|
|
Post by Syd's Blue Sky on May 26, 2016 19:06:54 GMT -5
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. It's reasonable to assume that the in game resources are going to lag considerably behind forum resources just due to ease of modification. The post by Hack should be considered to properly represent the state of the law in Cormyr. If someone wants to send me a PM with the content of the appropriate RCMH law book in text format I can do some copy paste magic in toolset and update them with the content in question for individual distribution. |
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on May 26, 2016 19:20:08 GMT -5
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. It's reasonable to assume that the in game resources are going to lag considerably behind forum resources just due to ease of modification. The post by Hack should be considered to properly represent the state of the law in Cormyr. If someone wants to send me a PM with the content of the appropriate RCMH law book in text format I can do some copy paste magic in toolset and update them with the content in question for individual distribution. I can send the book details later tonight. Three years seems like a fair amount of time for things to be updated, particularly since there was no definite conclusion to the plot (if there was it was very quiet) or the 'state of war' mentioned in Hackmaster's post. In the meantime I'll start using the updated post there, though I don't think there have been any major incidents with undead use since it was created. |
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on May 26, 2016 23:42:30 GMT -5
No moraility in controling undead to destroy others n if you destroy it after it would serve a good purpose. No matter the means. And a Legal point it is within the laws. my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2016 3:23:24 GMT -5
/Good/ acts in a fashion to /promote/ goodly lifestyle and the welfare of others.
"Because it doesn't have evil as a descriptor," /should not mean/ that a good PC "needs" to feel obligated to hesitate, or worry, nor are there any noteworthy reprimands when using it because, well, it's not evil.
If that constant were actually true, the playability in DnD would be incomprehensibly (needlessly) more difficult than what it needs to be ... on the pretense of there being /many spells/ that have no good nor evil descriptor. Suddenly the good aligned PC's head will explode and grow far too paranoid.
DM Syds does a quintessentially good job at describing the resolves that DnD has to offer. Individual DM's might not like it, but the resources out there make many /many possible venues/, and there is no real wrong answer because a DM might set a "High bar" on good acts, nonetheless. But one thing is for sure, Good doesn't need to be suffocated in any shape or form. I speak in generalities, not citing anything against anyone specifically.
This aspect of DnD, being applied to the nature of the topic, might generally have some people jaded because of the negative connotations regarding the said target's nature (undead).
Yeah, undead is bad [good undead exist, now what? yeah yeah, different process of a fundamental force of energy]
By the way, positive energy can be bad too, in high dosage. But it just /feels/ so good.
I guess one could fundamentally argue that Controlling Undead is controlling the negative energy that anchors them (you aren't controlling their evil), and like any of the other energies in DnD, they are all neutral and not restricted to an alignment as far as I can remember (3.0 - 3.5), and probably why it doesn't have the Evil Descriptor.
***P.S. Tired...
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 28, 2016 0:48:06 GMT -5
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. It's reasonable to assume that the in game resources are going to lag considerably behind forum resources just due to ease of modification. The post by Hack should be considered to properly represent the state of the law in Cormyr. Yep. The laws as posted on the forum are the correct versions. If there are disagreements between versions of laws and punishments as they appear in-game, and laws and punishments as posted on the forum, the forum version is the active version. In the case (as sometimes occurs) where an individual village/city/region has its own posted laws on the forum, the more severe of the two applicable punishments applies in that region since the region can't have a lesser punishment than the rest of Cormyr for the same crime. The few areas that represent regions outside of Cormyr may have entirely different laws. Oh, also... Control Undead doesn't have the Evil descriptor, so it isn't an evil spell. However, a spell does not need to be evil to be put to evil ends. Much like the fireball fired off in the busy marketplace, the spellcaster can use the spell for evil. 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. Both undead creation spells and undead summoning spells ARE evil as both of these families of spells have the Evil descriptor. Items that duplicate their spell effects are also evil, so using an item to summon undead, such as the ring that summons a skeletal doll or the medallion that summons a night hound, IS an evil act. The character using the item may not have made the item, but they're still making use of the spell and therefore committing the evil of using the spell. |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on May 28, 2016 3:24:56 GMT -5
This is probably going to upset people, but let's try to make this point, carefully ...
One thing I keep feeling when I follow discussions like this is that it inevitably ends up turning from a discussion of morals into one of laws and/or rules.
Of course, it's easier to do because they are more clearly defined, but IMHO it misses the point.
1.) Laws? Is everything the law doesn't prohibit allowed? Maybe. Is everything the law doesn't prohibit morally acceptable? I don't think so. (Some things are even prohibited and still morally acceptable.)
Therefore, looking at the law can provide leads towards determining whether something is morally acceptable, but it's certainly not conclusive.
2.) Rules? Well, if the rules are the extent of our question what is moral, then the answer is simple. No evil descriptor, end of story!
I'm not aware of any rules putting an evil descriptor on killing your traveling companions in their sleep to rob them. Oh, great, that must be morally acceptable.
Of course, rules are the ultimate backdrop in front of which we all play, and I'm not questioning them.
I'm just saying it's a good idea (esp. when talking morality) to look beyond them. Rules are listed in rulebooks. They are an OOC thing, they may confine me as a player, but they don't mean anything to my characters ICly until they get translated into IC concepts. None of my characters wake up in the morning thinking "Hey, can't use this spell, again, today, because it's got a label saying evil." Especially, if you don't want people to dismiss characters just because it says "evil" on their character sheet, you have to translate the meaning of evil into IC terms.
To illustrate, let me give an example of what Tarithel has been told by a priest ICly and what has heavily influenced her view on the whole matter of undeath, since:
It started with this whole thought experiment where a necromancer raises a couple of undead to save a village of innocents from extinction. And at the time Tarithel was inclined to say that's ok.
And then the priest said no, it's not ok, because the act of creating the undead disturbs the dead person's rest and may cause the soul to forever roam and never find peace again in the afterlife. And that's eternity! How many lives justify stealing eternity from one soul? It's a question that only leaves one solution. You can't answer it and hence you cannot risk doing it.
The only one who can rightfully risk putting a soul in such danger is the owner. And thus, following logically from that first argument, Tarithel will grudgingly admit a mage can try to become a lich, even if she still considers it madness and undeath a heinous crime against life. But hey, throw away your own afterlife, if you must.
Controlling undead? Well, the dead person has been disturbed, already. The entropic reaper running at you would likely take a few minutes to kill you, so turning it and keeping it around for a few minutes to kill the necromancer may seem like a fair deal. (Although, I'm certain one or two Lathandrite priests could convince her of the contrary.) But keeping it around and potentially being responsible for the extended stay causing the soul to get lost beyond redemption is certainly a no-no.
Notice this argument is not at all about the evil energies (vs. positive energy e. g.) involved in the creation.
Those harm the _caster_. Channeling pure evil through his body harms the caster's body and soul (which is the translation of the alignment shift.)
This has had Tarithel be concerned for people she used to know who would occasionally create undead and has had her try convince them to use other summons.
This is how people have interpreted the rules to me in IC terms, have explained WHY create undead is marked evil, and this is what's driven character development.
Of course, this particular interpretation hinges on disturbing the souls and not everybody may agree that that's even possible. But then, this explanation has made most IC sense to me, esp. coming from a priest who Tarithel is willing to regard as the experts on souls and the afterlife. And also: Sure, a priest of the Vaunted may say it's not even true, and then Tarithel would probably have to decide which priest to trust more (and chances are it might not be the Vaunted one.) And I think that's perfectly ok. This brings some of the vagueness and the _belief_ of religion back. I know, we all know the gods exist, but I'm actually happy to have room for interpretation when it comes to religion, people soul-searching for whether they're doing the right thing or not, and all that.
In other words, reducing the argument to rules and laws may get people to shut up, but it doesn't answer all the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on May 28, 2016 6:33:39 GMT -5
Personally, I think intent matters. If you make a quick reaction and say to yourself, "Hey! This control undead scroll I found in the last coffin will stop this horrible undead monster from attacking my party!" and use it in the heat of battle with no premeditation, well and good. If the character is playing "rules lawyer" with morality itself in order to allow themself to do something that might be questionable for a sense of personal pleasure or amusement or some such, it's just as lawful evil to do that with the "rules" of morality as it is to do it with the law. (Arguably more so, if it's goodness itself they're treating this way.) Good characters see themselves as subject to both the spirit and the letter of what makes "good," not looking for loopholes that grant "greater freedom." Just the act of looking for loopholes, crafting hypothetical scenarios that grant license that's not normally there so you can do normally dark things, etc., with morality has a character headed pretty quick into neutral territory, at best. That reflects a basic attitude that "good" is a hindering limitation that a character would like to find a way around, and does not reflect a basic attitude of being subject to it's requirements or cooperative with its aims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on May 28, 2016 10:53:07 GMT -5
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. Both undead creation spells and undead summoning spells ARE evil as both of these families of spells have the Evil descriptor. Items that duplicate their spell effects are also evil, so using an item to summon undead, such as the ring that summons a skeletal doll or the medallion that summons a night hound, IS an evil act. The character using the item may not have made the item, but they're still making use of the spell and therefore committing the evil of using the spell. So it seems you are damned if you and damned if you do not. Summon uses the above and it happens to save the party from losing people. So you used "evil" in a good act. To neutral aligned the end justified the means. (rp perspective) |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on May 28, 2016 11:07:53 GMT -5
So it seems you are damned if you and damned if you do not. Summon uses the above and it happens to save the party from losing people. So you used "evil" in a good act. To neutral aligned the end justified the means. (rp perspective) Well, yes? That's why it's neutral and not good? If you want to save your party summoning something in a non-evil way, summon something else than undead? |
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on May 28, 2016 11:12:51 GMT -5
So it seems you are damned if you and damned if you do not. Summon uses the above and it happens to save the party from losing people. So you used "evil" in a good act. To neutral aligned the end justified the means. (rp perspective) Why are you putting evil in quotes? For spells that are actually evil, it's not some abstract or opinionated construct. They're actually Evil. Sure, a neutral character might see things that way. In no way are all neutral chars like that. You might be describing a chaotic character more than a neutral one. 'I do evil but I'm a good person so I'm neutral' really doesn't fly with most deities, much less common alignment charts. Using that justification, particularly in Forgotten Realms which has readily defined Good and Evil, is a Gray Fallacy. That being said, there may be degrees of evil between summoning undead and creating them directly. It's really up to a character and the DMs to decide how using such might affect a character in a given situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Viridian Knight on May 28, 2016 12:19:09 GMT -5
So it seems you are damned if you and damned if you do not. Summon uses the above and it happens to save the party from losing people. So you used "evil" in a good act. To neutral aligned the end justified the means. (rp perspective) I wouldn't really agree with you being damned if you do and damned if you do not. It depends on your character itself, a goodly character may choose not to stray from their beliefs for anything so not to risk anything that may come after life or they may not care about remaining good if they can save their mortal life (There are almost always alternatives for goodly characters to use then bringing an undead into play). These are just two examples of the reasons characters may or may not fall from good to neutral and later on to evil. Even paladins and clerics aren't infallible, though the priors oaths the later's wisdom tends to keep them more on the right path without something pushing them over. In D&D alignment, the ends don't really justify the means. That'd still be an evil act, more so then the character realises, as good and evil are multiverse forces. That said, a character even with an incredible wisdom score, intelligence and lore may or may not know that and mistakes are often made (Though Druids and Harpers know the needs for balance between good/evil and civilization/wilds though some are more for the wilds over civilization, that's also abit of a balancing act), a paladin might throw away their divine gifts to commit an evil act to save alot of innocents for example not realising that by doing such they throw the balance of power abit in evils favour. An evil act is simply an evil act, good may come of it, but it is "evil" and never anything else. Your character might believe it was neutral and that's fair IC, but such belief doesn't really change what it is and this thread is an OOC discussion on the morality system. Regarding the ends justify the means, even for a neutral character probably not, that'd probably be CN maybe even CE with the best of intentions being the road to hell and all that. Speaking of the example given, a ranger of a goodly nature god summoning an undead being, I don't know how that'd play out, but I imagine the deity in question would be most displeased, how so would be upto the player and the DM team to figure out if it is expressed, rangers are still a divine class in anycase. If the character a cleric of a nature god, Kelemvor or Lathander or some other god that opposes undeath and summoned/created something that goes very much against their dogma/oaths their deity may or may not express their displeasure through any number of ways such as a lack of granted spells. Their peers would likewise express their displeasure if they have any around at the time or were advised about the transgression later on and who knows how many punishments the church might instill on such a person. A druid attempting to summon/create an undead I would expect to have broken their oaths and lost their powers for a minimum of 24 hours if not far greater (erring on the side of far far greater), not because it's an evil act (because good/evils power struggle is just something else druids try and keep in balance), but because it goes against everything they stand for, corrupting nature in such a way by bringing about an abomination that is undead. An evil character can do good, for terrible reasons like hiding their identity or worming their way into a position of power before they act, that also remains an evil act, though it could very well be perceived as good IC by those around them. I think SBS provided a quote from the exalted book of deeds earlier regarding torture and goodly characters working with evil characters. VK. |
|
|
|
Post by appleseedy on May 28, 2016 12:28:07 GMT -5
firstly, i'm not a rules expert, iv'e never played PnP or read the manuals. all iv'e done in that respect is read some of the forgotten realms books. Nowhere did i see i see drizzt declare "that spell has an evil descriptor therefore it is or isn't evil". Some of the morality debates that were posed as Drizzt's journal entries are very enlightening in my opinion as to what morality is in the DnD ethos and in particular the forgotten realms settings.
On the one had this is a video game and we are bound by those rules but to throw the rule book sat each other can begin to spoil immersion. I don't want OOC tells like (in one instance) "why is your character upset? this is totally legal (IC laws) and within the rules (OOC server rules)" I reserve the right to have my character be shocked and appalled by what your character has just done, or vice versa.
As a response to the OP Tailor would be upset and confused if you used Control Undead. There's really no OOC justification for his reaction as its an IC response to how my character has developed and an extension of his story. Having said that the spell isn't Evil (in game terms) and if your character would do it then that's fine with me (OOC) and whatever my reaction is(IC), is fine with you (OOC), i hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on May 28, 2016 12:55:58 GMT -5
firstly, i'm not a rules expert, iv'e never played PnP or read the manuals. all iv'e done in that respect is read some of the forgotten realms books. Nowhere did i see i see drizzt declare "that spell has an evil descriptor therefore it is or isn't evil". Some of the morality debates that were posed as Drizzt's journal entries are very enlightening in my opinion as to what morality is in the DnD ethos and in particular the forgotten realms settings. On the one had this is a video game and we are bound by those rules but to throw the rule book sat each other can begin to spoil immersion. I don't want OOC tells like (in one instance) "why is your character upset? this is totally legal (IC laws) and within the rules (OOC server rules)" I reserve the right to have my character be shocked and appalled by what your character has just done, or vice versa. As a response to the OP Tailor would be upset and confused if you used Control Undead. There's really no OOC justification for his reaction as its an IC response to how my character has developed and an extension of his story. Having said that the spell isn't Evil (in game terms) and if your character would do it then that's fine with me (OOC) and whatever my reaction is(IC), is fine with you (OOC), i hope. The evil descriptor in a spell indicates directly that casting that spell is an evil act in of itself. As in it's evil to cast the spell, if you're a goody goody don't do it unless you want baddie points. That's all. It's in no way any violation of any rules when another character gets upset by the use of such spells. The Control Undead spell lacks the evil descriptor, therefore, is not considered an evil act by just casting the spell. However, those who hate undead either by religion or by decision or by class/lifestyle, still have every right to be PO'd or upset that you've controlled such. Tells shouldn't really even be involved in this process as it's all still IC to me- actually the tells are the most disturbing thing to me about all of this- it means that someone obviously doesn't differentiate between IC and OOC enough or know how to properly, and I've seen far too much of that here lately for that to be a good thing. Therefore, I agree with you! You do reserve the right for your character to get upset and annoyed, absolutely. Your character could actually smite the undead with the law on your side also- undead have no protection in the Cormyr law system afterall. I know if someone controlled undead with my Elf in party he'd get very cross, which he doesn't do very often at all! |
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on May 28, 2016 13:09:13 GMT -5
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.
Eh my point was more about that some characters may not care that much, because who they are, and what deity (ies) they follow. Still, controlling undead, creating them or summoning them is not a good action -ever-, even if it was done with the best of intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Rane on May 29, 2016 1:34:43 GMT -5
firstly, i'm not a rules expert, iv'e never played PnP or read the manuals. all iv'e done in that respect is read some of the forgotten realms books. Nowhere did i see i see drizzt declare "that spell has an evil descriptor therefore it is or isn't evil". Some of the morality debates that were posed as Drizzt's journal entries are very enlightening in my opinion as to what morality is in the DnD ethos and in particular the forgotten realms settings. On the one had this is a video game and we are bound by those rules but to throw the rule book sat each other can begin to spoil immersion. I don't want OOC tells like (in one instance) "why is your character upset? this is totally legal (IC laws) and within the rules (OOC server rules)" I reserve the right to have my character be shocked and appalled by what your character has just done, or vice versa. As a response to the OP Tailor would be upset and confused if you used Control Undead. There's really no OOC justification for his reaction as its an IC response to how my character has developed and an extension of his story. Having said that the spell isn't Evil (in game terms) and if your character would do it then that's fine with me (OOC) and whatever my reaction is(IC), is fine with you (OOC), i hope. The evil descriptor in a spell indicates directly that casting that spell is an evil act in of itself. As in it's evil to cast the spell, if you're a goody goody don't do it unless you want baddie points. That's all. It's in no way any violation of any rules when another character gets upset by the use of such spells. The Control Undead spell lacks the evil descriptor, therefore, is not considered an evil act by just casting the spell. However, those who hate undead either by religion or by decision or by class/lifestyle, still have every right to be PO'd or upset that you've controlled such. Tells shouldn't really even be involved in this process as it's all still IC to me- actually the tells are the most disturbing thing to me about all of this- it means that someone obviously doesn't differentiate between IC and OOC enough or know how to properly, and I've seen far too much of that here lately for that to be a good thing. Therefore, I agree with you! You do reserve the right for your character to get upset and annoyed, absolutely. Your character could actually smite the undead with the law on your side also- undead have no protection in the Cormyr law system afterall. I know if someone controlled undead with my Elf in party he'd get very cross, which he doesn't do very often at all! See, everyone keeps bringing up the good or evil argument. And this is what i'm looking for. What is your personal sense of ethics on the issue? People do good things all of the time in real life that we don't like. I'm wanting to see people go past descriptors and think about how their characters have developed. What experiences has your character gone through that could shape the way they feel about what is happening. What is your character's moral code. And no i'm not asking you to spill the beans on your characters. This topic is to promote this sort of behavior. I spend a lot of time developing how my characters think. I try my best to separate their moral code from my own (it's a real challenge for me) and I am hoping by asking this question, I can get some insight on the subject. This is also for new players. We have several that have never done this type of thing before. I invite them to consider just how far they can go with their characters development. |
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on May 29, 2016 1:57:47 GMT -5
I really have not played a good or evil character. I usually tend to go with the neutrals like CN and TN. To view the whole picture. This upsets some other characters in game who see only black and white.
To have a character get upset because you summon something is fine as long as it is in your character to do so but that does not mean that character will stop. They may just do it elsewhere and that would be in their rp right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fluffy the Mad on May 29, 2016 5:15:49 GMT -5
See, everyone keeps bringing up the good or evil argument. And this is what i'm looking for. What is your personal sense of ethics on the issue? People do good things all of the time in real life that we don't like. I'm wanting to see people go past descriptors and think about how their characters have developed. What experiences has your character gone through that could shape the way they feel about what is happening. What is your character's moral code. And no i'm not asking you to spill the beans on your characters. This topic is to promote this sort of behavior. I spend a lot of time developing how my characters think. I try my best to separate their moral code from my own (it's a real challenge for me) and I am hoping by asking this question, I can get some insight on the subject. This is also for new players. We have several that have never done this type of thing before. I invite them to consider just how far they can go with their characters development. Okay, originally you had asked if the spell was evil. We've established that it is not in the most objective sense, right? We've also established that how people view spells regarding evil beings like undead are exceptionally subjective. That does delve into the characters themselves a little more. I can use three of my own that have varying viewpoints if you want examples of how they might see this issue- privacy isn't the biggest concern since all would speak up if asked directly on the issue of undead. Spoiler anyways if someone wants to avoid it.
1) Kori, the Silverstar healer, feels that undead are abhorrent and an affront to everything she does as a healer. She has support from Selune to back up her hatred, though possibly for different reasons. While she might restrain herself considering her oaths to her work, she definitely wouldn't view anyone using this spell favorably. She's more biased and likely to instantly destroy any undead she sees in this capacity, and not treat the caster too kindly either.
2) Delin, the dwarven rogue, has no strong feelings on the matter despite being NG. It's 'one'a them damned wiggler things.' Undead are distasteful, but they are to most people whether they be good or evil. The exception here is that Delin would put up with it or even do such herself if she felt it necessary to protect kin or clan. Therefore, she's got the definite potential to slide right on through TN and to NE. In particular, controlling undead might be one more means to an end- and a preferred one at that, as it prevents her from having to fight 'them nasty buggers who ain't carin' how many vitals ye hit.'
3) Olaf the shifter thinks that controlling the undead is fine, as long as they are immediately destroyed afterwords. Creating them is strictly a no-go, and he won't stay with anyone who perverts nature in such a way. Those undead that exist are fair targets, since one cannot change the past. He still might act with varying levels of revulsion to their company, but he might not outright despise whoever cast the spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rane on May 29, 2016 5:27:07 GMT -5
See, everyone keeps bringing up the good or evil argument. And this is what i'm looking for. What is your personal sense of ethics on the issue? People do good things all of the time in real life that we don't like. I'm wanting to see people go past descriptors and think about how their characters have developed. What experiences has your character gone through that could shape the way they feel about what is happening. What is your character's moral code. And no i'm not asking you to spill the beans on your characters. This topic is to promote this sort of behavior. I spend a lot of time developing how my characters think. I try my best to separate their moral code from my own (it's a real challenge for me) and I am hoping by asking this question, I can get some insight on the subject. This is also for new players. We have several that have never done this type of thing before. I invite them to consider just how far they can go with their characters development. Okay, originally you had asked if the spell was evil. We've established that it is not in the most objective sense, right? We've also established that how people view spells regarding evil beings like undead are exceptionally subjective. That does delve into the characters themselves a little more. I can use three of my own that have varying viewpoints if you want examples of how they might see this issue- privacy isn't the biggest concern since all would speak up if asked directly on the issue of undead. Spoiler anyways if someone wants to avoid it.
1) Kori, the Silverstar healer, feels that undead are abhorrent and an affront to everything she does as a healer. She has support from Selune to back up her hatred, though possibly for different reasons. While she might restrain herself considering her oaths to her work, she definitely wouldn't view anyone using this spell favorably. She's more biased and likely to instantly destroy any undead she sees in this capacity, and not treat the caster too kindly either.
2) Delin, the dwarven rogue, has no strong feelings on the matter despite being NG. It's 'one'a them damned wiggler things.' Undead are distasteful, but they are to most people whether they be good or evil. The exception here is that Delin would put up with it or even do such herself if she felt it necessary to protect kin or clan. Therefore, she's got the definite potential to slide right on through TN and to NE. In particular, controlling undead might be one more means to an end- and a preferred one at that, as it prevents her from having to fight 'them nasty buggers who ain't carin' how many vitals ye hit.'
3) Olaf the shifter thinks that controlling the undead is fine, as long as they are immediately destroyed afterwords. Creating them is strictly a no-go, and he won't stay with anyone who perverts nature in such a way. Those undead that exist are fair targets, since one cannot change the past. He still might act with varying levels of revulsion to their company, but he might not outright despise whoever cast the spell.
My initial question was of Morality. Whether the spell was evil or not came up after people started arguing evil vs good. But yea, I like that you have characters with varying codes. Sometimes it can be hard to pull off. Especially when you have put a lot of time into a certain character like Kori. I exclusively played Kross after the server was gone several years back. Then I transitioned to a Red Wizard. When I created my current pc I had a hard time playing him as a good guy. In fact I started him as Chaotic Neutral and shifted him all the way to evil. Anyway, i'm personally not a fan of the black and white style of play. If you are playing a paladin then you should be black and white with your code. A priest should be black and white with their deity. Both of those classes can lose spells and or paladin levels for not following their codes. But I do want to see people shape their characters according to experiences they have more. I guess that's why I find the thought of controlling an undead on a good pc intriguing. It's a good way to stir the pot and get people talking in game, even if my PC takes a hit socially. |
|
|
|
Post by Pithirendar on May 29, 2016 6:18:25 GMT -5
Everyone should love undead and keep more of them. Control them, make them, summon them. Undead for all!
|
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on May 29, 2016 6:57:15 GMT -5
Having looked at the Control Undead spell on NWNWiki, it offers a cleric to cast the spell as a 6th level spell. That same level range of spells includes Undeath to Death, which is a nuclear blast whereas Control Undead is a single target dominate. For a cleric to forego memorizing Undeath to Death in favor of Control Undead, it shows preparedness and intention to dominate an undead creature, not destroy it. This is the same for a Wizard/Sorcerer who also get the spell Undeath to Death as a level 6 but get Control Undead as a level 7.
This gets a little muddied when scrolls are called into place, but even still, the carrying of scrolls still qualifies as being prepared to and with the intention for dominating, not destroying.
Overall, I'd say that most adventurers know that there is a giant arsenal of offensive magic that could be used in the place of Control Undead so it would be a very difficult time to justify it to any character that has any care on the subject.
Edit: Just to add more to this, in particular for a cleric. A cleric has to take time out of their prayer session to ask their god for the ability to control undead. They would, often quite literally, have to assume the prayer position and request that ability for the coming day instead of requesting the destruction of undead. Moral? Evil? Good? Neutral? For a cleric, I'd say its pretty straight forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alizarin Spion - Sleeper Agent on May 29, 2016 15:12:19 GMT -5
Undeath to Death rather than Control Undead because the former is more effective/optimal spell for its level is the message here. Funny because I remember back when I mained a mage-type character and I would read all those nerf threads where people who mained melee characters would cry like babies over the fact that mages tended to favour the spells that were considered more powerful than their counterparts of the same level, people were so offended and tired of losing in PVP against the SAME spells over and over they said but frankly I think they were tired of losing period. I guess the same sentiment doesn't apply in PVE. So between the Evoker that blasts a camp of orcs with fireballs and an Enchanter that uses mind-spells (confusion, domination) to have the orcs slaughter each other it is clearly the Enchanter that is evil and of morally questionable character, because if you don't play your role as expected by "most adventurers" who are also experts on magic then you're doing it wrong. Perhaps I'm a bit off-topic so I will balance it out a bit. I played a NG Mystran Necromancer, although his focus lied with Necromancy I tended to play him more of a Conjurer/Summoner type, he did not summon or create Undead mind you. So as a Mystran, he was of the opinion that it was less taxing on the Weave to summon a creature and clear many camps than firing off a bunch of evocations to achieve the same result. So were he to chose between a pile of energy to wipe out one camp of Undead or taking control of a single one of them and potentially wipe many more camps ahead then domination would be the clear winner, all according to his interpretation of the dogma of his faith. |
|
|
|
Post by bloodalchemist on May 29, 2016 15:35:27 GMT -5
You guys are just all salty you didnt get to take a mind controlled draco-lich pony ride. Secret Order of the Flaming Skull FTW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2016 23:44:38 GMT -5
I have has this thought before. Many times. But (almost) only here.
I don't really fit in here. But still, I have to admire folks that are willing to discuss imaginary morality as it affects imaginary people. No really, after all how many are willing to discuss morality in the real world? To have even a handful of folks willing to discuss morals, even in the abstract, is a rare treasure. This silly little game, even after all these years, continues to bring a lot to the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on May 30, 2016 1:55:50 GMT -5
Anyway, i'm personally not a fan of the black and white style of play. If you are playing a paladin then you should be black and white with your code. A priest should be black and white with their deity. Both of those classes can lose spells and or paladin levels for not following their codes. But I do want to see people shape their characters according to experiences they have more. You have every right to your personal preference. And while I'm not saying every character on FRC should see things black and white, I also don't think being true to their principles is a prerogative of paladins and priests. Another example to illustrate: §1 of the German Constitution says: Human dignity is unimpeachable. It's not religious, I'm not a priest or a paladin. But I still strongly believe in this sentence. I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", "on condition of" ... uninpeachable, period! You want an exception because your company isn't making enough profit? Go take a running jump, NOW! Or like this old friend I have who whined during a class reunion about how the insurance company he works for needs to do all this totally unnecessary work and spending to introduce complex geoscoring when all they really want to do is charge Turks three times as much in car insurance, because their statistics say Turks cause three times as many accidents. (And they can't do that because discrimination by to origin, gender, or faith is illegal in Germany, but not by home address, which interestingly enough correlates almost perfectly, and nobody asks why.) And I can tell him, hey, you know we're friends and I love you, but regarding this ... I'm happy the law-makers protect us from racist statisticians like the ones apparently working for your employer, and I hope your company goes bankrupt over the attempt to cheat their way around anti-discrimination laws. Ok, not everbody agrees, but the point is: Some things _are_ very black and white (to some people.) And also, just because somebody knows where to draw his or her lines and whether they're clear cut or blurry, doesn't mean they haven't spent time thinking about it before arriving there. Tarithel might have an opinion about people who draw _no_ lines and the amount of thinking having gone in there, but she may be biased. Sure, on an RP server, character development is a valuable thing. You and I, both, would probably consider characters who never change a single bit, except in terms of XP, rather dull. On the other hand it's no surprise adventurers make their first appearance with a set of lines already drawn after events in their backstory (some of my personal codes go back to my first memories of time spent at primary school.) Thinking about what _would_ be able to make your character reconsider their set of values, however, is definitely a valuable excercise. Undeath to Death rather than Control Undead because the former is more effective/optimal spell for its level is the message here. No, that was not the message there. If people have been making OOC arguments over spell choice disguised as moral debates, that's meh, but I feel like this thread has shown that moral arguments can perfectly well be made just as IC moral arguments. Usefulness or efficiency isn't a moral category. The point that was added to the discussion here was, once you consider undead bad and strongly believe they should be destroyed rather than used, you have a hard time trying to make the argument "but there was no other waaaayyy," because there _are_ other ways. It's a bit like appealing to a police officer who caught you speeding "but I was in a hurry." |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on May 30, 2016 1:59:10 GMT -5
No really, after all how many are willing to discuss morality in the real world? LOL, well, I like to do it IRL, too ... which is probably why I'm such a terrier when it comes down to it. But yes, do try this at home!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on May 30, 2016 3:11:19 GMT -5
I would heavily argue that charming/dominating a creature and making it commit actions against it's will is rather morally questionable. Besides, if they're of the same magic level, they should probably be using a similar amount of weave power. I remember on Vel when he was a fresh little baby paladin, he went on an adventure with some mage. The mage went invisible and found their leader, dominated him, then had him kill all of his minions. Low and behold, it left a bitter taste in his mouth and he never went on another adventure with that person. Domination in general is a borderline evil, definitely not honorable, and highly morally questionable tactic. Domination is enslavement. Slavery is considered evil/bad. Temporary magic slavery to make a creature kill it's own before you hack it to death when it is alone is ...  |
|
|
|
Post by maeglhachel on May 30, 2016 5:42:09 GMT -5
Not saying this case can't be made, but it's a lot more difficult to make than one against harming somebody's immortal soul.
That orc tried to kill you in battle. Killing it quickly is better than making it defend you from its peers and dying in the process? And may it still have earned the latter fate? A lot more grey area to non-pallys, I would guess, due to a very civilized idea of combatant status and all that.
2cents
|
|
|
|
Post by lucid on May 31, 2016 13:19:00 GMT -5
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
Should probably read:
"Damned if you do the evil thing twenty times, damned if you don't save twenty puppies after"
Takes more than one skeletal doll to hurl your screaming soul into the blackest depths of fiery hell.
I am opposed to DM's altering alignment NOT because alignment should be static, but because we'd each need our own personal DM judging our actions every moment. I'm also opposed to the usual way it ends up...Evil is handed out for ill-timed sneezing, and a single Good point is awarded once a decade for personally rescuing a god of light. Also the Law/Chaos side throws everyone for a loop. (Does a Paladin get Chaotic Points in Nazi Germany for opposing the Gestapo? I'd toss the Domination thing in this axis as well, it's Chaos that should recoil from such compulsion and loss of freedom...Rabbit Hole waiting to happen)
If the staff were capable of keeping up with such a monumental task, then Alignment would not be static at all, but an accurate reflection of the sum of your deeds. I personally prefer them running stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on May 31, 2016 13:50:22 GMT -5
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" Should probably read: "Damned if you do the evil thing twenty times, damned if you don't save twenty puppies after" Takes more than one skeletal doll to hurl your screaming soul into the blackest depths of fiery hell. I am opposed to DM's altering alignment NOT because alignment should be static, but because we'd each need our own personal DM judging our actions every moment. I'm also opposed to the usual way it ends up...Evil is handed out for ill-timed sneezing, and a single Good point is awarded once a decade for personally rescuing a god of light. Also the Law/Chaos side throws everyone for a loop. (Does a Paladin get Chaotic Points in Nazi Germany for opposing the Gestapo? I'd toss the Domination thing in this axis as well, it's Chaos that should recoil from such compulsion and loss of freedom...Rabbit Hole waiting to happen) If the staff were capable of keeping up with such a monumental task, then Alignment would not be static at all, but an accurate reflection of the sum of your deeds. I personally prefer them running stories. Yes. Marister had a slight alignment shift due to a story plot line, I thought maybe too much but he was still in his alignment range for his rp so did not say anything. In my opinion he has done things to get things back to more of a balance but it has not. (Yes I am aware alignment is technically an ooc thing) To get him back to where he was, is it the player's responsibility to contact the dm to arrange a plot to be restored or is it the dm who changed the alignment's responsibility.
Do not misconstrue this, I am not attacking the DM who did this I just wanted to understand how things in regards to alignment work here as each pw does things differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by appleseedy on May 31, 2016 16:50:48 GMT -5
there is an alignment change thread that you can ask a DM to submit onto the DM's forum. I would persoanlly love to see more alignment shifts both good and evil, chaos and law. I would like to see CN clerics who are clearly CE (off the cuff example) fall and be barred form spell casting etc but...
if it was up to me i would have a forum where the DM's can discuss players that they note either wanting a change or acting out a different alignment. Where such changes are not being asked for, warn a player that their acts/omissions might warrant a change.
|
|
