Undeads and Arelith

[Lunargent]

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.

I mean, yes, we can. DM rulings absolutely do apply to lore. Arelith warlocks are nothing like vanilla warlocks, from a lore standpoint, purely because the DM team said so. So, yes, that is indeed a thing that happens.

[Irongron]

I'm not sure we need to start waving source books at each other, after all the FR setting isn't exactly known for its continuity, and as with Arelith storytelling does generally come first.

Still, as this topic has been brought up, and because there seems to be some misunderstanding, let me clarify.

There is no OOC DM ruling that summoning undead is evil.

That being said it is something that, generally speaking, the populace finds repulsive. So a DM might possess an NPC where they feel that fact is being ignored, just as a character wandering into the Nomad with a zombie might get a polite tell from a DM reminding them that what they're doing is not really appropriate RP.

Why? Because DMS can possess every NPC at every given moment, and so the onus is on the PCs to act accordingly when around them, whether it is standing behind Matron Freth making bunny ears, or summoning a devil in the Radiant Heart.

So yes, this can come down to story, and to context. It is also worth considering the type of undead being summoned. Almost everyone will be repulsed by the sight of a zombie, but if the undead is a suit of armour, a shadow or even a seductive vampire the reaction might well be different.

Fiction is littered with examples of 'good' undead, heck even Luke Skywalker hung out with a spirit. And of course, let's not forget this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morte_(Planescape)

[Bryce Silver-Wind]

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.

I mean, yes, we can. DM rulings absolutely do apply to lore. Arelith warlocks are nothing like vanilla warlocks, from a lore standpoint, purely because the DM team said so. So, yes, that is indeed a thing that happens.

That said, if ever you do not agree with a ruling of the DM team, you can take it up with DM Spyre, or if the argument is with him, to the Devs who are happy to either discuss it again among themselves and the team, or explain why the ruling makes sense to them! Just expect that Devs are very busy and there may be a delay in getting an answer.

[DaddysLE]

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.

And it is. In order to play a Pale Master, your alignment must be "any non good." Very similar to the tiefling alignment requirements.

The Tiefling article on the arelith wiki has some perspective on the nature of. Good and evil.

Having a Tiefling who wants to do good isn't as hard as it sounds. The trick is to successfully implement "the means justify the goal." A "good" Tiefling wanting to stop the evil baron who's oppressing the peasants could very well abduct the Baron's daughter and threaten to kill her if the oppression doesn't end. The goal is good - to stop the oppression, but the means is evil - abduction and possible murder. In the same way, he could mug the rich (not steal, like Robin Hood - but actually jump out and beat up the noble whether or not the Noble is a greedy one or not, and steal their gold from the unconscious battered nobleman) and give to the poor. As long as the plus and minus is zero, I think he'd be considered neutral. A good person will not do evil things - even if the end goal is good, while a neutral person may very well do that.

Go ahead and replace "rob", "kill," or "kidnap" with "animate," and pay particular attention to the last two statements: "As long as the plus and minus is zero, I think he'd be considered neutral. A good person will not do evil things - even if the end goal is good, while a neutral person may very well do that."

[Hunter548]

There is no OOC DM ruling that summoning undead is evil.

Is this a new ruling, or a statement that no DM has ruled on this? Titania has stated here that is, infact, evil, and both TItania and GrumpyCat have refered back to this ruling in this very thread.

(It also has been the DM team position for a while; Watchtower ruled about it multiple times on the previous forums.)


Regardless of whether it's been ruled on ruled before, I find it very weird to state that A) Creating Vampires/Ghousl/Wights isn't evil, and B) Use an example from a different setting, encountered in a single player isometric RPG. No one is claiming, I think, that all undead must be evil (there's even in game examples of this, with the "Daedin the Protector" spawn in the Elven Burial Grounds) but rather that most of the undead you, as a player, can create (Vampires, Ghouls, Ghasts, Wights, even Mummies) are difficult to justify as being created for a good act.

[-XXX-]

Well, there's no rule stating that you need to read all the sourcebooks in order to log in and have fun. On the contrary, Arelith is canonically separated and nothing compels you to play along with mechanically unsupported abilities, concepts, whatever .

Furthermore and more importantly, we seem to have a relatively new player expressing frustration over a negative IG experience and the next following post essentially conveys the message "serves you right for not knowing your sourcebook material". If you can't see how that is wrong, then I do not know what's there left to say...

[Irongron]

There is no OOC DM ruling that summoning undead is evil.

Is this a new ruling, or a statement that no DM has ruled on this? Titania has stated here that is, infact, evil, and both TItania and GrumpyCat have refered back to this ruling in this very thread.

(It also has been the DM team position for a while; Watchtower ruled about it multiple times on the previous forums.)


Regardless of whether it's been ruled on ruled before, I find it very weird to state that A) Creating Vampires/Ghousl/Wights isn't evil, and B) Use an example from a different setting, encountered in a single player isometric RPG. No one is claiming, I think, that all undead must be evil (there's even in game examples of this, with the "Daedin the Protector" spawn in the Elven Burial Grounds) but rather that most of the undead you, as a player, can create (Vampires, Ghouls, Ghasts, Wights, even Mummies) are difficult to justify as being created for a good act.

I guess my point is that context counts. We have a strong IC anti-undead culture in FR. Routinely summon undead and you will run afoul of the church of Kelemvor, and many laws - such as the one in Cordor refered to on the sign outside the town. Nevertheless as you mentioned with the Elven spirits there is room for a grey area, not least in regards to the Church of Jergal or the amoral experiments carried out by certain wizards and palemasters. Personally I think the status quo on Arelith is fine as it is. PCs react in a hostile manner to seeing someone use undead, peasants will reach for their pitchforks etc.

Yet there have been Jergalite characters and certain others who have gone another way, and that is in no way against server rules. Poor RP might result in an RPR drop, or a few words from the DMs, of course.

[Diegovog]

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.

I feel like you're not even reading the own image that I quoted. So allow me to quote it again and clarify: "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."
Does that say that if you animate you're evil? No. Does it mean that it can lead to the corruption of the person due to the evil nature of it? Yes.

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.

I find it extremely weird that you say it's "crazy" to use lore from the settings we use instead of allowing people to play whatever they want however they want. I believe you have an emotionally charged response based on how people reacted in the past for not accepting something you wanted your character to be. People can still perceive a paladin to be a terrible person can't they? I think you're going into an area that is *how people perceive someone*. I'm not saying anyone should see your characters as evil in the slightest.

and I don't think people shouldn't stray from the sourcebooks. I think the perfect positive example is a certain mage in the Erudite Arcanum who literally creates areas of the arcane that were never mentioned in arelith lore nor in any of the sourcebooks. It's still a super in-depth and interesting because it's not conflicting or problematic to the existing lore. Quite the opposite, it enriches the world and player experience. When that happens, it doesn't feel like someone is trying to punch-through their character's beliefs into the settings. It just fits and it's awesome!

In any case, as Nitro put it, I never said you have to be an evil monster to animate undead.
Nor is anyone saying that "people who study undead" are evil.

The question was if animating was evil. Every official source claims that it is inherently evil. And I don't think there is any conflicting information about that.

Irongron mentioned something that has been different than DM stance on the matter in the past. Perhaps they can talk and come to a decision about the matter.

[Irongron]

Further to my comment above, I also wanted to mention Shadows, something NWN classifies as undead, yet are commonly used by shadowdancers. Any cleric with the death domain (even the good ones) will also gain the ability to summon one.

At no point in Arelith's history has there been any kind of ruling stating that using this feat is forbidden unless they are evil, neither (to my knowledge) has a good PC ever been reprimanded for using it.

DMs have stated, and will likely go on to, that summoning undead IS going to be construed as evil, and they are absolutely right, in most cases.

Grumpy stated the situation clearly on the first page of this thread.

Nine times out of ten, summoning/raising/using undead is evil, and culturally taboo in most Goodly cultures.

There may be the one time out of ten (Mullihorand Priest, certain Jergalites, Baerlorn) when it's not evil, but those are very much outlayers and, further more, aside from OOC information, they may well still be construed as evil from an IC perspective.

To use another example - whilst some (many?) elven characters might agree that the Baelnorn is a special situation and is not inherently evil, your average Cordorian guard might well be horrified at the concept.

I just want to make it absolultely clear that there is no Arelith ruling against playing one of these outliers, I have done so myself in the past. It is only that one should not expect to have an easy ride of it. Again, from the very first page of this topic...

As has been pointed out elsewhere, attempting to change server-wide viewpoints OOCly via the forums is a fairly futile endeavor. If any change is going to be made, it has to happen ICly, and as a result will likely be limited in scope and duration. It will also be an uphill battle, as the current Arelith surface is generally pretty good-aligned.

[JediZero]

I feel like you're not even reading the own image that I quoted. So allow me to quote it again and clarify: "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."
Does that say that if you animate you're evil? No. Does it mean that it can lead to the corruption of the person due to the evil nature of it? Yes.

I apologize, I misread the intent of some statements. The main issue I have is when people say 'OOCly I know that this is evil according to source books and therefore it can only ever be evil'. My main target of irritation here is the alignment system, but I failed to write a better post affirming that. In short instead of stopping and thinking about what I wrote I did a stream of consciousness and that is my bad.

I find it extremely weird that you say it's "crazy" to use lore from the settings we use instead of allowing people to play whatever they want however they want. I believe you have an emotionally charged response based on how people reacted in the past for not accepting something you wanted your character to be. People can still perceive a paladin to be a terrible person can't they? I think you're going into an area that is *how people perceive someone*. I'm not saying anyone should see your characters as evil in the slightest.

I don't think it's crazy to use lore from the settings. I think it's crazy to say 'This is the way the lore has to be because Page #23 of the D&D sourcebook in the appendix says X'. It quickly devolves into rules lawyering and saying there can be no exceptions, and people who either don't know the lore, or do but want to try an odd character, might end up feeling frustrated. Which you cover in your next paragraph, and I agree with 100%. I just wanted to try and clarify what I was trying to say in my long, rambling post that really I should have edited more. Sorry.

[Diegovog]

I feel like you're not even reading the own image that I quoted. So allow me to quote it again and clarify: "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction."
Does that say that if you animate you're evil? No. Does it mean that it can lead to the corruption of the person due to the evil nature of it? Yes.

I apologize, I misread the intent of some statements. The main issue I have is when people say 'OOCly I know that this is evil according to source books and therefore it can only ever be evil'. My main target of irritation here is the alignment system, but I failed to write a better post affirming that. In short instead of stopping and thinking about what I wrote I did a stream of consciousness and that is my bad.

I find it extremely weird that you say it's "crazy" to use lore from the settings we use instead of allowing people to play whatever they want however they want. I believe you have an emotionally charged response based on how people reacted in the past for not accepting something you wanted your character to be. People can still perceive a paladin to be a terrible person can't they? I think you're going into an area that is *how people perceive someone*. I'm not saying anyone should see your characters as evil in the slightest.

I don't think it's crazy to use lore from the settings. I think it's crazy to say 'This is the way the lore has to be because Page #23 of the D&D sourcebook in the appendix says X'. It quickly devolves into rules lawyering and saying there can be no exceptions, and people who either don't know the lore, or do but want to try an odd character, might end up feeling frustrated. Which you cover in your next paragraph, and I agree with 100%. I just wanted to try and clarify what I was trying to say in my long, rambling post that really I should have edited more. Sorry.

No problem. I've seen Jacob's RP and I think it's stellar. I highly appreciate all the Bhaalspawn references you used, you are probably the one who made it clear to me in my early days of arelith that it's cool the use of material outside the books.

[The GrumpyCat]

I have a question for the rest of you. Two really.

Why Do You Care?
Why Does This Actually Matter?

Answer: To give you an idea of how to play alignments, because if you are playing an alignment restricted character (Paladin, Pale Master, Champion of Torm, Warlock, Harper Scout, Blackguard ect) you want to ensure that you don't breach that restriction.

For a good rpr rating, you probably want to ensure also that your character sheet alignment has at least a rough simerality to what you actually play IG, right?

So the question for you there is – how do we as Dms/Devs view this?

Answer: Summoning undead is certainly not a Good act. But it's not necessary the most evil thing ever, and there are exceptions both in character, type of undead, and circumstance.

So: If we see your Paladin summoning zombies for housework, or your LG Cleric of Kelemvor summoning Vampires to kill kobolds, then yes, our eyebrow will raise, and we may ask what's going on.

But beyond that circumstances will always be considered, and the question of 'how does the game world view undead?' is a far more interesting and pertinent question than 'what does this sourcebook say?'

[Sab1]

It sort of makes sense most people npc's etc would find the concept of a shambling corpse walking by as disgusting and not a nice thing. Also most undead out there live to feed off people, so it might be hard to convince your average peasant to ignore the vampires he is seeing and you are a good sweet person who is commanding vampires.

[Marsi]

Necromancers being Evil Bastards™ is a rule written into the fabric of the western fantasy pastiche. There's no one ruling or sourcebook excerpt that says so, it's just the way things are. No one passage or situation from the lore is really enough to change that. It's hard to go against the grain in the proposed manner because, even if you somehow either convinced or forced the current server population to agree with your demands, and you had them levied with rules and overbearing reminders, you'd have to effectively put a pause on the cultural consciousness of every incoming player.

Besides, while moral relativism can be cool in small doses too much of it is narrative poison. If necromancers, warlocks and werewolves all had their way and the server at large was forced to tolerate them in roleplay, the appeal of those tropes would start to fade. You can't have the aesthetic of villains and rebels without the forces that cause them to be villains and rebels. I've seen this happen to individuals, especially warlocks, where either they pursue a crusade of tolerance* for themselves or choose to simply avoid any confrontational RP relating to their nature, and they end up a supremely bored, washed-up, wandering epic lacking any sort of character development or purpose in the world.

*I think trying to change the minds of characters IG is a worthy story, but it requires finesse and creativity. A shady hermetic organisation, or a troubled young scientist, etc. Just expecting the people around you to understand or to be convinced from a few lines of dialogue isn't rewarding for either party and often ends in death and exile.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Don't bring up Osiris unless you're actually going to name the rest of the Mulhorandi pantheon, give me a snapshot of their history, tell me the capital, the political history with Unther, and the diaspora of Mulanese ethnicity.

People use Osiris as the poster child of these discussions. It's bad enough RL Egyptians exist in Faerun. Don't cherrypick your lore to help your case.

None of us like Greenwood for it.

Don't do it.

[One Two Three Five]

and don't say you're a fan of spiderman if you can't name the earth 517 version

FR lore is bad all the way round dog.

Anyway: I'm less concerned with the undead thing and more with the reputation I've seen Arelith getting (both from recent posts from newbies, various chats, and from like, every other server community I've hit lately) a reputation for having a mean-spirited server culture with a worrying emphasis on pvp.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Nothing's good about it, 12345. My post was hyperbole, but yes, it's all about. Sourcebook arguments don't work. We shouldn't rely on them.

We should talk about the 150 IG years of history of animation being a nay-nay as the only evidence we need.

[TimeAdept]

A cleric of Kelemvor summoning Undead should get a swift smack from DMs not a soft questioning

Adhering to setting lore doesn't make us a worse place to be, it creates a coherent, cohesive setting

I don't see anything wrong with admitted the core PHB says the word (evil) next to all the undead animation spells.

re: shadowdancer summon, this is solved entirely by calling it an extraplanar shade creature, or a phantasm of the SD vs animating dead, and I encourage this treatment b/c SD itself is apretty agnostic class

[One Two Three Five]

Shadowdancer summon is an outsider now. Just checked, TN outsider.

[Sab1]

Most undead are evil, vampires. ghouls, ghasts, etc that live to feed off the living. Maybe you aren't evil, but it's rather naïve to expect a person summoning undead should be treated like it's not a big deal to others. Maybe you only summon them to protect youself in times of extreme danger. It doesn't mean others aren't going to care and won't see you as pure evil for surrounding yourself with vampires etc..

[Hinty]

I always figured that the Shadowdancers Shadow was a "Shadow Conjuration" style summon, and as such was a cockup on the part of Bioware since the spells should summon convincing and believable illusionary versions of normal summons, not actual Shadows.

My assumption was that the Shadow Dancers pet is a Shadow Illusion and as such is just an illusion given physical substance by drawing upon matter from the Plane of Shadow. That said, I do not have a PnP book that contains shadow dancer so I dont have the original to draw upon.

[Nevrus]

I checked on the d20 srd actually! RAW it's an undead shade with the same alignment as the caster. Normally all undead are evil so this is an interesting exception. I guess because it's an extension of the caster it doesn't have the innate need to consume life most undead have, which makes it more acceptable to the tolerant.

[One Two Three Five]

On Arelith the feat summons an outsider comma so I think that's the end of it right.

[The Kriv]

Interesting debate, and a lot of info tossed here and there. My own perspective and opinion on the topic, and how I have traditionaly played my characters hasn't changed by anything I've read in this specific thread.

My non-evil characters consider undead, the animation/summoning/controlling, etc.. to be an unnatural thing. And it is my intention to keep the spirit of the setting of the campaign this server is set.

Forgotten Realms, D&D, Pathfinder, whatever the source, the spirit of all campaigns of a fantasy setting, with few rare exceptions, treat undeath as generally a bad thing, and those who delve into it should be shunned or outcast from society.

A lot of my characters are nature-oriented classes. Rangers/Druids, etc..

You want to talk about Arlith Canon? Here's some Arelith Canon... the Arelith Wiki on Druids and undead reads:

Druids seek to put an end to the living dead as they see this as a being that has no place in the pattern of life, and serves no function there. It is an aberration to the cycle which can sometimes be produced by natural means, yet still has no place in nature and should be done away with.

It doesn't mention ANYTHING of good or evil. And thus the debate takes a side-trek. Summoning/controling undead could be considered evil... maybe there are cases it isn't evil. But honestly, a lot of characters don't concern themeselves with these polar opposites. They concnern themselves with natural-unnatural. And if we want to be true to the setting, which honestly is more important than aligning ourselves with some specific sourcebook... being true to the setting is treating undead as a bad thing.

IMHO, no amount of debate will justify it otherwise and STILL be in line with the spirit of the setting.

[Zed]

As a well known necromancer I feel like I could have some ancillary authority to post on this topic, and no just because ive been beetlejuiced into it.

Playing as Bisik ive kind of created my own real view on the topic of necromancy school spells and I think really there are quite a few spells that are, and should be, considered evil.

Most people I would say treat necromancy quite properly with the notable exception that is prevailant of all characters currently, and that's treating necromancy with any form of fear. (You can get people to fear YOU but even a level 3 will act like a fearless BA which I think is a character trope that has been played out in every role-playing game)

I have spoken with another notable necromancer on this exact topic, and ill repeat what I said to him...

I split the necromancy school into two separate schools internally; Negative energy manipulation, and Death manipulation.

Negative energies can be used exclusively for good, or for evil. And the use of it is quite widespread, clerics and healers can use negative energies and that's great... I think this subtype of necromancy is what stops people up generally.

Death manipulation is the willful destruction or desecration of the soul, or flesh to suit needs. This would be ripping the soul out of a body in order to kill someone, or inserting a controlled soul to create an undead abomination as a slave to your will.

I would take the way that a random peasant would walk into a room approach to how people view evil things.

If a peasant walked into a room and saw you cast negative energy beam. They would see it as any damage spell, like ray of frost except red, in essence. This act wouldn't be treated as evil because he doesnt know the difference, and wizards and sorcerers are always flinging spells about.

Now exhange that spell for wail of the banshee... Where a ghostly form screams causing the souls to be ripped out of a group of advventurers. Literally scaring the life out of them... That type of act is terrifying. And if an act is terrifying, it is generally considered evil.

Then bring this back to the OPs original act of wandering about with undead.

Undead are smelly, they are generally rotting hunks of meat controlled by an entity that has enslaved them to their will. And considering there are plenty of constructs in the world that a manage can use to get the job done just as well if not better than a corpse, without waking the dead, the act itself is egregious.

I would say though, if you want to play a necromancer You can be open about it. In fact I encourage it.

I dont think necromancers should be secretive, personally. I think they should have a superiority complex about them. The school of necromancy is one of, if not the most powerful schools of magic, both lorewise, and mechanically. And your RP should/could reflect that.

But I do think that if you wander about with undead you should expect the exact results you were given