No Animate Dead?

[Old Gumphrey]

I find it interesting that even after 4e divorced alignment from game mechanics, people are STILL arguing about 3e alignment. In 4e rules.

 

[Hussar]

As you have said, using the spell is Evil. It's just that you can turn around and use the results of the spell for a great deal of Good trivially. If you believe in Good effects that, when used in certain circumstances, produce Evil results, then it follows that you can have Evil effects that produce Good results.

I think we actually agree then. I have no problems with the next action you take being good. My only point was that the original action (creating undead) was evil. Fair enough.

I've never said there should be a "sliding" definition of good vs evil. To me, it's always seemed pretty clear. Good people care for others (in a general sense), evil people do not. Evil is about pursuing your own goals and desires without any regard for the rights of others. You will kill, enslave, destroy, steal, etc, because you don't care about anyone but yourself. So to me, considering that rather clear definition of what evil is, the act of creating a mindless automaton from the corpse of a dead creature is not evil, because it doesn't harm anyone.

Well, take it from the perspective of inside the game world. You are desecrating the dead, ripping from their rightful rest, imbuing them with energy inimical to all life on your world, controlling the desecrated, rotting corpses as some sort of brute strength forever, forever preventing that creature from ever being blessed by the gods and returning to life, and then trying to say that you are doing something good.

Sounds different than just creating slightly smelly robots no?

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Well, take it from the perspective of inside the game world. You are desecrating the dead, ripping from their rightful rest, imbuing them with energy inimical to all life on your world, controlling the desecrated, rotting corpses as some sort of brute strength forever, forever preventing that creature from ever being blessed by the gods and returning to life, and then trying to say that you are doing something good.

Sounds different than just creating slightly smelly robots no?

Or...

You are consecrating the dead, using the flesh their soul has left behind to further their good deeds here in the mortal realms while their soul travels onward in their journey. You are imbuing the corpse with necrotic energy that sustains the rotting flesh, preventing their body from becoming ashes and dust. For as long as their flesh remains, their soul can return to loved ones until it is their turn to leave the flesh behind and take that final journey.

 

[Hussar]

Or...

You are consecrating the dead, using the flesh their soul has left behind to further their good deeds here in the mortal realms while their soul travels onward in their journey. You are imbuing the corpse with necrotic energy that sustains the rotting flesh, preventing their body from becoming ashes and dust. For as long as their flesh remains, their soul can return to loved ones until it is their turn to leave the flesh behind and take that final journey.

The problem with this is, you've just rewritten the rules.

Actually, that's NOT a problem. If it works for your campaign, great. But, your concepts here are directly contradicted by a number of elements.

1. Consecration vs desecration. Well, I'm thinking its a pretty rare society that would consider being turned into a souless evil being to be consecration.

2. Dunno if zombies rot or not actually. Does Animate Dead preserve the corpse? The spell is pretty silent on the fact.

3. How do you jive the idea that animated creatures cannot be Raised? It would seem a pretty contradictory element if the gods were blessing you for being animated, but, then that blessing prevented you from returning from the dead using the same god's power.

Aria, if you want to rescript Animate Dead to fit your campaign, more power to you. I disagree and I wouldn't do it in my campaign, but, that's neither here nor there.

What you probably shouldn't do though is try to argue that your interpretation here is even remotely related to how the rules are written. In other words, to save misunderstanding in the future, make it abundantly clear that you are not working from the rules of the game, but from your own ruleset.