling the dead, theft from heirs, traveling across borders without a passport, and so on).
Maybe not all of Western morals applies to the Realms, but the Realms does track with a lot of modern sensibilities. Not all, but a lot.
And, as I showed above, that does extend to how the dead are treated. The fact that we cannot raise the dead in the real world is irrelevant. We could do a lot more than we do, but the most that happens is we pluck out a few organs.
Anyway, sticking to the Realms... We can see that even in the interests of justice, the dead are not raised. There are cases of criminals being executed, but no one raises the corpse to have it pay its debts to society -- all accounts, if you will, are considered final when the person dies.
Besides, it's not the body that was responsible for the crimes, it's the soul that was in it -- the body was just a vehicle.
Even with the ability to raise the dead for various purposes, we do not see it happening. What we see is the dead being treated with respect and the body being consigned to some sort of rest, be it interment or cremation. And in the Realms, no matter how it happens or the cause behind it, undead are considered an abomination by most civilized people. Therefore, raising the dead to pay the debts of the departed soul is an argument that won't carry much weight in the Realms. Undeath is unnatural, and the average person will shrink from it. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 12 Feb 2005 : 00:42:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So, even given the original example, the average person in the Realms would not favor raising the dead, and would likely be horrified at the thought of the dead being used as cheap labor. It would, in short, be considered an evil act, no matter the result. The ends do not always justify the means.
Who said they would be used as cheep labor?
Horified is not the same as evil as far as that goes, more the pity, in modern world in many cases. IAE the realms clearly is not in the modern realm.
I could return to my argument that culture as oposed to harm defines evil. That does not tend to convince. Restitution is often considered a just (if not lawful) reperations for harm done. Not allowing repair of harm could very well be considered harmful or perhaps even evil. Would it be just to deney compensation because somebody died, and remember raise dead is far more costly then aminate dead?
Western rules of what is evil and good are hardly a standard I would apply to realms or most other games. If I applied modern standards to adventures they all would be up on charges of murder by time they achieved 3rd level or at least of lessor crimes (such as grave robbing, defiling the dead, theft from heirs, traveling across borders without a passport, and so on). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Feb 2005 : 23:42:53
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Haman
Hmmm...I am tempted to jump in on the whole "This is evil, Positive plane is good, D&D vs. D20" arguements, but I think I'd be wasting my time, it is 90% perspective, and you can't really change how another see's it. I have my own opinions, but the only ones I'll share right now are the ones that might help out the DM-Player problem...
Yes you are applying your world view of what is good and evil. As I type I am considering adreessing the points of your post, however as I consider this suspect I might cause unrest. Taking your example of what would upset you, is not the same as what is evil. In part you are clearly drawing your belief from the culture we both have grown up with, odds are good you are also drawing from a personal religious belief. _Stranger In a Strage Land_ is one book that explores a different culture (Martian, Sci Fi of course) , however even on Earth there are cultures that customs are considered proper and non evil. This includes the making of zombies and the eating of human flesh. Because a culture is different it does not make it evil in and of itself. It certainly is different. There are some Vegans that claim to refuse to use animal products at all because they do not believe it is a right thing to do. Even these however fail the test if they use an automoble, electricity, wear any clothes that was produced or transported using fosil fuel. At best a Vegan might ahieve is not using anything killed during thier lifetime. Oh I should add a clarification, even in Vegans there appears to be different levels, the two basic ones are not eating any animal product and the second being not using any animal product for any reason (for example not wearing leather shoes). My example of using fosil fuels clearly appyies to the later class.
Some Vegans certainly have been determined to be criminals and/or perhaps evil where it can to raising their children (slower develpment, under weight and so on, it is much harder to provide nutrition needed in a balanced way using only vegtibles and fruits for a develping child) but not as adults that decide for themselves such a diet and lifestyle. I suspect most consider Vegans a bit nuts, but as long as not doing harm do not care about it. The same can be said about how most view role playing people.
You offered an example of seeing a realative whom soul went to just award doing road work. There appers to be no harm to the dead person cited in your example, you appear to be more upset by the visual image.
Place this in another context. The goverment pays the hiers for the work the body does that relative does not use anymore, that the goverment has been doing this for years. That in fact families that are most sucessful have the most bodies working, adding to family wealth and leasure time. Set adside your personal belief and explain how such is evil. You set the parameter that no harm was done to those that died. If no harm is done, how can a thing be evil objectively?
He may be using a real-world example, but it's one that applies to the Realms. Most civilized races have some means for disposing of the dead with at least a modicum of respect shown to the body. They inter them in the earth, build cairns, crypts, and mausoleums, and/or have some other sort of funerary practice. In short, the dead are honored, not re-used as mindless labor.
Even the bodies of enemies usually receive some sort of humane treatment. They are burned on pyres or buried in mass graves. They, too, are not re-used as some sort of asset.
So, even given the original example, the average person in the Realms would not favor raising the dead, and would likely be horrified at the thought of the dead being used as cheap labor. It would, in short, be considered an evil act, no matter the result. The ends do not always justify the means. |
| Haman |
Posted - 11 Feb 2005 : 22:51:29
quote:
Taking your example of what would upset you, is not the same as what is evil. In part you are clearly drawing your belief from the culture we both have grown up with, odds are good you are also drawing from a personal religious belief.
I never actually used the word "evil", as it is purely subjective. I was going down the whole path of morals, and the view of the DM and the problems he was having with his players. My personal opinions do not really matter in this whole deal, I figured people would see that, I was offering an example he could use if his players see the world as most on earth here do. If you want to debate evil/moral/martians/etc... then please be my guest, but again, I am trying to help out the original poster.
It cannot be denied (well, on second thought I'm sure some will), that animating the dead is an immoral act as we know it. I am not talking about different planets, different planes, or different cultures, I am talking about plain old western civilization (unless the original poster is from a locale/culture different than the basic western civilization, which I doubt). I gave the example of the dead being animated for the road work commission, as a simple view of how we see it here in America/Western World, so the DM could relay it better to his players. The DM obviously feels that it is wrong, wishes his players would see it, and I thought I would give him an example. As far as personal religious beliefs, I really have none.
quote:
Because a culture is different it does not make it evil in and of itself. It certainly is different.
Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself.
quote:
You offered an example of seeing a realative whom soul went to just award doing road work. There appers to be no harm to the dead person cited in your example, you appear to be more upset by the visual image.
No, there is no harm to the dead person, I made that fairly obvious...all the harm is done to those viewing it. Can you deny that our western culture would not see this as immoral? In no way has there been practices that violate the dead in such a fashion, or that would be acceptable to our culture. As for religion, I cannot think of any one of the major ones (Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Buddist/Shinto/Hinduism/Confucianism/Taoism/Primal) that would condone animating the dead for any purpose. Yes, the dead have been used (such as the relics of Catholicism), but any examples of the dead being raised WITHOUT souls (Making Jesus, Lazerus, etc.. exempt), are portrayed as abominations or cursed victims, this is simple fact.
Evil is subjective, this is true. THere is no clear "evil", nor "evil deed", as everything can be looked at in a multitude of ways, and even rationalized and justified from some angle. My example was of the rationalization and justification of our present culture, the western culture. Yes, you can say that our culture and beliefs have no real place, nor are they credible as being part of a fantasy setting, but that is completely naive. We DM's and Players mold the world we create after our own beliefs, after our own views of what is right and wrong, it's the only way we can do it to help others see it.
Animating the dead may not be an evil act, but it is morally wrong from where we stand, on this planet, in this time period, within our culture.
Last note: Please, please, PLEASE do not take this as me "blasting" anyone, nor trying to pick a flame fight. THe whole original motivation behind my post was to give tips to the DM to back his beliefs and help clarify it to his players. Of course every comment I made can be argued to kingdom come, I know this, but it is ot at all my desire. If his Players can see the issue in a new light that would help them better understand the point of animating dead being morally wrong and evil (from his perspective!), then it may help his game go smoother. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 11 Feb 2005 : 21:47:49
quote:
Originally posted by Haman
Hmmm...I am tempted to jump in on the whole "This is evil, Positive plane is good, D&D vs. D20" arguements, but I think I'd be wasting my time, it is 90% perspective, and you can't really change how another see's it. I have my own opinions, but the only ones I'll share right now are the ones that might help out the DM-Player problem...
Yes you are applying your world view of what is good and evil. As I type I am considering adreessing the points of your post, however as I consider this suspect I might cause unrest. Taking your example of what would upset you, is not the same as what is evil. In part you are clearly drawing your belief from the culture we both have grown up with, odds are good you are also drawing from a personal religious belief. _Stranger In a Strage Land_ is one book that explores a different culture (Martian, Sci Fi of course) , however even on Earth there are cultures that customs are considered proper and non evil. This includes the making of zombies and the eating of human flesh. Because a culture is different it does not make it evil in and of itself. It certainly is different. There are some Vegans that claim to refuse to use animal products at all because they do not believe it is a right thing to do. Even these however fail the test if they use an automoble, electricity, wear any clothes that was produced or transported using fosil fuel. At best a Vegan might ahieve is not using anything killed during thier lifetime. Oh I should add a clarification, even in Vegans there appears to be different levels, the two basic ones are not eating any animal product and the second being not using any animal product for any reason (for example not wearing leather shoes). My example of using fosil fuels clearly appyies to the later class.
Some Vegans certainly have been determined to be criminals and/or perhaps evil where it can to raising their children (slower develpment, under weight and so on, it is much harder to provide nutrition needed in a balanced way using only vegtibles and fruits for a develping child) but not as adults that decide for themselves such a diet and lifestyle. I suspect most consider Vegans a bit nuts, but as long as not doing harm do not care about it. The same can be said about how most view role playing people.
You offered an example of seeing a realative whom soul went to just award doing road work. There appers to be no harm to the dead person cited in your example, you appear to be more upset by the visual image.
Place this in another context. The goverment pays the hiers for the work the body does that relative does not use anymore, that the goverment has been doing this for years. That in fact families that are most sucessful have the most bodies working, adding to family wealth and leasure time. Set adside your personal belief and explain how such is evil. You set the parameter that no harm was done to those that died. If no harm is done, how can a thing be evil objectively?
|
| Haman |
Posted - 11 Feb 2005 : 20:24:58
Hmmm...I am tempted to jump in on the whole "This is evil, Positive plane is good, D&D vs. D20" arguements, but I think I'd be wasting my time, it is 90% perspective, and you can't really change how another see's it. I have my own opinions, but the only ones I'll share right now are the ones that might help out the DM-Player problem...
Whether the spell is evil or not, whether the Gods would allow it or not, the problem seems to be how your PC's feel about it. If they insist that it is all about intent, or their ends justify their means, you might want to give them an easier example.
How would they feel if the local road workers in your community had the capability to animate dead? What if they saw their own relatives, long dead, shambling about patching potholes and sweeping streets? Honestly, they are serving a good purpose, their souls are gone (not to get into an arguement there, we'll jst assume that their complete souls are gone, no residue), would it be okay then? Jesus, if I saw my grandfather stumbling about with an orange vest and shovel in hand, you better damn well be assured I'd be whipping up a petition and running to the town hall to stop that atrocity. Make them see it for real! Yes, we play fantasy, but in a REALISTIC setting.
And please understand that I mean no offense, but if your players are threatening to "take their ball and go home" over this one little arguement, then let them go. As a dm the hardest thing you can do is to find that balance between being liked vs. hated, respected vs. used. If your players are at that point, let them go, and again no insult meant, but if they are at that point, you might want to look at your own style of running and see where it needs tweaking.
Hope it helps. |
| Mareka |
Posted - 09 Feb 2005 : 21:56:32
quote:
Originally posted by Talinfein
Solution: Difficult, but not impossible - use roleplaying.
First, the characters in question (or their players) need to determine what their outlook on this kind of thing is. What culture do they come from? What is their view on death? And so on. Then, the player needs to realize that if his outlook does not match that of the good or neutral philosophies (i.e. deities) in at least a very broad way, then his character is not truly good. I am not trying to say that our roleplaying should be dictated by alignment, but rather that the alignment should reflect a characterīs beliefs.
different circumstance and maybe the players will understand.
Nicely said! What a wonderful explanation of alignment. Alignment as a mechanic to reflect a character's views rather than a straightjacket that defines how a PC must act. |
| Talinfein |
Posted - 09 Feb 2005 : 20:44:26
This seems to be a very interesting discussion. Since I am a DM who enjoys philosophical problems like this one, Iīll add my suggestions.
First, a few assumptions. When you choose to play D&D (and I mean D&D, not D20), you chose a game where alignment exists and where gods exist to represent certain philosophies or aspects of life. This means that your character lives in a world where good and evil do exist and a personīs acts can sometimes be judged as being purely good or purely evil. Depending on the point of view and the circumstances, which acts will be judged as what will vary, of course.
Argument #1: The Rules
As stated above, the rules clearly make raising the dead an evil act, no matter what intention was behind it. A bit simple for my taste, but a start.
Argument #2: Kelemvor
In Faiths & Pantheons it explicitly states Kelemvor as being a neutral deity and he counts hunters of the undead among his worshipers. So, if a neutral deity does not condone the use of undead, that leaves only evil ones.
Counter-Argument: Baelnorns (good liches)
One could say that this is a perfect example where creating an undead is not an evil act. BUT: IIRC, baelnorns are created after giving their consent. Thus, they are turned into an undead person before they die and they support the decision. Raising the dead, however, occurs after a personīs death and I would assume no one asks the poor soul if it was alright that his body was used to chop up some orcs.
Solution: Difficult, but not impossible - use roleplaying.
First, the characters in question (or their players) need to determine what their outlook on this kind of thing is. What culture do they come from? What is their view on death? And so on. Then, the player needs to realize that if his outlook does not match that of the good or neutral philosophies (i.e. deities) in at least a very broad way, then his character is not truly good. I am not trying to say that our roleplaying should be dictated by alignment, but rather that the alignment should reflect a characterīs beliefs.
I would use this as an opportunity to roleplay a powerful characterīs slow descent into darkness. First, he only raises the bad guys after they have been slain to do good in whatever form that would be. Then there are no bad guys to raise, but he needs help anyway, so he raises some animals. Next time, there are no animals, but thereīs an old cemetary nearby, the names of its inhabitants long-forgotten and the tombstones all but crumbled to dust.
Thatīs it. Darth Vader, you may rise.
There is no argument against this. The rules support it, the background supports it. Even common sense does. Basically, this is the old, "the ends justify the means" argument. Put it into a different circumstance and maybe the players will understand.
One more thing about alignment. I would play this out like when Drizzt found Mielikki. He didnīt know the goddesses name, but after he heard of her and what she stands for he realized that she has always been with him. Maybe a character who starts raising the dead thinks of himself as a good guy only trying to help others, but eventually people start looking at him funny and at some point he must admit that maybe his beliefs have changed and thus, his alignment, as well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Feb 2005 : 23:00:22
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I am saying that Positive and Nagative planes (major or minor) are not something I acept as a valid concept. The elemental planes create and distroy as do other planes. There is no need for such dedicated planes the aspect of creation and distruction exists in all the other planes.
But just about anything you can imagine, aspects of it exist on multiple planes. If you don't like one plane because aspects of it exist on another, then why have planes at all? Because aspects of all of the planes exist on the Prime Material Plane...
Besides, with the number of planes out there that are dedicated to concepts, what's wrong with having ones wrapped around concepts of creation and destruction?
And lastly, I've never perceived those two planes like that... Admittedly, my planar knowledge is weak and it's not even something that interests me greatly... But I've long regarded the Positive plane as the plane of maximum potential, and the Negative one as being something between the void and entropy -- not exactly destruction, but the loss of all potential. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 08 Feb 2005 : 20:44:49
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Complaining that the Positive Energy Plane helps healing is like complaining that the Plane of Fire is a little hot. It's an aspect of what it is. The 1e version was a mistake -- and if you notice, previously D&D was far more a matter of good versus evil, so it was an obvious leap to make in that time.
That was not a complaint it was an observation that given a choice between visting one or the other the one appears to be a far better choice. That is not alignment good, though a better place to visit. Dare not condemn a prior version as being wrong it just needed clarification (things disappear in clarification). The magor aspects of either plane is deadly, the minor helpful or harmful, not a direct link to good and evil as far as alignment goes, however is linked to a good vs, bad place to visit.
quote:
Besides, if you say that [good] spells can't be "good" because even they could be used for evil . . . then you don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about the Positive Energy Plane. The fact that it heals doesn't make it either good or evil. Not even the healing spells are considered [good] spells.
You are linking these two together too closely.
I do say spells with [good] descriptor can be used to commit an evil act.
I am saying that Holy Smite certainly does not provide healing, instead deals harm (at times to those that perhaps should not be harmed by aligned good).
I am saying that Positive and Nagative planes (major or minor) are not something I acept as a valid concept. The elemental planes create and distroy as do other planes. There is no need for such dedicated planes the aspect of creation and distruction exists in all the other planes. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 08 Feb 2005 : 20:18:06
Complaining that the Positive Energy Plane helps healing is like complaining that the Plane of Fire is a little hot. It's an aspect of what it is. The 1e version was a mistake -- and if you notice, previously D&D was far more a matter of good versus evil, so it was an obvious leap to make in that time.
Besides, if you say that [good] spells can't be "good" because even they could be used for evil . . . then you don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about the Positive Energy Plane. The fact that it heals doesn't make it either good or evil. Not even the healing spells are considered [good] spells. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 07 Feb 2005 : 20:55:42
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
There are ten spells with the [Good] descriptor in the SRD (search functions are fun).
The SRD you use with search might be better then the one I used, however found one. Holy Smite which can be used to do harm to any non good for any reason. While I certainly can understand full damage to Evil, the "half damage to creatures who are neither good nor evil" might at times be not good and perhaps even evil at times.
quote:
Of course, I don't know why you would assume there aren't any [good] spells. If there are evil ones, of course there would be good ones.
I did not infer there were none, I just had not recalled seeing any of them.
quote:
Oh, and you're also equating the Positive and Negative Planes with "good" and "evil." They aren't. They're 'creation' and 'entropy' made manifest.
That in part is redeffinition, in 1st Edition Positive was the power supply for good and Negative the power supply for evil and undead. Even reading the 3.x revision there at least tends to be at least positive (minor planes) are a nice place to be, healing rate better as oposed to visiting a minor negative plane that draws life force. The current version is not as tightly linked with power source for good or evil, I still do not care for those planes. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 07 Feb 2005 : 19:43:29
There are ten spells with the [Good] descriptor in the SRD (search functions are fun). Then of course, there are the others in other books, including Complete Divine and The Book of Exalted Deeds, the latter of which is top heavy with the stuff. (I'm far to lazy to look through those manually and count them up.)
Of course, I don't know why you would assume there aren't any [good] spells. If there are evil ones, of course there would be good ones.
Oh, and you're also equating the Positive and Negative Planes with "good" and "evil." They aren't. They're 'creation' and 'entropy' made manifest. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 Feb 2005 : 23:24:38
quote:
Originally posted by oldskool
Kentinal, I hate to come down on you, but MAGIC IS NOT INHERENTLY A DARK ART. It's even arguable that this fact applies in the real world, but given that this is a Forgotten Realms board and not a philosophy/religion board, I will let that part slide.
Magic is a dark art (hidden), much as psionics is the Invisable Art. At no place in time did I say the Dark = Evil. I however do assert it is a dark art, not everyone can do it, some do not even see it.
quote:
At no point in the Dungeons & Dragons ruleset do the writers paint wizardry as an inherently "dark" or "black" art. ESPECIALLY in the Realms. Mystra is neutral GOOD. The only inherently "black" arts in the Realms are necromancy and the Shadow Weave.
I believe the problem here is that you equate dark or black with Evil, I do not. I have posted to the effect that I can see D&D Evil tagged spells , not used in an Evil way. I have posted I reject the idea of a positive and negitive plane. What Realms does with terms was not under discussion as far as I was concerned. Yes under the rule set spells with evil descriptor are Evil. Perhaps even all those spells are officially the only ones that are called black or dark, however I seem to recall even some good spells being referred to as dark or black magic.
quote:
Obviously, your personal biases rather than the interpretation of the gameworld are coming into play here. But what puzzles me is that you then seem to think that trafficking with elder demons from beyond space and time, which blast the sanity of mankind, could be an "okay" act. Have you ever *read* H.P. Lovecraft?
Not sure where you got me saying "trafficking with elder demons from beyond space and time" was a good thing, perhaps you could explain that?
quote:
Maybe I'm being harsh here, but I don't think you've really considered the ramifications of what you're saying.
If you are putting words in my mouth, I deny saying them.
As per ruleset, you are correct in calling the use of many if not all necromancy as commiting an act of evil, the same applies to the Shadow Weave for one has to pledge them self to an evil enity.
I still maintain that even using the basic rule set, spells with a good descriptor can be used to do evil and on rare cases spells with an Evil descriptor might be used for good or at least nuetral purposes. I believe that the intent of the spell is far more important then the descriptor. The games rules just relieves the DM from always having to make a judgement call.
*makes note to self* Check to see if any spells actually have a good descriptor, I do know some exist in the Good domain. |
| oldskool |
Posted - 04 Feb 2005 : 22:52:13
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
I can really see both sides of it. BUT, since you are drawing on either (A) evil spirits or (B) the Negative Material (and possibly evil spirits there too) to accomplish this... it's still arguably dabbling in "black" magic.
Err all magic can be called black magic, or ocult (hidden), because of the nature of magic. However in general the magic in FR comes though the Weave. I am not a big fan of nehitive of positive planes as source of good and evil, it does not scan well for me.
quote:
Look at it from a different angle. If a CoC character summoned Cthulhu (or any of that ilk) to destroy another irredeemably evil being, would that make the character any less tainted by the touch of darkness??
If could dismiss the being, I would say it was not evil or corrupting, the rules and perhaps your opinion might disagree with this.
quote:
It's more than just the material world when you mess with spells.
How about the other side of the coin, an evil or neutral PC casting a spell with the Good descriptor? Do they become seduced by goodness?? Should their alignment start to "lean" towards good?
Any that meses with magic are dealing with a dark art. Even a healing spell could result in more evil then good. That blade barrier will can any alignment, part water when duration ends can kill many. I am very much of what the spell goal is not the descriptor added by the game system.
Kentinal, I hate to come down on you, but MAGIC IS NOT INHERENTLY A DARK ART. It's even arguable that this fact applies in the real world, but given that this is a Forgotten Realms board and not a philosophy/religion board, I will let that part slide.
At no point in the Dungeons & Dragons ruleset do the writers paint wizardry as an inherently "dark" or "black" art. ESPECIALLY in the Realms. Mystra is neutral GOOD. The only inherently "black" arts in the Realms are necromancy and the Shadow Weave.
Obviously, your personal biases rather than the interpretation of the gameworld are coming into play here. But what puzzles me is that you then seem to think that trafficking with elder demons from beyond space and time, which blast the sanity of mankind, could be an "okay" act. Have you ever *read* H.P. Lovecraft?
Maybe I'm being harsh here, but I don't think you've really considered the ramifications of what you're saying.
*shrug*
oldskool |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 04:36:49
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Not so much as dismissing a spell. They were under my control, so they wouldn't put up a fight.
Now, as for an arcane caster having the spell in their book: Why would a Good caster even want an Evil spell?
Being under control one could tell them to walk into the fire, not quite the same as a dismissable spell, however achieves the same effect. The spell is no longer working because the zombies were killed (dismissed). *smiles*
As for the Evil descriptor, I do not believe that should exist. However it certainly is posible that a Wizard in the search for knowledge would learn Evil spells, if only for the sole reason to try to counter them when engaged with a battle with Evil. If one does not know an evil spell when they see irt, with spell craft skill for example, they logically can not know to opose it.
As for adding to spellbook, I do suspose it depends on how good the Wizard was. Lawful Good, Chaotic Good *wink*
|
| Melfius |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 04:17:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
I guess that would be the bottom line: would a Good character have spells in his/her spellbook with the 'Evil' descriptor? I would think not.
It appears by the rules no Cleric would be granted such a spell, however the rules appear to be vauge concerning a Wizard or other arcane spell caster. I also would not have awarded ex. pts. for dismissing the goblim zombies that were created. This would close to dismissing a spell.
Not so much as dismissing a spell. They were under my control, so they wouldn't put up a fight.
Now, as for an arcane caster having the spell in their book: Why would a Good caster even want an Evil spell? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 03:50:51
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
I guess that would be the bottom line: would a Good character have spells in his/her spellbook with the 'Evil' descriptor? I would think not.
It appears by the rules no Cleric would be granted such a spell, however the rules appear to be vauge concerning a Wizard or other arcane spell caster. I also would not have awarded ex. pts. for dismissing the goblim zombies that were created. This would close to dismissing a spell. |
| Melfius |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 03:36:21
I guess that would be the bottom line: would a Good character have spells in his/her spellbook with the 'Evil' descriptor? I would think not.
As for my situation: I was awarded XP for animating the goblins to rebuild, none for destroying them, and then had my PC 'chewed out' by a ranking official of the Harpers (who we were working for) for exposing the townsfolk to disease and other nasty things.
Badically, it became an object lesson. While I did right in my own mind, there were other ramifications I hadn't considered and was 'brought to task' for them. While role-playing-wise I did a good thing (hence the role-play XP), my reputation within the Harpers took a hit for not thinking before I acted. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 03:35:44
quote:
Originally posted by oldskool
How about the other side of the coin, an evil or neutral PC casting a spell with the Good descriptor? Do they become seduced by goodness?? Should their alignment start to "lean" towards good?
oldskool
I'd say not. Evil is more likely to use any tools that it can, so magic would certainly fall into that category. Neutral types wouldn't be quite as ready to allow the ends to justify the means, but they'd not rule it out. Good types, on the other hand, must weigh their actions against their own moral compass. They are not likely to let the ends justify the means...
Or, to state it another way: Good types walk a straight and narrow path. The further you stray from the path, the harder it is to get back on it. The evil types might take a step or two down that path, but unless they are strong-willed and determined to continue, they'll go back to the easy route.
My two cents on this whole debate: calling an unwilling creature back from its death is bad. Using the creature's body, after death, even for good causes, is a perversion of life. No matter the intent, re-animating a body after the soul is departed is wrong (unless you restore full life to it). Further, I don't see it as justice -- for justice is not only meant to serve the wronged, but also, if possible, to show the perpetrator the error of their ways. A mindless undead, forced into involuntary servitude, is not seeing the error of its ways -- especially if it is dismissed immediately therafter.
As a DM, how would I handle this situation? I'd make it clear that the character had committed an evil act, no matter his intent. They'd have to make some sort of check (most likely a wisdom check), or else take some sort of penalty for doing this dead. This penalty would most likely be docked XP points.
If the character was a cleric, their deity might require atonement for this act. Alternatively, the deity could cause all of the character's spells to be less effective than usual for a few days. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 01:25:53
quote:
Originally posted by oldskool
This is my player's basic argument... that it is the USE the animated dead are put to rather than the ACT of animating the dead.
This is the theory I tend to follow myself. I can see rare occasions that use of some spells normally evil are good in how they are used.
quote:
I can really see both sides of it. BUT, since you are drawing on either (A) evil spirits or (B) the Negative Material (and possibly evil spirits there too) to accomplish this... it's still arguably dabbling in "black" magic.
Err all magic can be called black magic, or ocult (hidden), because of the nature of magic. However in general the magic in FR comes though the Weave. I am not a big fan of nehitive of positive planes as source of good and evil, it does not scan well for me.
quote:
Look at it from a different angle. If a CoC character summoned Cthulhu (or any of that ilk) to destroy another irredeemably evil being, would that make the character any less tainted by the touch of darkness??
If could dismiss the being, I would say it was not evil or corrupting, the rules and perhaps your opinion might disagree with this.
quote:
It's more than just the material world when you mess with spells.
How about the other side of the coin, an evil or neutral PC casting a spell with the Good descriptor? Do they become seduced by goodness?? Should their alignment start to "lean" towards good?
Any that meses with magic are dealing with a dark art. Even a healing spell could result in more evil then good. That blade barrier will can any alignment, part water when duration ends can kill many. I am very much of what the spell goal is not the descriptor added by the game system.
As for casting a descroptor Good spell for fairness no evil character should have access to them by rule deffinition.
Though IIRC there is no simalar restriction and the good spell certainly could be used to evil purposes. |
| oldskool |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 00:58:45
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Okay, let me add this then:
After the reconstruction was complete, the undead were destroyed. I didn't want them around stinking up the place, so we burned them.
Perhaps a form of justice. I would not impose alignment shift, for use of the spell in this manner. The goblins were dead and could have been burned sooner, but in the interest of justice they were compelled to repair the damage they caused. Not an Evil act, unless one considers Justice Evil, as oposed to some Justice systems being Evil.
This is my player's basic argument... that it is the USE the animated dead are put to rather than the ACT of animating the dead.
I can really see both sides of it. BUT, since you are drawing on either (A) evil spirits or (B) the Negative Material (and possibly evil spirits there too) to accomplish this... it's still arguably dabbling in "black" magic.
Look at it from a different angle. If a CoC character summoned Cthulhu (or any of that ilk) to destroy another irredeemably evil being, would that make the character any less tainted by the touch of darkness??
It's more than just the material world when you mess with spells.
How about the other side of the coin, an evil or neutral PC casting a spell with the Good descriptor? Do they become seduced by goodness?? Should their alignment start to "lean" towards good?
oldskool |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 17:06:15
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Okay, let me add this then:
After the reconstruction was complete, the undead were destroyed. I didn't want them around stinking up the place, so we burned them.
Perhaps a form of justice. I would not impose alignment shift, for use of the spell in this manner. The goblins were dead and could have been burned sooner, but in the interest of justice they were compelled to repair the damage they caused. Not an Evil act, unless one considers Justice Evil, as oposed to some Justice systems being Evil. |
| Melfius |
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 15:48:45
Okay, let me add this then:
After the reconstruction was complete, the undead were destroyed. I didn't want them around stinking up the place, so we burned them. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 14:12:26
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
As a wizard, I took it upon myself to raise the corpses of the goblins (ala Animate Dead) and press the shambling corpses into service doing the rebuilding, so the poor townsfolk could continue the farming efforts. My reasoning was that they caused the mess, they should fix it, too.
Was this an evil act?
I'll let you know how my DM ruled it after y'all decide what you think!
Well based on descriptor (Evil) it certainly was an evil act by the rules.
The circumstance is a little different then normal use of the spell. Evil creatures bodies being used to repair some of the damage they caused. Restitution does sound like a proper punishment.
There tend to be a few components that some will consider evil.
1) Desecration of a body, some believe the dead should not be defaced or vilplated, animate certainly can be a desecreation of a body.
2) Forcing another to do what they do not want to do, slavery. Some would consider this an evil act even if the body is dead.
3) With in game terms, drawing on negitive plane might be considered evil as well, if that interpertation is used to explain the source of the magic.
That said, it strikes me as an act of Justice, Nuetral, at that point in time. Though after repairs are completed I would watch to see what was done with the undead. |
| Vecna |
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 12:14:50
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Okay, then. In line with this discussion, let me pose this situation to y'all and see how you would have handled it:
A wizard PC (myself, to be exact  ) rescued a town, with the help of some of his good friends, from a clan of goblins. At the end of the battles, the town was pretty beat up, what with houses being burned to the ground and all, and the townsfolk were facing a couple of really bad years as they wasted good planting/harvesting time rebuilding.
As a wizard, I took it upon myself to raise the corpses of the goblins (ala Animate Dead) and press the shambling corpses into service doing the rebuilding, so the poor townsfolk could continue the farming efforts. My reasoning was that they caused the mess, they should fix it, too.
Was this an evil act?
I'll let you know how my DM ruled it after y'all decide what you think!
I think it was not evil at all. Your action didnt harm anyone and after the task you would reliese them right? (wrong?  ) and you did it for the greater good. But how the villagers responded to this?
did thay cowered in fear? If you make them understand the situation well. it is good. If I were the DM I would award you with xp and respect and good reaction from the village-folk |
|
|
