Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 1753463" data-attributes="member: 5143">Yes, there are.  The entire definition of alignments pretty much supports this:Saving people and helping each other = GoodKilling people = EvilPositive Energy = rejuvination and healingNegative Energy = entropy and deathAnd yes, as well, common taboos of our time and the past lead to the assumption that death is bad.  Yes, there are also cultures that don't think death is evil.  D&D is NOT based on those cultures.Don't have it with my at this time, but the BoVD says in it that all spells with [evil] descriptors are, in fact, evil acts.  It then suggests adding evil descriptors to a couple more spells than already have them in order to fit its definition of what evil spells should be.Also, YES the core rules are contradictory on this subject, mostly because they were written by a couple different authors, each of which had varying opinions on this topic.Animate dead doesn't say anything about binding souls to bodies.  That is mostly due to the writers wanting to remove as much "setting" material as possible from the PHB to avoid telling anyone what is and isn't true setting wise, letting each person make up their own reasons.  Also, due to lack of space in the PHB and trying to use as much of it as possible for purely rules information.It's pretty much said (especially with recent discussions on Eberron) that elementals, being all neutral and being basic building blocks of the universe are morally ambiguous and therefore not evil to bind.  Although, in my games, due to this discussion creating Flesh Golems will likely be slightly evil in my game, purely by using dead flesh in such a way.I, personally, LIKE the fantasy standard of "messing with the dead is bad".  Frankenstein tells us that those who play god with the dead are evil, even if they are trying to do good.  It's this theme that pervades fantasy literature and fits the "feel" of the game.  It is perfectly reasonable to say "From my point of view, it's just a bunch of dead flesh, no different from a chair or some rocks."  But that is not what D&D is trying to simulate, and if true would make a lot of typical fantasy plots make no sense at all.  A lot of the principles most of the current D&D campaign settings are based on would have to be changed if that was the truth in them.  There would likely be Undead everywhere as every mage would have them following him carrying his stuff, cities would be built by them.  After all, no reason not to, right?In response to the original poster:  YES, killing your horse and animating it is a LOT more convenient.  That's kind of the point.  The standard good vs evil arguement in standard fantasy stories is that evil is normally easier, which is why those who want to good need strength of heart to avoid using the evil method.  It ruins some good story telling and the reason why good triumphs over evil.The moral of the story always is:  Evil never SEEMS evil.  It just IS.  And it is easy and convenient and possibly powerful.  There never seems to be a good reason NOT to do something evil, other than the fact that you know it is evil.  Which makes the ones that are able to resist its lure more heroic, because you know that if you were in their shoes, you aren't sure you could have made the same decision.Majoru Oakheart</blockquote>

Verification