47 réponses à ce sujet

[Satyricon331]

Does the Animate Dead spell animate actual corpses (under dnd anyway, since the game doesn't say)?  If so, is there anything in the lore that suggests that good-aligned deities like the Seldarine frown on its use?  

Also, what exactly is happening in-world when a mage casts a summoning spell - is the summon a magical fabrication, or are you pulling a pre-existing entity to you?  I know for some of them, like Invisible Stalker, you actually pull entities out of their plane, but is it true for all of them?

Thanks!

[morbidest2]

We can assume from Watchers Keep that a neutral deity like Helm makes extensive use of ghosts and spirits, as do the Harpers, and in Suldanesselar the presumably Good elven deity Rillifane had no problem summoning guardian spirits to protect the city. So IMHO that argues that the gods of Toril view life and death as a continuous whole and don't have any problems with summoning up the dead. In fact, reincarnation seems to be part of this universe, so death is just a temporary state - unless you really screw up like Jon I. Even Sarevok gets a 'get out of Jail Free card" and Yoshimo is counting on Ilmater to forgive his punishment.

Modifié par morbidest2, 15 juillet 2011 - 07:17 .

[AnonymousHero]

Re: "magical fabrication" vs. "pulling pre-existing entity". I believe that is essentially summed up in the "summon" vs. "gate" terminology. For example, if you cast "Summon Planetar" or "Cacofiend" the entity is actually "gated" (rather than summoned), but if you cast "Animate Dead" the entities are "summoned".

The only in-game difference is that summoned beings are destroyed by Death Spell/Fog, whereas "gated" entities can survive those.

[touch_of_the_void]

morbidest2 wrote...

We can assume from Watchers Keep that a neutral deity like Helm makes extensive use of ghosts and spirits, as do the Harpers, and in Suldanesselar the presumably Good elven deity Rillifane had no problem summoning guardian spirits to protect the city. So IMHO that argues that the gods of Toril view life and death as a continuous whole and don't have any problems with summoning up the dead.

The AD&D Player's Handbook actually states that the casting of the Animate Dead spell is not a good act and that only evil wizards use it frequently. Animating corpses that happen to be in the area to fight for you isn't the same as followers of Helm or Harpers who are placed in eternal service as ghosts etc. On roleplaying grounds good or lawful characters should find it hard to justify using Animate Dead.

[BelgarathMTH]

I agree strongly with Touch of the Void. Arguably, but in my opinion, only a person who doesn't care at all about roleplaying or who is playing evil would cast Animate Dead.

I would attack anybody I saw doing that as a very evil enemy. Come on, can you name ONE good character from fiction of any kind who appears with an army of skeletons?

[Reticent]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

I would attack anybody I saw doing that as a very evil enemy. Come on, can you name ONE good character from fiction of any kind who appears with an army of skeletons?

Aragorn (well okay, those are incorporeal dead, but still).

[BelgarathMTH]

Spirits of fallen warriors are not the same as skeletons. The summoning of good spirits is allowed in most lore.

[Satyricon331]

Thanks for the replies!

@AnonymousHero -
I thought so until I read the description for Invisible Stalker, which dies to a Death Spell as I recall.  It's clearly something you've pulled from the Plane of Air, but it's not a gated creature (unless I'm remembering incorrectly?)  If there are summons that really are just magic and not actual creatures, it would completely change my roleplaying about them.

touch_of_the_void wrote...
The AD&D Player's Handbook actually states that the casting of the Animate Dead spell is not a good act and that only evil wizards use it frequently. Animating corpses that happen to be in the area to fight for you isn't the same as followers of Helm or Harpers who are placed in eternal service as ghosts etc. On roleplaying grounds good or lawful characters should find it hard to justify using Animate Dead.

Personally, I don't have a problem with such an act per se (if the relatives don't object!), since it's just bones - but this type of thing is what I began wondering about.  I thought it was just magic creating bones, then I began wondering if it used actual corpses, and that thought lead to other issues.  Does the Handbook say why it's so evil?  If the spell affects the soul of the departed or enslaves the soul to come back to animate the corpse, then it would be a big problem.

[Krazy Solo]

Well depends the universe your playing in I say. In the Diablo Universe Necromancers are not concidered evil but they can raise the dead to hold back the damn.

Yet I concider Necromancy to be an art of spell craft. How you use it would make you evil.

[BelgarathMTH]

About Invisible Stalkers - I learned the hard way that Holy Smite hurts them and makes them go hostile to the party. So the Holy Smite spell, at least, considers Invisible Stalkers to be evil.

In the particular world of D&D, it's hard to call all necromancy evil, because the entire line of HEALING spells are classified as necromancy.

One thing I like about D&D is that it creates a lot of moral quandaries and gray areas, and thus encourages ethical thinking and debate.

[Shadow_Leech07]

I don't see it as an evil necessarily. One doesn't have to use human corpses, it just has the "wow" effect.

[BelgarathMTH]

But can you imagine a scene which is written:

The beautiful Lady of Light appeared suddenly in a column of golden sparkles. All who beheld her were instantly healed of all wounds and pain. The orcs in the Army of Evil gasped in fear. With a wave of her delicate hand, the Lady of Light intoned a spell that sounded like a choir of angels singing. From out of the ground, a hundred hideous skeletons arose, chunks of rancid flesh hanging from their rotting bones. Each skeleton was armed with a spiked shield and a bloody sword. The heroes cheered in delight, as the orcs fell screaming to the blades of the Hideous Skeletons of Good.

The imagery is so contradictory, it provokes laughter, and the reader believes that he/she must be reading satire or parody.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 16 juillet 2011 - 12:13 .

[Shadow_Leech07]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

But can you imagine a scene which is written:

The beautiful Lady of Light appeared suddenly in a column of golden sparkles. All who beheld her were instantly healed of all wounds and pain. The orcs in the Army of Evil gasped in fear. With a wave of her delicate hand, the Lady of Light intoned a spell that sounded like a choir of angels singing. From out of the ground, a hundred hideous skeletons arose, chunks of rancid flesh hanging from their rotting bones. Each skeleton was armed with a spiked shield and a bloody sword. The heroes cheered in delight, as the orcs fell screaming to the blades of the Hideous Skeletons of Good.

The imagery is so contradictory, it provokes laughter, and the reader believes that he/she must be reading satire or parody.

Perhaps in a children's fairy tale such imagery would be accepted. But as adults we know the real world is gritty and dirty. What was that LOTR quote? "Not all that glitters is gold." Something like that I believe. The example you proposed uses loaded words like "Hideous Skeletons of Good". If one was a historian, one would obviously choose different adjectives to describe the skeletons. But I can understand where you are coming from, but realize that for everything good done in the world, noble soldiers going off to war, there is always the other side, the bloodshed and death that go along with war. We usually don't write about that side for children but we know and accept the truth of reality. In dire conflicts, the bottom line is what really matters. Winning. May not make for good imagery or a good story even, but what works...works.

[Satyricon331]

Thanks guys. Personally, I don't feel the optics of Animate Dead should really matter for its ethics. What I might do in the absence of a definitive DnD explanation is to differentiate playthroughs by which theory of Animate Dead applies. So sometimes it'll be a truly evil spell that enslaves the departed, and other times it'll be more like Mordenkainen's Sword.

[Saint of Sinners]

The quandary here lies not in the idea of animating the dead, but the purpose of the call.

See, the concept of Animate Dead in BG2 (and perhaps in the whole of D&D) is a bit biased, and even the name of the spell itself is nuanced and misleading/vague. For starters, the spell calls forth the dead to be undead. That's not really correct. The animation of the dead is not exactly a reanimation of their physical characteristics. That's more of an Animate Corpse.

Animation of the dead can also extend to the other side of the spectrum. There are animations of the dead that are neutral, such as Ignuus Fatii or wisps. They're not really considered evil in lore but they're not classified as good either. Then there's the "good" animations, which do not need to reanimate the body. Merely calling forth the Spirits of the Forest (as a druid, for example) is an animation of the dead by itself, but not necessarily a reanimation of things gone (ie. corporeal form, etc.).

In the realm of literature, creating undead is not "animating" dead people. It's *reanimating* their corpses. There's a reason why a particular movie that deals with this idea is called The Reanimator, not just The Animator. Then there's the Sixth Sense...

Besides, the very definition of the word 'animate' is 'to give life'. I quite believe that giving the dead their life back does not necessarily constitute bringing back their corpses. If, at all, Animate Dead seems like a really vague cousin of Resurrection idea-wise. If you take the other definition which is 'to give motion', while keeping the idea of moving corpses in mind, then it shouldn't be Animate Dead but Animate Corpse. If you equate 'dead' with 'corpse' then we go back to the very start of my argument that the spell's name is indeed misleading and/or vague.

Modifié par Saint of Sinners, 16 juillet 2011 - 04:19 .

[Satyricon331]

Yeah, I'd agree the spell's name and description are ambiguous.  There's a lot in your post I'm having difficulty parsing though, I'm afraid  I'm probably just tired; my apologies.

It seems to me that the DnD/BG2 world have a mind-body dualism system going, where people have souls and bodies (since they have an afterlife).  Upon death, the body dies and the soul departs.  

I was thinking the Animate Dead spell either would then either be like Mordy's Sword that doesn't haven't anything to do with actual death, uses a dead corpse w/o the soul, or uses the dead corpse by enslaving a departed person.   You've mentioned another possibility, that it could involve the departed soul but not a corpse.  I hadn't really considered that idea since the soul is still alive in some sense, and also the spell's graphic shows a skeleton coming out of the ground, and it's unclear to me why a returned spirit would look like that.  But am I right in reading you as saying that's what's happening?

Also, am I right to think you're saying that there's information in the choice to name the spell Animate Dead rather than Reanimate Dead?  In which case, since it's an animation, you're animating the soul but not reanimating the corpse?  That idea seems off to me.  Wouldn't it be you're reanimating a corpse, but summoning or recalling a soul?  "Animation" would then be something you do to something that was never alive in the first place, making the spell's name misleading.

[morbidest2]

Here's another paradox: in going after Melissan when she retreats to the north end of theToB one classic way of clobbering her is to use one of the Wish spells to summon 20 fluffy bunny rabbits to her vicinity. You then hit them with Horrid Wilting - or something worse - and unload mega points of damage to her area and win that part of the battle. Now which is worse, summoning up restless spirits (who probably have guilty consciences, or they wouldn't be hanging around where they died) or nuking loving, trusting, big eyed little easter bunnies. It's almost as bad as slaughtering a poor farmer's chickens to get a jewel, or Keldorn working up his nerve to butcher Viconia. I would argue that Toril's morality has more of an "good ends justify evil means" flavor to it than we like to think our own version has.

[touch_of_the_void]

I don't agree with some of the above interpretations of this spell. In my view Animate Dead has nothing to do with the
souls or spirits of the creatures whose corpses are being used. You just take the physical remains and impart to them *something* new (whether we call it a force or a spirit) to cause them to animate and obey your command. The original soul that was joined with the body while it was alive has already departed and is not consulted.

However, while you are not enslaving the soul of the departed creature, you are preventing its body from remaining at rest and using it for your own ends and so casting Animate Dead would be seen as a despicable act akin to graverobbing or worse in real life.

Modifié par touch_of_the_void, 16 juillet 2011 - 02:20 .

[BelgarathMTH]

I agree with TotV's take on it. He has articulated better than I was able to one of the main things that makes my stomach turn when I think about using this spell.

I have a similar moral problem with using summonses of sentient monsters, and especially summonses of innocent animals, and making them fight. Sometimes I have played Summoners and told myself that the spells I was using produced Illusions, the kind of illusion-with-substance magic that you see a lot in Faerun.

I suppose you could justify the skeletons the same way - as in, you could reimagine it as using Illusion magic to try to demoralize your opponents so they can be killed with magical weapon-shaped force fields that look like really scary stuff.

There's actually a scene in ToB where the militia of Amkethran are using summoned monsters for target practice, and you have a dialogue option to challenge them on the morality of doing so. When I played through Amkethran last, I chose not to challenge them, so I don't know where that would have wound up.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 16 juillet 2011 - 02:36 .

[morbidest2]

Logically if the use of Necromantic spells was repulsive to Toril's morality, then they should be forbidden to a priest of Lathander. Such is not the case as far as I know, Further, spells like Heal and Raise Dead are part of the necromantic portfolio rather than some other category. The Toril attitude seems to be that this is all about manipulating life forces, rather than some ugly type of death magic. Druids who are supposed to be the guardians of balance and protectors of nature similarly go around using necromantic spells with very few restrictions (like don't use Raise Dead on a badly maimed body).

[Zaxares]

There's two main schools of thought as to why the raising of undead, even mindless ones, is evil:

1. It's Unnatural. The creation of undead involves infusing the corpse of a formerly living creature with Negative energy. Negative energy is the very essence of entropy, the antithesis of life. Creating an undead essentially creates a miniature portal to the Negative Material Plane. Given enough time, the Negative energy leeching into the world will corrupt and destroy everything around it. Plants and animals die or become undead themselves. Water becomes befouled. Stone crumbles to dust. Iron and other metals rust or corrode. Because undead creatures play no part in the world's ecology, they thus contribute nothing but this ceaseless destruction. Even an intelligent undead who desires not to harm the living cannot help but be a harmful influence on the world; it's very nature prevents it from living in harmony with the natural world.

2. It's Immoral. This option is taken from what some authors in D&D novels have described, although it contradicts what some official rulebooks and errata say about undead. The process of creating an undead not just involves infusing the corpse with Negative energy, but it also draws back and traps the soul of the former living creature in its decaying corpse. Thus, an undead's soul is prevented from moving on to its rightful afterlife by the process of turning it into an undead, and is a horrifying form of torture for the soul involved. This is why many undead hunters refer to the destruction of the undead as "releasing them from their torment". It also explains why, in many cases of intelligent, self-created undead like liches and death knights, their experience is referred to as a "hell of their own making".

[Seagloom]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Also, what exactly is happening in-world when a mage casts a summoning spell - is the summon a magical fabrication, or are you pulling a pre-existing entity to you?

There are two types of monster summoning in D&D: summoning and calling:

Summoning brings a desired creature from wherever it is located and transports it to the caster's location. The magic of a summoning spell prevents that creature from dying. If the creature is slain during its service, it will reform at its place of origin after twenty-four hours. Creatures retain their memories from time spent in the summoning mage's service. While they are technically alive, they will remember the pain of battle, and if applicable, death. The nature of summoning allows even native adventurers to be transported and bound to the mage's magic. While that changed in later editions, it was possible in 2e which BG2 is based on.

The other type of summoning is known as calling. Calling opens a portal between locations for the desired target to step through. Weaker creatures are compelled to enter by the mage's magic. If a higher level spell such as gate is cast, the caster may need to negotiate first. This can be extremely dangerous in the case of spells such as cacofiend. A demon could go on a rampage if they manage to break free. Usually they will look for the first opportunity to screw the mage over either while agreeing to a pact, during their service, or after their service is over and they are free to take vengeance. The main difference between summoning and calling is that a called creature that is slain, is slain. The tradeoff in a calling spell's power is in the chance it could backfire spectacularly.

Ethically, I would say summoning is the murkier conjuration type. While it does not result in a creature's permanent death, they are given no choice but to fight for their summoner. The mage could subject summoned creatures or humanoids to all sorts of degrading cruelty before they are returned. Unless a mage is prepared to use enchantment magic to compel service, or does not care if the creature goes on a rampage; calling requires actual bargaining. It is a business partnership rather than a master and slave arrangement. The exception is, of course, calling demons, devils, and other assorted evil entities. Bringing an ancient pit fiend that may cause millions to suffer for centuries before it is banished or defeated is also a vile thing to do.

Modifié par Seagloom, 17 juillet 2011 - 12:58 .

[HoonDing]

It's safe to assume that in Forgotten Realms, pretty much any action would anger some deity somewhere.

A simple "Monster Summoning" spell, where one summons forth various animals as simple cannon fodder, would technically anger nature-related gods like Mielikki or Chauntea, unless it was used in dire need.

[Triaxx2]

Which completely fails to explain the animal abuses perpetrated by Druids.

[morbidest2]

If you follow this thread to its logical conclusion, then  a "moral" mage,cleric or druid would not only have to give up using corpses, but also have to drop any spell that charms or dominates others who are not already attacking you. It's the equivalent of using fireballs in a street battle in Athkatla - when the dead civilians are totalled up your reputation has taken a 10 point hit. Thus a druid, or a beastmaster, who routinely uses animal allies as orc fodder, is a greater sinner than a cleric who makes use of whatever old bones are in the area. It's Compelling others to do your will, not necromancy, that's the issue. Do we really want to make the use of "These are not the droids (or druids) you are looking for" a crime? And while we are at it, let's explain to Imoen and Nalia that "good" characters do not go around picking pockets. After that we can close down all the saloons in the city and make the possession of dwarven ale  a criminal offense.