Roll-play vs Role-play, as well as your take on alignments

Very intelligent post, this is the same view I take for the most part. I can understand religion in a world where gods very obviously do exist no question so good and evil have the same relationship. Now here is where problems rise up, spells. A good example is the animate dead  Animate  Dead Necromancy  [ Evil ] Level : Clr  3,  Death  3,  Sor/Wiz  4 Components : V, S, M Casting time : 1  standard action Range : Touch Targets : One or more corpses touched Duration : Instantaneous Saving Throw : None Spell Resistance : No This spell turns the bones or bodies of  dead  creatures into  undead   skeletons  or  zombies  that follow your spoken commands. The  undead  can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.) Notice something? The spell is labeled evil. But why is it? Besides just accepting that the universe see's undead as evil how does reanimating meat become evil? It's using negative energy to make something move and last time I checked negative energy is not evil else the negative energy plane would be the most evil place in the multiverse.  And that aside what happens if a player uses this spell and dose good with it? Do they become neutral aligned because they are using an "evil spell" to perform good? The zombie and skeleton this spell makes has no int score so they can not think or even act without orders and thus cannot be evil or good, I had to explain this to my party member when he argued undead where naturally evil.

Jason L. said: Now here is where problems rise up, spells. And that aside what happens if a player uses this spell and dose good with it? Do they become neutral aligned because they are using an "evil spell" to perform good? The zombie and skeleton this spell makes has no int score so they can not think or even act without orders and thus cannot be evil or good, I had to explain this to my party member when he argued undead where naturally evil. Both of these cases present an interesting dichotomy that the GM has to determine which is appropriate for the given campaign setting. I know that, in Eberron, animating the dead to turn them into soldiers isn't viewed as any more evil than creating constructs for the same purpose. This fits with Eberron's alignment construct heavily emphasizing intent amongst mortal alignment rather than the action itself. Conversely, in Greyhawk, the action would be explicitly evil. Even the necromancers that do good with their magic (assuming it's not anti-necromancy necromancy, like protection from undead and spells that turn necrotic energy against the undead) can, at best, hope to remain neutral or something akin to "corrupted good". It's for the same reason that the magic jar spell is evil, along with a bunch of other interesting but powerful spells (just check out the BvD; there are a *bunch* of kewl spells in there that could be used in a heroic, if gruesome, manner). The universe makes some arbitrary distinctions about certain things: animating pretty much anything with an elemental spirit is unaligned but animating the same materials with negative energy is evil. Even if creating a flesh or bone golem is actually *more* likely to create a rampaging destructive monster and capable of *greater* evil than summoning or creating undead with the exact same materials, it's not evil because the universe has, essentially, decided that it *isn't* evil (though it is, quite often, more than a bit reproachable). The universe just doesn't like people using magic to screw around with other people's souls or bodily remains without their permission (even "speak with the dead" was reworked to not actually summon the dead creature's soul but instead behave more like corpse specific psychometry). The only reason Raise Dead and the like aren't evil is because the person only comes back to life if they're willing. Anything that *forced* someone to come back to life would, in all likelihood, be evil.

That's the kicker, animate dead never says anything about the person's soul being forced back in. Most Dm's hand wave it saying that even though the rules make no mention of it they personaly belive there is a soul in there, even though it has no int score and when you cast awaken undead you are to assume it was a warrior npc class (even if you knew for a fact the undead was a wizard)

I recall, vaguely (it's been a long while since I did anything in-depth with 3.Xe) that in 3.X, animating the corpse of a living creature prevents the previous owner's soul from moving on to the afterlife (or pulls it from its previous state of rest and places it in a state of limbo). While it doesn't shove the soul back *in* to the body, it anchors the soul and prevents it from moving on in order to fuel the undead's movements (since, you know, they don't have to sustain themselves). The anchoring of the soul so that it can't move on is the reasoning behind the evil attribution. Conversely, you could just argue that the undead are anathema to the universe itself. Raise Dead is bringing someone back to life, but creating undead is creating a mockery of life itself. Basically, the universe only likes 2 states of being: dead and alive. The undead state is abhorrent and, as such, evil by default.

I'd think thats pretty fair, on the point of souls though, I think flesh and bone golems do the same thing,

Golems utilize elemental binding, not the binding of mortal souls, iirc, so, under the assumption that it is the antagonization and manipulation of the mortal soul that is defined as being universally evil, the creation of golems isn't necessarily evil since it's not evil to control elementals. A golem that *were* fueled by mortal souls would definitely constitute an evil creation, but I don't believe that it's explicitly *necessary* to use mortal souls rather than other animating forces to bring a golem to life. In fact, I believe that the reason that golems go nuts is because of the elemental animating force rather than a more stable mechanism.

They go nuts because they are imprisoned actually, you are forcing an elemental into a construct. If anything with golems you are enslaving a sentient being, small earth elementals have an int of 4, it would be at least just as evil. If not more so since you are not only enslaving a sentient creature, you are forcing it into a body it was not made for.  Ps, the revive spells say you can't revive Someone who was turned into undead, not that you can't revive someone whose body was animated. Zombies and skeletons have no int, so they have no mind and thus no souls. Vampires and ghouls on the other hand...

Jason L. said: If anything with golems you are enslaving a sentient being, small earth elementals have an int of 4, it would be at least just as evil. Since you're binding an elemental, it's no more evil to create a golem than it is to summon an elemental. Either way, you're taking control of it. Unless you want to claim that *summoning* elementals (or any creature that you can summon to control) is evil, golems aren't going to fit in the same alignment construct. Ps, the revive spells say you can't revive Someone who was turned into undead, not that you can't revive someone whose body was animated. Zombies and skeletons have no int, so they have no mind and thus no souls. You still require the body to cast Raise Dead on the target, which would require the zombie or skeleton to be defeated so that you're casting it on a corpse, rather than a zombie/skeleton. Only the most powerful variants of Raise Dead allow you to resurrect a creature without its material remains, wherein you could likely use the explanation of the incredibly powerful magic overpowering in the binding of the mortal soul to fuel the lesser undead's semblance of life and allowing the soul to return. More powerful undead can't be resurrected, even by the most powerful spells, because the soul is itself is anchored to the body and remains there, of its own volition (even if such volition is coerced). Everything we're talking about gets *really* deep into the semantic and metaphysical underpinnings of an fantasy universe that are pretty much entirely undefined so I don't think we'll ever be able to come to an *explicit* answer. For all intents and purposes, we're discussing quantum mechanics in a fictional universe with an entirely different set of physical laws that we can't experiment with in order to determine the underpinning reasonings behind. It's entirely up to the GM of a given campaign to answer the question because the books don't. All that most people need or care to know is that creating undead is evil (even if creating golems is not). They don't really care *why*.

Jason L. said: That's the kicker, animate dead never says anything about the person's soul being forced back in. Most Dm's hand wave it saying that even though the rules make no mention of it they personaly belive there is a soul in there, even though it has no int score and when you cast awaken undead you are to assume it was a warrior npc class (even if you knew for a fact the undead was a wizard) You get your thrall killed and that person's family has to shell out the money for true resurrection :P  Concept of good and evil can be explored in so many different ways. With tangible gods who help guide the flow of the universe who are we mere mortals to debate what is considered good and evil in such a universe? I think a good talk with the GM over these moral questions you will get some good answers. Most of the things players see as morally ambiguous I see as almost downright evil. On a different topic I think selfishness v selflessness is also a good scale to judge evil v good.

generally speaking it is as  Kitru   said, most people think it's evil and don't care why and or make up a reason on there own. So basicly it always comes down to it being evil in mos games I play in (though obviously thats not the case in mine) and yes, it's easier to judge some one as selfish/selfless rather than good/evil.

don't worry, he has been. And on the topic of no int in zombies and skeletons - binding souls does not imply any kind of intelligence to be applied to the body in question. in the case of creating intelligent undead, (and i'm talking exclusively about artificially created undead, not 'naturally' occuring specimens) you are using a higher level magics to transfer some of a souls original intellect and ability to understand to the corpse in question. it is not in any way the mind of the person who died and in no way does the previously living soul actually interact with its 'body'. In fact, there is nothing saying its even the SAME soul that originally was tied to the corpse - once a person is dead, the only way for a soul to be returned to its body is with high level Resurrection magic. binding souls is a  Simply put, it is stronger magic binding MORE of the same soul (or collection of souls) to give it more of a rudimentry intellect. This intellect is more akin to an animals sense of survival (actively trying to avoid damage to its body) than a living beings reasoning intellect.  After that, it becomes a little murkier. highly intelligent undead are 'naturally' spawned, through their own mechanics, and are outside the purview of this discussion. This is why you can't create vampires or liches - they HAVE a soul of sorts, twisted and corrupted as it is and as such are are created in a manner different to simply casting a create undead spell.

also, on the note of 'assuming' undead were a warrior in their previous life - its actually assumed its  first level commoner. a warrior would have a better array of stats. and animating a fallen adventurer results in a specific zombie with its own stats based on the targeted corpse - and wizards are poor fair, as base strength is almost always low

AWAKEN UNDEAD Necromancy [Evil] Level:Deathbound 6, sorcerer/ wizard 7 Components:V, S, M, XP Casting Time:1 standard action Range:Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets:All mindless undead within  a circle with a radius of 25 ft. +  5 ft./2 levels Duration:Instantaneous Saving Throw:None (harmless) Spell Resistance:Yes (harmless) Whispering secret words to the undead  before you, you call forth a glimmer of  intelligence in its dead eyes. This spell grants intelligence to mind-less undead such as skeletons and  zombies. Undead creatures with Intelli-gence scores are unaffected. A mindless  undead gains an Intelligence score of  1d6+4, subject to the limitation that  an undead cannot be more intelligent  than is typical of a living creature of the  same kind. A dog skeleton simply has  Intelligence 2 (no roll needed), while  an orc skeleton makes the die roll but  can’t have more than Intelligence 8.  (See MM290 for information on skills  and feats the creature gains.) Undead regain the armor and weapon  proficiencies they had in life (assume  the undead were formerly warriors  unless the DM specifies otherwise) and  will don armor and take up weapons  while obeying your commands. A  zombie fighter can wear any armor and  wield any simple or martial weapon,  and a warhorse zombie can wear any  armor. Undead also regain any extraordi-nary racial abilities they had in life,  such as poison or scent. Awakened undead gain a +2 profane  bonus on their Will saving throws to  resist control undead.Awakened undead  also gain +2 turn resistance (or retain  their own turn resistance, if any, and if  it is better than +2)

Also vampires and mummies remember all of the previous lives, so do liches, and I'm pretty sure if you can resurrect on a vampire and it fails it's will save it comes back to life as a person remember all the time it spent  as a vampire.

you can't make vampires with a normal spell - for the reasons stated above.  and mummies are cursed that way - no control over themselves, just the torment of having to spend eternity as a mummy.

There are LG and LN mummies in sandstorm splat book, they chose to be mummies to protect. Though to be fair the SRD says mummies are "Usually Lawful Evil" and thus can be any alignment. 

I'll be honest. I just don't care for alignment other than as a starting point or "loose guideline" for what the character believes in. I detest spells like Detect Evil (more often than not it turns into a "May I kill this creature without moral repercussions" spell). Many times other players can use your alignment as a narrative trap ("You're paladin totally wouldn't let that guy go!") Forcing another player's actions is kind of a personal no-no for me. I like to think of characters as ever changing, and in one campaign when I actually altered the alignment of my character based on what was going on, I was met with odd looks. As if I had done something I wasn't allowed to do. (Hint: It was not a change in my mechanical favor, either) It is easy enough to file off the numbers, so to speak, on alignment in D&D specifically. Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos become Protection from Guy Who is Attacking Me. I never even bother writing an alignment even in games that have them; the character does so much and goes through so much that it's kind of narrow to pin it down. Follow your god's ethos or moral code, but still be human (or elf, dwarf, whatever). Make mistakes, have crisis of faith, move on. No one wants to halt an adventure to save the kingdom so you can go atone and gain your spell-casting back (or maybe they do, who knows?) The only use I seemt o have for alignment is for creatures and NPCs that I have very little ideas on or who are essentially forming in the moment. Looking up that most guards are "lawful" is helpful as a shorthand, but that doesn't really inform me to every guard ever. Rambling over.

Good ramble! The question or morality as well as what is role playing is a diffucult topic @_@