What makes Undead, Undead? and are all Undead evil?

Jeff Wilder said:

But the actual wording of the spell is that non-Evil undead and non-Evil clerics-of-Evil-gods don't register as "evil" (because, well, they're not). Not in the first round, not in the second round, not in the third round. They are, by every (other) rule in D&D, simply "not evil." Since they are, by every rule in D&D, "not evil," there is no reason to determine how strong an "evil aura" they (don't) have. You don't have "evil - yes" to plug into the table to receive an "evil - this much" answer.

Click to expand...

But it's only in the first round that "evil", by itself, matters. In the second and third rounds, it's "evil aura" that matters. And the table tells us that they have an evil aura.

If you have a 5th level Neutral cleric of an Evil deity, then in round 1 (assuming we accept the cleric as 'not evil'), the spell returns "No presence of evil".

In round 2, the spell tells us the number of evil auras in the area (1, belonging to the cleric, as a cleric of an Evil deity) and the strength of the strongest evil aura (Strong, as a 5th level cleric of an Evil deity). Do you disagree that the cleric possesses an evil aura, regardless of whether or not he is evil?

In round 3, the spell tells us the strength and location of each evil aura. (That one, strong, right there where the cleric is.)

Whether or not the cleric is considered "presence of evil", he has an evil aura, and that aura is reported on in rounds 2 and 3.

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf said:

But it's only in the first round that "evil", by itself, matters. In the second and third rounds, it's "evil aura" that matters. And the table tells us that they have an evil aura.

Click to expand...

No, the table doesn't say that, and you simply have to realize that before we can move on. The table doesn't say whether or not something is evil. The table only says that if something is evil, this is how strong the evil is.

There are already rules in D&D that tell us if something is evil.

Let's say I have a table, called "Area of Square:"

"2 inches | Area is 4 square units"
"4 inches | Area is 16 square units"
"6 inches | Area is 36 square units"

And then I have a spell called detect square that is much like detect evil. I cast detect square. My DM determines that within the range of my spell there are two circles, an octogon, and three squares.

Note that both circles and octogons have "dimensions measured in inches" and "areas measured in square units." Nevertheless, my DM doesn't need to be concerned about that. In doesn't matter that the table could give raw output that would make sense (albeit being wrong) if I wanted to know the area of a circle. The DM doesn't need to worry about that, because the DM knows -- by virtue of rules that already exist -- that "circles" are not "squares" and thus that detect square won't detect circles, and thus that the table providing output doesn't apply to circles.

In exactly the same way that "area of square" doesn't apply to "not squares." "power of evil aura" simply does not apply to "not evil." It doesn't matter that the table's output if misapplied might look valid ... it's being misapplied. The table is being used in reference to something for which it was not intended.

(And again I have to point out that I'm not arguing that the rules for detect evil actually are this way. They are not; according to Wizards, Hypersmurf's interpretation is correct. In effect, Wizards simply said, "Yes, misapply the table," and doing so is now the official rule. I just wish they'd fixed the damned table to say what they're now saying they meant it to say.)

Jeff Wilder said:

No, the table doesn't say that, and you simply have to realize that before we can move on. The table doesn't say whether or not something is evil. The table only says that if something is evil, this is how strong the evil is.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. The table doesn't say whether or not something is evil, and doesn't care whether or not something is evil; it tells us what has an evil aura, and how strong that aura is.

Not all undead are evil, but they all have an evil aura. Not all clerics of evil deities are evil, but they all have an evil aura.

The table makes no ruling and passes no judgement as to whether or not something is evil. But it tells us what has an evil aura.

The battleaxe is a one-handed martial melee weapon. It appears on the table of weapons, under "one-handed martial melee weapons".

This table doesn't tell us "If a particular battleaxe is a one-handed martial melee weapon, its Medium form deals 1d8 damage"; it tells us "a battleaxe is a one-handed martial melee weapon, and its Medium form deals 1d8 damage". The table acts as a definition.

In the Detect Evil description, the spell is not telling us what is and is not evil, but it's telling us what has and has not an evil aura.

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf said:

I don't agree. The table doesn't say whether or not something is evil

Click to expand...

True.

and doesn't care whether or not something is evil

Click to expand...

Really? So how powerful is the evil aura of a RAW solar?

The table absolutely cares whether or not something is evil. Something has to be evil before the table even applies to it. Again, this is something you're gonna need to recognize before we can move on.

Hypersmurf said:

In the Detect Evil description, the spell [is] telling us what has and has not an evil aura.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's telling us "Aura Power." It's right there in the table: "Aura Power." Not "Aura Existence." You're adding that. And there's just no reason to do so, except that doing so is required to fit the conclusion from which you're arguing.

The table does not say anything about whether something possesses an evil aura. The table does not purport to say anything about whether something possesses an evil aura.

D&D has other rules -- perfectly serviceable rules -- for telling us what has an evil aura.

All the table purports to do is measure the power of an evil aura ... and measuring an evil aura requires that one exist to measure. If something doesn't exist, but somebody insists on using a tool to measure it anyway, that somebody is gonna be kinda confused by the results.

Flash Golems and Frankenstein

Perhaps a tangent to the discussion, but on the topic of the Flesh Golem possibly being inspired from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, although this might seem quite apparent based on the pop culture image of the monster, Shelley's actual monster was not mindless - in fact, the entire basis of the creature's concept in the novel was a being that was a monster trying to be human, being rejected by humanity and thus rejecting its own humanity. It was not inherently evil - it was Victor's rejection of it that lead it to become evil.

D&D Golems are much like the Golems of Jewish folklore and mysticism. They are mindless servants that are instructed in tasks and have an element of unpredictability, especially as they grow in size and power. The explaination for this in D&D is that the elemental spirit bound to the Golem takes temporary control over the golem's body and it goes berserk.

At the moment, I'm working on a supplement that focuses on flesh golems, golem sentience and automata, which is why the mentioning of golems pricked my ears.

In any case, Golems as constructs are not inherently evil. Even though flesh golems are reanimated flesh, they are not animated by negative energy like the undead - it is the elemental spirit which moves them.

If your supplement happens to tie in well with Golemcraft 101..which skips the flesh golems ..I would be happy to purchase!!

Nyeshet said:

Page number please? I can't recall any passage in any book I've read that states that negative energy innately detects as evil.

Click to expand...

On a second look, it is not stated in so many words and thus is likely a false conclusion I made from the clerics' channeling of positive and negative energy. While it is explicitly stated that the channelling of negative energy is an Evil act, it is not said that the energy itself is evil. My bad.

werk said:

I include the negative and positive energy planes as part of my whole concept of the inner planes, and are separate from the outer planes which are all alignment based. Even though each elemental plane or para or quasi elemental plane are their own respective planes, I arrange them into a large globe for ordering with different a x/y/z axis of this globe. My X axis is temperature (fire and ice), my Y axis is density (earth and void), and my Z axis is life (positive and negative). It's all very conceptual, fuzzy, and hard to draw

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know... it seemed quite easy to me...

Nyeshet said:

In that case this is an example of the game contradicting itself. On the one hand the energies are completely neutral, on the other hand channelling these energies is intrinsically Good or Evil. The two statements contradict each other.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree! Is a gun inherently evil? Now, what if I go and shoot a few children with it? That couldn't be evil could it, because the gun isn't?* Negative energy doesn't kill people, evil clerics kill people.

IOW, there is nothing wrong with negative energy sitting in the plane where it belongs; it is an important building block of the universe, after all. Bringing it to the material plane, OTOH, is a whole different kettle of fish.


glass.

* Not a perfect example I know, because 'evil' IRL is much less well defined than 'Evil' in D&D, but you get the idea.