Animate dead, create undead

[Fume]

Just a theoretical question on summoning undead.
The spell names imply 'creation' of undead which i think is much worse then 'summoning' an undead that already exists to help you out in a bind.
Sorry if this seems obvious but any clarification on this?
Reason coz when the inevitable ethics conversation happens before a pvp over undeads, i think it matters lol.
Any thoughts?

[Rubricae]

animate dead is the literally animation of a corpse and puppeteering it

it is the same as creating undead

[Fume]

lol. And thats what I thought for years untill I read the description.

Summon is not create.
So its a typo as either the title or description is wrong from what I can see

Spell level: cleric 3; sorcerer/wizard 5

Innate level: 3
School: necromancy
Descriptor: evil
Components: verbal, somatic
Range: short (8 meters)
Area of effect: point
Duration: 24 hours
Save: none
Spell resistance: no
Additional counterspells: sunbeam

Description: Animate dead summons forth an undead minion. The type of undead summoned is dependent upon the caster level.

[chris a gogo]

As evil things go creation is the bad one animating is just using a corpse as a puppet.
Distasteful sure but not objectively evil, where as creating undead is evil as it makes undead monsters rather than just some walking bones that fall apart when the magic fades, which if you think about it makes PM's less evil than normal necromancers/priests as they don't create they summon all there undead when using abilities.

Where this falls apart is in how the summoning streams now work and animate dead works the same way as the creation spells so there is no longer a distinction between the spells mechanic's wise.

[CNS]

I might be misremembering here but I always operated under the following assumption.

You're animating corpses, these corpses may have been prepared earlier off screen, but when you're using that spell that's what you are doing. It's acceptable to assume you did all the finding and preparing of corpses beforehand and simply store them somewhere for rapid deployment via your spell when you need them.

Also animation of undead, it's not like puppeting bones, they don't collapse when you're done, they go wild and revert to their 'unnatural' state when your magic fades. Seeking out life to snuff out and leaking negative energy everywhere that causes more undead to rise.

[CNS]

Also in DND lore and the aspects arelith subscribes to, all use and creation of undead is evil. Your characters can argue whatever they want but the truth of the world is it's evil. No ends justify the means, no loopholes. It is what it is.

The one noted exception in lore is coming across a den of undead and controlling those undead (via turn undead or a control undead spell) to use them to help destroy the rest of the undead and then once the place is clearz destroying those you controlled. This is an acceptable use of undead even for good characters or paladins (iirc the lore notes it's a common tactic for agents of Torm). But you'll note there no new undead are created, and the controlled undead are only used to destroy other undead in the crypt or barrow and then immediately destroyed.

[chris a gogo]

After reading the FR wiki it says I was wrong and animate dead in D&D it makes skeletons/zombies and they stayed permanently under the control of the caster wasn't until 5th edition they became uncontrolled.

But NWN makes a distinction between animate dead and create undead.
Not a typo but i clear description of what is done

Animate dead summons an undead.
Create brings one into being.
We are playing NWN after all.

[Irongron]

I'll always be a bit perplexed by how much hand wringing there is over the morality of summoning undead, in a game where people wade up to their armpits in the blood of ten thousand victims. Sure, I get the 'but they attacked first!' defence, but then it would be a lie to pretend that the adventurers aren't looking for it; rolling up to their village, heavily armed, and wearing the trophies of their past victims.

Alignment-wise I've always felt that good people can do evil things, and vice versa, and personally (and I mean PERSONALLY, I'm not speaking for DMs, server policy, or heralding in a new undead age) felt that literally committing aggravated murder in response to someone using undead a little strong, outside of fundamental Kelemvorites.

I also personally would react differently in character depending on the stream - summoning zombies, with blood pouring from their gaping mouth and a dragging their feet in an pursuit of brain-based nourishment? Not going to be so fond of the person animating THAT. Ghosts? Heck, that's almost spiritual, and more edgy than disgusting.

Jergalites might well summon undead under the insistence that summoning the church was always their fate - after all, everything is already written. Another non-evil summoner might want to insist that tortured soul inhabiting that skeleton is well deserving of the fate, and better being put to productive use than in the hands of the enemy.

At the end of the day, how we justify our characters' actions are a core part of their role-play, and when we reduce the game to a series of moral absolutes there really isn't much room for role-play at all.

Though I do agree - summoning undead is an evil deed. So might be felling an ancient yew to make a killing tool out of it.

[The GrumpyCat]

For the purposes of alignment and morality, in my experence the DM team don't really differentiate between Summon and Create undead.

The use of undead is always... lets say 'morally dodgy'. We might look at the circumstances around it, but not the difference between those spells neccesarly.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41870&p=320081#p320081

[Rubricae]

Alignment-wise I've always felt that good people can do evil things, and vice versa, and personally (and I mean PERSONALLY, I'm not speaking for DMs, server policy, or heralding in a new undead age) felt that literally committing aggravated murder in response to someone using undead a little strong, outside of fundamental Kelemvorites.

I also personally would react differently in character depending on the stream - summoning zombies, with blood pouring from their gaping mouth and a dragging their feet in an pursuit of brain-based nourishment? Not going to be so fond of the person animating THAT. Ghosts? Heck, that's almost spiritual, and more edgy than disgusting.

Jergalites might well summon undead under the insistence that summoning the church was always their fate - after all, everything is already written. Another non-evil summoner might want to insist that tortured soul inhabiting that skeleton is well deserving of the fate, and better being put to productive use than in the hands of the enemy.

Actually to springboard off of your post, there's a specific sect that sanctions the use of certain undead. It's something I kind of wish was seen a bit more, though given the current climate as you've mentioned previously - it's currently next to impossible. Perhaps something can come from the Scrivener's Keep about it, but who knows.

In terms of ghosts / wraiths, there's arguments to be made regarding their use. I've personally seen it done with Beast Revenant that the summoner(in this instance, a shaman) was moreso wrangling the spirits so they wouldn't run amok. I personally like this interpretation, but again it's difficult to do because of how hyper-aggressive the playerbase is.

Then there's the matter of mummies, which are come to find out the most sentient and rational of the undead types. To the point where they're the only undead type that I know of whose alignment can actually change, going so far as to be the likeliest among all undead to follow the path of good. They're intended to guard tombs and places of burial, which is hardly an evil task.
Isn't that wizard?!

The nuanced use of undead is truly fascinating within the world of DnD itself, Libris Mortis was actually the second ever 3e book I read(Regards to Mike, who put up with my drunken ramblings about Myrkul and his undead horsemen for longer than I ever expected). I wish it was better explored in Arelith beyond that of ''''neutral''' Palemasters. That isn't to say there aren't outliers at all. The coolest undead related characters I've seen have had to have been Companions of the Pallid Mask clerics, as well as a couple of particular Dirgesingers.

Shout-out to a certain group of cursed death-touched characters, you know who you are.

I remember when Eira mentioned an interesting concept of undead adjacent clerics using Control Undead as a means of combatting other undead, instead of merely creating them themselves. I like that, and I'd hope to see it more someday.

Anyway undead are cool but definitely probably evil. Animate them, summon them, call them at the wee hours of the morning - they're evil by default.

[perseid]

lol. And thats what I thought for years untill I read the description.

Summon is not create.
So its a typo as either the title or description is wrong from what I can see

Spell level: cleric 3; sorcerer/wizard 5

Innate level: 3
School: necromancy
Descriptor: evil
Components: verbal, somatic
Range: short (8 meters)
Area of effect: point
Duration: 24 hours
Save: none
Spell resistance: no
Additional counterspells: sunbeam

Description: Animate dead summons forth an undead minion. The type of undead summoned is dependent upon the caster level.

This seems like a case of nwn terminology vs roleplay terminology. In nwn there isn't a distinction between summoning and animating so you can use the same term for both in the base game. In the rpg and setting though Animate Dead is animating a pile of bones or a corpse of sufficient size.

[Preserver]

I'll always be a bit perplexed by how much hand wringing there is over the morality of summoning undead, in a game where people wade up to their armpits in the blood of ten thousand victims. Sure, I get the 'but they attacked first!' defence, but then it would be a lie to pretend that the adventurers aren't looking for it; rolling up to their village, heavily armed, and wearing the trophies of their past victims.

Alignment-wise I've always felt that good people can do evil things, and vice versa, and personally (and I mean PERSONALLY, I'm not speaking for DMs, server policy, or heralding in a new undead age) felt that literally committing aggravated murder in response to someone using undead a little strong, outside of fundamental Kelemvorites.

Though FR and generic western fantasy are not and do not mean to be a perfect representation of the cultural proclivities of Medieval Europe, I believe that it is fair to say they are heavily influenced by them. And though it is true that the Dark Ages were often not actually dark and miserable, but rather (depending on location and time) a period of flourishing traditions, arts, and cultures... it is indisputable that they were, by-en-large, a period in which violence was more easily deployed by the average individual.

I think that a greater proclivity towards violence comes with the genre.

Relatively to the topic, I find that, non matter the nuance, the usage of undead can feel particularly abominable in the Realms because, unlike the real world, there are sources and witnesses that can attest to the existence of soul, tangible morality, and the Gods. Therefore, what could be a discourse centered around absolute morality can philosophically be conflated to a knowledge of cosmic elements - it's not evil because the action is evil (which it may as well be), it's evil because the laws of the cosmos dictate thus.
There is still room for interesting RP though: that evil can be tolerable if it is for a greater good. There is room for debate, one just has to realign their expectations on what the debate will be about.

[Ruzuke]

If we look at the Forgotten Realm setting 10,000 gold is more than most NPCs will see in several generations life time if everyone adds up all their earnings. Second level wizard and cleric spells are overly powered to the majority of the population. It is the reason why entire villages hires adventurers to deal with those CR 3 goblin threat. They do not have the strength to do so.

They know deities exist but every village doesn't have a village cleric, paladin, or ranger with divine power. Most of the population does not see magic. Most work hard, pay their bills, and complain about taxes at the local bar.

This is based off the wealth chart in the core rule book. By the time you purchase a magical sword a character could retire comfortably. Does the average person know the deities are real? They all know clerics exist with powerful magic (level 3 spells). Do they know about souls (knowledge religion) likely not.

As for the adventurers killing all forms of seeing necromancy. I think most of them are used to killing everything that moves. In some cases, killing to move to a jail cell to raise and interrogate them later on. I like to believe the belief is PVP is the solution because most have a harder time using the soft skills to resolve the conflict.

[Gaal]

I always thought it was an evil act but because of the dead. When animated or summoned, the soul of the dead suffers, losing it peace and rest during the time of animation and summoning. Imagine, you can see and feel in some mystically way some other being has taken hold of your deceased body, which even dead, is still part of your personhood, and then being used for evil. Maybe the other undead summoned, which are more spirit then flesh, are evil beings who lust to come forth when summoned, to reck and kill in a made revenge or hate.

[Tempedius]

To my knowledge all spells that summon or animate undead are evil. I know the main lines for both for sure have the descriptor. This is for two reasons. One, undead by their very nature are evil (Some very specific exceptions apply) and two the forces used to call and control these beings are malign in their roots. It is the same with any planar binding or summoning effect used to call evil beings. It gains the [Evil] descriptor. In fact clerics directly opposed to either good or evil can not call beings of that opposition in pen and paper. The very action of calling something wicked is itself wicked. How wicked is debatable. FR is also categorical to a healthy degree as is the base morality system, but that is the nature of the beast.

[DM Monkey]

These are different processes of magic and distinctly different spells from one another. On NWN the spells are essentially functioning in the same way to add some undead to your party temporarily, however in PnP they can be read on the links below:
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm

Both spells have the evil tag and are evil acts to cast. Like IG said, good people can do evil things and sometimes they perform evil actions for what ends up being a very good outcome. Alignment scales have more of an effect on characters that are strictly required to keep within a certain one so actions like these can be very problematic for good clerics of certain faiths, druids, and of course paladins.

That said, this is all an OOC understanding! Characters in the setting are going to react based on what knowledge is available to them and how things look in the moment. Undead are scary! Expect most NPCs not to react well to them as a general rule, and you would be right to assume IC that most people you encounter in the world would find the behaviour of raising or creating undead to be abhorrent.

[Xarge VI]

Relatively to the topic, I find that, non matter the nuance, the usage of undead can feel particularly abominable in the Realms because, unlike the real world, there are sources and witnesses that can attest to the existence of soul, tangible morality, and the Gods. Therefore, what could be a discourse centered around absolute morality can philosophically be conflated to a knowledge of cosmic elements - it's not evil because the action is evil (which it may as well be), it's evil because the laws of the cosmos dictate thus.
There is still room for interesting RP though: that evil can be tolerable if it is for a greater good. There is room for debate, one just has to realign their expectations on what the debate will be about.

As a counter argument I could point out that there are many sources and witnesses that attest to the existence of the soul, tangible morality and the God/s in the real world as well. It comes down to a level of authority in a community the source possesses. For example in some religious community the soul, god and tangible morality are very much real and attested part of reality.

As a more secular example the fact that part of the people believe that the climate change isn't real despite the great amount of scientific data available and other part believes that the climate change is real. In the first group the mainstream scientific community doesn't have authority of knowledge and in the second group the mainstream scientific community possesses authority of knowledge.

All of them are very real knowledge to the members of the communities. Even in the real world the building blocks of reality depend on the community, I don't think it should be any different in the FR universe.