NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VelvetViolet" data-source="post: 6183019" data-attributes="member: 6686357">Petitioners do not have any mental tie to their corpse. Nowhere are they stated to feel what their corpse feels. If they did, they would be in constant agony because corpses rot. Calling it theft is, again, like calling garbage rooting theft. They've essentially thrown their body away and have no need for it.Undead are not anymore "wrong" or "unnatural" than countless other things in D&D. It's not disrespecting the dead because the dead are currently enjoying the afterlife and have no need of their corpse, its not theft because the dead person doesn't own it (although you could say you're stealing from any surviving family if the corpse wasn't sold to you), it's no more a violation of nature than creating golems or resurrecting the dead or mind-raping people or using "afflictions" or artificially crossbreeding magical creatures or countless other magical things that would be considered morally wrong in the real world. Creating spawn isn't evil, otherwise yellow musk zombies (which are plants) would be considered evil.Creating a soul from scratch and calling a soul from the afterlife are two different things and are in no way equivalent. It's like saying that your three year old computer is identical to a new computer with a different OS installed. It would be pointless for hell to create souls from scratch, since those souls wouldn't be inscribed with a lifetime of evil deeds (although the extraplanar animals and humanoids native to hell apparently aren't considered sources of evil souls). That's assuming that the "souls" created by Create Undead are in any way similar to the souls of formerly living creatures, as opposed to being qualitatively different kinds of souls that aren't affected by resurrection spells.No, actually souls don't carry any memories. Petitioners have no memories of their former lives. Corpses without souls retain their memories (as stated by speak with dead). So if you placed a completely new soul in a corpse, it would logically have all the corpse's memories, but wouldn't actually be the same person (since the original soul is in the afterlife). True resurrection implicitly recreates the memories from nowhere if there's no corpse to use.I was reading the test of the resurrection and true resurrection  spells, and I noticed that the common assumption that being undead  prevents resurrection is not actually supported by the text. If either  of these spells are targeted on an undead, or the corpse of an  undead, it becomes the living creature it once was (as stated by the  undead type description, but not the spells), but it can't be used to  resurrect a formerly undead corpse back as the undead creature it was  before (as stated by the spells). In the case of true resurrection,  there isn't any indication that the existence of an undead prevents the  original person from being resurrected. This seems to be based on a  misinterpretation of the text, which is actually stating the previous  (it works on an "alive" undead creature or the corpse of an undead), to  differentiate it from raise dead (which is nullified if a  corpse was reanimated as undead at any point, regardless of current  condition; although this isn't actually stated and you could easily  interpret that destroying an undead makes the corpse available for raise dead). The wording of these spells is just poor and ambiguous, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification