Undeads and Arelith

[One Two Three Five]

The absolute easiest way to play a necromancer and not get stomped at low levels is to make them an outcast and also not mouth off to random epics in Andunor.

Arelith setting is vaguely late middle ages/ early Renaissance Europe and Mulhorand is a strange and faraway land. There's trade and contact and travel of course but it's still foreign and alien to most,

Arelith has, in the decade plus I've been playing here, had:
Guns
Space ships (spelljammers)
Relatively easy Interdimensional travel (Astrolabe)
Robots

Also, like, Arelith is supposedly a hard to get to island in the middle of nowhere- for everyone. There's a Mulhorandi tomb in the Cordor Graveyard. There's been buckets of characters from 'foreign and alien' lands, including Sigil. Low fantasy game-of-thrones Arelith is not.

[-XXX-]

I find it really weird how some people seem to think it's okay to use sourcebook for certain information but not for other that disfavor them. Anyone who ever created content such as fixtures, books and information to leave in the server know that a lot of research in official content is required. Some people even go further and use non official content to create discussion and it's also really interesting even if people don't take it serious.

I never said that it was okay to do that either. Very often the final result of such research are godemoting fixtures and items that do not abide by the wys/wyg rule of the thumb that suggest for them to only hint on the external information for the other players to work with as they see fit. Unless I am mistaken, players are still at the liberty to treat a vase as a vase and a tome as a tome despite their description explicitly stating that one is an indestructible lich phylactery and the other is the Liber Diabolica itself.

But saying that you don't think it's okay for people, no paladins as you mentioned, (characters often devoted to the destruction of undead) to know what involves in animating undead? There's no mention of this knowledge being secret, it's not like a character promptly knowing how to create a phylactery from level 1, you're talking about people who literally devote their lives to understanding and fighting what is evil.

I am saying that it is wrong to act as if said paladin had page X from sourcebook Y memorized letter by letter and leave no room for further IG or OOC discussions regarding that topic, using the sourcebook as both IG and OOC ultimate authority on said topic (when in fact it is neither). There's plenty of IG content that a character can use to draw the same conclusions, but it leaves the element of the ultimate OOC authority (sourcebooks) out of it, which leaves room to foster further roleplay around it. You can even create such IG content on your own (even transcribe select pages from sourcebooks if that's what you want to do and you have a valid reason why your character would possess such knowledge), but be prepaired that said content can be disregarded by other players if they choose to do so.

Now I took a look in that book you mentioned, Libris Mortis, and there's no mention that animating isn't evil, in fact there are numerous mentions of it being extremely evil, just look at the section "Origins of Undeath". It mentions Haunting, Atrocity Calls to Unlife (evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions...),

All the instances of the referrences whithin Libris Mortis hinting at animation being evil that you listed above are in fact clearly classified in the sourcebook as "variant rules". I'd rather suggest that you read page 5 where it clearly states that "Numerous theories exist concerning the nature of undeath, and though some hypotheses compete with or contradict one another, others reinforce or overlap each other." This means that the sourcebook itself is referential and tries to leave a certain sense of uncertainty about the entire matter. Furthermore, in the various undead types alignment entries it clearly states that while said type of undead typically has alignment evil X, exceptions can be quite common (even mentions of good mummies can be found on page 37)

Negative Energy as Draining Force (Some claim that undead exist concurrently on the Material Plane and the Negative Energy Plane ... The Negative Energy Plane is the heart of darkness - the hunger that devours souls), Undeath as Contagion (methods of propagating their curse) and Purposeful Reanimation (commonly known as liches)

While negative energy does sustain the undead and destroys living things, it isn't evil (in the "objective" way that the sourcebooks classify evil). There are references to evil powers abusing the negative energy plane, but in itself negative energy plane is no way more evil or good than, say, elemental plane of air.

But it doesn't matter if I list extensively why animating is eivl, will it? You're complaining that people are using source material as set in stone, despite no DM having a stance on the matter then there's nothing else I can tell you. You can try to bend as much as you want information that is generally thought as cannon and people will just eyeroll and ignore it.

I'm not complaining nor am I bending anything. You are insisting on the adherence to your interpretation of the sourcebook material. Firstly, it's been established that sourcebook materials aren't Arelith Cannon. Secondly, your interpretation of the sourcebook material doesn't strike me as particularly objective or precise.

[Regionals]

Arelith has, in the decade plus I've been playing here, had:
Guns
Space ships (spelljammers)
Relatively easy Interdimensional travel (Astrolabe)
Robots

Experienced adventurers know of this stuff. But they're the elite superstars. The commoners don't, nor do characters who're from backwards places. Most travel is still by ship and takes ages, remember, a Spelljammer or planar travel isn't common. A bumpkin hin farmer isn't going to okay with undead because of Muldorandi religious rites conducted by humans thousands of miles away. An aspiring arcane tower student might or might not know of them already but probably hasn't visited (though they may not have issues with undead for their own reasons.)

It's foreign, that's all I'm saying. Muldorandi can and does have an influence on our characters but even in our own information age people still fear what they don't know and have ridiculous misconceptions about the other side of the world, or even the other side of a common border. I don't want to bring real world examples in but that should be obvious.

[Memelord]

Now I took a look in that book you mentioned, Libris Mortis, and there's no mention that animating isn't evil, in fact there are numerous mentions of it being extremely evil, just look at the section "Origins of Undeath". It mentions Haunting, Atrocity Calls to Unlife (evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions...),

All the instances of the referrences whithin Libris Mortis hinting at animation being evil that you listed above are in fact clearly classified in the sourcebook as "variant rules". I'd rather suggest that you read page 5 where it clearly states that "Numerous theories exist concerning the nature of undeath, and though some hypotheses compete with or contradict one another, others reinforce or overlap each other." This means that the sourcebook itself is referential and tries to leave a certain sense of uncertainty about the entire matter. Furthermore, in the various undead types alignment entries it clearly states that while said type of undead typically has alignment evil X, exceptions can be quite common (even mentions of good mummies can be found on page 37)

Neither sourcebook is canon in the Forgotten Realms setting, both can only be drawn off of for fluffy inspiration that no one else is obligated to accept as truth. That being said, animation is undeniably evil. Why? Because spells that allow you to animate undead have the Evil spell descriptor. Casting a spell with the Evil spell descriptor is an evil act - no ifs, and's, or but's. It just is.

If you have access to some means to create undead that doesn't involve the Evil spell descriptor, like Osriant clerics creating mummies from willing guardsmen, priests and heroes after their death - or like the Seldarine creating baelnorn? Then, great. It is no longer an evil act. But until you do, it is. End of story. There's no real room for actual interpretation beyond trying to smoothtalk someone IG into an act of moral relativism (or just outright stupidity) in a setting where moral relativism makes no sense at all.

[flower]

I do not wish to interrupt your debate.

But you debate on principles of necromancy and its source and leave aside social aspect.

Very few humans have guts to share living room with a zombie. Even less when imagine it can be their father, dad, etc. Most people will be also superstitious.

Nature walkers will not really care what your philosophy is, undead is against nature.

Elves deeply despise it.

Dwarves really do not like undead which disturb rest of their ancestors.

And last, undeads are rotting bodies. It must be really pleasant to stand in company of rotting flesh, and even of same race as yours. Normal people would most likely wish to puke. Let a chicken left on your table while you play for a week and you get the idea

All these reasons are enough in itself to chase necromancers off, without any need to elaborate how much it is /is not evil act.

[-XXX-]

Spell descriptors serve primarily as a tag for the DM to consider using to track a character's alignment progression during PnP games and it is designed to work in conjunction with balancing acts: let's say that you were a DM running a campaign using spell descriptors and you have a cleric player casting animate dead (lvl 3 spell, evil spell descriptor) 5x during a gaming session, their alignment would remain unchanged for as long as they cast the cure serious wounds (lvl 3 spell, good spell descriptor) also 5x during the same gaming session. The secondary function of spell alignment descriptors is to serve as a guideline for divine classes what spells not to use as they might be in direct conflict with their patron's dogma. There's nothing more to that.

But that delves into the discrepancy between the two lines of argumentation that some players (assuming mostly players of Good aligned characters) often tend to reiterate. At one hand they tend to put strong emphasis on moral objectivism (which comes hand in hand with the concept of balancing acts - good deeds balance out evil ones and vice versa), especially when arguing why "Lawful good =/= Lawful nice", on the other hand they also tend to point out that certain actions are beyond redemption, which would suggest a prevalent tendency towards moral subjectivism (as it would suggest that certain evil acts trump all the good ones) and common sense (because even IRL saving somebody's life doesn't negate the act of cold-blooded murder).
Well, you can't have it both ways and Arelith's setting (as far as I can tell) tends to lean more in favor of moral objectivism (so that's why I tend to perceive claims like "act of annimation is extremely and irredeemably evil" as little more than an exaggerated hyperbole).

A good point is the social aspect of such IG actions as outlined by DM_GrumpyCat and flower. I'd like to suggest that this is a result of the ongoing setting narrative (which is absolutely fantastic in essence). What I am personally having an issue with is when this narrative is being further needlessly artificially pushed and solidified by referencing OOG source material. Pushing an IG narrative IC is cool, doing it OOC is not.

Almost feels like this line of thinking: "OK, all warlocks, necromancers, evil-aligned deity worshippers are considered evil and maligned outcasts both IC and OOC at last! THE GOOD GUYS HAVE FINALLY WON EVERBODY! Now let's use our D&D sourcebooks so that this state of things can never change again"

[Memelord]

Spell descriptors serve primarily as a tag for the DM to consider using to track a character's alignment progression during PnP games and it is designed to work in conjunction with balancing acts: let's say that you were a DM running a campaign using spell descriptors and you have a cleric player casting animate dead (lvl 3 spell, evil spell descriptor) 5x during a gaming session, their alignment would remain unchanged for as long as they cast the cure serious wounds (lvl 3 spell, good spell descriptor) also 5x during the same gaming session. There's nothing more to that.

Incorrect. Most spell descriptors are meaningless save to serve as cues for the DM or to tie them into other rules. The Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos descriptors tie directly into alignment - these are the alignments of the spell. You aren't just casting a spell with the evil spell descriptor, you are casting an Evil spell. The spell itself is evil, cosmically aligned with evil, which is a literal cosmic force with actual divine beings that physically embody Evil. It isn't some nebulous philosophical question - which is why clerics, in PnP, are barred from casting spells that have alignment descriptors in opposition to their own/their gods' alignment.

Moral relativism doesn't function in a setting like the Forgotten Realms, because the things that moral relativism relies on (good and evil being, largely, constructs of culture) simply do not exist in the setting. Animating the dead is Evil, because it's Evil. The energy used just to make it happen is Literally Cosmically Evil. Killing evil things with said undead is Good, because killing evil is Good. But that doesn't change the fact that summoning the undead in the first place is Evil, and people WILL make assumptions about you because of that.

The nice part, though, comes up when you realize that Good people can still do Evil things sometimes. These become points of tension and opportunities to really develop what matters to your character. Good people who consistently do Evil things in lieu of trying to do Good things, though, very quickly find themselves ceasing to be Good people; because a person who has Good intentions but still always uses Evil means to try to force the results they're looking for, is still Evil.

As a sidenote: healing spells lack an alignment descriptor. Because not dying is something that almost everyone tries to do.

[strong yeet]

Almost feels like this line of thinking: "OK, all warlocks, necromancers, evil-aligned deity worshippers are considered evil and maligned outcasts both IC and OOC at last! THE GOOD GUYS HAVE FINALLY WON EVERBODY! Now let's use our D&D sourcebooks so that this state of things can never change again"

But I play a drow necromancer and I'm saying that animating zombies is evil and paladins should do something about people who do it

What now???

On a more serious note:

Yeah, I get that sometimes maybe you want to try doing roleplay that tackles the issue of moral relativism; why is animating the dead evil? Is Good as an objective moral force really "good" to us as mortals/people/sentient non-planar creatures? Is being Evil necessarily a bad thing from our perspective instead of a cosmic one? So on and so forth. I get that. That's compelling. That's cool, and I like it too.

There's definitely ground for an interesting exploration of morality within a universe of elves and orcs and wizards and knights who wear ridiculously bright blue & gold armour.

But get this?

In the setting doing certain things is classified, by the cosmic and arbitrary(!!!) rules of the multiverse as EVIL. Whether they are right, or wrong, or whatever. It doesn't matter. Trying to frame the "debate" as some kind of pseudo-illuminati push by paladin players for in-character power is, and I'm being as nice as I possibly can in saying this, absolutely ridiculous and totally uncalled for.

Some final notes: I don't think it's healthy to get so attached to the idea of your character as being in the Right, which is where I, and forgive me if I'm reaching too far here, think you're feeling the antipathy here; like everyone's attacking your character or your roleplay for daring to go against the grain or whatever.

Some final final notes: I'm pretty sure the healing spells don't have alignment descriptors.

[TimeAdept]

They don't.

Per PnP, Clerics cannot even cast spells opposed to them in alignment. A Good aligned clericPC can't cast an Evil spell, even if they wanted, and a Chaotic Cleric can't cast Lawful spells.

This isn't a single player Bioware RPG anymore, casting an evil spell 5 times and a good spell 5 times doesn't keep ou neutral.

[-XXX-]

Let's rewind and fastforward the conversation a bit, shall we?

A: Applying moral objectivism, certain actions are evil (Referencing sourcebook material quotation provided)
B: Are they though? Inconclusive. (Referencing sourcebook material quotation provided)
B: Is sourcebook material a viable means to support an ongoing IG narrative though? (quotation of server guidelines hinting the contrary provided)
A: Narrative stands resulting in an IG culture viewing certain actions as evil
B: IG culture viewing certain actions as evil suggests moral relativism despite established moral objectivism. Results in arbitrary alternations between moral objectivism and moral relativism
A: Reiterating first statement (arguments presented by B being disregarded and B being put to question instead)

This isn't a single player Bioware RPG anymore, casting an evil spell 5 times and a good spell 5 times doesn't keep ou neutral.

Why? Performing 5 goodly acts in order to even out 5 committed evil acts is the textbook definition of moral objectivism. Or are we supposed to work with "moral objectivism, but not quite" here? Is that what you're saying?

[Hunter548]

A: Applying moral objectivism, certain actions are evil (Referencing sourcebook material quotation provided)
B: Are they though? Inconclusive. (Referencing sourcebook material quotation provided)

Except, wrong, DMs have stated that it actually is evil.

[JediMindTrix]

This is silly

[Baron Saturday]

This is silly

I'm inclined to agree. Forum debates about alignment have never, in my experience, produced anything except frustration.

[-XXX-]

This is silly

I'm inclined to agree. Forum debates about alignment have never, in my experience, produced anything except frustration.

Silly and frustrating can become any debate in which swiping claims are made without being actually supported by valid arguments or facts. Here's an an example of the opposite:

Except, wrong, DMs have stated that it actually is evil.

Indeed that is correct:

I think you're 100% wrong, both due to how druid lore works, and from an integrity of how the classes should work and be interpreted standpoint, and that this view is going to have bad results in the future...

But if the DM team's view is 'Druids can summon undead,' then the DM team's view is that druids can summon undead. Another question for you, then: If druids, the main non-paladin opponents to undead, are now given carte blanche to summon undead- can people of any alignment do so? If even the champions of the natural world can do it against all logic, surely there are 'good reasons' for those of neutral and good alignments to do so as well?

Summoning undead is an inherently evil act, which is why my response to the OP was that they make their Talona druid evil, given I don't see the concept working with any other alignment.

The answer is case by case, but for those good aligned: The Answer is almost-always going to be never, and for those neutral aligned, it's a little more flexible (The ends justify the means being an example), but heavy use may see your alignment shift. It's an evil action and should be thought of that way.

So yeah, we can actually wrap this up by stating that summoning undead is an evil action, NOT because player(s) X/Y/Z thinks and says so, NOT even because the D&D source material mentions it, but because an Arelith DM made this ruling, in this singular instance, almost a year ago.

This still leaves (albeit considerably lesser amount of) questions regarding the discrepancies between claimed moral objectivism and moral relativism that has surfaced as the construct of established IC culture (are characters aware of the objective moral truths? How? Or is their moral compass indeed guided by established customs and social norms? That would hint towards moral relativism).
Or am I seeing too much into this and the general consensus is that we're content to keep addressing these questions IG by killbashing?

[Baron Saturday]

Or am I seeing too much into this and the general consensus is that we're content to keep addressing these questions IG by killbashing?

I imagine that killbashing will be approximately productive as forum debates, in this instance. Now, what might make a difference would be a powerful and established IG institution deciding to try teaching the creation and control of the undead in ethical, or at least morally neutral ways, to be determined by that institution through IC discussion. There is no way that you're going to create a lasting shift in Arelith island ethics through a forum thread. If it's gonna happen, it has to happen IG.

[-XXX-]

Well, ongoing mindless shallow PvP encounters are the reason why threads like this exist. I wasn't suggesting that if I can't sway the public opinion my way, that I'd go killbashing characters. I was addressing an ongoing issue which is very real, just read the first post of this thread where the OP outlines why we're even having this debate on OOC terms!

[Baron Saturday]

I understand what you're saying, and I understand the intention of this thread. As it happens, I generally agree with Huschpfusch's post, specifically points A and B. Point C, which the debate in this thread has focused on, is in my opinion the least relevant of the three.

Now, regarding those other points: Yes, I think there are much better ways of dealing with evil characters than just killing them. However, it has to be acknowledged that not everyone is going to take the time to engage in deep RP with every perceived evildoer or character whose actions they disagree with. PvP is far easier than RPing with a fundamentally opposed character, and as such will continue to happen.

I suppose I should try to bring this to some sort of point, but I don't know that I can. At the end of a day, all we can do is try to bring as much engaging RP to every encounter as is possible. Sometimes, that's enough. Sometimes it isn't. That's the joy and frustration with playing a game with strangers over the internet.

One thing I'm certain of is that a heated forum debate about lore and morality isn't going to change anything. Which is why, in my previous posts, I suggested taking IC action. For instance... A secretive necromancer faction that tries to find, train, protect and teach novice necromancers how to blend in while they grow their powers sounds like it could be quite fun.

[DM Sollers]

[Revelations]

IDK why not just enjoy the fact there's something controversial to build RP around

SJW Arelith, where punching a goblin is outrageous and people frowning at your metro undead zombie boyfriend are intolerant pigs

[ltlukoziuz]

Okay. Disclaimer: I will not deal into Sourcebook application of undeadery. I will only post you four different instances of RP I had in regards with undead, being a good character (three of these instances being a Kelemvorite, one on just a simple goody). You can read them any way you wish, I merely wish to show that there are situations where you can improvise, a lot, and sometimes you get simply forced without any possibility to change. Not everything has to result into killbashing, but it shouldn't be taken lightly. Every situation can create conflict RP, which doesnt have to result in outright PvP.

Traversing as low epic character through low zones like Gambler's bluff, as I haven't ever walked them, and I smack suddenly into a woman who is dragging a zombie around her. I notice a Banite symbol on her, so the moment she says Hello, my first demand is "Unsummon the Undead, and I may forget this incident, and that symbol". She threatens me back (to be fair, I was unwarded and looked like a pansy with bow), and so eventually I start giving her warnings. She sends the zombie on me, staying back herself. The zombie immediately falls down to my arrows, and she drinks speed+invisibility potions to get the hell out of there. I give a short chase, wanting to release few warning shots to scare her, but accidentally crit her for way over her max HP.

I poked her OOC if she was fine with me raising her (it was the character's first kill of someone who wasn't openly hostile to him, so there was guilt weighing on him, which had to be sorted out later), she agreed, I raised her, we chatted some more with me trying to convert her, then we separated our ways, after receiving kudos from her.

I am in a dungeon with two other people, and one of them is an Osirian holy man. Somewhere mid-dungeon he calls zombies (although RP'ed as mummified warriors) to help in a bit tougher fight. We argue a bit on Kelemvor's and Osiris's alliance, but they get recalled. At the boss of dungeon, we're getting our asses almost criminally whooped, so in act of desperation he calls them again. We win the fight, but then we have a deep chat on whether "the ends justify the means". We eventually separate on our ways in "okay" terms, and this also allowed me to RP off with some other Kelemvorites in a religious discussion, enabling future RP.

I was doing a patrol in Lye (elven burial grounds), and went a bit deeper than usual, only to discover a Baelnorn there. Being a heavily elvenblooded half-elf who worships Kelemvor together with Corellon, this has left me a very big conundrum on which way to act. That allowed me to RP both discussion and character growth in Myon, and also, if I've met anyone afterwards, with other undead slayers/haters, WITHOUT necessarily just killbashing said Baelnorn and being tsundere to elves.

Walking together with one of Sentinel Captains, on the road we come across a man with a tyrantfrog zombie stinking up the air heavily. The captain asks him to unsummon, and starts slowly counting to 10 (more like a minute in sense of messaging). The man says nothing, shuffles a bit until count of 7, then starts running. A critted arrow downs him instantly. We just stashed the body off the road and shrugged, wondering why people wouldn't at least explain themselves.

[flower]

IDK why not just enjoy the fact there's something controversial to build RP around

SJW Arelith, where punching a goblin is outrageous and people frowning at your metro undead zombie boyfriend are intolerant pigs

that made me laugh so much.

[Diegovog]

I find it really weird how some people seem to think it's okay to use sourcebook for certain information but not for other that disfavor them. Anyone who ever created content such as fixtures, books and information to leave in the server know that a lot of research in official content is required. Some people even go further and use non official content to create discussion and it's also really interesting even if people don't take it serious.

I never said that it was okay to do that either. Very often the final result of such research are godemoting fixtures and items that do not abide by the wys/wyg rule of the thumb that suggest for them to only hint on the external information for the other players to work with as they see fit. Unless I am mistaken, players are still at the liberty to treat a vase as a vase and a tome as a tome despite their description explicitly stating that one is an indestructible lich phylactery and the other is the Liber Diabolica itself.

So all the information that players gather from sourcebooks and use in game for the description of the fixtures and their characters. Do you ignore all of them? Because 95% of the Forgotten Realms lore isn't explicitly mentioned in the server. Or do you selectively decide what your character is going to accept form the sourcebooks?
- I'm sorry, but there are no mentions of the Harmonious Order of Milil in Arelith, therefore you are metagaming information from the sourcebooks, it's not something your character would know and you can't be part of their Order.
It must also be pretty bland to see all the wonderful fixtures out there like "hey, another hand-shapped altar" because you know, wysiwyg.

But saying that you don't think it's okay for people, no paladins as you mentioned, (characters often devoted to the destruction of undead) to know what involves in animating undead? There's no mention of this knowledge being secret, it's not like a character promptly knowing how to create a phylactery from level 1, you're talking about people who literally devote their lives to understanding and fighting what is evil.

I am saying that it is wrong to act as if said paladin had page X from sourcebook Y memorized letter by letter and leave no room for further IG or OOC discussions regarding that topic, using the sourcebook as both IG and OOC ultimate authority on said topic (when in fact it is neither). There's plenty of IG content that a character can use to draw the same conclusions, but it leaves the element of the ultimate OOC authority (sourcebooks) out of it, which leaves room to foster further roleplay around it. You can even create such IG content on your own (even transcribe select pages from sourcebooks if that's what you want to do and you have a valid reason why your character would possess such knowledge), but be prepaired that said content can be disregarded by other players if they choose to do so.

Like I mentioned before, there's no point in arguing with you when you don't think paladins should know that animating is inherently evil and that they shouldn't use sourcebook material to back up their opinions.
Oh I know any player can disregard whatever they want. It's like in the past there was a warlock running for Chancellor who claimed that he was part of the Summer Court and was therefore, a good guy. And no matter what, the player/character wouldn't change their stance OOC. When something is extensively stated to be X and the person just refuses to accept it there is no point in continuing. Often this kind of player isn't looking for information that will help them decide on a matter, they already have a strong opinion on it and just want ways to be allowed to use it.

Now I took a look in that book you mentioned, Libris Mortis, and there's no mention that animating isn't evil, in fact there are numerous mentions of it being extremely evil, just look at the section "Origins of Undeath". It mentions Haunting, Atrocity Calls to Unlife (evil acts can resonate in multiple dimensions...),

All the instances of the referrences whithin Libris Mortis hinting at animation being evil that you listed above are in fact clearly classified in the sourcebook as "variant rules".

Incorrect. The only variant rule is the Haunting section. It clearly states "Variant Rule: Haunting Presences". all the rest is still part of the "Origins of Undeath." but out of the variant section. And for that exact reason I didn't say anything other than just the topic Haunting.

I'd rather suggest that you read page 5 where it clearly states that "Numerous theories exist concerning the nature of undeath, and though some hypotheses compete with or contradict one another, others reinforce or overlap each other." This means that the sourcebook itself is referential and tries to leave a certain sense of uncertainty about the entire matter. Furthermore, in the various undead types alignment entries it clearly states that while said type of undead typically has alignment evil X, exceptions can be quite common (even mentions of good mummies can be found on page 37)

Right, so the book is mentioning that there are numerous theories about the nature of undeath and that some contradict with each other. Therefore your natural conclusion is that it's not something inherently evil? Do you even see how much you're trying to stretch something used in the very book you mentioned to back up your point of view? But it doesn't in the slightest?
Maybe someone less biased can help with that section but for me it is saying that the listed theories below are open for discussion on their exact nature.

And there are good undead. We all know of Baelnorn. That's your 5%, Greater Reward territory.

Negative Energy as Draining Force (Some claim that undead exist concurrently on the Material Plane and the Negative Energy Plane ... The Negative Energy Plane is the heart of darkness - the hunger that devours souls), Undeath as Contagion (methods of propagating their curse) and Purposeful Reanimation (commonly known as liches)

While negative energy does sustain the undead and destroys living things, it isn't evil (in the "objective" way that the sourcebooks classify evil). There are references to evil powers abusing the negative energy plane, but in itself negative energy plane is no way more evil or good than, say, elemental plane of air.

He is this whole section you decided to speak about:
"While atrocity may serve as a trigger for unlife, it is not enough to bring about a transformation of this magnitude on its own. It requires the very energy that drives dark spirits and their unquenchable thirst for life. That which is dead has no vitality, so where does the energy of animation come from? Negative energy—a force that is marshaled, stored, and utilized mostly by evil creatures, malign deities, and their servants—provides the power for this metamorphosis. Just as blood suffuses living creatures, negative energy suffuses undead, providing them all their abilities, from mobility to sentience, from flesh-eating to soul-devouring"

But it doesn't matter if I list extensively why animating is eivl, will it? You're complaining that people are using source material as set in stone, despite no DM having a stance on the matter then there's nothing else I can tell you. You can try to bend as much as you want information that is generally thought as cannon and people will just eyeroll and ignore it.

I'm not complaining nor am I bending anything. You are insisting on the adherence to your interpretation of the sourcebook material. Firstly, it's been established that sourcebook materials aren't Arelith Cannon. Secondly, your interpretation of the sourcebook material doesn't strike me as particularly objective or precise.

Wow... I'm speechless... Doesn't strike to you as objective or precise...
Instead of just quoting what the sourcebook says about animating again, I'll just leave the whole print screen of the "Evil Acts section of the Book of Vile Darkness":

https://imgur.com/a/1h710dq

[JediZero]

Wow... I'm speechless... Doesn't strike to you as objective or precise...
Instead of just quoting what the sourcebook says about animating again, I'll just leave the whole print screen of the "Evil Acts section of the Book of Vile Darkness":

https://imgur.com/a/1h710dq

Yes, and as we all know, Arelith *strictly* adheres to all lore books.

This is why druids can't wear iron armor without losing their ability to cast magic. This is also why Devils would never be rampaging anywhere on the surface because of the Pact Primeval. Oh also why Paladins cannot take anymore levels of paladin after taking any other class levels.

As someone who has played a necromancer for a long time on this server, and has animated when my character has felt there was no other choice. . .This is dumb.

This is *really* dumb.

the alignment system is good for guidelines/spell descriptors, but to be quite frank, it's garbage for anything more than a puddle in terms of character depth. Even ignoring the problem of moral absolutism, where there are no 'iffy' situations, there are no 'extenuating circumstances', if you do X you are evil no matter why or how you went about doing it, you're essentially saying that we should gatekeep RP based strictly on an alignment system that again, is garbage for anything than first glances.

We shouldn't ignore other people's Roleplay based on what they do, because it doesn't fit immediately what our preconcieved notions and encyclopedic knowledge of lore books or whatever. That's crazy, and ignores the fact that Arelith has in the past said 'Lore books and knowledge of lore is not neccessary to play'. I don't care what the lore books say. If it makes sense in my story, and a DM doesn't tell me to knock it off, I'm gonna do what I think makes sense. And I think a lot of people have enjoyed the stories and bits of story telling tools I've been giving them with Jacob's lectures. I try not to make affirmed 'this is how it is forever' statements, because I don't want to block off avenues of Roleplay. That and the instant I do that, someone is going to make it and I'll bump into it dancing in Cordor.

TL;DR: Don't be a jerk. Don't try and gatekeep RP from people who want to explore darker avenues, and not particularly be the 'evil monsters' that you want all people who study the undead to be.

[Nitro]

TL;DR: Don't be a jerk. Don't try and gatekeep RP from people who want to explore darker avenues, and not particularly be the 'evil monsters' that you want all people who study the undead to be.

He's not saying you have to RP a monster to animate undead. You can be a nice person and still evil, animating undead is an evil act and should be reflected on the character sheet if people go around doing a lot of it.

[Red Ropes]

it's evil

but characters are complex things

its not that big of a deal

play the game, have fun

explore conflict

ask questions

get textually excited