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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1762695" data-attributes="member: 5777">no, neutral makes the most sense. While your skewing of the terms does tend to point in one direction that does not change the general case, even if it seems to make your point at the time (which it does not do completely even here, since undead lack 'any' commitments, so they cannot make choices at all).Since they cannot make choices for themselves (should I save the child from drowning or hold the childs head underwater, it wont do anything, it wont even go so far as to think of the question) then they cannot have an alignment.Could they radiate evil? Sure, that is a seperate issue. But should they have an alignment other than neutral. No. Why would something that cannot do anything of its on choice (it has no ability to even think of the question, let alone make a choice about it) have an alignment?We can even go into the above and say:Good = will sacrifice for others and will go out of the way to not harmNeutral = will not sacrifice nor go out of their way to harmEvil = will not sacrifice and will go out of their way to harm.Useing this it is clear that they are neutral. They will not sacrifice, so they are not good. They will not go out of their way to do harm so they are not evil.Of course this is also a very limited view of overall alignment but it shows the point of the example given above not working properly.Or, if we go by someone earlier:Good = will do the good things aboveEvil = anyone/thing else.Pretty harsh there, anyone who does not do good acts is evil. Needless to say this view does not work very well in the d&d system.Animals are neutral. Undead dont even rank up to animal status with their lack of int scores. If low int means one tends to be neutral then a lack of int doesnt make one much better than the local plantlife, it certainly isnt evil.Speak with dead, the spell itself, grants a semblance of life. Without that spell there would be no semblance of life. Does any other spell even reference this imprint or did they simply use that as a description as to why it could remember anything at all?The corpse doesnt get to 'choose', it simply does. If you are of a differing alignment then there is a save. What is the save based on? As if the creature was alive, since normally dead things dont get saves (or are immune to will saves entirely anyway), so this sort of line must be there for the spell to do anything at all.If one cannot choose actions then one cannot be of an alignment other than evil.No int? no choices. no nonneutral alignment.Being without a mind does not make one evil (vermin are not evil).Not all, simply everything that has no mind is neutral. The potted plant is neutral, the vermin is neutral, the sword is neutral, the mindless undead are neutral.That is just it though. It looks like the mindless undead are evil because the spell has an evil descriptor. But, aside from taboo issues (which shouldnt apply broadly in d&d, they are too relative to be objective in the system) there seems to be no reason for it to be that way.Saying that the spell is evil because undead is evil basically says little to nothing. In all likelyhood undead are evil because someone thought it would be better that way (ie houserule. it makes for better smiting, it makes it easier for people to know what to kill since killing evil is good, bah) which then made the spell evil.So, there is little to no reason for it other than a way to make people feel better about killing certain things (much like how kobolds are evil by default).However, that is not a good enough reason for this spell. It can be neutral, the undead created can be neutral, but then the stigma attatched to necromancers can make people 'feel' that it is bad. There is no reason to actually make it evil, especially since it takes away interesting options for differing cultures.Without the tag then it falls into a general use spell that only certain types will deign to be appropriate. Along with following certain dieties much better (such as neutral gods of death/undeath) without having to make up a series of houserules.The tag merely causes problems without any real use. It makes assumptions that should not be made in the objective d&d morality system. Even in that system there are many ambiguous areas, no need to add in extra problems (this society is good/neutral yet the core says that doing this is evil, but never says why). That just leads to confusion which would not be there otherwise and the general system would still get by with its other stigmas. Streamlining the system for more general, and some better, uses.</blockquote>

Verification