D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Oofta]

In 3e it was the evil descriptor, not the fact that it was necromancy that was relevant RAW.

RAW Deathwatch had the [Evil] descriptor.

In 3e RAW descriptors govern how a spell interacts with alignment.

"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

Saying that descriptor alignment spells interacted with your alignment seemed RAW, how it does so seems left ambiguous.

Saying casting an [Evil] descriptor spell counts as an evil action seems consistent with RAW separate from any moral consideration of the action. So multiclassed paladins in 3e should be cognizant of that before casting [Evil] descriptor spells such as Protection from Good.

Other necromancy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor, Inflict Light Wounds for example from the cleric list or Finger of Death from Wizard and Druid lists.

In 3e generally spells that create undead, spells that specifically interacted with good or evil alignment, and a few select others have the [Evil] descriptor.

Thanks for that, I did try to look it up but the page I found wasn't clear. I haven't played 3.5 in over 10 years. I don't remember anyone ever using it so it doesn't ring a bell. I would agree it's an odd spell to attach the evil tag to, but what the evil tag means still seems to be a "ruling" not a rule

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

This.

"Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]

Deathwatch
Necromancy [Evil]

Death Knell
Necromancy [Death, Evil]"

@Vaalingrade is saying that it was a misunderstand of the rule to have a spell with the evil descriptor be an evil act, but he's incorrect. It was RAW.

"[DESCRIPTOR]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some
way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful,
light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special
abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

So spells with the evil descriptor affect how they interact with alignment, because doing so is an evil act.

 

[Voadam]

Bodies I don't think counted as objects in 3e. Objects were, well, objects. Lamps, locks, doors, rocks, etc. You could animate the urn the loved one's ashes were in, though. Animate Dead was how you animated bodies.

Edit: Yep. Corpses aren't a material.

"An animated object can be of any nonmagical material—wood, metal, stone, fabric, leather, ceramic, glass, or the like.."

I am not sure where you are getting your quote from, but "or the like" seems to cover dead organic material similar to wood (dead trees) or leather (dead skin/hides).

I am pretty sure it was defined in 3e that creatures were only creatures until killed then they were considered objects for game effect purposes.

The closest I can find to a direct reference though is the glossary definition of creatures on the 3.5 PH page 306: "creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably."

Animate object for instance does not seem to have any prohibition on using inanimate corpse. It says "You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate.
An animated object can be of any nonmagical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or an equivalent number of larger objects per caster level. A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as sixteen, and a Colossal object as thirty-two. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell.
This spell cannot animate objects carried or worn by a creature.
Animate objects can be made permanent with a permanency spell."

While animated objects are described simply as "Animated objects come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as animate objects or similar supernatural abilities."

 

[Umbran]

People love to be upset.

Mod Note:
People also love to ascribe an opposing position to character flaws in the opponent who they do not know and have never met. It may be satisfying, and it is certainly easy, but it is also fails to actually address the issues under discussion, by trying to dismiss the speaker.

So, how about you not do that any more? Thanks.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Cthulhu is biological and inherently evil… isn’t he?

 

[MoonSong]

These people are not going to have any sort of technology, no matter how intelligent they are, because they're not willing to teach or learn from each other. Meaning each one has to learn on their own and reinvent everything on their own. I've read that this is one of the reasons why octopuses as a species aren't as capable as they could be--they can't learn tricks from their parents since mom dies when the eggs hatch and dad dies a shortly thereafter. If parent octopuses managed to stick around long enough to pass their knowledge down to their offspring, they'd probably be as sentient as humans are.

No, they don't have technology of their own. But individually they can use -and learn to use- technology and magic they come around to. These are still smart creatures on a human level if not smarter, so they could still steal weapons and armor in their raids or attacks and keep whatever they get from others when they best them. So, not precisely dumb brutes, just brutal. But indeed, way more backwards than they could be if they had a society. (Not that it was intentional, but they make a good commentary on the futility of selfishness and work as a take-that against preppers and extreme selfish libertarians that dream of living on their own appart from all human contact)

 

[Nefermandias]

Mod Note:
People also love to ascribe an opposing position to character flaws in the opponent who they do not know and have never met. It may be satisfying, and it is certainly easy, but it is also fails to actually address the issues under discussion, by trying to dismiss the speaker.

So, how about you not do that any more? Thanks.

Why are you being so forceful, Mr. Moderator? Red text? Did I offend someone?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Cthulhu is biological and inherently evil… isn’t he?

Isn't the point of the Mythos (justifying owning a lot of tentacles and 'different people are monsters') that they're so far beyond us they care nothing about us as we care nothing for ants or microbes and are thus beyond our morality

 

[Voadam]

D&D was always a bit weird with alignments like Evil as a Cosmic force, negative energy being sort of evil adjacent, and lots of conceptual things with evil as one element of their composition, but no real actual pole to connect Cosmic evil to. There were planes for each of the evil alignments and the boundaries between them, lots of different types of outsiders and gods who were evil as one of their aspects, but nothing for Evil itself as a cosmic force.

In Warhammer you have Chaos and Chaos gods and the Warp (sort of a Chaos plane) and it all ties together.

In D&D you have abstract Evil and multiple evil planes and evil outsiders, who are simultaneously also defined equally on a separate axis of alignment so Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, etc. Chaos in D&D is very different from Chaos in Warhammer or Elric or Amber.

 

[Voadam]

Isn't the point of the Mythos (justifying owning a lot of tentacles and 'different people are monsters') that they're so far beyond us they care nothing about us as we care nothing for ants or microbes and are thus beyond our morality

One of its points, contradicted by others. Nyarlathotep in particular seems to care and consciously interact at different points in various stories.

One can justifiably make arguments that the mythos entities are uncaring neutral or that they are supremely evil.

They are sometimes called up as possible exemplars of Chaotic Neutral.