AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - The RP Police

Oh I'm sorry that my first ever post is going to be on this subject. Really I'm an ok guy.

I've noticed a real desire to follow me around when I've summoned an undead to help me out so that players can RP the situation. I have no problem with that. If you want to RP the forcible destruction of the undead by your character, assuming you have a justifiable RP reason to do so (druids for example), I have no problems at all. My character isn't going to try to murder someone over what amounts to messing up one of her spells.

What is kind of a letdown is getting semi OOC lectures on my diety, and telling me what my character is likely to do. What fun is that for either of us?

Certain undead are NON sentient simple automatons. They are NOT all souls pulled back from death. I doubt a 3rd level cleric spell has the power to summon a sentient soul to do my characters bidding. But I got a lecture about a spell that I cast after I had RP'd the fact that the undead was nonsentient, telling me "yes it was sentient". What a drag.

The character who was having a problem was an arcane caster well above my level, so I doubt that the mysteries of negative energy would have been so surprising to him, any more than a negative energy ray would have been.

Faerun is a nasty place. People in it master all kinds of energies to try to achieve their goals. They go down into the depths and wage deadly war against sentient species for personal gain, leaving broken bodies in their wake. But raising up a non-sentient automaton is somehow more shocking than that.

I won't summon my drippy nasty undead at the dinner table. But please don't lecture me on the tools my that my character's deity gave her to achieve her aims. The point of the game is to have fun. I checked the server lore and rules and I feel I was in compliance with the body of knowledge to date.

Yes I am new, I'm trying to learn, I want to add to the community, I respect the DMs and senior players who have spent time to create this world, and all that stuff. I have tried to make my case respectfully. Flame if you must.

thanks,
tech

Im not 100 percent of the lore, but generally undead are once sentient beings pulled forth to do your whim. The lore junkies will be around shorty to spam this thread Im sure.

I personally see it as undead were once sentient, they've been dead and through some odd power you have, you somehow can rip said being from a interdimensional shift (straight from Kelemvor) which pisses off people. Or actually have dug up the grave and animated a corpse, which can even piss off the goodie goodies and the evil types.

Just cause Im evil doesn't mean its cool to play with the dead, etc etc, a DM will give ya a more concrete ruling Im sure.

Nice attitude.

Anyways, undeath by itself, sentinent or not, is defined as big time evil simply because the gods say so and it is so in the setting. It does not require the undead to be of any certain type.

If you are a cleric of a good god, expect big time trouble.

Oh, and the Kelemvorite Inquisition eventually gets everyone.

techpriest wrote:

What is kind of a letdown is getting semi OOC lectures on my diety, and telling me what my character is likely to do. What fun is that for either of us?

Other people aren't likely to have a real idea on what someone elses character is "Likely to do" for the fact it isn't their character, it sounds like someone telling you how to RP your own character, I'd ignore it myself, and I know how annoying it can be being told you are RP'ing your own character wrong.

techpriest wrote:

"yes it was sentient".

AFAIK all undead are not sentient, no matter how you obtained them, not saying that is true but I don't come across many situationds where an undead being has turned out to be sentient.

Last edited by Silvarus on Mon, Aug 03 2009, 18:03 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Anubis wrote:

Quote:

"yes it was sentient".

AFAIK all undead are not sentient, no matter how you obtained them, not saying that is true but I don't come across many situationds where an undead being has turned out to be sentient.

Mummies, Liches, Vampires, Ghosts and all things ghost-like and so on and on and on. Basically everything above low-level cannon-fodder are sentient.

It is just the worker drone skeletons and zombies and their kind that are non-sentient.

Also, deities have rather clear dogmas, and very clearly breaking the deitys dogma ends up with a fallen cleric. A case of "do not tell me how a character should be played" does not apply in cases where a role is pre-defined. I assume in this case the deity is not Kelemvor or Lathander or other very obvious one though so it probably is not an obvious clash with the will of the deity.

Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, Aug 03 2009, 18:04 PM, edited 2 times in total.

I agree with the OP, to quite an extent. The point isn't whether the undead is really sentinent, whether it suffers, or if it's a soul pulled from the afterlife (which is never the case with undead you create - pulling an unwilling soul from a justified afterlife is beyond even the gods, let alone mortals - you cannot create vampires, ghosts or liches, you only summon them AFAIK). These are highly abstract, technical points nobody in the Realms has 100% certainty of, and only the accomplished arcanists and theologers even debate.

So yeah, it's lame to get a half-OOC lecture from another PC who, by all rights, shouldn't even know most of the stuff he says, and even if he did, care about it. Undead are abhorrent to most people because it's seen as blasphemy, it's gross, nobody wants that fate for themselves or their loved ones, and zombies eat your brains. When you see a necromancer raising an army of skeletons in the village crypt to take over your homes, you don't object because he "uses negative energies and disrupts the balanced cycle of life, as well as offends certain doctrines of his patron deity." You object because the animated corpe of your dear gramps is going to cut you to bits and eat you nomnomnom.

I often witness the same tendency for OOC lecturing with many subjects, particularly when it comes to gods and magic. I wish people just treated these things with the irrational fear, respect and suspicion that you would feel when faced with powers far beyond your ken. I can't force you to RP like that, but personally I find the opposite method incredibly boring and off-putting.

The objective rulebook facts about whether a certain type of undead is made from souls or not don't really matter if a character has a subjectiv view that anyone dealing with undead should be hanged regardless. Characters can be wrong, zealous, ill-informed or just blood-thirsty, you know.

PvP rules are to be applied regardless too, of course.

Flaming is prohibited on the forums.

If actions are occuring IC, as a result of IC actions that is fine.
If you are getting OOC flack from players for anything ask them to stop. If they do not, take screenshots and PM them to a DM, if one is not online, this is harassment.

Sentient undead are as Silvarus described. The only one which has concrete evidence of even possessing a soul at all is a lich to my knowledge.

No PC has the power to rip a soul from the Fugue plane. I'm not sure even if any mortal would have that power. The only souls I know that are taken from the fugue plane are eaten out of the wall (Already judged faithless) by Tannar'ri raids, or signed contracts with Baat'ezu.

Going to the source:

Libris Mortis wrote:

SENTIENCE

The ability to think is a quality the vast bulk of undead do not
possess. Mindless undead merely respond to preset commands
or stimuli, driven by nothing other than the energy that animates
them. These undead have no outlook; they are robbed
of thought. They are nearly mechanical in their actions, and
often those actions are as easy to anticipate as the revolution
of a water wheel.

On the other hand, sometimes mindless undead are agents of an
intelligent master, whether undead or merely malign. Thus, even
mindless undead may prove to be surprising foes, if their positions
and responses to a given situation are properly coordinated and
prepared. Only sentient undead have the luxury of possessing an
outlook and a comprehensible psychological state.

Bear in mind Liber Mortis is not a realms product and not canon lore. I very much agree with Iron on the principle of characters suddenly knowing too much.

There is a difference between knowing something oocily and then having your character know it icly. I doubt most non magic folk have any idea what so ever negative energy is exactly. They see flashes of light and the risen corpse suddenly going for their throats.

What I mean to say is that ic accusations is all fine and dandy but take care not to begin taking the dicussion about the exact nature of undead into some ooc field. Most character, even necromancers will perhaps never find out and there will also be details characters will never discover.

Assume whichever you feel like icly about other character's action but as pointed out it is a terrible idea to begin saying "rps the wrong way"

If a kelly suddenly starts a large necro buisness the dms will find out and control the actions of the npc envoirnment. In this case Kelemvor would be likely to stop granting said cleric spells.

Thank you for your helpful advice. I rerolled so as not to create future problems. Thanks for letting me play here!

Now the way i see it (this is just logical thought and not lore of any sort just my own personal take) Summon undead works the same way as dominate undead. The difference being that you bring the creature to your current location and dominate it at the same time. So in essence the spell searches the surrounding area for a possible deadite to bring back with it and grabs one and presto, fodder.. seems a goodly aligned cleric would be doing his holy work by summoning and dispatching as many as he could *winks*

The problem is, we're dealing with a twofold matter here:

The DM's want to maintain setting coherency and Faerun has some pretty clear guidelines and rules, when it comes to deific Dogmas and behaviour of certain faiths.

But, by the same token, we also want to be fair to players who aren't familiar with Forgotten Realms.

I know for a fact that I can get a bit lecturey at times but it's likely frustration from having seen the same sort of stuff that might seem 'cool' to someone not as intimately familiar with the setting and such, but to someone who's in tune with the setting realizes 'this is REAAAAALLLLY bad' ...

I also admit at the same time there are times I come up with some odd stuff that might not entirely come off as typical for the setting but I do my best to fit it in.

If nothing else Techpriest, I can try to answer any questions you might have if you fire off a PM to me. I imagine many of the DMs would do the same.

IronAngel wrote:

I often witness the same tendency for OOC lecturing with many subjects, particularly when it comes to gods and magic. I wish people just treated these things with the irrational fear, respect and suspicion that you would feel when faced with powers far beyond your ken. I can't force you to RP like that, but personally I find the opposite method incredibly boring and off-putting.

This is generally me. I hardly know or care about half the stuff concerning undead and religion ICly.

You can always earn 10 DC's an get your undead reskinned to something awesome and then watch people flinch when you summon it

*creeps off creepily*

Without knowing the OP's character's deity, all that can be done is speculation. Perhaps s/he belongs to a faith that doesn't really care if it's clerics are using undead for whatever purpose.

As far as OOC-complaining about the way you RP your character is concerned, well.... most of the time you can tell them to shove it in that special place where the sun doesn't usually shine. No player has the right to tell you how to or how not to RP your character.

Lalelilolu wrote:

You can always earn 10 DC's an get your undead reskinned to something awesome and then watch people flinch when you summon it

*creeps off creepily*

Sorry to go OT, but if it's okay me asking, do Undead reaskins have to be reskinned to something else in which has immunity to sneaks, crits, mind spells etc... or can it be reskinned to anything within good reason?

Ainjyll wrote:

No player has the right to tell you how to or how not to RP your character

I couldn't agree more if I tried.

Summoning undead is an evil act, pure and simple, regardless of whether they are sentient or not.
Having a go at someone OOCly is an evil act, pure and simple, regardless of whether they are sentient or not.

The point I am trying to make with my 'joke (such that it is) is that while things may be ICly unacceptable, please don't carry them over to OOC disputes. OOC is where all the politeness and fun should be in the otherwise dark and dreary world of evil and magical figting.

Yurell wrote:

Summoning undead is an evil act, pure and simple, regardless of whether they are sentient or not.
Having a go at someone OOCly is an evil act, pure and simple, regardless of whether they are sentient or not.

Easily the funniest thing I've read in the past few days.

Could it not be argued however that use of the spell 'Summon Monster 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9' is in itself an evil act seeing as they lack any kind of will pertaining to who they attack?

Also I find myself disagreeing with Silvarus, as not all undead are evil and not all the good deities think so.

For instance, take Baelnorns, elven liches (All of which are non-evil) tasked with protecting elven ruins and such. Now, I doubt the elven pantheon would appreciate such creatures defending the ruins of their ancestral homelands (Such as Myth Drannor) if they thought all undeath was evil eh!?

There's also revenants and while they don't look pretty, they can be of any allignment iirc - Granted people are more likely to smite these things on sight.

EDIT: I apologise for opening a can of worms, if I have I mean. I just enjoy these sorts of debates.

Last edited by FA_Frey_XC on Tue, Aug 04 2009, 4:01 AM, edited 2 times in total.

Silvarus wrote:

Nice attitude.

Oh, and the Kelemvorite Inquisition eventually gets everyone.

Except for a certain lich :lol:

IronAngel wrote:

I agree with the OP, to quite an extent. The point isn't whether the undead is really sentinent, whether it suffers, or if it's a soul pulled from the afterlife (which is never the case with undead you create - pulling an unwilling soul from a justified afterlife is beyond even the gods, let alone mortals - you cannot create vampires, ghosts or liches, you only summon them AFAIK). These are highly abstract, technical points nobody in the Realms has 100% certainty of, and only the accomplished arcanists and theologers even debate.

Iron, liches create themselves in most cases. There's ONE lich PC who lives just off the Isle of Amia, in a town called Tarkuul. In regards to the specifics, you are correct - NO ONE (with the exceptions of Pale Masters on Amia - It was explained to me by Tormak that Palemasters are given a bit more "lattitude" on Amia in regards to souls, but feel free to jump in and correct me if that's changed DMzorz

) can mess with the "soul" of any person.

Of course, the more .. militant of some religions, or religious zealots if you will, will certainly do everything they can to ensure this information does =NOT= become common knowledge, and actively spread propeganda against it.

Why? Because that's what they =believe=

, and that's as it =should= be.

Hence why most of the populace (read non-adventuring NPCS) are scared shitless of Necromancers and *gasp* True Necromancers (the clerical , not arcane).. because of these stories, tales and what not told by those organizations zealouts, so as to allow them to continue to SMITE SMITE SMITE.

What's hilarious is most natural occuring undead are actually PUNISHMENTS, IE someone was SOOOO bad in life, a murderer or what not, that the Gods condemn them to eternal undeath in the form of +insert appropriate undead here+... or they are haunts - the spirits of people trapped in one form or another.

Summoning undead does exactly what the above poster stated - it literally finds a naturally occuring undead, pulls them from their normal haunt, and dominates them , binding them to your will to command. When that undead is discorporated, it simply reforms back in it's original haunt, or is outright destroyed.

Which, by the same twisted mentality one could purport is a good act. That's why Frey's always thought of himself as a Divine Agent... he uses tools created by the Gods to do his bidding, and if they are destroyed, then either he re-summons them ( to again do his bidding, instead of simply haunting) or they are destroyed permenantly, freeing the soul to its ultimate end destination.

IronAngel wrote:

So yeah, it's lame to get a half-OOC lecture from another PC who, by all rights, shouldn't even know most of the stuff he says, and even if he did, care about it. Undead are abhorrent to most people because it's seen as blasphemy, it's gross, nobody wants that fate for themselves or their loved ones, and zombies eat your brains. When you see a necromancer raising an army of skeletons in the village crypt to take over your homes, you don't object because he "uses negative energies and disrupts the balanced cycle of life, as well as offends certain doctrines of his patron deity." You object because the animated corpe of your dear gramps is going to cut you to bits and eat you nomnomnom.

How can I work up the necessary vehemenence for our next discussion on alignment when you write such jewels as this! So right... and this next bit...

IronAngel wrote:

I often witness the same tendency for OOC lecturing with many subjects, particularly when it comes to gods and magic. I wish people just treated these things with the irrational fear, respect and suspicion that you would feel when faced with powers far beyond your ken. I can't force you to RP like that, but personally I find the opposite method incredibly boring and off-putting.

As do I. It would be soooo nice for people to actually RP fearing those things, and it's effects. I literally groan inside when Sasha is summoned, and someone sees this little undead girl with a huge chunk missing out of her neck that oozes black ichor, staring at you with blank, lifeless eyes and mewling...

and they emote "Raises eyebrow, then smiles and offers the little one a cookie".

*sigh*

Silent2001 wrote:

Could it not be argued however that use of the spell 'Summon Monster 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9' is in itself an evil act seeing as they lack any kind of will pertaining to who they attack?

Also I find myself disagreeing with Silvarus, as not all undead are evil and not all the good deities think so.

For instance, take Baelnorns, elven liches (All of which are non-evil) tasked with protecting elven ruins and such. Now, I doubt the elven pantheon would appreciate such creatures defending the ruins of their ancestral homelands (Such as Myth Drannor) if they thought all undeath was evil eh!?

There's also revenants and while they don't look pretty, they can be of any allignment iirc - Granted people are more likely to smite these things on sight.

EDIT: I apologise for opening a can of worms, if I have I mean. I just enjoy these sorts of debates.

Ah, but relativity and morals both bare no purpose in D&D - with planes that are embody good and evil, a god to sum up your life of good and evil acts, there is absolutes for good and evil. Which means you can argue that 'Summon Monster 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9' is evil - and you'll be wrong (unless you're using it to summon an evil creature).

Moral relativism vs moral absolutism debates work in real life, but D&D is all about absolutes, and with the very occasional exception (such as Baelnorn afaik) the creation of undead is inherently evil.

There is a difference between what We know and what our characters know. Amareth knows about belanorns, being an educated sun elf from evermeet. However Fariha does not, if she was to encounter one, she would treat it as another lich. Just as because I know something does not mean my characters do.

Absolutes typically apply to outsiders and the planes, but less so to mortals. There are also variant rules that relax things like the use of negative energy, seeing it simply as an unaligned force of destruction rather than inherently evil.

Like us mortals in real life, our PC's were given free will and their own set morals to follow.

While PC A might think "Hrm, I need this summon to deal with such and such" PC B might think "Do I really want to endanger another creature to meet my own ends?"

Oh, you can still have those debates ICly, but the fact that is also known ICly that there is good and evil, just how it is applied is up to the characters. That doesn't mean they can get of doing an evil act because they think it is good, though.

Silent2001 wrote:

Absolutes typically apply to outsiders and the planes, but less so to mortals. There are also variant rules that relax things like the use of negative energy, seeing it simply as an unaligned force of destruction rather than inherently evil.

Like us mortals in real life, our PC's were given free will and their own set morals to follow.

While PC A might think "Hrm, I need this summon to deal with such and such" PC B might think "Do I really want to endanger another creature to meet my own ends?"

Incorrect.

Alignments are absolute in this Realm. This means there is no grey area. Summoning undead is evil... PERIOD.

There's just no grey area, you =cannot= try to abscribe current morality and what not to this realm, it just doesn't work, unless you take away the following:

Smite Evil
Smite Good
Undeath to death

and many .. many more.

People want to try to play the "I'm just misunderstood" card all the time, but in reality, they misunderstand THEMSELVES.

You summon undead or create it, your evil. Period.

Yurell wrote:

Ah, but relativity and morals both bare no purpose in D&D - with planes that are embody good and evil, a god to sum up your life of good and evil acts, there is absolutes for good and evil. Which means you can argue that 'Summon Monster 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9' is evil - and you'll be wrong (unless you're using it to summon an evil creature).

Moral relativism vs moral absolutism debates work in real life, but D&D is all about absolutes, and with the very occasional exception (such as Baelnorn afaik) the creation of undead is inherently evil.

Except for Good Liches.

Yes, they exist, atleast in FR theory. Go ahead and wrap your mind around that one.

:shock:

Regards,

Baelnorns.

Not liches. They are animated by Positive energy, have no phylactery, if 'slain' they die.

There's also other sorts although I am NOT certain if they exist in Faerun, specifically Deathless.

I'd say they are neutral or lawful evil. They tend to be the type to protect their kin over generations of such. What they did was evil. Evil to the max. But the long term actions of doing what they did outweigh the short term consequences in their mind.

Why not good lichs? They are immortal (In an ageless sense), and thus have unlimited time and near unlimited power to regain themselves in the eye's of the gods.

Kinda like in this one game a really annoy character existed, and you always took the "kill him" option, just because you could get rid of him and make up for it at a later date.

MM wrote:

Lich Characters
The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.

I'm guessing that 'unspeakably' doubles as a synonym for 'irredeemably', since you'd probably have to be really evil to be willing to do that stuff anyway.

Silent2001 wrote:

Could it not be argued however that use of the spell 'Summon Monster 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9' is in itself an evil act seeing as they lack any kind of will pertaining to who they attack?

The spell merely summons the creature from someplace else and binds it to your will. Had some fun talking about that with Crow. After the spell is over or they are 'slain' are they retruning to the place where they came from, unharmed and just ticked off. And truth to be told, so would I be when someone rips me off from under the shower and suddenly expects me to fight for him.

Silent2001 wrote:

Also I find myself disagreeing with Silvarus, as not all undead are evil and not all the good deities think so.

For instance, take Baelnorns, elven liches (All of which are non-evil) tasked with protecting elven ruins and such. Now, I doubt the elven pantheon would appreciate such creatures defending the ruins of their ancestral homelands (Such as Myth Drannor) if they thought all undeath was evil eh!?

I think the requirement to become a Baelnorn is that you are good too. And as said before, they are filled with positivie energy, not negative like Lich's.

Yurell wrote:

MM wrote:

Lich Characters
The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.

I'm guessing that 'unspeakably' doubles as a synonym for 'irredeemably', since you'd probably have to be really evil to be willing to do that stuff anyway.

And we all know that Redemption Equals Death

Believe it or not, there's actually a method to reverse the process of lichdome... no I'm not talking about discorporation, but actually reverting the lich to it's base race before the Ritual.

Same kinda process, it's almost NOT guaranteed to work.. but the possibility is there.

While also not applicable, Libris MOrtis also talks of such things, as well as a Necropolis and how to gain entrance to it.

Very interesting stuff if your into it.

Regards,

Baelnorns are as good of a joke as the Undead Druid that is canon in FR. I never even smiled at them.

Non-evil Mummies and ghosts on the other hand might be a more interesting point to pull in these discussions. Ghosts definitely can be of any alignment and I remember the same about mummies from some sourcel. In those cases it is the Undeath that is seen as evil by Undead hunters, not the creature itself, and releasing the creature from the evil curse is the main concern.

There's also a Neutral Undead Deity of Love in Libris Mortis, and because Baelnorns are composed of positive energy doesn't make them any less undead - infact Positive and Negative energy are just as dangerous as each other and visiting either plane means certain death in most cases. Granted the Negative Energy Plane does make you wither and die, the positive energy plane makes you feel great and awesome until you explode.

Which may hint at the fact that if you did become a necropolitan/vampire/whatever there's a chance of redemption if you revere this deity of eternal love.

Anyway! I never said that creating undead was a good act, merely that there are undead that aren't exactly evil.

But I mean Allignment isn't a straight jacket, a Lawful Good character could be just as likely to do something evil as a Lawful Evil character. Hence why there's the ole' good/neutral/lawful/evil points or what have you.

Where as if you ran into a Planetar they'd never consider doing an evil act as they are the embodiment of good, and thus absolute in regards to allignment. (Granted some still fall, though that's largely through evil outsiders doing something funny.). Where as a Lawful Good character has the option of considering doing something evil if the end result is for the greater good.

Granted their still going to get a lot of evil points and possibly shift towards neutral if they did.

And evil characters are capable of good acts, where as fiends really aren't (Again, some fiends can transcend and become 'fallen/arisen' but this is reeeeally rare.).

And Undeath to Death works universally on all undead afaik.

So you see if allignments were absolutes it'd make PC's rather dull in my opinion.

Also; wouldn't a resuerrection on a bit of the Liches body at the time of his death restore him? Provided the appropriate spells were cast on the body part to keep it fresh.

Silent2001 wrote:

There's also a Neutral Undead Deity of Love in Libris Mortis

I asked on the Lore Question thread a while ago - she doesn't appearto exist in FR

Silent2001 wrote:

and because Baelnorns are composed of positive energy doesn't make them any less undead - infact Positive and Negative energy are just as dangerous as each other and visiting either plane means certain death in most cases. Granted the Negative Energy Plane does make you wither and die, the positive energy plane makes you feel great and awesome until you explode.

But there is a big difference between them - negative energy represents entropy, decay, whilst positive the opposite

Silent2001 wrote:

But I mean Allignment isn't a straight jacket, a Lawful Good character could be just as likely to do something evil as a Lawful Evil character. Hence why there's the ole' good/neutral/lawful/evil points or what have you.

Just as likely? If it were just as likely he'd be LE, not LG.

Silent2001 wrote:

Where as if you ran into a Planetar they'd never consider doing an evil act as they are the embodiment of good, and thus absolute in regards to allignment. (Granted some still fall, though that's largely through evil outsiders doing something funny.). Where as a Lawful Good character has the option of considering doing something evil if the end result is for the greater good.

That's the difference between normal and Exalted characters right there.

Silent2001 wrote:

And evil characters are capable of good acts, where as fiends really aren't (Again, some fiends can transcend and become 'fallen/arisen' but this is reeeeally rare.).

Thats wrong - fiends are quite capable and do do good acts. Especially if it gets them what they want.

Silent2001 wrote:

And Undeath to Death works universally on all undead afaik.

So you see if allignments were absolutes it'd make PC's rather dull in my opinion.

They are absolutes, it specifically says that in the PHB. They may be fuzzy bordered, but they are absolutes.

Silent2001 wrote:

Also; wouldn't a resuerrection on a bit of the Liches body at the time of his death restore him? Provided the appropriate spells were cast on the body part to keep it fresh.

Don't think so, not if his Phylactory is still around.

Resurrection can restore undead to life if and only if the creature has not passed their age of death, but considering undeath is usually used to prolong life, that is very rarely going to happen, and thus resurrection usually just destroys undead.

I was implying the choice is there, and with the fiend thing I was implying that fiends aren't going to go around doing random acts of kindness, sure they'd do something good if the end result was profitable but they aren't going to do it out of the kindess of their heart, and they certainly aren't going to be selfless.

There are also non-Evil Archliches, who aren't Baelnorns. The concept of undeath in the Realms is not evil, nor are all undead.

The spells that create or summon undead are evil. This is part of the spell description: they have the "Evil" descriptor, just like Scorching Ray has the "Fire" descriptor.

Now, I could play the Devil's advocate and exercise some logic: even if we agree that a spell itself is evil, that does not mean that casting the spell is inevitably evil. That steps beyond irrefutable deduction, and therefore is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Logically, it is as sound as saying that a mother giving birth to an evil person is performing an evil act. While the spell will always remain evil, its use in a greater context might not be evil; though it would never be completely good either, because it would be marred by the supernatural taint of evil.

There certainly is a Gray area in the game, because situations are never simple. There are many actions that aren't purely Good or Evil, but fall somewhere in between. To use the classic example: what if you had to raise a skeleton to save a child? Refusing to do so would mean choosing the child's death. To most DMs, that would be an evil aspect of the decision. On the other hand, upholding your principles and refusing to use an evil tool for a good end would be seen as Good and probably Lawful. If instead you chose to raise the skeleton and save the child, you would have done a good deed in saving an innocent life. Yet the good cause would be tainted somewhat by the evil tool you chose to use. As you can see, neither option would be 100% Good or 100% Evil; they have aspects of both. That's what the Gray area is: the area where neither ideal Good nor ideal Evil can be acheived, and everything you do will resonate both with the Good and Evil absolutes of the multiverse.

It's the same as with real life, really: even if you believe there are absolute moral values, you will encounter a gray area when two moral values clash. This is the problem Kant didn't address, and one major flaw of his moral theory: what to do when two equally compelling absolute moral duties conflict?

Of course, whether casting the spell is evil, is not a matter of PC opinion; it's a matter of DM/player opinion, and should play absolutely no part in how you RP your characters. On one hand, I like these kind of discussions because they really let you dig into the semantics of these ridicilous fantasy rules. On the other, though, these discussions are very harmful: people might use this OOC knowledge of alignments, magic rules and game mechanics as IC information, which it never is. Nothing in this thread really has any IC relevance, so it's best to keep in mind this is merely an academic disccussion; not a guide to how to play your character, or a list of "acceptable" things for your non-Evil aspiring necromancer to do. Despite everything I've said above, I'll probably still give you evil points for wanton use of undead summons.

On another note:

What is that you find so ridicilous about Baelnorns, Silvarus? What do you think is bad about the concept?

Abandon your notions of stereotypical D&D undead and what rules the PHB gives: the Forgotten Realms existed ten years before the first edition of D&D was ever published, so holding it to the standards of the game does no justice to the setting. If we were to treat the Realms as a fantasy setting completely detached from other D&D products (as we rightfully should, at all times), what's wrong with the idea of immortal guardians of elven secrets, chosen by the gods themselves?

IronAngel wrote:

On another note:

What is that you find so ridicilous about Baelnorns, Silvarus? What do you think is bad about the concept?

Abandon your notions of stereotypical D&D undead and what rules the PHB gives: the Forgotten Realms existed ten years before the first edition of D&D was ever published, so holding it to the standards of the game does no justice to the setting. If we were to treat the Realms as a fantasy setting completely detached from other D&D products (as we rightfully should, at all times), what's wrong with the idea of immortal guardians of elven secrets, chosen by the gods themselves?

That they are grouped with creatures that are at their best as unknown absolute evil. Immortal guardians of elven secrets does not require mixing them with undead.

I like undead to be absolutely horrible and awesome like Dracula or any other old myth and how they are in Ravenloft, not a bunch of hippies.

Only thing that REALLY pisses me off with Baelnorn is how they are always pulled up as "Aha, look, an obscure exception from a weird source, you *insert paladin/Kelemvorite/good guy/undead hunter here* were always wrong, come, let us go and huggle with zombies!"

Well, that's certainly a good point. They can't really be used to defend the typical undead you raise; indeed, they cannot even be created by normal mortals, you'd need a circle of high mages and a willing subject, or divine intervention (which I think is more common).

For me, "undead" simply means things that have been alive once, but aren't anymore. Ghosts, like Sylûne of the Seven Sisters, as another example, are "undead" too: not alive, not dead. I really don't like to attach any stigma to words and categories, because a PC should know to abhor a rotting corpse walking, either way.

Quote:

A baelnorn can be of any non evil (mainly Lawful Good) alignment, retaining whatever alignment it had in life.

I don't think the alignment of Baelnorn does say much. If you stumble upon an ancient elven whatever and you get caught by one, he's most likely to obliterate you as non-elf. And even as elf you'd better have a very good reason to be there. In my opinion.

Well, I don't see what relevance that has to the topic. They're powerful, ancient and scary, yeah. But no, they're probably more gentle than most live elves, considering they've had an eternity to think about things and are picked from among the wisest and most powerful to begin with. The Srinshee was a Baelnorn, you know!

I suppose it boils down to DM descretion really, and to put it simply does the end justify the means?

Some PC's will hold their moral code above all, where as others might be more inclined to go against it for the life of an innocent and so on.

But yeah, creating undead via the spells is evil, though I personally find the idea of undead of all alignments quite interesting, it certainly makes the Kelemvorites lives more interesting I'd wager.

Anti-discrimination speeches are the things that tick me off. When you walk through a city and drop some snide comments about the pack of smelly Goblins that scatter about the street, and a chick comes up to you and says "You leave these Goblins alone, you mean man! They have just the same rights as we do!"

But in reality, I'm all for a little diversity when it's a field where you will really (really really) usually only find evil contenders, such as Undead. No one would lift a brow about a good-aligned Drow paladin. Undead is a pretty virgin subject in that regard, where a good alignment would really have to struggle. This is why I think Baelnorn are way cool.

At the end of the day, whether your PC is a hardass against Undead or he comes from the other end of the spectrum.. both is fine, as long as you don't feel the player oozing out his better-than-yours FR lore through every sentence.

IronAngel wrote:

To use the classic example: what if you had to raise a skeleton to save a child? Refusing to do so would mean choosing the child's death. To most DMs, that would be an evil aspect of the decision. On the other hand, upholding your principles and refusing to use an evil tool for a good end would be seen as Good and probably Lawful. If instead you chose to raise the skeleton and save the child, you would have done a good deed in saving an innocent life. Yet the good cause would be tainted somewhat by the evil tool you chose to use. As you can see, neither option would be 100% Good or 100% Evil; they have aspects of both. That's what the Gray area is: the area where neither ideal Good nor ideal Evil can be acheived, and everything you do will resonate both with the Good and Evil absolutes of the multiverse.

The summoning of the skeleton is still an evil act, though. What you use it for isn't, but casting the spell is (eg. if you're Exalted you've definitely just lost that status).
The thing about D&D morality is that it is absolute - actions can be (inherently) good or evil regardless of their intent.

Whilst being good and summoning the skeleton for that reason will probably drive you towards Chaotic Good, that s no to say that the act itself isn't evil. The act of saving the child might shift you towards Good, whilst the Good person summoning the skeleton shifts towards Chaotic and Evil (these are minute shifts ... no on is going to change your alignment for something like that), so you end up with a net shift towards Chaotic (and probably a little Evil).
Some people would probably need Atonement after casting this.

This way one can see that the person who constantly summons undead to protect his friends although he has the best intentions at heart, is slowly slipping into evil.

Of course, everything above is conjecture and my opinion.

xordae wrote:

Anti-discrimination speeches are the things that tick me off. When you walk through a city and drop some snide comments about the pack of smelly Goblins that scatter about the street, and a chick comes up to you and says "You leave these Goblins alone, you mean man! They have just the same rights as we do!"

"Unless you feel like travelling a little north. Then you can slaughter them all day".

xordae wrote:

At the end of the day, whether your PC is a hardass against Undead or he comes from the other end of the spectrum.. both is fine, as long as you don't feel the player oozing out his better-than-yours FR lore through every sentence.

So long as it stays IC is what is important.

Yeah, but if you continue summoning skeletons to protect your friends does your personality fundamentally change when you hit that CE in your allignment, or do you continue (Trying at least) to be whatever it was when you were LG? Perhaps you become a deluded do gooder who ends up getting smited down by a paladin. That'd actually be quite amusing.

Silent2001 wrote:

Yeah, but if you continue summoning skeletons to protect your friends does your personality fundamentally change when you hit that CE in your allignment, or do you continue (Trying at least) to be whatever it was when you were LG? Perhaps you become a deluded do gooder who ends up getting smited down by a paladin. That'd actually be quite amusing.

The important distinction is that your alignment represents how you act, not the other way around.

IronAngel wrote:

To use the classic example: what if you had to raise a skeleton to save a child? Refusing to do so would mean choosing the child's death. To most DMs, that would be an evil aspect of the decision. On the other hand, upholding your principles and refusing to use an evil tool for a good end would be seen as Good and probably Lawful. If instead you chose to raise the skeleton and save the child, you would have done a good deed in saving an innocent life. Yet the good cause would be tainted somewhat by the evil tool you chose to use. As you can see, neither option would be 100% Good or 100% Evil; they have aspects of both. That's what the Gray area is: the area where neither ideal Good nor ideal Evil can be acheived, and everything you do will resonate both with the Good and Evil absolutes of the multiverse.

Actually, it's the DM's responsibility to decide that, based upon the standards and consistant themes that DM had in place for the realm.

In this case, it can be also argued that the Gods had planned for the young child to die in such a way, to test the Good guy, placing temptation into their path to see how they would react. Considering there is a guarantee of afterlife in these realms, such a concept isn't so terrible, considering the child's soul will return to its Gods realm, and in some case even be sent back to live again, at their Gods discretion.

Hence, the act itself being evil equates to the individual practicing the act evil, simply because they =chose= to use that particular means.

Another option would have been for the Paladin to attempt to save the child themselves, even at the risk of their immediate death, and then calling UPON the power of their God to aid them.

That's something I never understand on Amia.. why more clerics don't do such ... yet of course I know why, because the Gods never respond, atleast not like they would in a normal FR Campaign setting. And no, I don't mean just the clerical spells they get normally... I mean invoking their Gods name for aid, at the face of impossible odds.

Regards,

The RP Police - Undead

Who is online