Control undead

[Calen]

The simple way of putting is on this server, anything you do with an undead aside from killing them is considered evil/necromancy.

That said:


Summoning undead falls under conjuration, you pick an existing undead and summon in.
After it perishes/spell runs out the creature will materialize 24 hours after the summoning has ended at the location it was.

This falls under evil conjuration spells, your characters is obviously intending to summon an evil creature that drains positive energy.
This spell should be available for every wizard/sorcerer.
Next to that the required components are.

Focus: A tiny bag, a small (not lit) candle, and a carved bone from any humanoid.


Palemasters gain an Undead Cohort ((I cannot find any evil tag and I'm not sure if they can summon good aligned undead)) but some how I highly doubt that.
Here the undead creature is considered to be a random summoned undead.


Creating undead is no different, it's an evil spell.
You could say it is even worse than summoning one but well, evil=evil.
Creating falls under necromancy.


Controlling an undead isn't an evil spell but chances are some one sees you as evil for even considering, let alone attempting it.
Keep in mind while not in NWN2 palemasters are known for being able to control undead and so are necromancers.



Also using an evil spell to do something good is odd for D&D standards ((yet can be very fun to RP)).



Going slightly off topic:

Personally I would drop the concept of 'evil spells' in nwn2 and just go with undead are bad period.
When you go more into detail you'll have to look at .

- Spells clerics/druids may or may not use all spells,depending on deity.
- Armour they are wearing ((not all types are allowed allowed)
- Multi classing ((which doesn't work with the limited amount of classes and feats))
- Palemasters should be evil only if D&D would follow it's own rules.


Going into philosophical debates and bringing out modern morals isn't working well for D&D.
D&D it self is very simple at it's core, often not logical.
Yet as long as it is arbitrary it establishes rules.
Unless we're talking about raise dead and healing spells which bounce back from Necromancy to Conjuration, because well marketing.

[metaquad4]

"Palemasters gain an Undead Cohort ((I cannot find any evil tag and I'm not sure if they can summon good aligned undead)) but some how I highly doubt that."

I believe the create greater undead palemaster feat (distinct from the spell) is meant to summon the undead cohort, it is a hardly random summon (I've only tested at PM 10, but it summons the same swashbuckler vampire every time. Maybe PM 8-9 is different.). In Liber Mortis (where the Cohorts are outlined), the list of Cohorts did not include any good creatures (go figure!).

"Personally I would drop the concept of 'evil spells' in nwn2 and just go with undead are bad period."

Dropping the alignment system (if you are going to drop evil and good spells, you might as well start dropping the alignment system entirely, as you are basically blotting out a significant portion of actions that spell casting (and even some none-spell casting) PCs can take that pertain to their alignment) would be an interesting feat, though, the alignment system is so integral in the game mechanics, and to a degree in the lore, that dropping it would likely constitute changing the game entirely to something less recognizable.

Personally, I'd prefer if alignments were actually enforced more often. Though, I know DMs here can't be in all places at all times, so that is a bit of a dream.

"Palemasters should be evil only if D&D would follow it's own rules."

D&D does follow its own rules (just like any other game, however, revisions are made. If, it was ever stated in 1e and 2e that slavery and undead are expressly and only evil, however. Those are the two examples I know of in 3.5 that are used by good too), however. I do not believe that it states anywhere that all undead are evil (Baelnorns, Shades summoned from different sources, Undead created by (good) divine means (death knights of Tyr <3)).

Personally, I think that instead of making it expressly evil, it should be able to be chosen by anyone. However, different actions it takes could make it evil. For example:

--Cutting off your arm and implanting an undead arm on could shift you down one alignment (Good to neutral, neutral to evil).
--Casting all those evil aligned spells could shift your alignment (as could casting good aligned spells), similar to how blood magus currently does.
--Perhaps make evil and good aligned spells have a (negative) impact if you cast them as the opposite alignment (perhaps more so for divine casters).

Seeing more of these little alignment shifts based on what you have done would certainly be interesting (and you don't have to worry about debates or player's arguing their alignment. Under D&D's rules, stuff that is evil/good is objectively evil/good. As long as its kept to the black and white mechanics, it should be fine.). It would also help alignment do what alignment is supposed to do, help keep track of the player's history with respect to good/evil/law/chaos.

[chad878262]

The issue with alignment shifts outside of dm granted shifts would be power builds, though that would be more an issue for lawful/chaotic shifts there may still be an issue with a few good/evil prc's that players might take advantage of by spamming alignment shifting spells.

[Atlas]

-

[Rhifox]

A negative tick for using evil spells, and a positive tick for good ones, would be nice to have.

[Boddynock]

This argument that always rears it head every now and again here that summoning Undead, and using evil spells, is somehow not an evil act if you have good intentions, is simply debunked by the lore of the setting that states that alignments and where characters feature on the morality scale are measured objectively.

Except that no, it isn't at all debunked, or these debates wouldn't come up.

You touched on one of the reasons why when you mentioned Helm's dogma, and that is differing faiths have different viewpoints on the use of undead. Including several good or neutral deities condoning thier use.

And since D&D rules are, and always have been, open to interpretation (which is also a rule of D&D), my interpretation has always been this:

Spells regarding the creation of undead are generally labeled as evil for simplicities sake, but this is only done so because it usually is an evil act. To discern between the two you need to look at why it is evil, as opposed to trying to find out why some other use is good. It is evil because the creation of undead involves the manipulation of the souls and or life energies of another sentient being AGAINST THEIR WILL. This stands up to scrutiny as well, since if you look at any example of non-evil undead creation the persons that undergo the process do so willingly in service to deity or country.

In the case of controlling undead, after an undead creature has been created, the manipulation of that energy, be it a soul or otherwise, has already been completed. So in the case of non-intellegent undead, it can't be evil unless you use them for evil because they are simply an empty husk that was once alive, basically you can't torture a soul that doesn't exist by forcing it to act against it's will.

In the case of intelligent undead, you must consider what the intentions of the original creature would be before being trapped in their current state. Generally this means that release from their suffering is the only viable good option, but not always.

This whole matter of whether or not a rule applies this way in this situation is the entire reason that every D&D book that has ever been printed it says the DM ruling is law. Becaue there are always exceptions, and someone has to decide when and where they apply, the debate simply makes it more interesting.

And in closing, I will state once again, alignment is not, has never been, and cannot ever be, objective. Morality is a social construct, that is why all non-intelligent animals are TN (IE they have no alignment). And social constructs cannot be objective.

[Lockonnow]

and when you smash the undead do you think that the evil energy is gone no it is not it is where the smash undead when you lay something to rest the bodie is Whole not smash and the evil energy is gone

[metaquad4]

Player's Handbook, 174 (Descriptor): "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

Player's Handbook, 32 (Cleric, Spells): "However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below."

Player's Handbook, 33 (Cleric, Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells): "A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own deity's. For example, a good cleirc cannot cast evil spells."

Book of Vile Darkness, 77 (Evil Spells): "Spells that have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things: they cause undue suffering or negative emotions; they call upon evil gods or energies; they create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters; they harm souls; they involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or drug use."

And in closing, I will state once again, alignment is not, has never been, and cannot ever be, objective. Morality is a social construct, that is why all non-intelligent animals are TN (IE they have no alignment). And social constructs cannot be objective.

Except in D&D this is not the case. Alignment (Morality) is a very real, very physical thing. Certain planes personify the different alignments, certain spells and abiltiies call upon the energy of these alignments. It is objective, as stated numerous times by the source books (which are effectively the rulebooks for D&D), and within the lore itself. Alignment in D&D is a very black and white thing (arbatrary too, as made by WotC/Eddy Greenwoody/Whomever else is involved in the process of creating FR).

Naturally, one is free to alter how alignment works in their own homebrew. However, this does not appear to be the case in BG (For example, a Blood Mage's Blood Magic is inherantly Chaotic and Evil here, hence it shifts your alignment towards those areas no matter how you use it).

[Deathgrowl]

It's pretty simple. Animate dead has evil descriptor. Control undead does not.

[Atlas]

-

[Boddynock]

Do I have to dig up the page from the sourcebook pdf that says morality is objective in traditions DnD Campaigns?

I will answer this in the form of a question. Can you define evil, or good, both in an objective way and without using the other as a comparison? Because the real world definitions don't always apply, seeing as Webster's only objective defintion of evil is "causing harm or injury to someone" which we no in D&D is not always the case, or all paladins would be pacifists instead of getting smite as a defining class ability. And in D&D the definitions would be as subject to the subjectivity as they are here, as each faith and deity would define things slightly differently.

Let's look at it a different way. Let's take all of Forgotten Realms and remove all of the evil from it. Would good still be good? The answer is no, it would just be what is left. Alignment has to be subjective to even exist, as alignment only exists in relation to the other alignments. Something can only be called good as long as there is something called evil to compare it to.

Though, for the vast majority of situations, Deathgrowl has the right of it. The spell descriptors do a pretty damn good job most of the time of telling you what is what. Which is why, as mentioned, create undead has the evil descriptor, while Revenance, the spell that makes revenants of Hoar, does not.

[Calen]

Slightly off topic, but I like the discussion about it since it is some what unclear.


That's actually the issue with palemasters metaquad4 .
On the server you are suppose to RP what your character sheet says.
When ever palemasters can summon good undead or not ,is an interesting question.
How ever on this server they cannot.


What you have is here is a PM that can summon evil undead (and only evil undead).
Ranging from mummies/zombies/skeletons and vampires.
In order to learn that your char needs to have practiced that, thus repeatedly using an evil spell.
Putting this into perspective the PM we have here.

- Main focus is learning how to summon evil undead.
- Removes arm to replace it with an undead arm, which is killing on touch (not evil just insane)
- Is basically an undead or as close as possible. (again not evil)

But when you put it like this.
We're talking about a person who allows negative energy to alter their body.
Cuts off their own arm off and replaces it for an undead arm, explained as 'giving in' in Libris Mortis.
After it they continue to learn how to summon evil undead and become undead.
If you follow D&D's black and white, than this is the definition of evil.


How ever on behalf of the defense of any one who wants to RP a neutral palemaster.
The spell is not tagged as evil + summon undead is conjuration not necromancy.
Since it is not evil tagged you now have an excuse when a paladin sees you with an undead vampire.
It's a non evil conjuration spell.


That said Libris Mortis shows that PM's don't even have summon undead.
PM is more about being connected to the undead state rather than summoning all types of undead.
Still when you go through their abilities, neutral is questionable but possible.
Especially since the cohort might be neutral aligned or even good.


As for the vampire being a cohort.
Thaumaturge can summon something next to their planar cohort.
Summon greater undead works mechanically like a summon, try summoning a badger next to it and it vanishes.
Thus you can't summon the same vampire over and over (even though it could be fun for RP).



That's why I stated that perhaps it's best to ignore evil spells.
You can name the PC evil for using them.
But I think it's very difficult to control clerics/druids and make automatic alignment shifts on evil spells.
NWN2 is simply not fleshed out enough for such a system.

[Rhifox]

The spell is not tagged as evil + summon undead is conjuration not necromancy.
Since it is not evil tagged you now have an excuse when a paladin sees you with an undead vampire.
It's a non evil conjuration spell.

It is an evil spell. Summon Undead spells in Libris Mortis have the Evil descriptor. And normal conjuration spells that are used to summon evil creatures gain the Evil descriptor.

When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

[Darradarljod]

Good and evil are one thing to consider, but what about holy and unholy?

FR wasn't modeled on the Biblical definitions of Good/Evil & Holy/Unholy which are my reference.

But I would venture a guess that even within FR canon all undead ("good or evil"), would be considered unholy/unnatural?

If that stands true, (and it may not), regardless of whether the undead creature was good (baelnorn) or evil (zombie), the factor of its unholiness/unnatural being would surely still provoke condemnation from paladins/druids and certain clerics who consider holiness a virtue.

[Rhifox]

Unnatural, yes. Unholy? Depends. Baelnorns at least are created with the blessing of the elven pantheon, though it is very rarely given. Non-elves probably wouldn't understand this cultural difference though, and would see baelnorns like they see liches and other sorts of undead.