• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why does Undead=Evil

Sejs said:
Paladins get unduly screwed on alignment issues, we all know this. It ranks up there with the earth being round and water being wet as far as common knowledge amongst gamers goes.
I agree, though I'm lucky at the moment to have a DM who has a good grasp of his vision of a paladin and how they fit into his world. (His description of a paladin to another player was "He's like a Jedi on steroids." :p)
Scion said:
So, for the paladin at least, I would expect him to need to atone. It doesnt matter if he wasnt in control at the time, to him it was evil being done by him.
I strenuously disagree, but to delve into that would be to derail this thread entirely, so I'll bite my tongue. :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad






Talon5 said:
Taking someone's free will away is evil. Taking away their ability to do what they want to do is evil.

Except that all the spells that directly take away someone's free will are not listed as evil. Dominate, charm person, Geas, command. Even speak with dead, you are forcing the soul imprint to answer your questions.
 



Raven Crowking said:
IJump to speak with dead:

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all.
This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.
Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.

This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.​





Paragraph 2 of speak with dead, above, notes that the corpse can impart "imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse." The description goes on to say "it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information."

To me, this implies that the soul's imprint can remember things from its life. However, it cannot remember anything following its death (including the casting of speak with dead). The answers are repetitive because the thing you are talking to can't remember what you just asked.

But the spell is language-dependent, unlike a boot print. And, unlike a boot print, the soul imprint can attempt to resist answering. Not only that, but it resists answering based on alignment.

The rules are clear: The soul imprint retains knowledge. When you speak with dead, you speak with that imprint. You must communicate in a language the imprint understands. It is aware of the communication as it occurs, or else it could not answer. It is aware of its own alignment, and it is aware of the questioner's alignment. It doesn't remember thereafter, however, because it is not capable of learning or growth.

RC

Are you interpreting the spell that the soul imprint could choose to foregoe its save if it chose? That it has more than a binary option of answer or not based on alignment differences? Could a LG imprint choose to foregoe the save for a NG interlocutor?

Here is where we differ in interpretation of this spell, you see interaction with the soul imprint, I see the soul imprint simply reacting to stimuli. You see it as aware of current things even though it "cannot learn new information" while I see it as simply an accessible resource of information that is harder to access if you are a different alignment. You see the soul imprint as a lesser form of a soul with similar ethical implications, while I see the echo as not a soul but simply a reflection that does not affect the actual soul.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top