Morality

[Rane]

Simple question really.

Is it evil for a good aligned character to control an undead and then use that undead to destroy other undead? Of course the character then disposes of the undead that they controlled after its use.

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 25, 2016 22:46:45 GMT -5 Rane said:

Simple question really.

Is it evil for a good aligned character to control an undead and then use that undead to destroy other undead? Of course the character then disposes of the undead that they controlled after its use.

It's not simple. It really depends on perspective, since Control Undead (not normally a divine spell in base DnD) doesn't have the evil descriptor. It is, however, both necromancy and a spell designed to control beings that are almost exclusively evil in nature. Some characters may find that to be a very distasteful method of defeating other evils, while others may consider it as the ends justifying means. The deity one reveres may also have a say in it; while a good-aligned cleric of Helm might find it acceptable, a cleric of Lathander would likely take great offense to the suggestion.

The perhaps closest direct answer one can give is 'no, it is not explicitly evil.' Some may view it as such anyways.

[Rane]

Really that's how I feel about it as well.

[mysticalkas]

To look at it from the Law of Cormyr. The summoning of undead is illigal...there for Bad.

When you pose a question like this is can become very complicated because people will always try to argue something and variables are always taken into consideration. This one is actually simple because Cormyrian law answers it....Bad juju..

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 26, 2016 0:06:23 GMT -5 mysticalkas said:

To look at it from the Law of Cormyr. The summoning of undead is illigal...there for Bad.

When you pose a question like this is can become very complicated because people will always try to argue something and variables are always taken into consideration. This one is actually simple because Cormyrian law answers it....Bad juju..

Cormyte law has a supplement for just this occasion, actually. Controlling undead is legal with a number of caveats, such as not bringing them within sight of any settlements or farmland. The undead still hold no rights and may be destroyed at will.

A number of characters have found these distasteful and have been pretty vocal about it, but I am not aware of any ongoing or sustained effort to change the laws regarding undead.

[Rane]

May 26, 2016 0:06:23 GMT -5 mysticalkas said:

To look at it from the Law of Cormyr. The summoning of undead is illigal...there for Bad.

When you pose a question like this is can become very complicated because people will always try to argue something and variables are always taken into consideration. This one is actually simple because Cormyrian law answers it....Bad juju..

In my "posed" question, I am referring to using an already existing undead to destroy others and then destroying it as well.

[appleseedy]

i think any given character can justify anything any given act for doing whatever it is they want to do. Your justifications carry no weight with any other given character...if you see what i mean?

If someone uses a changing potion to morph into a zombie i don't care if its legal not legal, whatever, i wont be seen dead with them (pun intended ). IC actions have IC consequences

[maeglhachel]

This is probably very situational.

Some necromancer creates some mean undead to attack you and you turn it to cut through his mobs and kill him then destroy the creature? If evil at all, then tolerable from a CG perspective, to me.
(**cough, cough, mumble* Control undead scrolls ... you keep them)

If you hold on to the creature and take it along to cleanse the dungeon for another hour, it's a darker shade of grey ... into the next dungeon, just because it's useful?
You see where I'm going ...

The "good" thing IMHO would be to deliver the undead, set the soul free. The more you deliberately put your own benefit above the dead person's rest, the less "good" ... being the one who actually raises the thing is, of course, an entirely different kettle of fish.

My 2 cents

[Viridian Knight]

May 26, 2016 4:26:45 GMT -5 maeglhachel said:

If you hold on to the creature and take it along to cleanse the dungeon for another hour, it's a darker shade of grey ... into the next dungeon, just because it's useful?
You see where I'm going ...

The "good" thing IMHO would be to deliver the undead, set the soul free. The more you deliberately put your own benefit above the dead person's rest, the less "good" ... being the one who actually raises the thing is, of course, an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'd honestly agree with this.  That said I'd say it's a more leaning to the darker side CN then CG, someone can still have good intentions and do terrible things, good intentions don't necessarily make someone's actions good.

This all comes before certain RP perspectives of course, druids, followers of lathander, kelemvor, nature gods, the triad, they're all likely to take great offense to the action and not simply limited to clerics and paladins of such but any actual follower that pays more then just lip service are very much likely to take offense to control undead even for a short time.  

Even followers of gods that don't necessarily outright oppose undead might take offense with such from an IC perspective.

TLDR, I'd say it isn't evil, but most certainly not good either and you're most certainly going to get alot of flack for it regardless of what part of the alignment it falls into.  It's a very morally dark grey area that a large amount of characters be the PC or NPC are likely to disagree with.

VK.

[Razgriz]

I agree with maeglhachel and Viridian Knight.

It depends of the faith, personal codes, values of the character and some other variables. For example, I think it is possible a faithful of Hoar would use the undead minions of the necromancer against him/her and then destroying them once the mage has been dealt with.

In other words, you need the right party that would at least tolerate these tactics.

[Rane]

You all seem to have relatively the same view. I can agree with many of the points that you have all made.

My view is that this issue is black and white for some, and not for others.

I'll use my dwarf for an example. He is good (yes surprise! I have a good pc)

And his god delights in a little mischief. Using a lich's creation against it in The Necropolis for instance is a little mischievous. It gives everyone the sense that the dwarf is up to no good, when in reality he despises undead and is using this certain creation as a means to an end. When all is said and done the soul will be returned to rest and many more with it. (Killing 500 chickens with another chicken)

Of course the lawful good aligned faiths would never consider this an option, but the superior neutral guys?

Anyway, i've enjoyed being able to pick everyone's brain on this topic. Who knows! A situation like this might happen soon!

[StabbingNirvana]

I'd say that given that DnD prescribes by the rule of black and white in terms of good and evil, that the end doesn't justify the means and thus the use or control of undead is an immoral/evil act inherently regardless of what the spell or ability description says.

Now of course, there's always exceptions to the rule as I've read somewhere or another that Tormish priests have an undead squadron defending some holy place. Not sure where or how valid that is and I probably won't be digging around for it anywhere to post the source. Personally, I'd argue that those Tormish priests are committing an evil act but for reasons beyond human comprehension, Torm hasn't shunned them.

[Animayhem]

May 26, 2016 11:47:16 GMT -5 Razgriz said:

I agree with maeglhachel and Viridian Knight.

It depends of the faith, personal codes, values of the character and some other variables. For example, I think it is possible a faithful of Hoar would use the undead minions of the necromancer against him/her and then destroying them once the mage has been dealt with.

In other words, you need the right party that would at least tolerate these tactics.

I agree with Merc's assessment.

It is very interesting and timely topic. Marister recently had gotten into a discussion of sorts using a skeleton doll summoning ring he had found. It lead to some interesting rp.

But aside from summoning, what about using either a wand of negative energy or casting negative energy spells? Or using weapons with vampire regeneration( if they are available here)?

I agree that good and evil are not black and white.

[Rane]

May 26, 2016 12:08:57 GMT -5 StabbingNirvana said:

I'd say that given that DnD prescribes by the rule of black and white in terms of good and evil, that the end doesn't justify the means and thus the use or control of undead is an immoral/evil act inherently regardless of what the spell or ability description says.

Now of course, there's always exceptions to the rule as I've read somewhere or another that Tormish priests have an undead squadron defending some holy place. Not sure where or how valid that is and I probably won't be digging around for it anywhere to post the source. Personally, I'd argue that those Tormish priests are committing an evil act but for reasons beyond human comprehension, Torm hasn't shunned them.

I'm not asking this question based upon the actions of a good guy vs a evil guy.

You are right, good and evil is very clear. However, this action is a bit convoluted as it brings to question the person's own morals and the morals of everyone surrounding him/her.

Taking control of an undead is not the same as creating it. You could argue that it is evil but you could also argue that it is a good thing that you tore this soul away from the control of the evil one who created the vessel.

It doesn't at this point fall into the realm of good or bad. It is more a question of point of view. A Tormish priest would never think of it, but a priest whose god is good yet follows a more loose moral code? I think it may be a possibility for them.

Using that vessel to destroy other vessels and return the tormented souls to rest is an ultimately brilliant and good act in my opinion. Especially if the priest is doing it for the sole purpose of purifying the area. And even more if that priest destroys the vessel he or she controlled.

[Animayhem]

Yet what of someone who is not a cleric or a priest? They find an item like the skeleton doll ring and summon it to aid the party allowing it to be destroyed by killing the enemy being faced thus it would be freed. By the same token someone could find the ring and have it destroyed by a priest.

Granted in the listings of the gods there are basic do's and don'ts, yet as in real life faith is open to interpretation.

One may say well laws are not. Again a technically as in real life laws have been interpreted in game.

If played right, it can lead to an interesting side storyline and insight to those present.

[Syd's Blue Sky]

No, Rane, it's not Evil in any way if the spell doesn't carry the Evil descriptor.

Morality in DnD is never a matter of perspective. (though the Book of Vile Deeds does contain a set of variant rules for Subjective Morality for DM consideration)

Evil, Good, Law, Chaos, are objective and mathematical in their application. They are like the charge on an ion. If the energies of Evil are invoked, it is Evil.

Subjective morality in DnD is not a thing. I've covered this at great length in posts in the past... I may need to dig them up.

Further, the law of Cormyr has no relation whatsoever to the Law of the multiverse. They may happen to coincide from time to time, but that's all. There are times that following the law of Cormyr can result in a Chaotic and Evil deed. Do not confuse mortal law or moral law with the Law of the Multiverse.

This is a good place to start.

But the words of the writers will do in a pinch.

Page 9, Book of Exalted Deeds:

ENDS AND MEANS

When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.

Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.


EDIT: FORMAT-ASTROPHE. w/e I just broke it down by paragraphs. You get the idea. Added one bold line for emphasis.[/quote]

I think the morality system was intentionally over-simplified because the game has so many confounding factors like spells with alignment descriptors. Add that to the fact that the pegs on the alignment sheet actually correspond to real physical forces rather than some nebulous mumbo jumbo in a philosophy sub-reddit and things start to get weird. Keeping it simple keeps it easy.

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 26, 2016 14:59:37 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

Yet what of someone who is not a cleric or a priest? They find an item like the skeleton doll ring and summon it to aid the party allowing it to be destroyed by killing the enemy being faced thus it would be freed. By the same token someone could find the ring and have it destroyed by a priest.

Granted in the listings of the gods there are basic do's and don'ts, yet as in real life faith is open to interpretation.

One may say well laws are not. Again a technically as in real life laws have been interpreted in game.

If played right, it can lead to an interesting side storyline and insight to those present.

If the spell has the evil descriptor, it's evil. The most LG fighter/rogue in existence could cast Create Undead for the best of reasons and it'd still be an evil act. Control undead does not have the descriptor, so it's not evil to use that spell to control undead. There is no interpretation needed beyond how a character might respond to the use of Control Undead.

[Animayhem]

May 26, 2016 15:35:29 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

May 26, 2016 14:59:37 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

Yet what of someone who is not a cleric or a priest? They find an item like the skeleton doll ring and summon it to aid the party allowing it to be destroyed by killing the enemy being faced thus it would be freed. By the same token someone could find the ring and have it destroyed by a priest.

Granted in the listings of the gods there are basic do's and don'ts, yet as in real life faith is open to interpretation.

One may say well laws are not. Again a technically as in real life laws have been interpreted in game.

If played right, it can lead to an interesting side storyline and insight to those present.

If the spell has the evil descriptor, it's evil. The most LG fighter/rogue in existence could cast Create Undead for the best of reasons and it'd still be an evil act. Control undead does not have the descriptor, so it's not evil to use that spell to control undead. There is no interpretation needed beyond how a character might respond to the use of Control Undead.

This was not a control dead spell cast. It was a summoning ring, which summoned a skeleton doll, an item which could be used by anyone much like any other item which can be used to summon creatures living or dead. It was an item found by the user not made by the user.

[Alizarin Spion - Sleeper Agent]

Totally legit but I'd never do it on any of my good aligned characters, petty DMs would ride my ass and shift my alignment just for sneezing, shieeeeeet.

[Rane]

So I guess my question now, is does the Cleric control undead spell have an evil descriptor on FRC?

Edit:: Never-mind I see that it doesn't.

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 26, 2016 15:53:19 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

This was not a control dead spell cast. It was a summoning ring, which summoned a skeleton doll, an item which could be used by anyone much like any other item which can be used to summon creatures living or dead. It was an item found by the user not made by the user.

I understood that. I'll reiterate my point if it wasn't clear: if the spell cast, be it from an item or directly by a caster, has an evil descriptor then it is evil no matter what. If it doesn't, then it is not evil. Character perception has nothing to do with that, though characters can label creating or controlling undead as evil similarly. They would be wrong, but them's the breaks with perceptions and opinions.

[mysticalkas]

May 26, 2016 0:09:57 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

Cormyte law has a supplement for just this occasion, actually. Controlling undead is legal with a number of caveats, such as not bringing them within sight of any settlements or farmland. The undead still hold no rights and may be destroyed at will.

A number of characters have found these distasteful and have been pretty vocal about it, but I am not aware of any ongoing or sustained effort to change the laws regarding undead.

This I did not know, I was always told that the summoning of undead was illegal and punishable by death.

[Animayhem]

May 26, 2016 17:38:38 GMT -5 mysticalkas said:

May 26, 2016 0:09:57 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

Cormyte law has a supplement for just this occasion, actually. Controlling undead is legal with a number of caveats, such as not bringing them within sight of any settlements or farmland. The undead still hold no rights and may be destroyed at will.

A number of characters have found these distasteful and have been pretty vocal about it, but I am not aware of any ongoing or sustained effort to change the laws regarding undead.

This I did not know, I was always told that the summoning of undead was illegal and punishable by death.

Ok so then a side from the objections of those Marister was with, the fact that it was not in a settlement or farmland he did not break the law it being in a dungeon.

[Rane]

Unless, undead are still illegal due to the Bone-master plot a while back.

[DM Hawk]

May 26, 2016 16:58:33 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

May 26, 2016 15:53:19 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

This was not a control dead spell cast. It was a summoning ring, which summoned a skeleton doll, an item which could be used by anyone much like any other item which can be used to summon creatures living or dead. It was an item found by the user not made by the user.

I understood that. I'll reiterate my point if it wasn't clear: if the spell cast, be it from an item or directly by a caster, has an evil descriptor then it is evil no matter what. If it doesn't, then it is not evil. Character perception has nothing to do with that, though characters can label creating or controlling undead as evil similarly. They would be wrong, but them's the breaks with perceptions and opinions.

Let's be careful and not forget common sense. Just because a certain spell descriptor doesn't say "Evil" doesn't mean use of the spell isn't evil or is acceptable use by the powers of good.

Playing with fire and all that.

A characters morality (or lack thereof) is much deeper than a spell descriptor.

[Syd's Blue Sky]

May 26, 2016 16:11:22 GMT -5 Alizarin Spion - Sleeper Agent said:

Totally legit but I'd never do it on any of my good aligned characters, petty DMs would ride my ass and shift my alignment just for sneezing, shieeeeeet.

Sounds like a joke, but this pretty much happened. Can confirm.

DMs do some heinously stupid *chickenwing* sometimes, especially with respect to alignment shifts. I'm of the opinion most DMs, like most players, have either not taken the time to understand what the alignment system in DnD is and how it operates, or are trapped in their RL preconceptions of the concepts of Good, Evil, Law and Good.

[Syd's Blue Sky]

Normative Ethics 101

This is what DnD uses.

This is what DnD does not use.

IC reactions may or may not conform to these very real and defined rules of the game. It's entirely possible for Good aligned PCs with the very best of intentions to accidentally do Evil. Deeds need not be intentional to matter in the eyes of the multiverse. The multiverse is a massive, uncaring thing. The deities do not control the energies of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. They are as beholden to them as the mortals.

We need to be careful not to metagame these things with our characters of X or Y alignment. For example, if you make a paladin who does something not strictly Lawful and Good it's absolutely metagaming (or worse) for people to be telling you OOC to stop. Play your character and live the experience. Don't be that guy.

Yes, this happens.

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 26, 2016 18:00:43 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

Let's be careful and not forget common sense. Just because a certain spell descriptor doesn't say "Evil" doesn't mean use of the spell isn't evil or is acceptable use by the powers of good.

Playing with fire and all that.

A characters morality (or lack thereof) is much deeper than a spell descriptor.

That's what I said. Mechanically the spell isn't evil. That doesn't mean a character or deity wouldn't label it as such. The labeling doesn't make the spell itself evil, but they may certainly have repercussions for a given character.

May 26, 2016 17:57:53 GMT -5 Rane said:

Unless, undead are still illegal due to the Bone-master plot a while back.

The undead still do not have any rights in Cormyr and may be destroyed at any time by anyone without legal issues. This is still stated on every board that lists 'X Town's Laws in Accordance with those of Cormyr' or whatever it is, to the best of my knowledge.

May 26, 2016 17:48:04 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

Ok so then a side from the objections of those Marister was with, the fact that it was not in a settlement or farmland he did not break the law it being in a dungeon.

There's a gray area around summoning creatures, but strictly speaking it's not against the law in that circumstance. I'd recommend double-checking the boards mentioned above IG if you or your characters need a refresher on Cormyrian law.

[Viridian Knight]

May 26, 2016 17:48:04 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

May 26, 2016 17:38:38 GMT -5 mysticalkas said:

This I did not know, I was always told that the summoning of undead was illegal and punishable by death.

Ok so then a side from the objections of those Marister was with, the fact that it was not in a settlement or farmland he did not break the law it being in a dungeon.

May 26, 2016 18:22:50 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

There's a gray area around summoning creatures, but strictly speaking it's not against the law in that circumstance. I'd recommend double-checking the boards mentioned above IG if you or your characters need a refresher on Cormyrian law.

This post is the latest I am aware of regarding the laws regarding undead.  frc.proboards.com/post/211215  for more then just the relevant post, see frc.proboards.com/thread/6585/laws-cormyr-new

Quote of the most important part would be as follows and underlined

A new law has been passed as of today. Any Necromancer caught creating undead for any reason, no matter where or being escorted bu undead, will be charged with creating a hostile instrument of evil and slavery for forcing the creation into service

Hack and his typo's, even in a very important post that's a few years old.  <3

May 26, 2016 18:00:43 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

May 26, 2016 16:58:33 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

I understood that. I'll reiterate my point if it wasn't clear: if the spell cast, be it from an item or directly by a caster, has an evil descriptor then it is evil no matter what. If it doesn't, then it is not evil. Character perception has nothing to do with that, though characters can label creating or controlling undead as evil similarly. They would be wrong, but them's the breaks with perceptions and opinions.

Let's be careful and not forget common sense. Just because a certain spell descriptor doesn't say "Evil" doesn't mean use of the spell isn't evil or is acceptable use by the powers of good.

Playing with fire and all that.

A characters morality (or lack thereof) is much deeper than a spell descriptor.

A valid point in reply to Fluffy, though so not to muddy the waters regarding this thread itself seeing it was originally regarding Control Undead, the reason I stated earlier on that I consider it to be on the Darker Side of CN is two fold.  

The first being that controlling such a horrid creation (undead) to do your own bidding isn't the same as creating/summoning such and one could merely be bending it to their will to command it to cease all action to form a better plan, destroy it and it's friends, it depends greatly upon the intent of the caster but it still remains a morally questionable act which is why I say neutral rather then good or evil.  Control Undeading a lich to stop it from disturbing the party as they seek out it's Phylactery to be destroyed would be a very neutral use of the spell, it might be more righteous to destroy it's physical body and then seek out the Phylactery, but some don't care to be righteous as a paladin and more morally questionable undertakings for the benefit of all might suit them. 

The second reason I consider it a neutral spell is it's very much like how neutral clerics are able to rebuke and command undead in place of turning them in PnP, it isn't something a good cleric can do, but a neutral character who lives a life balancing between good and evil, be that just the way they are as a person, their morals direct them to remain such or some belief in trying to keep neither good nor evil from prospering to far (Druids or Harpers for example)

VK

PS, I realise Hawk was mostly replying regarding the quote in his post, but I wanted to reply to it in association to this thread and what it was about.

[Fluffy the Mad]

May 26, 2016 18:39:38 GMT -5 Viridian Knight said:

May 26, 2016 17:48:04 GMT -5 Animayhem said:

Ok so then a side from the objections of those Marister was with, the fact that it was not in a settlement or farmland he did not break the law it being in a dungeon.

May 26, 2016 18:22:50 GMT -5 Fluffy the Mad said:

There's a gray area around summoning creatures, but strictly speaking it's not against the law in that circumstance. I'd recommend double-checking the boards mentioned above IG if you or your characters need a refresher on Cormyrian law.

This post is the latest I am aware of regarding the laws regarding undead.  frc.proboards.com/post/211215  for more then just the relevant post, see frc.proboards.com/thread/6585/laws-cormyr-new

Quote of the most important part would be as follows and underlined

A new law has been passed as of today. Any Necromancer caught creating undead for any reason, no matter where or being escorted bu undead, will be charged with creating a hostile instrument of evil and slavery for forcing the creation into service

Hack and his typo's, even in a very important post that's a few years old.  <3

Considering that no in-game resources have been changed to reflect his post, I'm hesitant to lean on it. As of current laws as most PCs know them (including the RCMH material on said laws and most town boards) undead have no rights, are not citizens of Cormyr, and have the same restrictions as in the past. We can certainly use his post, but if we are to I would urge that the build team make it something of a priority to fix the available in-game information. It probably doesn't help that Hack has hardly been active in-game since that plot was in progress.