OOTS #1111 - The Discussion Thread

[kaoskonfety]

Again, per RAW, mindless undead like skeletons and zombies still have an evil alignment, so things that have no free will can have an alignment in D&D. Oddly, things that definitely DO have free will but are unintelligent (like animals) are classed as true neutral...

It was generally my understanding that it went to intent and origin. Free undead, even the mindless ones, by default WANT to hurt everybody, and seek opportunities to do so to the best of their abilities due to being created by "evil" means. Animals (as per D&D) lack this intent and are operating "on instinct" - somehow more so than the mindless automaton undead.

I don't agree with their assessment alignment assessment in general and on animals in particular: animals may* generally possess a less complex mentality, but I've met animals with ill intent, and those who intend well. The gap looks smaller to me than most I've spoken too seem to think it is. l

*I'm pretty sure Octopi** have us matched or beaten on some intelligence metrics, cunning little buggers

** spellcheck reminds me there are several 'accepted' pluralizations of Octopus, Octopi is the best one though. Seriously who says "octopodes".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Again, per RAW, mindless undead like skeletons and zombies still have an evil alignment, so things that have no free will can have an alignment in D&D.

Yes, but this conversation is about morality, not alignment. I think I am on solid ground if I say that no-one doubts, for example, that a good vampire would still ping as "Evil" in the detect spells, for the same reason that Roy did so when carrying the crown around.

And yes, there is an argument to be made that a mindless automaton can be labeled "evil" (if, say, it's a robot whose entire instruction set is "1 - locate baby seal. 2 - kill it. 3 - GOTO 1"). Heck, I have no problem labeling entire industries as evil, despite not being in any sense "free willed". But at that point, we are conflating different meanings for evil, which admittedly are closely related but not quite interchangeable.

For mindless beings, calling them 'evil' indicates that their actions, were they to be conscious choices, would be classified as evil - or, put another way, that their actions harm the world in some fashion for no result that balances out the damage done. So the idea behind "skeletons are evil" in 3.5, I think, is that an out of control skeleton doesn't just hang about doing not much, but actively destroys the world around it (which traditionally it's the kind of thing zombies do - my mental picture of 'free' skeletons is that they tend to just hand around old tombs and only get riled up when you disturb them; but it seems 3.5 decided to make them a bit more active).

But none of that applies to vampires, who are free-willed, and thus can be measured by the decisions they make, whereas mindless undead don't.

I'm pretty sure Octopi have us matched or beaten on some intelligence metrics, cunning little buggers

Crow solving a 7-step puzzle:


Grey Wolf

[Centaur]

Seriously who says "octopodes".

That would be me.

[zimmerwald1915]

That would be me.

Also my university's a capella group.

[Doug Lampert]

That would be me.

Or anyone else aware of the difference between Latin and Greek origin words.

Octopuses is fine, it's now an English word.

Octopodes is fine, it's the correct language of origin plural.

Octopi is pointlessly applying a LATIN declension nominative plural to a GREEK origin noun when speaking ENGLISH. There is no reason to do that unless you are unaware of the word's origin or think that there is a rule in English that words ending in -us have plurals ending in -i.

Surprisingly, Latin and English are different languages with different rules, as are Latin and Greek, who knew? (Not the people who tell us not to split infinitives, they missed the memo that English is not Latin, but the rest of us should be aware of the distinction.)

Hence I'll accept octopi in casual conversation, who really cares? But if someone makes a point of there being multiple plurals, then one of those plurals is simply wrong, octopodes or octopuses. Pick one.

[Jasdoif]

So in this sunshine and rainbows scenario somebody killed me, jacked my corpse, shoved someone else in their, and then that someone else went out of their way to bring me back, dying temporarily in the process? That's correct?

There's probably some stuff that happens between shoving and going out of their way, but essentially yes.

Seriously who says "octopodes".

That's what you're supposed to call more than one octopode, I believe.

I think I am on solid ground if I say that no-one doubts, for example, that a good vampire would still ping as "Evil" in the detect spells, for the same reason that Roy did so when carrying the crown around.

Or because the spell named detect evil registers evil creatures, evil items, evil spells, and undead. (I wonder if 3.5's treatment of undead would register on detect chaos.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Or because the spell named detect evil registers evil creatures, evil items, evil spells, and undead. (I wonder if 3.5's treatment of undead would register on detect chaos.)

Bloody hell, does it? What's the point, then, of the detect Undead spell? Just that it can be used by non-clerics and you don't have the chance of getting stunned?

GW

[zimmerwald1915]

There's probably some stuff that happens between shoving and going out of their way, but essentially yes.

Undoubtedly, not probably. While the "Always" alignment doesn't mean what it says, it does mean that the creatures who have it are created/born with the alignment. You can't get lucky and be implanted with a Good vampire spirit right off the bat. The vampire spirit would have to be persuaded somehow to change alignment. Possibly by you. Probably by events and the intervention of others.

[zimmerwald1915]

Bloody hell, does it? What's the point, then, of the detect Undead spell? Just that it can be used by non-clerics and you don't have the chance of getting stunned?

GW

Detect evil won't tell you just what you're looking at. You'd need to rely on your eyes and Knowledge skills to figure it out.

If you're confused as to whether what you're looking at is a vampire or, say, a polymorphed red dragon, detect undead could confirm or exclude one of those options.

[factotum]

So the idea behind "skeletons are evil" in 3.5, I think, is that an out of control skeleton doesn't just hang about doing not much, but actively destroys the world around it (which traditionally it's the kind of thing zombies do - my mental picture of 'free' skeletons is that they tend to just hand around old tombs and only get riled up when you disturb them; but it seems 3.5 decided to make them a bit more active).

That's not what the SRD says, though? From the entry on skeletons:

"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple. A skeleton attacks until destroyed."

That seems to suggest to me that a skeleton instructed to "Destroy anyone who comes past" would act as you suggest, but one who's just been told "Stay here until I tell you otherwise" *will* just hang around and do nothing, even if you disturb them. Since a skeleton takes no initiative it wouldn't even react if you started hacking at it with your weapons unless its instructions included a response to that.

Of course, most skeletons an adventurer in a game of D&D meets *will* have explicit instructions that result in them attacking, but there's certainly nothing I can see in the description saying that's all they do.

[Kish]

Bloody hell, does it? What's the point, then, of the detect Undead spell? Just that it can be used by non-clerics and you don't have the chance of getting stunned?

GW

If you cast Detect Evil on Count Strahd von Zarovich (in the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft adventure, not the Ravenloft demiplane, so Detect Evil works), you learn that he's a powerful and evil nobleman.

If you cast Detect Undead on him, you learn that he's an undead nobleman.

One might call for a different reaction than the other.

[Jasdoif]

Bloody hell, does it?

Yes.

What's the point, then, of the detect Undead spell? Just that it can be used by non-clerics and you don't have the chance of getting stunned?

As zimmerwald1915 just mentioned, detect evil doesn't reveal why something is generating the aura it detects. An Evil human, a demon (of any alignment, because demons have the Evil subtype and thus are effected as if they were Evil regardless of their actual alignment), a vampire (of any alignment, because the spell detects undead), a protection from good spell on a creature (of any alignment, because the aura is from the spell instead of the creature)....all would show an aura. Perhaps more significantly, looking at an area/subject only gives a "yes/no" result at first; it takes a second consecutive round to get the strength of the (strongest) aura, and a third to get a full breakdown of the locations and strengths of each aura in an area.

If it's more important to know whether someone/something is undead, like if you have abilities that are significantly more/less useful with undead, the quick "yes/no" from detect undead would be sufficient. (You can be stunned from detect undead too, more easily in fact since overwhelming aura starts at 11HD with it instead of the 21HD in detect evil; but since stunning only happens on the second round and you can end the spell early by not concentrating on it, it's manageable.)


From a meta perspective....My unsubstantiated guess is that detect evil originated an edition where undead were always evil, that aspect was preserved (or adding "Evil" to the line in the table was overlooked), and detect undead was later added to support dedicated "undead hunter" player concepts.

---

Undoubtedly, not probably. While the "Always" alignment doesn't mean what it says, it does mean that the creatures who have it are created/born with the alignment. You can't get lucky and be implanted with a Good vampire spirit right off the bat. The vampire spirit would have to be persuaded somehow to change alignment. Possibly by you. Probably by events and the intervention of others.

In most senses, yes.

In a context where "forced to hand over memories to a transmogrified variant of their personality, and being an observer to their own body behaving according to the whims of one or more vampires" was quoted while not being even mentioned, scenarios where the interim vampiric escapades aren't worth noting could exist.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, undead were originally unaligned (constructs too). They got pegged to Evil because of the magic system (if not Evil, they are unaffected by holy water, shouldn't be turned and Holy Avengers don't do bonus damage). It's strictly game-rules logic, so rules lawyers are probably to blame somehow.

[Fyraltari]

rules lawyers are probably to blame somehow.

Angrily shakes fist at the sky.

[Kish]

Holy water doesn't hurt evil living non-outsiders (in D&D; it apparently at least irritates Belkar in OotS). It hurts undead and evil outsiders. Only. It'll hurt a Lawful Good lich as much as it would Xykon. Similarly, Turn Undead has nothing to do with the alignment of the turned undead creature.

Holy avenger swords don't do bonus damage to anybody (though I understand they did in 2ed, but zombies and skeletons were Neutral in 2ed anyway, and undead in general weren't particularly more likely to be Chaotic than Lawful or Neutral; vampires were Chaotic by default, but wights were Lawful, mummies Lawful, liches Neutral Evil. If I remember correctly, which I may not, the Holy Avenger bonus damage only applied to Chaotic Evil targets).

[Doug Lampert]

Holy water doesn't hurt evil living non-outsiders (in D&D; it apparently at least irritates Belkar in OotS). It hurts undead and evil outsiders. Only. It'll hurt a Lawful Good lich as much as it would Xykon. Similarly, Turn Undead has nothing to do with the alignment of the turned undead creature.

Holy avenger swords don't do bonus damage to anybody (though I understand they did in 2ed, but zombies and skeletons were Neutral in 2ed anyway, and undead in general weren't particularly more likely to be Chaotic than Lawful or Neutral; vampires were Chaotic by default, but wights were Lawful, mummies Lawful, liches Neutral Evil. If I remember correctly, which I may not, the Holy Avenger bonus damage only applied to Chaotic Evil targets).

Smite Evil wouldn't work on unintelligent undead in 3.0, it will in 3.5. I find this unconvincing as a reason to change the alignment (it would have been easy enough to change the power if that was the point).

I think the 3.5 monster manual writer simply ignored the third ed. requirement that you have to have a Int of 3+ to have an alignment.

[Jasdoif]

Actually, undead were originally unaligned (constructs too).

...okay; Do you mean undead were originally constructs too, and/or constructs were originally unaligned too?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Constructs were unaligned. Actually, now that you make me think about it, constructs were treated as a subset of undead.

Man, this game never made sense, did it?

[Grytorm]

I'm pretty sure Octopi have us matched or beaten on some intelligence metrics, cunning little buggers

Yeah, but can they find Germany on a map?

[Peelee]

Yeah, but can they find Germany on a map?

Well, depends. For instance, if it's a map of Australia...

[brian 333]

Yeah, but can they find Germany on a map?

Can you find oysters on their map?

I encountered only one octopus in the wild, though I probably swam past many and never saw them. They know camouflage. I wouldn't have seen the one, but it moved. I grabbed it, and from that point on it had inniative for the rest of the encounter. It probably was less than 30cm tentacle span.

I'm not average, I suppose, but I was outsmarted by a baby octupus.

I think an overlooked appeal of the game is that it attracts a wide range of players from fantasy neophytes and children to grumpy old folks who have read everything written by Jack Vance. There is a huge diversity of backgrounds as well, from actual rocket scientists to unskilled laborers. The game adapts.

For a teenaged DM who is working it out for the first time the rules need to be clear and simple. As the DM gains experience the flexibility of the rules allow the incorporation of new ideas. The game grows with the player.

My position on this is simple; I think The Giant will follow RAW in a way that doesn't rely on exceptions and house rules. When it's all over we'll look back and see a very conventional interpretation of the vampire rules. And so far, other than for a joke here and there, his interpretations have been solidly founded in the original intent of the rules.

The intent of the designers is usually fairly clear, but every DMG since the first one said, in one way or another, that your world works by your rules. So, interpret them the way you like, you aren't wrong. Otherwise, we can continue to wrestle this ocupus, but it looks like the octopus is winning.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. It kinda makes me wonder what exactly happened between 'new spirit created to sit in Durkon's corpse' and 'new High Piest of Hel with complex plan for world domination/destruction'. Did Hel secretly contact him at some point to convince him to join her faith? Was he given High Priest status and knowledge of the plan when he was created? Or something else?

Turns out we have an answer from The Giant's twitter :

[the vampire] came "pre_loaded" with certain knowledge, like language and whatever Hel told it to do as she was shoving it in there.