# Why does Undead=Evil



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

Most books I have read and people I have talked to believe that raising undead is an evil act, and I cant figure out why. Is it becouse of some belief that the body is sacred and must not be defiled? Or are they just simple minded people who say "If its nasty and evil looking it must be evil." The same logic some people use when they go "Look. He's dressed in black. He must be evil." I've never got why raising undead was such a big deal. Its no different the animating an object to attack someone. I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.



I think it's a very poor idea to start off by calling everyone with a different viewpoint than yours "stupid".

Your supposed to wait until a few people have disagreed with you first.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> I've never got why raising undead was such a big deal. Its no different the animating an object to attack someone.




Animating Objects to fight for you is evil too! (Check Darth Vader throwing Boxes Luke's way in The Empire strikes back!... and he wears black too!)

Good guys fight their own fights and don't let others fight it for them!

Either way.. there are a few concepts of good, neutral or "the ends justify the means" necromancy out there. Hollowfaust comes to mind.

But in the end, necromancy as evil is a staple of fantasy literature (for some of the very reasons you mentioned btw) and D&D, to be honest, ain't there to change these stereotypes. It's there to play them for all their worth.


----------



## Fieari (Sep 4, 2004)

This is my wife Alice*.  I've spent the past twenty odd years with her, and yet my love grows more and more each day.  And then comes the plague, and not even the local cleric has been able to hold back the tide of disease.  I did what I could, everything I could, but in the end she died, and I wept for weeks.

One day this man came into town.  He seemed like an okay kind of guy, but then he went to our graveyard and dug up my wife's corpse, along with several other bodies.  He then defiled her, made her corpse to rise up and walk... but my wife was not there!  Her decaying corpse shambled across the landscape, doing this man's bidding, and the horror of it disgusted me.  Have you no honor, no respect for the dead?!?  Let my wife rest in peace!  Your depraved and wicked acts drag her memory through the mud... nay, worse than the mud!

======================================

Beyond even that, what happens to the soul of someone raised as the undead?  In literature and myth and folklore, the soul of the zombie is bound to the corpse, but is locked away and enslaved without thought.  More than that, the soul is prevented from proceeding to the afterlife.  Eternal enslavement (or at least enslavement until the body is thankfully destroyed beyond use by some blessed adventurer).  That sounds  evil to me.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 4, 2004)

Is this a serious question or are you just trolling?

Assuming you're serious, raising the dead is considered evil for pretty much the same reason that desecrating a grave/cemetary in the real world is considered evil. I can't think of too many things worse than defiling the remains of someone once they're been laid to rest (which is supposed to be for eternity). While corpses are treated as objects in D&D, they are not in the real world. Go ask a marine if the body of his friend who was killed in action is "just an object" and would he mind if you used it for target practice. Now, of course, this is fantasy so perhaps your game world doesn't have a problem with it. But I think such worlds are rare to the extreme and definitely not the default.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

Well, has far as defiling the body goes, I belive the body is just an empty shell. There is nothing sacred about it. The soul as moved on an the body is just waste thats left behind.

As for my remark about people with low IQ, I should explain that better. I am not trying to insult people who have opinons different then my own. I was just pointing out that "some" people are very simple minded and work of the logic of "If it looks evil, it must be evil"


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 4, 2004)

Well, some would argue that what you think of a person's corpse is irrelevant as it is not yours to begin with. To pass judgement in such a manner on someone else's remains is what makes such a person evil in the first place.

How's the saying go? Ignorance is the greatest evil of all...


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

OK, I think we have pegged it down to an evil act as it difiles a corpse. No one wants me raising their dead wife or army buddy to do my bidding, but what about rasing some evil goblins that attacked us. I know you could say that goblins have families as well but that might be going to far. Or what about my favorite tactic. Most of my characters who can animate dead will always kill their horses and animate them. Now he is stronger and never gets tired. It's just a horse, his purpose it to serve me as best he can, and the best way he can serve me is by being animate so he can do his job better.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

Also, I have played clerics who would use the speak with dead spell to ask the soul for permission to use his or her corpse for my cause and would only animate them with their permission. "Hey I want to use your corpse to help destroy the evil SOB who killed you. Is that ok?" Now is that really evil?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 4, 2004)

Skeletons and Zombies are evil. Creating an evil being is evil.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> . Most of my characters who can animate dead will always kill their horses and animate them. Now he is stronger and never gets tired. It's just a horse, his purpose it to serve me as best he can, and the best way he can serve me is by being animate so he can do his job better.



Yes, animal cruelty is so much better.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> Or what about my favorite tactic. Most of my characters who can animate dead will always kill their horses and animate them. Now he is stronger and never gets tired. It's just a horse, his purpose it to serve me as best he can, and the best way he can serve me is by being animate so he can do his job better.




But, but, but.. a horse is your friend, your trusted companion. He lifts you up when your lying wounded in the river, he carries you home while your unconcious on top of it with arrows sticking from your back (or just when your to drunk to find the way), he will steal your cowboyhat to make you laugh on those long & lonely evenings on the plains, he will spur you on when your courage fails you, he will...

Ahh, whatever, go check some Movies (Hidalgo?) Books (Shadowfax), old TV Series (Fury?) or Comics (Lucky Luke) if you cannot find a better use to your horse than kill it.
---

Either way, if you (or your character) think of a horse as _serving_ you in a straigh forward fantasy game, your evil as my book goes.

The good guys don't seek mindless servants, they seek to inspire loyalty.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Well, has far as defiling the body goes, I belive the body is just an empty shell. There is nothing sacred about it. The soul as moved on an the body is just waste thats left behind.



In the default D&D setting you would be incorrect in that belief, and eventually the gods would let people know by having you show up as "Evil" yourself to a detect evil spell.



> As for my remark about people with low IQ, I should explain that better. I am not trying to insult people who have opinons different then my own. I was just pointing out that "some" people are very simple minded and work of the logic of "If it looks evil, it must be evil"



Dude, that's still insulting. You are still saying that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too stupid to know better.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

I think the problem here is that I'm a little bit Spock and everone else is a little bit Kirk. I dont let emotions or personal feelings guide my actions. Animating the bodies of my enemies is efficent and logical. They make very good fighters and will further my goodly cause. It would be illogical to refrain from such an action due to personal feeling about whos soul used to inhabit the corpse.

And I thought skeletons and zombies were neutral and the the sentient undead were the evil ones. I might be wrong, I'll have to check the MM.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is that I'm a little bit Spock and everone else is a little bit Kirk. I dont let emotions or personal feelings guide my actions. Animating the bodies of my enemies is efficent and logical. They make very good fighters and will further my goodly cause. It would be illogical to refrain from such an action due to personal feeling about whos soul used to inhabit the corpse.
> 
> And I thought skeletons and zombies were neutral and the the sentient undead were the evil ones. I might be wrong, I'll have to check the MM.



*shrug* To be honest, your character sounds like a sociopath.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> "Hey I want to use your corpse to help destroy the evil SOB who killed you. Is that ok?" Now is that really evil?




Most defenitly evil! The good guys don't head out to kill & destroy.

They strive to redeem the villain and kill only in self-defence.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> They make very good fighters and will further my goodly cause.




"The ends justify the means" is a classic (if not the classic) villains excuse.

See IRobot for a recent entry into this variation of evil.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

No, no, Caliban. I'm not insulting everyone who does not agree with me. Most peole have a somewhat valid argument for not animating dead. Like not wanting the corpse of your wife or buddy becoming a walking zombie. The people who I am insulting are the ones who make thier judgement based on looks alone. "Look that guy is wearing black, he must be evil. Lets kick his butt. Uh oh, sorry father we didnt mean to hurt you. We thought you were evil"


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> No, no, Caliban. I'm not insulting everyone who does not agree with me. Most peole have a somewhat valid argument for not animating dead. Like not wanting the corpse of your wife or buddy becoming a walking zombie. The people who I am insulting are the ones who make thier judgement based on looks alone. "Look that guy is wearing black, he must be evil. Lets kick his butt. Uh oh, sorry father we didnt mean to hurt you. We thought you were evil"



Which according to you is "most people", as you stated in your first post.  

I haven't actually seen anyone use reasoning like that in this thread, or in a game (at least not seriously - a few people have used it as a roleplaying flaw).   

I think you are vastly underestimating the intelligence of "most people" and are completely ignoring the moral and ethical factors involved, which is just as simple-minded as you accuse others of being.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.




Well, by all fantasy fiction I've ever read, with this attitude, your evil or at the very least straying a far, far way from the righteous path.

Except of course, if the one person you sacrifice is yourself.

Heroics are done when people (i.e. thereafter often known as heroes) stand up for people, values, etc.. after it has gone beyond the logical or beneficial. 

When it comes to protect a valuable asset, the King will set his soldiers. When there are only a few ragged farmers noone cares about, they'll need heroes.

When the King says he will kill or torture someone (albeit with a heavy heart) to save his kindom, the good guy will always look for a different way (or put his own life in the line for the poor chaps sake.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

Well you may be luckier then me for I have met a many people who use the "evil if it looks evil" theory. And its these poeople I am insulting. I am not saying anything bad to anyone here. I dont think anyone here used that logic so I'm not instulting any of you. I am insulting that large number of people who I know that are always like "Dude, he has black robes in face paint. I dont care what your detect alinment says, he is evil."


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.



And of course, you are the best person to determine what the needs of the many are, and are fully qualified to determine who you should kill.

Heck, why stop at one?  If the needs of the many outweigh the few, then it's Ok to kill 499 people to save 500, right?

What constitutes "saving" them anyway?  Is it prolonging their life?  Is it making their life "better" somehow?

What if someone tells you that you are part of that 499 that need to die to make things better for the remaining 500?   You wouldn't have a problem with that, right?


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

As far as killing 1 to save 1,000 we are assuming there is no other solution. If a villian says, "Slay this one peasent or I kill 1,000 including him" There are always alternate ways. I could find a way to trick or destroy the villian without the loss of any innocents and thats Is what I would try to do.

But, and this is a big but, when the quesion of killing one to save 1,000 is asked it is assumed that there is not other option. Its like a what if. And in that situation I would sacrifice the one, even if it was me.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> Well you may be luckier then me for I have met a many people who use the "evil if it looks evil" theory. And its these poeople I am insulting. I am not saying anything bad to anyone here. I dont think anyone here used that logic so I'm not instulting any of you. I am insulting that large number of people who I know that are always like "Dude, he has black robes in face paint. I dont care what your detect alinment says, he is evil."




Well, not to insult you, but maybe it is you who is thinking a bit too simple with only the most irredeemable, crackling, sadistic lunatic as qualifying for "evil".

Evil always starts with good intentions.

So raising undead with the intention to do something good does not make it less evil.. it merely shows that you've taken the first step down the road.

Similar to your sacrificing one for a thousand example. You start with 1, next maybe 10, then maybe for a not quite so urgent cause, than a 100, than maybe on a suspicion rather than a proven fact, etc, etc..

The only way out of this dilemma (and the one any good guy in a book or movie will take) is to offer up yourself.

People, even fictional villains are not born evil (or if they are, they are rather boring and unbelievable villains). It's their deeds that make em so, and raising the dead is surely one of them.

Btw, check Pet Cemetery for raising dead with good intentions. Lovely  writing on this subject...

[edit]
and btw.. we didn't start with the 1 for a 1000 sacrifice. 
We started with killing and/or raising people/living beings because of convenience (i.e. if my horse needs rest and food, it sucks) or cowardice (i.e. help you better your combat odds, because your afraid to fight without zombies to hide behind).

See what I mean about sliding the scale?


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> As far as killing 1 to save 1,000 we are assuming there is no other solution. If a villian says, "Slay this one peasent or I kill 1,000 including him" There are always alternate ways. I could find a way to trick or destroy the villian without the loss of any innocents and thats Is what I would try to do.
> 
> But, and this is a big but, when the quesion of killing one to save 1,000 is asked it is assumed that there is not other option. Its like a what if. And in that situation I would sacrifice the one, even if it was me.



And that's why it's not a valid question.   In the real world (and in most games) there are always other factors involved. 

What if a group of heavily armed and armored men came to your village and said that they were taking 10 people away, for the good of the village.   You are selected as one of those 10 people.   Are they evil?  Are they good?  Are they neither? 

You say the end justifies the means.   Is this true in all cases?  Say I want the last cookie in the jar, but you are about to take it.   So it's alright for me to knock you out and take the last cookie, since you were about to stop me from having it.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 4, 2004)

You ingnorant fools. Of course you cant understant my true plan. Cant you see that what I am doing its whats best for the world. I will create a society without war, without crime. Of course many will have to lose their lives to build such a utopia but sacrifices must be made.

Ok, see I understant the concept of the evil villian who, in his own sick and twisted mind, believes that he is doing whats right. I do believe that most real life terrorists fit into this category.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 4, 2004)

Just a note: A Paladin who kills one innocent to save a thousands loses his Paladin status as killing an innocent is an evil act. Sacrificing your Paladinhood on the surface might look noble, but your soul is now tainted and evil has won an even larger victory most probably.

EDIT: I know you arn't a paladin, just exemplifying that this is an evil act. It doesn't become non-evil when a normal guy off the stree does it.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 4, 2004)

> Just a note: A Paladin who kills one innocent to save a thousands loses his Paladin status as killing an innocent is an evil act. Sacrificing your Paladinhood on the surface might look noble, but your soul is now tainted and evil has won an even larger victory most probably.
> 
> EDIT: I know you arn't a paladin, just exemplifying that this is an evil act. It doesn't become non-evil when a normal guy off the stree does it.




Well, than they call it the choosing between two kinds of evil.

It's still evil though and quite unfair if you present it like that in a D&D game.

On the other hand, evil guys like to be unfair... so if you want to get rid of the Paladin in your group, thats a way to go


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 4, 2004)

Just as a note, I wouldn't do that to a paladin. 

Heck, I wouldn't do it to anyone. I always run a third option. It might hurt the PCs, but in the end it'll save the day, assuming they are capable of doing it. PCs should always have the chance to win, no matter how slim, and be heroic doing it. At least, that's my philosophy.

A character in my games who raises horses because they can would really turn some heads! And lots of dropped jaws. I think I might try it, in fact just to see what they do!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 4, 2004)

In the generic idea for D&D, there is no shade of grey. You are EVIL or GOOD. One or the other. No in between, no both.

...and yes, that's a very cruel situation to have to put a Paladin in.


----------



## Scion (Sep 4, 2004)

There is of course a difference between 'not good' and 'Evil'.

Also, there is a difference between 'unlawful' and 'Evil'.


I have no problem with animating the dead not being evil. So long as it does nothing to the soul then there is no problem. Negative energy is not evil either and one could also power undead by positive energy if push came to shove.

By the core animate dead is an evil spell, and many undead are classified as evil. Although it doesnt really give any reason why. Especially since a good number of undead are nonintelligent, pretty hard to have an alignment if you have no intelligence. Animals are classified as neutral because they have no ability to distinguish right from wrong, are nonintelligent undead any different?

Houserule wise I have changed animate dead in former campaigns to be nonevil, merely a neutral act. Some forms are evil (those that do something with the soul) but merely useing someones body is not good or evil, but it can be lawful or unlawful. There are societies in various books and video games that are not evil and yet they use animated dead (with permission) to better society. No one really wants to muck the stables, but the animated dead will do it all day. There are lots of drudgery jobs that when the undead are doing it can free up people for more fullfilling tasks.

Effectively it can be treated the same as animating an object, what is the difference? One was built by process X and the other was built through process Y. So long as the soul is not disturbed then it is not evil, so long as it follows the laws of the lands then it is not unlawful.


----------



## Patlin (Sep 4, 2004)

If animating the dead were simply a matter of moving the limbs of a corpse, it would be disrespectfull but not 100% evil.  The rules don't go into much detail, so it depends on what description you throw on it as to how evil it is.  When the rules say that animating the dead is evil, this is what I picture (your mileage may vary):

_The necromancer drew upon the twisted powers of unlife, and drew the soul of the dead man back from the void.  He sewed the immortal soul back on to the dead flesh by force, lancing it a thousand times with the corrupting power of darkness.  The soul lent motive force to the body, and it rose.  With dawning horror, the essence of the dead man became aware of more than the agony the dark power subjected it to.  In horror, it realized that it was in the world, bt not a part of it.  It lent power to its former body, but had no control over it.  Only the energies of pure evil that the necromancer had conjured gave the Zombie direction, and the tortured soul had no choice but to ride in the vessel of decay that had been created.  Subtly, on a level even the necromancer was unaware of, much of the energy from the animating spell seaped into the world, increasing the foothold of evil in the world.  In an amount to minute to measure, the necromancer pulled his world closer to the abyss._

You could create a magic system where animated bodies had no moral element to them... but if you use something like the above to describe the animate dead spell, it's evil.  Simply, utterly, without possibility of redemption evil.


----------



## Fieari (Sep 4, 2004)

Patlin, that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.  Perfect wording too!


----------



## Sejs (Sep 4, 2004)

It's very simple why creating undead is an evil act, and it has nothing to do with defiling a corpse.  When you animate undead, you are binding that person's soul back into his flesh to serve as the animatory force - you are stealing their soul from the afterlife (good or bad) and trapping in their corpse.

Not only that, but as far as most things are concerned (outside of a grand total of 2 spells that can counteract it), if the undead is then destroyed that person's soul is destroyed as well.  No second chance at the afterlife.  Just shredded beyond all recognition, no longer a cohesive soul, gone, destroyed.

Raising undead is an evil act because it demonstrates a profound selfishness such that you are willing to destroy someone's eternal soul just to make your life easier by animating a servant.


That clear enough?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 4, 2004)

Well, I guess I might be simple-minded, and ma always told me I had a terribly low IQ, but I always figured raising dead was evil because it's a perversion of the natural order, and a mockery of life itself.  What once was the living vessel of an immortal soul becomes a grotesque puppet, powered by the energy of death itself.  And within that cage of rotting flesh, the soul must lie in endless torment, ripped from the bliss of the afterlife and bound to a cage of filth and corruption.


----------



## Tatsukun (Sep 5, 2004)

So let's see, you are a peasant in a small town and you work hard every day of your 30 years. Then, you die and pass on to (for the sake of argument, we'll say Pelor, but any god will work) Pelor's afterlife. You join your old friends and family on the other side. There is no work to do, no hunger, no responsibility. 

Then, one day you are pulled back to the dead, rotten body you once had and are forced to do your master's bidding. You are a slave in your own horrid rotten skin. 

But it's ok, the necro really needed to kill those goblins. 

Sound evil?

 -Tatsu


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

There is a lot of sloppy argument in this here thread...

1)  Moff Tarkin is not calling those who disagree with him stupid.  He is calling those who make snap judgements based on mere appearances stupid (albeit awkwardly).  Big difference.

2)  Every case of the "sacrifice X to save Y" conundrum is *extremely* fact specific.  It may be worth killing 1000 innocents to save the scientist who is within reach of finding a cure for cancer.  Similarly, it may be equally worth sacrificing an innocent so that 1000 other innocents escape to spread word to the world of the genocide in Sudan.

And that holds true even for the Paladin.

3)  Dovetailing off of 2) supra, sometimes there is no other option, in life at least.  I do agree, however, that it is somewhat unfair (and definitely dangerous to the campaign) to set up a _Kobiashi Maru_ scenario in an RPG game UNLESS it significantly forwards the plot.

One need look no further back in history than the Nazis- there are documented reports of young Germans whose choice was kill X people or else.  Those that chose not to slaughter Jews (or Gypsies, or homosexuals, or whomever the designated victims were to be that day) were killed, right alongside the people they refused to kill.

Seeing that made many other young Germans decide to save themselves...although they eventually payed the price at Nuremburg.

So, it may well be that the only choices are 1) YOU kill that innocent, or 2) We kill everyone including you.

4)  Zweischneid, Evil doesn't neccessarily start off with good intentions.  Sometimes evil beings start off that way.  I'm pretty sure the sociopathic serial killer didn't start off maiming and killing out of a desire for good, other than perhaps to amuse himself, which at the very least, displays an alarming lack of empathy.

5)  While animating the dead INVOLUNTARILY is clearly evil as a subversion of the natural order and being extremely disrepsectful of the dead AND the desires of their loved ones, the VOLUNTARY reanimation of the dead is not inherently evil.  The person who embraces unlife to eternally guard his God's temple is not neccessarily evil, nor is the priest who performs the ceremony.


----------



## Milkman Dan (Sep 5, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Also, I have played clerics who would use the speak with dead spell to ask the soul for permission to use his or her corpse for my cause and would only animate them with their permission. "Hey I want to use your corpse to help destroy the evil SOB who killed you. Is that ok?" Now is that really evil?



Except that speak with dead doesn't allow you to talk with someone's soul.  You talk with an imprint that was left behind when the soul left the body.  You could make an educated guess on what the soul actually wants, but it definitely isn't the soul talking.  You are simply trying to retrieve memories of its life.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Sep 5, 2004)

*Undead=Evil*

I think the original poster made a valid point.

D&D doesn't do a good enough job of detailing _why_ the Undead state automatically makes a creature evil.

For example, why does becoming a lich automatically make one evil?  And, why are the elven Baelnorns in FR exempt from this?

See the Vlad Taltos novels (Jhereg, etc) for a portrayal of undead (the lich Sethra Lavode?)  that are not necessarily Evil.

I think there are some problems with the way Undeath is handled.  For example, by the rules, raising your defeated enemy as a skeleton (for the price of a 50gp gem and a 3rd level spell), ordering it into a metal box, locking the box, and burying it functions as a poor man's Trap The Soul -- the equivalent of a 9th level spell!

Also, an earlier poster said that destroying an undead destroys the soul as well.  I'd like to see a cite to the rules supporting this assertion -- I've never seen it.

To me, the rules should say the following:

a creature with the Undead subtype has Needs, which it craves and must seek, and these Needs always involve causing harm to living creatures.  In general, the more powerful the Undead, the greater its control over its own Needs.  "Mindless" undead, like skeletons and zombies, are completely overwhelmed by their Needs, are unable to think of anything else, and pursue them relentlessly unless commanded.  "Intelligent" undead have needs but can think independently about other things.  A Ghoul, for example, has the Need "Eat the flesh of sentient beings every day".   A Vampire has the need "drink the blood of the living every day".   A Vampire, which is much more powerful than a Ghoul, has an easier time (perhaps the WILL save mechanic could be used for this) temporarily suppressing its Need.

The "Needs" would thus be the basis for Undeath being Evil, since they drive the Undead creature to do Evil things, and the repeated execution of Evil acts is well known to corrupt the Soul.

Ken McKinney


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Sep 5, 2004)

Mark me as another who believes that Necromancy's evil because it disturbs the just rest of the dead.  Patlin pretty much hit the nail on the head with his description of how Animating The Dead might work: it's not pretty, it's not just turning corpses into puppets, it's about binding the souls of the dead into dead flesh and bones to create minions.   

...And, of course, there's nothing garanteeing that the corpse belongs to the soul in question: after all, what's easier, reaching into the afterlife for someone's soul, or just snatching up any lost soul wandering about within reach and putting it to work?

I'll also refer to Relics and Rituals: Excalibur when it comes to explaining the classic medieval outlook on death and necromancy.  Basicallt, in such settings, people are used to death and the sight of corpses, because death comes easily in an age before modern medecine (even _with_ magical healing).  But this familiarity with death also breeds an attitude of respect for the dead: even peasents get a proper burial, and armies will call truces at night so each side can gather it's dead for funeral.  Saying unkind words about the dead is considered incredibly rude, and often a cause for violence if spoken within earshot of a relative of the dead.  

This leads to the notion that using magic to call the dead or summon them to unlife is the greatest desecration of the sanctity of death possible. 

Now, of course, different cultures might have different outlooks.  Eberron's Elves of Aerenal use magic to allow them to preserve their most worthy elders beyond death as Deathless, while the same campaign world's nation of Karnath resurrects it's own dead soldiers to use replenish it's army.  But both of them have special circumstances which lead to those practices.


----------



## sinmissing (Sep 5, 2004)

the reasons why undead=evil are 2-fold IMO, 1) mindless creatures can be killed without any moral dilema, defiling the dead is an out-of-game taboo.

but, u can see a neat attempt at a slightly different moral center regarding the dead if you read wotc's Jakandor setting.  its cool.

sorry 4 shorthand, have new baby daughter in hand - typing 1 handed and teaching her d20


----------



## The Spectrum Rider (Sep 5, 2004)

***
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moff_Tarkin

I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think. 

I think it's a very poor idea to start off by calling everyone with a different viewpoint than yours "stupid".
***

Especially when you misspell "people" and "don't," use a comma when you should use a semicolon, and forget the question mark at the end of a question. Normally I don't fuss over these kinds of errors, but when someone accuses people of not having an "IQ large enough," they stand out.

Most cultures - especially the sorts of cultures most D&D games take place in, as well as the RL cultures most of live in - do not consider dead bodies to simply be "objects," like rocks or tables. What kind of person would make an ashtray out of their late uncle's foot? This is not a position taken on a strictly rational basis, but most cultural taboos aren't. It would be easy to invent a culture for a D&D game in which creating and using undead were not evil actions (and there's some of that in Eberron's ancient, undead elves). But it's also quite plausible that many cultures would consider such acts evil.

The Spectrum Rider


----------



## DemonAtheist (Sep 5, 2004)

me and my friends had an argument similar to this, but the subject wasn't necromancy, it was n3crophilia (3 there because my comp has a word censor).  Can you come up with an objective reason why it is wrong?  It hurts no one, is certainly less of a crime than rap3, hell its not not consensual...so why do we have a gut reaction that says it must be wrong?

take that farther: is anything objectively wrong?  How is        wrong if everyone dies eventually?  How is stealing wrong if material possessions cant be proven with laws that were made by man?  NOTHING can be proven objectively, including existence itself.

Which is why all such things must be taken in context of culture, because otherwise everything is moot.  N3crophila is wrong because we say its wrong; circular yes but that's the true reason.  It stems from religious treatments of       and instincts of self preservation, but still.  

Anything in the world of DnD has a further restriction in terms of morality...gods of dnd are provable and do exist.  They reward good and evil behavior, depending on their alignment.  The gods say necromancy is evil, which is only reinforced by the proven existence of souls/reincarnation/afterlife.  Taken in the context of THAT culture, necromancy is wrong.  It goes against good aligned gods (who decide what good is after all)(debatable if god exists in RL), it controls souls which DO exist (debatable in RL), and it prevents reincarnation.

Not to mention the division between good and evil with clerics...clerics that cast cure spells dont raise      (typically), they cast inflict spells...that sounds evil to me.

As far as liches go...theyre just evil.  Turning oneself undead raises far too many issues, might as well just label it evil and dodge the discussion.

thats all from me


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu (Sep 5, 2004)

So why is the act of becoming a Lich evil by ressurecting someone isn't? Is it because the former is icky?

I think many D&D good ahs been associated with the sentiments of culture for far too long. Desecrating a corpse is not evil, it's unlawful. It doesn't in itself hurt anyone. Now desecrating a corpse for the sheer purpose of causing someone else emotional stress, THAT would be evil.

D&D alignment irritates me, though.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 5, 2004)

Fortunatly for me, the current DM is allowing evil characters so I dont have to worry about the morals of raising dead. As for my spelling and grammer mistakes, I usually have "Word" to correct me but I reset my computer and it is not installed. My spelling isnt that bad its just that I am typing fast and I am not bothering to read over for mistakes. If I go to fast and leave a letter out of a word, or add one in, its not going to matter. Your going to know what I am saying so there is no reason to go through the trouble of going through my post looking for the smallest of mistakes. Your brain will automaticaly fill in any gaps and correct any minor errors. In fact, if you read a sentence with errors fast enough you might not spot any of them for that very reason.


----------



## Moff_Tarkin (Sep 5, 2004)

As far as liches go, one DM is running an epic level game in which I am a demilich. I convinced him to let me play a LN one. I am a sentient being and I have control over my life and my actions. I can choose to destroy evil and uphold good if I wanted to.


----------



## The Souljourner (Sep 5, 2004)

The whole thing about not being able to resurrect people who were turned undead was from 2nd edition,  I think.   My group looked it up the other day in 3.5 and couldn't find any mention of it, so it's probably just a mental holdover from then.

As for why it's evil... because it's in the rules.  Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor.  Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act.

D&D is black and white about quite a lot of morality.  It's pretty easy for a DM to send people into the greys, but some things stand out on one end of the spectrum or another (though, oddly enough, there are very few flat-out "good" acts).  

-The Souljourner


----------



## The Souljourner (Sep 5, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Your going to know what I am saying.... In fact, if you read a sentence with errors fast enough you might not spot any of them for that very reason.




You know what I spot immediately, no matter how fast I read something?  Using "your" when you should be using you're.

Oh, and one thing to add to my last post... I actually kinda like the easy black and white of most of D&D.  It makes the typical D&D adventures a heck of a lot more realistic.  If you had to wonder about whether this skeleton was just defending his lair, finishing an adventure in D&D would be a horribly long and boring process.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 5, 2004)

You know who I could see raising the dead to fight for them?  Clerics of St. Cuthbert.  They're appropriately prone to smiting first and asking questions later.  What better punishment for a bunch of pathetic godless bandits than, after having their heads opened with a cudgel, being animated and sent to go bring the fury of the gods to their former associates?

But then, I usually find followers of Cuthbert to be a little cracked to begin with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

Or letting the dead kill their killers as a means of execution...perfect revenge!

Or letting the dead defend their living descendants in a siege...a defense force that requires no foodstores, and is immune to many seige tactics, like spreading contagion.  They could even be used to spread contagion among the besiegers.

Of course, in each of the above case, it could only be a non-evil act if the dead agreed to be reanimated.


----------



## Alloran (Sep 5, 2004)

Kind of like 'in the event of __________ happening, do you heroes agree to be reanimated for the good and protection of the city' type thing? 

~Alloran


----------



## MerakSpielman (Sep 5, 2004)

I think, in D&D, it's not so much that animating dead, _specifically_, is evil, it is that drawing upon negative energy is evil, and animating dead necessitates drawing upon negative energy.

Why is drawing upon negative energy a bad thing to do? The books don't explain this. 

(I don't, by the way, think the rules support the "the body is animated by its soul" arguement)

Frankly, I always thought it would be fun to have an idyllic, pristine society, where all labor and work that doesn't require human intelligence was carried out by a horde of skelitons. They could serve as defensive troops, or weed the garden. They can go into the sewers and kill vermin for eternity, reducing the disease rate, or they could be used as tireless construction workers, or they could plow the fields and harvest the produce.

Meanwhile, all the people of the city live easy lives, waited on hand and foot by the loyal, tireless undead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

Exactly, Alloran.

In a sense, you could argue that Arthur lying "sleeping" in Avalon, ready to rise again if Britain should ever need him is just that kind of pact.

Ditto the mummy who guards his god/king.  Which reminds me...I never liked the rule that mummies were evil- they are, after all, guarding temples or deceased rulers from tomb raiding non-believers.

Similarly, witness the Undead Druids in Terry Brooks' _Shanarra_ books.  These undead druids inhabit the Hadeshorn, and use the knowledge they had in life and the perceptive powers attributed to the dead (by people like Dante) to inform the living.

The Sons of Kyuss in Fritz Lieber's _Lankhmar_ books are not only defenders of the city, but also the occasional instrument of divine justice.

And then there's the undead guy in the cellar of Glen Cook's _Garret_ books...  He's not evil...he's just amoral.

And as for the other, the court ordered reanimation, it would be as simple as:  "I sentence the killer to die at the hands of his victims.  Priest!  Raise the Revenants!"

As for MerakSpielman's idea, I participated in a discussion about just such a place.  We decided that Zombies make ideal farmers (of crops, not livestock) since they don't actually feed on the living (they just follow orders) and they fertilize the soil as they work...

Although, skeletons would have to be used for the harvesting.  No one wants to eat corn that smells of zombie.

Sewer patrol is one we hadn't considered, though.  Good idea!  (I'm stealing that, BTW.)

Most undead, however, would be too stupid to do complex tasks like construction.  Each one would need an individual foreman to tell it what task to do at that moment.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 5, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It may be worth killing 1000 innocents to save the scientist who is within reach of finding a cure for cancer.  Similarly, it may be equally worth sacrificing an innocent so that 1000 other innocents escape to spread word to the world of the genocide in Sudan.



No.  It's never worth it.


----------



## Malin Genie (Sep 5, 2004)

I had always thought (as a player, not a character) that it was negative energy animating the body (in the case of mindless, animate undead,) and that the soul of the dead creature was not involved in the process at all.  The inability to raise a body once animated stemmed not from any 'damage to the soul' but from the fact that a once-animated body was an unsuitable receptacle for a soul (just like a too-badly-damaged body.)

I am playing a True Neutral character in a game who occasionally animates foes' bodies, and argues that animating corpses is no different to animating other non-sentient objects.  It makes for some interesting party discussions - and of course if she's wrong she could unknowingly be slipping towards Neutral Evil...


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 5, 2004)

> One need look no further back in history than the Nazis- there are documented reports of young Germans whose choice was kill X people or else. Those that chose not to slaughter Jews (or Gypsies, or homosexuals, or whomever the designated victims were to be that day) were killed, right alongside the people they refused to kill.





Since we started discussing _Evil_ in the context of raising Undead, we are (I guess) talking about _Evil_ in the D&D Game (or in the Fantasy Fiction that inspired the Game) where _Good_ and _Evil_ (and morality in general) are tangible forces that can be defined, embraced or opposed, etc.., etc.. . 

If you include discussion of Terrorists, Serial Killers or the Genocide in Germany or the Sudan, it would stand to argue if _Good_ or _Evil_ exist in the real world in the literal sense that they do in fantasy games or fiction. 

I'll leave my opinion on this out of it, as much as it itches me to comment on some of the examples mentioned above. If you want to discuss _Good_ & _Evil_ in the Real World, start a new threat. In this thread it is just derailing the topic at hand.






> It may be worth killing 1000 innocents to save the scientist who is within reach of finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, it may be equally worth sacrificing an innocent so that 1000 other innocents escape to spread word to the world of the genocide in Sudan.




If some action like the one mentioned above is "worth it", or not has nothing to do with the question on if it's evil or not. 

As most fantasy fictions are morality tales as often as not, I would argue that the prospect of greater gain is almost always the lure of _Evil_, while the righteous path seems ever the one without more tangible gain, less tangible risks, the one with far less chances of sucess in general. 

As mentioned with the Raise Undead example above. The fact that you'd consider corpses (or slaves, or whatever) to fight your fights for you is just as good an indication for your evil disposition, as is the act of raising dead itself.

The good guys wouldn't resort to dishonorable tactics (raising dead, taking hostages, attacking without challenge, etc..) just to improve their chances of success, or if they do, they know that their acts are not good.. likely evil.

Thats why an "the end justify the means"-attitude is (in classical fantasy fiction & games, which the standard D&D builds on) the mark of evil.

Your milage in real life may differ...


----------



## Majere (Sep 5, 2004)

God: "Dear paladin there is an artifact of ancient evil which is unbreakable even by me. I need some people to guard it are you willing ?"
Paladin: "Anything you say boss"
God: "Great just one catch, need  you to guard it for eternity, mind if I turn you into a ghost so you can stick about until the end of time"
Paladin: "It would be an honor sire"
God: "Ok so I just touch you here, cast this.. drop in the onyx and ... Tada"
Paladin: "Erm sire ?"
God: "Ooooh sorry, didnt see the Evil descriptor on that one.. your not a paladin anymore are you? Well, you no use now.. go haunt the naughty children so they say their prayers or something..."

Now... Call me a cynic but ... 

Majere


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 5, 2004)

The Spectrum Rider said:
			
		

> Most cultures - especially the sorts of cultures most D&D games take place in, as well as the RL cultures most of live in - do not consider dead bodies to simply be "objects," like rocks or tables. What kind of person would make an ashtray out of their late uncle's foot? This is not a position taken on a strictly rational basis, but most cultural taboos aren't. It would be easy to invent a culture for a D&D game in which creating and using undead were not evil actions (and there's some of that in Eberron's ancient, undead elves). But it's also quite plausible that many cultures would consider such acts evil.




I think this post hits the nail on the head.

D&D uses a default metaphysics where there exists an objective Good and Evil, and some magic happens to be Evil.  If have a different or more open-minded metaphysics, some of these descriptors seem arbitrary.  If you want to campaign in a morally gray or amoral universe, it is not a failing of the RAW that you need to houserule some things.

My personal opinion is that it is believed that the necromantic magic binds a piece of the spirit or soul of the owner into the corpse to animate the corpse.  The corpse is too intimately tied to the soul for it to be any other way.  If you are familiar with "real life" (historical or modern) holistic magical theory, this a natural and obvious line of thought.  (Whether it is true and correct depends on your metaphysics.)


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 5, 2004)

> God: "Dear paladin there is an artifact of ancient evil which is unbreakable even by me. I need some people to guard it are you willing ?"
> Paladin: "Anything you say boss"
> God: "Great just one catch, need you to guard it for eternity, mind if I turn you into a ghost so you can stick about until the end of time"
> Paladin: "It would be an honor sire"
> ...




In the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal, the King is considered a direct representation of the Hindu God Vishnu and likely the only Monarch left on Earth worshipped as a God.

On June 1st, 2001, the heir to the throne, crown prince Dipendra, a rather instable fellow with a fondness for Drugs and Guns went on a killing spree, killing the reigning King Birenda along with most of the royal family before turning the weapon upon himself. 

When King Birenda was found dead the details of the massacre still unclear, but his son and heir Prince Dipendra merely comatose, Prince Dipendra was declared King on June 2nd. 

Now King Dipendra died on June 3rd though, he never regained conciousness. But because of his 24 hour reign he was considered a god by his people, and a god could never be charged with the hideous crimes Prince Dipendra apparently commited. 

In consequence, they had a very high ranking Bhraman Priest take on the guilt of former King Dipendra upon his own soul, demolishing all his upcoming incarnations by the sins laid upon his shoulders.

The priest indulged in the meat of cows (the most holy animal of hinduism) and alcohol, sex and a score of other drugs and vices forbidden to religious hindus and especially Bhramans. 
He put on the clothes and personal belongings of the former Crown Prince to bind the bad Karma to himself and left Nepal and India behind.. exiled for life, never to return. 

By this, the stain on Prince/King Dipendras Soul was cleansed. His troubled Soul granted a more pleasant next Incarnation while the Priest by Hindu lore, will be thrown into the deepest Hells, and will never again in all eternity have a chance on a decent Incarnation in the future.  

The people of Nepal considered the Priests sacrifice to be something very, very honorable, but his acts to be something most profoundly evil. The very fact that they were evil made his actions honorable in the first place.. if you want.

Same things could be said for your Paladin above. By turning undead, he does something very courageous and honorable.. but, by a set of believes that divide the world into good and evil, he also commits an act of evil. 

These things are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Agamemnon (Sep 5, 2004)

An interesting example, certainly, of varying definitions of good, evil and honor, and an illuminating one at that.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 5, 2004)

> D&D uses a default metaphysics where there exists an objective Good and Evil, and some magic happens to be Evil. If have a different or more open-minded metaphysics, some of these descriptors seem arbitrary. If you want to campaign in a morally gray or amoral universe, it is not a failing of the RAW that you need to houserule some things.




Agreed..


----------



## RedShirtNo5 (Sep 5, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is that I'm a little bit Spock and everone else is a little bit Kirk. I dont let emotions or personal feelings guide my actions. Animating the bodies of my enemies is efficent and logical.



"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."  Spock in _I, Mudd_

-RedShirt


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 5, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.



I think in any situation like this you say to the universe it is unfair and chose one of the two possibilities, well knowing that NONE of them is good. The lesser evil is still evil.. Only if you`re really a nice and generous person you could see it was neutral. But it was never good.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Sep 5, 2004)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> In the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal, the King is considered a direct representation of the Hindu God Vishnu and likely the only Monarch left on Earth worshipped as a God.
> 
> On June 1st, 2001, the heir to the throne, crown prince Dipendra, a rather instable fellow with a fondness for Drugs and Guns went on a killing spree, killing the reigning King Birenda along with most of the royal family before turning the weapon upon himself....




Just as an aside, there is quite a bit of debate in Nepal over whether this is true, or whether there was a Kennedy-like conspiracy.  I hired a Nepali sherpa recently in the Himalayas, and he told me that most people in the countryside believe that Dipendra was framed, and that a different prince -- known as the 'Black Prince' -- son of the new king (who was the dead king's brother) actually did the killings.  It doesn't help matters that the 'Black Prince' (who is now the crown prince of Nepal) was suspected in a couple of other murders prior to this.

-Ken


----------



## mirivor (Sep 5, 2004)

I read this post yesterday and it got me thinking..... I haven't read all four pages by the way, so please forgive replications.

I can think of a couple reasons why undead and what it involves are considered evil.

1) The first thing that came to my mind is disease. Not so long ago, say during the Black Death, digging up or disturbing the dead in any form was very dangerous. I don't know that the folks back then knew any different, so they probably assumed that disturbing the dead attracted the attention of Satan, or something similar. Thus they assumed that any similar act was inherently evil... and the tradition simply continues. There are a lot of old wives' tales still floating around out there.

2) Religion was the second thing. Most religions see the burial of their dead as a sacred act, thus disturbing those interred would be sacreligious.

3) The final idea that occurred to me was simple taboo. Maybe there really is no reason for the common outlook. 

I realize that these are real life examples, but real life often spills over into games. 

4) Another possibility, in fantasy terms, is the accessing of negative energy. This could easily be construed as an evil act, since good clerics are forbidden to rebuke undead or spontaneously cast any "Inflict" spells. In fact, in my own campaign world Thrann the use of negative energy is seen as distinctly evil by most of the world. 

Later!


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 5, 2004)

Necromancy as an evil act probably dates back to the Victorian era, when they decided that just about anything and everything was filthy and evil and violated the tenet of "cleanliness is next to godliness". Frankenstein helped reinforce this concept, with a rotting husk built from the dead parts of criminals and lunatics being restored to life, and Dracula reinforced it in another way by presenting vampires with a sensual or sexual nature that went against the repressions of the time. Can't say I've read much involving undead prior to that. On top of that, you can add the fact that we don't know what happens when a person dies. That's why we do what we do with dead bodies, in a hope that the dead find "eternal peace" or "final rest".

Games perpetuate this because undead-forming necromancy is almost always used out of selfish motivations, usually to create a free army of bodyguards or warriors to carry out some plan of conquest or domination. On top of that, since we equate the dead body at rest with the spiritual peace of the dead, creating undead is viewed as an unkind act that awakens those dead spirits. So in the end, creating undead is normally viewed as an evil act. One bright idea I've never seen any game explore is that very concept of disturbing the body disturbs the peace of the dead. Wouldn't it be nice if animating a cemetary worth of zombies and skeletons might result in the necromancer being harrassed by the ghosts of one or more of the individuals that were buried there?

However, I can think of a situation where animating the dead wouldn't be considered evil. I see nothing wrong with a good priest being pragmatic and making the dead guy haul his own can back to the temple for a proper burial. It isn't right to abandon a fallen comrade in some forelorn dungeon, but there's no reason to have to haul his corpse around if there's magic available that will let the dead guy walk back to civilization under his own power...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

If I sacrifice one innocent to save the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people of the Sudan from genocide, I'm pretty sure I could live with that (assuming, of course, that was my ONLY option), especially if the alternative was that EVERYONE in the village dies.  Hopefully, someone among that group would volunteer to be the sacrifice.

If I had to shut a bulkhead door in the face of my best freind in order to keep a ship from sinking, I'm pretty sure I could do that too.

Now, I may feel that I need to do penance, I might not.  I don't know- I haven't been put in either situation, and I haven't discussed this with my priest.

It seems to me though, that the Paladin being *asked by his god* to become undead cannot be considered an evil act, especially since this is presumbably a good diety.  To think otherwise is to argue that a diety worthy of worship by a Paladin would consider asking that Paladin to perform evil in his name- serious doublethink there.  And that even if it were an evil act, the volunteering to do his *god's expressed will* would be an instant attonement in the eyes of his diety, restoring him to Paladin status.  Voila- undead Paladin. 

Of course, this example, while illustrative, assumes the diety has no other way of meeting his/her/its goal of having an intelligent guardian of X for eternity.  Granting eternal life might also be an option, but this too, is a necromantic power.

Still, the granting of some kind of immortality-either undeath or actual immortality- to a mortal is a repeated theme in our own legends.  Gilgamesh, King Arthur, Brunhilde, even certain Christian saints and so many others, and almost all of these immortals are HEROES, not villains.

Similarly, there are the legends of ghosts (or whatever you want to call them) who are merely so attatched to this mortal coil that they cannot leave.  Evil?  No- preoccupied with grief, love, the desire to protect someone or something, and perhaps even revenge- but not NECCESSARILY evil.

So, it seems to me that it isn't that undeath is inherently an evil state, nor is raising the dead.  It is entering the state of undeath to do evil that is evil, the INVOLUNTARY raising of the dead that is an evil act.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 5, 2004)

Moff Tarkin (aside from insulting many folks' intellects while himself making spelling and grammar errors) is only thinking in terms of Machiavellian and utilitarian ethics, and is completely ignoring the importance of deontological ethics, as he is only considering the consequences and their utility while ignoring the morality and nature of the act itself.  This, class, is called a fallacy, one that many folks like to indulge in because it makes them feel better about their immorality.  This is the sort of ethical fallacy that makes people like certain tyrants/terrorists/megalomaniacs (who will not be named, since EN World isn't a proper place for politics) think they're in the right.  Pfffft.  So I have a very low opinion of anyone who thinks 'the ends justify the means' or anything like that.  Killing one person to save a thousand people is still an immoral means to a moral end.  Doesn't mean it's always wrong, but it's never a morally stellar thing to do, especially not if the victim is an innocent.  Obviously it's 'right' to kill a tyrant or something, but killing is still an evil act in and of itself, though the purpose may be benign in that instance.

Anyway, in D&D, morality and ethics are made somewhat black-and-white by the Alignment system.  Some things are capital-E Evil, some things are capital-G Good, etc.  In D&D, anything Machiavellian or utilitarian is going to be either Evil or Neutral, with few or no exceptions.  In D&D, slaying an evil creature is considered to be just and good simply because D&D has a B&W Alignment system, such that destroying evil is always good and vice versa.  However, it is not honorable/lawful to just destroy any evil creature encountered, thus paladins for instance need to have a compelling reason to slay an evil-doer, such as knowing that the villain is in the middle of executing a very evil act (not just petty theft, for instance, but rather murder or something).  So paladins in D&D should only slay evil creatures that are commiting acts of great evil (murder, starting plagues, starting horrible wars, instigating natural disasters, spreading worship of evil deities, constructing evil artifacts, opening Gates to evil planes, consorting with fiends, desecrating holy sites, assaulting holy men, etc.).  Only lawful good folks in D&D are typically concerned with the honor of an act as much as the morality of the act.  Slaying any ol' random guy on the road who detects as evil to a Detect Evil spell is perfectly alright for a chaotic good or neutral good character in D&D, with its B&W Alignment system, but would not be acceptable for a lawful good character since it would be dishonorable (non-lawful) despite being good in the context of D&D.  Lawful good characters will generally be concerned about the deontological morality of any act (doing only the pure and virtuous) rather than the utilitarian  morality of it (i.e. ends justify the means).

Casting Death Knell is an Evil act because it channels Evil power.  Casting Animate Dead is an Evil act because it channels negative energy, which is an Evil act.  Casting Inflict Serious Wounds is a very minor Evil act because it also channels negative energy, but only a relatively small amount (thus, it does not have the Evil descriptor, but D&D still says that channeling negative energy is Evil, and that doing that too often will turn a character Evil).  In D&D, negative energy is linked to evil while positive energy is linked to good, to an extent.  Animating a corpse requires a great deal of negative energy, and binds an unwilling soul to keep the corpse animate, thus it is quite Evil.  Not to mention the moral and cultural revulsion to such an act.  Most undead in D&D have unwilling souls bound to them for animation, and this prevents those souls from enjoying any afterlife or oblivion.  Some undead, like liches, are likely to have been willingly changed into undead, and thus have their own original soul in control rather than 'shackled' to the corpse merely for animation; however, even these undead are animated only by the vast amounts of Evil negative energy filling their corpse, which naturally has a very corrupting effect on them.

Casting Raise Dead, Resurrection, True Resurrection, or the like is not an Evil act in D&D because it only returns the person to life after an unnatural death, such as from being murdered or poisoned to death.  None of these three spells allows anyone to live beyond their natural lifespan, and if they have a patron deity, it also doesn't allow them to return to life if their deity is opposed to that.  Raise Dead et al won't return anyone to life if they died of natural causes or whatnot, so it does not have the taboo of Animate Dead et al (as becoming undead, especially becoming intelligent undead, shirks the whole mortal coil deal and makes the creature immortal, denying the natural order of things and whatever the gods may have set forth as the mortal lifespan; it also throws mud in the face of religious beliefs, like saying 'screw you Cuthbert, I'm going to live forever and do whatever I damned well please, so I'm never going to suffer any rightful punishment in some afterlife!  Nyah nyah!').  Now D&D isn't real life and doesn't always adhere to the real-world taboos and cultures, of course, but it is possible that some people will run D&D campaigns in settings that are more based on some other real-world culture that has different views on death, so these nonstandard settings may use houserules regarding Animate Dead, Resurrection, etc., but that would be the exception not the rule.

Lastly, regarding some of the D&D-related stuff that's been mentioned so far in this thread....  1. St. Cuthbert is a lawful neutral deity with slight leanings towards good, and his clerics always turn/destroy undead rather than rebuke them.  This means that St. Cuthbert, while neutral on the good-evil axis, disapproves of undeath, on top of being a somewhat honorable deity as well.  So his priests would never condone the creation/animation of undead for use in labor, fighting evil, or vengeance.  Wee Jas, on the other hand, would indeed approve of such uses for undead.  2. Animating the dead so they can strike back at those who murdered them is still an evil act and still channels negative energy.  At most it may be considered a neutral act if the purpose is righteous enough, but it would still require channeling a considerable amount of negative energy, which is still an evil act and still has some corrupting effects on one's mind and soul.  Just like summoning a fiend with Summon Monster spells; it won't make you evil right away, but if you do that with any regularity or consistency and you'll be corrupted into an evil villain soon enough.  3. It is possible to have non-evil undead in D&D, such as Archliches and Baelnorn in the Monsters of Faerun book, but these are special exceptions made through very rare and powerful magicks.  These good or neutral undead are animated by positive energy or have enough positive energy in them at least to stave off the corruption of the negative energy making their corpse animate.  It's much more difficult to accomplish, thus there are no rules in D&D 3E/3.5E on how it's done, just as there are no artifact-creation rules for the same reasons.  Deities could of course create undead guardians who are akin to archliches (even if they're ghosts or vampires or mummies or whatnot), and it's stupid to think that deities would be limited to only the spells and templates presented in the rules; just look at Deities & Demigods, there are plenty of deities there with unique abilities that just go to show that deities are not limited to only what Player Characters (good or evil or otherwise) have at their disposal.  Besides, each DM makes their own decisions on how deities will work and how they may or may not be restricted in his or her own campaign.  Also, mummies in D&D may be evil, but that's just the standard used in D&D for most undead, such as vampires and liches, and it's well within the DM's purview to base their D&D campaign off of cultures or whatnot that the standard D&D assumptions don't support; that's why there's houserules.


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 5, 2004)

Patlin said:
			
		

> If animating the dead were simply a matter of moving the limbs of a corpse, it would be disrespectfull but not 100% evil.




IMO, it would then be a Transmutation spell. We could call it Animate Object or something like that.


----------



## Fieari (Sep 6, 2004)

I could only see an evil deity creating a mummy or other undead guardian to guard an artifact, thus, serving that evil diety is also evil, thus, mummies are evil as well.  Intellegent or no.


----------



## Kalanyr (Sep 6, 2004)

Hmm, some interesting arguments here but a few points I want to make.

a) Negative Energy is NOT inherently evil, the Negative Energy Plane is unaligned. Ditto for Positive Energy with respect to good. These planes are the greatest concentrations of theses energies in the entire multiverse its safe to say that if these energies had an innate alignment these planes would definitely be aligned.

b) There is certainly a perception of alignment to them after all most of us view death as evil and life as good. This is probably why the books seem to waiver on this topic. 

c) Isis effectively made Osiris a mummy, and neither deity was viewed as evil in Egypt. In fact Osiris was a banner bearer for good in their religion.

And now for my opinion: 

Animate Dead is evil by default in D&D because in the literature D&D is associated with the necromancer is the bad guy who raises armies of the foul dead to serve his malign purposes, most of the Necromancy school suffers from this, and this has become more pronounced since 3e since healing has been moved to the conjuration school. And on a moral level it easy to justify it as binding the soul to the corpse, probably the only way to justify it really, since a) making Flesh Golems isn't Evil and b) nor is using Animate Obect on a corpse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2004)

Pesky Double Post!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2004)

Part of this, it seems to me, is how you define undeath.  There are numerous legends, like the above-mentioned ressurection/mummification of Osiris in which death is reversed in some way and a person is returned to an ambulatory state.

Orpheus, demigod of music, almost succeeded in bringing his beloved Eurydice back to life, failing only because he lacked trust in the deal he struck with Hades.

Not evil.

The goddess Persephone annually returned from the land of the dead in order to bring back Spring...her mother Demeter wouldn't allow Spring to return until she got her daughter back from Hades.

Not evil.

The deceased heroes of Valhalla are to return to fight in Ragnarok

Not evil.

The Asgardians ALMOST revived Baldur.

Not evil.

Whether these are actual cases of undeath is up to you.  But the undeath = evil equation DOES ignore the numerous undead protector legends of European folklore, usually involving the ghost of a parent or lover saving their surviving loved ones.

Usually, these are touted as paeans to "undying love" as opposed to evidence of evil.

I mean, regardless of what you think of the movie itself, I'm pretty sure Patrick Swayze's _Ghost_ character was NOT evil.

Perhaps the answer lies in HRing these spells to include intent, or perhaps introducing good or neutral versions of the spells.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 6, 2004)

Fieari said:
			
		

> That sounds  evil to me.




Well put Fieari.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 6, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Most of my characters who can animate dead will always kill their horses and animate them.




Umm- question- whats the alignment of the character that is doing the animating?


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 6, 2004)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> In the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal, the King is considered a direct representation of the Hindu God Vishnu and likely the only Monarch left on Earth worshipped as a God.




And my friends wonder why I hate religion so much.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't like using real world examples but consider organ donors (or more correctly the lack of) and the dislike of autopsies by relatives.

The cause of complaint in both cases is that the body belongs to the person and its invasion is a very personal affair.

The create undead spells are evil in that they disrespect the dead persons remains and cause great distress to relatives (and the living in general).

The 3ed definition of evil includes disrespecting other beings, so there is that angle. I mean, the animating spellcaster is always doing it for personal profit without regard to victims, relatives or the living beings sense of decency.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2004)

"Always" is probably too strong a word.

If you have read the entire thread, you'll understand why my suggestion is that you use the word "Often" instead.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 6, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "Always" is probably too strong a word.
> 
> If you have read the entire thread, you'll understand why my suggestion is that you use the word "Often" instead.



I should have added Imnsho.

At which point I always back my use of the word "always" 100%


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 6, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> The cause of complaint in both cases is that the body belongs to the person and its invasion is a very personal affair.
> 
> The create undead spells are evil in that they disrespect the dead persons remains and cause great distress to relatives (and the living in general).
> 
> The 3ed definition of evil includes disrespecting other beings, so there is that angle. I mean, the animating spellcaster is always doing it for personal profit without regard to victims, relatives or the living beings sense of decency.




Not disagreeing, but there is a _much_ more fundamental reason.  The most basic concept of magical theory is that most everything in the universe possesses powerful occult (hidden) connections.  That is why magic works at all.  

For example, why does the Lightning Bolt spell as written in the PHB require a bit of fur and an amber, crystal, or glass rod as material components?  Because gaining control of a small spark aids the wizard in manipulating a large electrical discharge through the hidden connections between similar things. 

Why does the witch doctor make a doll in the likeness of the intended vitctim and adorn the doll with bits of the intended victim's real hair, nails, and clothing?  Because the visual likeness, the bits and pieces worn and from the body, all maintain a connection with the intended victim that can be manipulated by a knowledgeable magical practioner.  The witch doctor can sicken the subject, even at a  great distance, through these connections.

What has this to do with animating zombies?  The body maintains a connection with the soul.  Disturbing the body causes distress to the soul.  Desecrating the body harms the soul.  It is an inevitable side effect of the holistic magical connections, whether intended or not.

The RAW is simply attempting to be consistent with common magical and moral traditions.  One is perfectly free to say things do not work that way in one's personal campaign.  But then it is the particular DM's job, not the RAW's, to work out the details.


----------



## Scion (Sep 6, 2004)

Positive and negative energy are not aligned. So what is the problem with useing one or the other as a power source to make something move?

The raw states that the spell is evil, but it does not say why. There is nothing in the srd that says anything about the soul, merely that you have to target a dead body. The material focus is a gem so going with the 'needing a spark from item XX to help focus the power' we can say that the gem itself is providing the evil necissary, or is working as a conduit for the energy needed (which is not evil), or any number of things. It just isnt said.

Why is it evil? who knows. Taboo shouldnt come into play on the good/evil axis, something being taboo does not necissarily make it evil. Many taboo's have come about because of safety concerns that have grown on the communities conscious. Effectively they are incredibly strong bonds of something that should not be done by being told not to do it, which would make them fall under the law/chaos spectrum. Of course in the real world it is very hard to see the difference between good/lawful and evil/chaotic, as there are many forces which try to say good = lawful = good and evil = chaotic = evil.

Also, disrespecting someone isnt Evil. It may not be Good, but that does not make it Evil. If someone does a bad job on, say, a craft and you tell them so this could be looked at as disrespect, especially if it was said by an understudy. This does not make the understudy evil.

An evil person can be disrespectful, but being disrespectful does not make you evil. (in a general sense of course)


Without the evil tag the spell would pretty much be right along the same lines of animate objects. With it there is a much lesser scope of use. It probably should not have the evil tag however, not without there actually being something evil involved. There are good undead after all, even if they sometimes come with a different name.

Negative energy =! Evil


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2004)

> I mean, the animating spellcaster is always doing it for personal profit without regard to victims, relatives or the living beings sense of decency.




So, even in the example of the animator asking for volunteers to be reanimated as undead warriors in the "eternal" defense of their homeland or city...

Or King Arthur lying in wait in Avalon?

Or the Paladin's actions at the behest of his diety?

The person who clings to life as a ghost to protect his beloved?

Sorry, that just doesn't equate.



> The RAW is simply attempting to be consistent with common magical and moral traditions.




This is an extremely narrow view of magic.

There is more than one set of magical traditions out there, and this is just one of them.
Many cultures have tales of undead ancestors aiding the living.  Similarly, many cultures teach that summoning or contacting the dead requires no special part of their soul or body, just the right ritual, or perhaps a personal connection.

To return to the warriors of Valhalla, I think it is a very real possibility that they are undead.

1)  The Norse gods-Aesir and Vanir- were not immortal, just long lived.  The source of their "immortality" was an outside one- the golden apples of Idunn.  Without those, they wither and die just like their worshippers.  There were few golden apples, just enough to go around.

2)  The Norse gods had no real control over returning beings from the dead to life.  Their only attempt- the resurrection of Baldur- failed.

3)  There were, in contrast, many warriors in the halls of Valhalla, and there is no legend I have read that says that they were given to eat of Idunn's golden apples of immortality.  And yet they drank, ate, and *slaughtered each other for fun and practice* on a daily basis to be ready for the battle of Ragnarok.

Where is the evil?  Where is the selfishness?


----------



## dcollins (Sep 6, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To return to the warriors of Valhalla, I think it is a very real possibility that they are undead.




They are not undead in D&D (any version). See Manual of the Planes: Petitioner template -- they are simply Outsiders, not Undead.

The difference is basically the same as that between an angel and a zombie.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 6, 2004)

GURPs campaign of mine

Villians arrived on the world from another dimension and began raising dead to steal the souls of the living.  With their souls missing and placed in large "glass" balls the body of the victim would seek others to steal the souls of hand the cycle would get bigger and bigger.

In the end the glass balls were to be collected up and use to power spells.  The necromacers that did this did not consider that they were robbing millions of people of an after life after they arranged to kill the people.  

Think about your after life- if you believe in it, what would you want to do- be fuel for a spell for some power mad man or would you rather live out eternity with your loved ones?


----------



## Ibram (Sep 6, 2004)

Many of the examples given above (such as King Arthur and Vahalla) are not examples of Undeath but rather Immortality, a very important distinction.  An undead creature is a hunk of rotting meat torn from the grave and made to serve the living through magic (which strikes me as being a bit evil).

However alot of that comes down to how you view magic and necromancy... since in the end they are nothing more then litterary devices used to tell a story.

For me: I prefer necromancy as an evil act, tearing through the barrier dividing the world of the living from the afterlife and caging a free soul in eternal torment.  So evil that even with the best intentions it carries the taint of evil.

oh and why bother rasing a bunch of chump goblins when you can just call a Balor?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2004)

Dcollins, you're absolutely correct in how D&D treats them, but official game treatment is a significant departure from how they are treated in the source legends.

If you read the source legends, you'll realize that in possessing the power to be killed over and over again, only to rise up the following day for another day of revelry and slaying, the warriors of Valhalla have a power that NO Asgardian or Vanir has to offer, and one that closely resembles the undead.  Remember- Norse gods *were not immortal*- they merely extended their lives immeasurably by means of a limited supply of Idunn's golden apples, _and _ those apples did not allow for a divine being to come back from the dead- otherwise Baldur would have arisen the next day from his lethal wound and had a great laugh with Loki about how cunning he was to discover that a mistletoe arrow would slay him.  On the contrary, Baldur was slain and remained dead.

Nor is it recorded that the warriors of Valhalla were accorded boon of participating in the consumption of Idunn's apples.  In fact, given the rarity of Idunn's apples, it is unlikely that they would have been granted that gift- in order for them to recieve it, at least one of their gods would have had to die.

I think that the official game treatment was done in order to shoehorn the warriors of Valhalla into D&D's designers' *preconception* of undead = evil.

Nor does the undead = evil equation allow for many of the other examples I've cited from our world's legends.

That attention to the source legends has allowed me to use non-evil undead in many adventures, and I shall continue to do so.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is an extremely narrow view of magic.
> 
> There is more than one set of magical traditions out there, and this is just one of them.
> Many cultures have tales of undead ancestors aiding the living.  Similarly, many cultures teach that summoning or contacting the dead requires no special part of their soul or body, just the right ritual, or perhaps a personal connection.
> ...




Before you suggest someone else's view is narrow, it would be nice if you had half a clue what undeath is as usually described in legend, myth, and D&D.  All your examples are variants of afterlife or kinds or immortality.  They are either the natural state of spirits after death or boons given to the worthy, not a state forced on the unwilling.


----------



## Scion (Sep 7, 2004)

Even if every legend and myth said that undead were evil (which I do not believe to be the case, especially in other cultures) d&d does not always follow those very closely. Sometimes it even diverges greatly.

So, if the animate dead does nothing with the soul (the spell does not seem to mention souls at all) and negative energy is not evil (it isnt) then why is it evil?

Taboo? sure. But that does not mean evil. That tends to be unlawful more than evil.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

Ridley, I have an excellent grasp of what I'm discussing.  I have read the Edda, the Kalevala, Beowulf, and other texts describing the legends of northern Europe and Asia.  I have collections of European folklore, both the familiar Western European, and also Eastern European legends of the slavs, Russians and others.  I have also own and have read things like tranlations of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, various Egyptian scrolls, Greek legends, etc.  I'm familiar with the concept of _the Bardo_, the "veil of Maya", _maat_, _ka & ba_, etc.

While there is no mention of undeath as such (as depicted in D&D) anywhere in the sources of teutonic legends , many of the aspects of certain beings who have died and yet continue to act conform to D&D undeath as a template or model.  In Norse mythology, the warriors of Valhalla are UNIQUE in their ability to die and rise again.  The Asgardians cannot do that, the Vanir cannot do that, Jotuns cannot do that, the subjects of Hel (deceased spirits NOT in Valhalla) cannot do that.  For every other being in teutonic legend, dead is dead.  Their state is unlike any other dead or living creatures.

Nor is a ghostly parent/lover guardian a "natural state" of a spirit.  The natural state of a spirit is repose in its culture's version of the afterlife, not messing around with those still trapped on the mortal coil.  Thus, someone who hangs around after death in order to do things on the mortal plane is undead, even in D&D.  Read the creature descriptions of revenants, ghosts, haunts, banshees and others- they are undead with unfinished business.  Yes, I realize that they are all statted out as evil, but my point (and presumbably the thread's OP) is that does not neccessarily jibe with these creatures' origins.  Why is it that a revenant who is trying to kill his killer is neccessarily evil?  Why is the ghost of a loving parent who is guarding his children neccessarily evil?

Because people in the legends, afraid of their undead countenances, believe they are evil, and that fear and preconception has been injected into the game.

Was J.O. Barr's _The Crow _ the story of an evil person?  No, despite the fact that the Crow meets most of the other requirements to be called a revenant in D&D.

How about Patrick Swayze in _Ghost_?  Or how about the spirits of those unjustly slain in the Tower of London and other locations-evil?  Probably not evil, despite being classic ghosts, spirits or haunts in game terms.

In classic fantasy liturature, Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss from the _Fafhrd & Grey Mouser _ books are also NOT evil- they are the undead defenders of Lankhmar, and among their ranks are past rulers, warriors and wizards who loved the city.  They are not immortals- they are clearly described as the walking dead- and yet they are a force- if not for good- then for divine justice and peace in the city of Lankhmar.

As I have stated numerous times before- the D&D system does not distinguish between involuntary undeath and voluntary undeath.  The necromancer who defiles a graveyard to raise an army to take a city is, in game terms, no more or less evil than the priest who asks for volunteers to defend their beloved city as skeletal warriors for eternity.

Similarly, a priest of Osiris (a good greater diety) might find it the greatest honor to be preserved in his god's temple or his Pharoah's pyramid as a (D&D Greater) mummy to keep the temple from being defiled by unbelievers and tomb raiders.  Even a valued guard might volunteer for such eternal service.  Yet, by definition within D&D, each will be considered evil, despite volunteering for this duty in the service of a good god.

This does not make sense!


----------



## dcollins (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In classic fantasy liturature, Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss from the _Fafhrd & Grey Mouser _ books are also NOT evil- they are the undead defenders of Lankhmar, and among their ranks are past rulers, warriors and wizards who loved the city.  They are not immortals- they are clearly described as the walking dead- and yet they are a force- if not for good- then for divine justice and peace in the city of Lankhmar.




I haven't read Lieber. However, these creatures did get written up for the Newhon mythos in the original AD&D Deities & Demigods, under "Gods of Lankhmar".

Quote: "These gods appear only when their city is threatened with grave danger. When the problem is solved, they cast about the city wreaking havoc as a reminder that they are not to be called on too often".

Listed Alignment: Neutral Evil.

Just because you defend a city doesn't make you Good. Evil cities need their protectors, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

Yep, that's how they got written up.  And it is not in accord with the source material.

_In the books_, they were described as being dangerous when roused- they were more interested in their well-earned repose than anything else- and they would forceably go through any barrier, living, dead, or inanimate they percieved that might prevent them from achieving their goal, and even punishing minor malefactors along the way.  Hence the neutral.

But the evil?

Defending the city, avenging the unavenged, punishing those who would defy the will of the gods?

Nope.

The person who wrote them up for the original Deities and Demigods may have interpreted that singlemindedness as being indescriminate, even though that is not how they are depicted in the source stories.

Oh yeah- they're incredibly scary looking.

The *only* way you get evil SoK's out of Lieber's source material is by applying the equation undead = evil to make them consistent with other undead.

The way they behave in the books is more like LN or TN than NE.  No one harmed by them is an innocent, despite the fact that they are scary as anything and undead.

And while it isn't Tanelorn, Lankhmar is no more evil than Waterdeep or Greyhawk.  It is, in all likelyhood, one of the major *models* of those cities.  You can find good and evil, sinners and saints in Lankhmar, just as in any other major metropolitan area.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 7, 2004)

Wow, I've been completely ignored again.  As I was saying, negative energy corrupts even though it is not exactly evil itself.  Also, I said that undead are not all evil, because some are animated in part by positive energy as well, but most undead are animated purely by negative energy.  Undead-making spells (and indeed, the attacks of undead like wights and such) are evil because they force a soul to become bound to a corpse and defy the natural way of things as a result.  Some undead-making spells and such don't have to be evil though because they can affect willing subjects, and can animate them with positive energy.  Creatures residing in an afterlife, such as valkyries and such in Valhalla, or whatnot, are not undead just because they were once alive; they just live in a different state now, as outsiders usually.  Osiris may have been made undead, but this doesn't mean Osiris became evil or that it was an evil act to make him undead; he could be animated by positive energy, and IIRC, Manual of the Planes has him as an outsider with the Undead Qualities salient divine ability, meaning he's a deity with some undead traits but not all of them.  Mummies and such in D&D are only evil by default because that's how they are portrayed in D&D's standard campaign settings, rather than being portrayed as goodly or neutral undead pharoahs or priests.  That doesn't mean that all mummies have to be evil; even the Monster Manual notes that creatures with an alignment entry of 'always' may still have some exceptions to that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

Apologies, Arkhandus- don't want you to feel left out!  

Personally, I didn't comment on your posts because you haven't taken an absolutist positon one way or the other.  You correctly point out the (admittedly) rare good undead in official D&D product, and recognized the difference between willing and unwilling undead NPCs.

To clarify my own posts- I'm not saying that the warriors of Valhalla *are* undead, but that of all the beings in the norse mythology, they come closest to meeting that description.  Personally, I don't know what to call them in particular, but aknowledge the fact that their post-death existence is a glaring oddity in the context of the teutonic mythos- they have attributes that not even their gods have.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So, even in the example of the animator asking for volunteers to be reanimated as undead warriors in the "eternal" defense of their homeland or city...



Why use undead when you can use people? People have a better grasp of tactics/magic/weapons & armour. Oh, they also pay taxes.

Why use undead when they can be commanded by an invading cleric with ease? Sounds like this cultist wants to undermine a cities defence & bolster the invaders.

Who in their right mind would volunteer to be killed and made a zombie? Idiot fanatics spring to mind and I doubt they number enough.

Why use undead when a similar cleric could compact outsiders. He could use the donations from those living tax payers as payment.

Frankly the said example is so contrived it is unbelievable.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Sep 7, 2004)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Manual of the Planes has him as an outsider with the Undead Qualities salient divine ability, meaning he's a deity with some undead traits but not all of them.




I'm pretty sure you mean Deities and Demigods.

My position is that people who think that all undead are evil should take their logic a step further and call all the living good.

Also, I have no idea of what the RAW is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

> Why use undead when you can use people? People have a better grasp of tactics/magic/weapons & armour. Oh, they also pay taxes.




That assumes that the undead created are non-sentient, but there are plenty of sentient undead forms.  While they don't pay taxes, they generally also don't need to be fed or paid, and may not need to be housed.



> Why use undead when they can be commanded by an invading cleric with ease? Sounds like this cultist wants to undermine a cities defence & bolster the invaders.




That assumes both that the clerics of the faith in question cannot control undead and also that the undead themselves are not sentient and incapable of resisting being controlled by their enemies.



> Who in their right mind would volunteer to be killed and made a zombie? Idiot fanatics spring to mind and I doubt they number enough.




No one said zombie.  There are more undead out there than zombies.

A wizard or priest who is about to die might consent to lichdom or mummification in defense of his city or god.  A king who serves under the aegis of divine right may have no choice but to become an undead defender of his people (after his long rule and death, of course) because it is a condition his god places upon his being allowed to be king.  A warrior may feel that his hatred of his enemies is so great that he would do anything to prevent them from taking his homeland.  Either might become a skeletal warrior or perhaps the equivalent of a deathknight.

Over time, such defenders will accumulate- as long as there is no attack.  In 200 years, a city could EASILY accumulate 20 of each of the above high level undead.

And remember, it might not be just one warrior at a time...Imagine this conversation at the end of a brutal battle (repeated many times):

"Faithful one, we have turned back the unbelievers one more time, but your life ebbs.  You have earned eternal paradise.  But I fear for your loved ones- the infidel are many and we are few-do you wish to delay your entry into paradise to fight one more battle?"

"Yes, I swear the filthy unbelievers must never take this city!  Make it so!"

Of course, not all would so volunteer, nor could the priests "preserve" all of the potential defenders.  But, on the other hand, even a fervent commoner might be willing to fight one more time to preserve his former way of life.

Besides, sometimes numbers aren't important.  Some undead are so *ahem* ghastly... they are worth many times their number in standard warriors.



> Why use undead when a similar cleric could compact outsiders. He could use the donations from those living tax payers as payment.




Outsiders may not be willing to serve.  And why compel an unwilling outsider to fight to the death (or PM dissolution) when you have willing undead?  Forcing someone to fight unto death or dissolution would seem to be a fairly reprehensible act.

And, while I'm not 100% sure of this, I believe you can get more HD in undead at any given caster level than you can in Outsiders.

But you asked quite pointedly "Why use Undead?"

Undead do not eat- so the most vulnerable part of any army-its supply line) is not as crucial.  Your undead forces may still need ammo or weapon/armor repair, but they don't need food.  (Except, possibly, brains- but they can get that themselves.  )

Undead do not sleep or tire- so your watch and patrols can be simplified.  Most kinds could be put on watch 24/7.

Undead, generally, can operate in total darkness and temperature or weather extremes, so your undead forces will not consume firewood or oil, don't need winter gear, water, etc.

Undead are not subject to many enchantments, charms, illusions, critical hits or gaseous attacks, which makes them more durable than many other troop types.  Some undead are even resistent to certain kinds of damage...piercing, slashing, or even non-magical weapons may be useless against undead troops of sufficient power.  They are immune to all but magical diseases or poisons, meaning your enemy cannot use mundane toxins or contagion as a weapon against them, and in fact, could be used to spread contagion or toxins among your enemies.

Also, realize that not all cultures regard the body with as much reverence as we Westerners.  Some cultures believe that the body is just meat and bones once the animating force of the soul has departed.  Since the spells don't say ANYTHING about souls being bound into non-sentient undead like zombies or skeletons, those cultures might not view raising an army of such undead as an evil act, since it would be a functional variant of "Animate Object."  (Of course, even such a culture would more likely raise the deceased of their foes than using their own dead as fodder.)



> Frankly the said example is so contrived it is unbelievable.




And yet it is an example that has been used in fiction-Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss for example- and in real life- not everyone buried in a pyramid, tomb or temple in Pharonic Egypt was unwilling, some considered it an honor to serve after death.  (Editorial note: I don't want to come across as a nutcase- I most emphatically don't believe there is any evidence of undead walking the Earth in the real world.)


----------



## Mr Gone (Sep 7, 2004)

Mechanicaly, creating undead is an evil act because such spells in the PHB have the evil descriptor. Good aligned clerics are completely unable to cast such spells, and I would not think it unreasonble to prohibit Good aligned Arcane Spellcasters from doing so.

As for the body and what it means, the argument presented  is flawed because it is a decidedly modern argument. In every culture on earth, without any notable exception, the body is viewed as a sacred thing, even after death. The notion of the body as being an empty shell that no longer serves a purpose is a modern one. In the settings of most D&D campaigns, all sentient beings have souls, and even when the souls depart, the body is considered sacred and is venerated in some sort of burial practice. An individual who did not view a body as a sacred thing, as a thing which would be defiled by infusing it with Negative Energy, and forcing them to perform labors while in a constant state of decay cant be defined as good aligned, period. Even in our own modern time, were an individual to invent a process that could animate the dead ala Herbet West to create a super workforce would be reviled as a monster.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

Mr Gone, from what I learned in my comparative religion classes, many of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism and others) do not consider the body sacred.  Rituals may be performed, but they are more to guide the spirit of the deceased than to venerate the body.

As I recall, there is even a branch of one such faith (Nepalese Buddhism?) in which the bodies of the deceased are left on the mountainside for vultures to pick clean.

(Anybody of the above faiths please correct me if I am wrong.  No offense intended.)

Aside from that, I thought of 2 other possible kinds of events that create undead that may or may not be evil:

1) Undead created as a form of penance in their belief system: these creatures are being punished for past evils.  If they are genuinely remorseful and wish do undo their evil or at least pay the price, one could hardly call them evil.  Their sentence of undeath may even be shortened because of the genuineness of their desire to do penance.  The unrepentant, in contrast, may NEVER be freed of this torment.

2) Undead created because of a curse: A good person cursed to undeath in the last act by the evil spellcaster he has struck down is probably not evil.

Also, I don't recall if anyone answered the question someone else implied earlier in this thread: why are the various spells and processes that create the undead evil while creating golems from human bodies (flesh, blood and bone golems have been printed in various D&D sources) not evil?  Both require human body parts, and creating those golems is presumably no more voluntary than the process of creating the undead.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 7, 2004)

> In Norse mythology, the warriors of Valhalla are UNIQUE in their ability to die and rise again.




But they could do so only once, on the day of Ragnarök.
Like the christian armageddon or similar scenarios, I'll make exceptions for when your whole campaign world comes crashing down in big ole apocalypse.
Point is, they come back for battle and not for the unnatural extended long unlife of the undead, and even with that, I would find it tempting to classify ghostly norse ravagers as evil as they go if eyed throught the lense of classical D&D. 





> Nor is a ghostly parent/lover guardian a "natural state" of a spirit. The natural state of a spirit is repose in its culture's version of the afterlife, not messing around with those still trapped on the mortal coil. Thus, someone who hangs around after death in order to do things on the mortal plane is undead, even in D&D. Read the creature descriptions of revenants, ghosts, haunts, banshees and others- they are undead with unfinished business. Yes, I realize that they are all statted out as evil, but my point (and presumbably the thread's OP) is that does not neccessarily jibe with these creatures' origins. Why is it that a revenant who is trying to kill his killer is neccessarily evil? Why is the ghost of a loving parent who is guarding his children neccessarily evil?




I all Ghost Stories I've read, a parent/lover returning as a ghost tends to mean a bad thing. They refuse to give in the the natural rest of death and sooner or later make life a living hell for their spouse. 
People like to go on with their lifes and new lovers, children like to break free of their parents and start their own life. Sooner or later this will bring them fact to face with their ghostly "protector".

As for ghost, banshee's, etc.. they are of course beings with unfinished business.. infact thats exactly what makes them evil. They cling to closely to mortal things, unable to "let go" and turn bitter over all they have lost but fear to pass on to an afterlife without earthly concerns.
As mentioned above, the reasons for being evil are many, but they are still evil.

Infact I very much prefer these kinds of evil as opposed to the "a necromancer who wants to rule the world raised them". 
Evil born of pain and tragedy as a much more bitter tang aswell as bringing much more satisfaction to the game when your players put those tortured souls to rest. 

Dracula also gained his undeath because of love after all.

On the other hand, I have never found the "necromancer want's to conquer the world" story in fantasy fiction as far as I know, nor have I used it in a campaign of mine so far.

Even if it does exist though.. to conquer the world is not necessarily an evil act. Conan conquered most of his world and he's considered the hero.

The act of raising undead as a means to an end is what would be evil. Doesn't matter if that end is to conquer the world, revenge your own death or protect your favorite toys in your tombs.




> Because people in the legends, afraid of their undead countenances, believe they are evil, and that fear and preconception has been injected into the game.






So 3000 years of storytelling are wrong and you are right? 
As many people told you here before.. your free to make up your own campaignworld as you choose. Many writers have chosen a different angle when writing about death and undeath as your own examples prove. 

But you shouldn't blame D&D and most of it's players for telling fantasy stories the way the've been told since before time, and that simply means undead=evil 99% of the time and for very good reasons.



> Was J.O. Barr's The Crow the story of an evil person? No, despite the fact that the Crow meets most of the other requirements to be called a revenant in D&D.




Going on a wild killing spree? I'd argue he's very much evil, thank you. Very cool but also very evil.

Of course the universe of J.O. Barr's Comics doesn't divide the world into good and evil in the first place. Some very, very different assumptions the world is based on compared to D&D.





> How about Patrick Swayze in Ghost?




Well here ya go with an interpretation of undead that differs a bit from the more common conception. There are also D&D Campaigns that try this. 
Have you tried Ghostwalk or Hollowfaust? 

Doesn't change the fact that the classic Ghost Story is about evil undead and that regular D&D tries to capture the classic feeling, not the exception to the rule.



> In classic fantasy liturature, Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss from the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser books are also NOT evil- they are the undead defenders of Lankhmar, and among their ranks are past rulers, warriors and wizards who loved the city. They are not immortals- they are clearly described as the walking dead- and yet they are a force- if not for good- then for divine justice and peace in the city of Lankhmar.




Again, noone's stopping you to build your setting on these parameters.




> As I have stated numerous times before- the D&D system does not distinguish between involuntary undeath and voluntary undeath. The necromancer who defiles a graveyard to raise an army to take a city is, in game terms, no more or less evil than the priest who asks for volunteers to defend their beloved city as skeletal warriors for eternity.




That is, because by default, the act itself is evil and will turn on the culprit sooner or later. Fantasy fiction is full of people who want to raise dead for love, for revenge, for protection, etc.., etc..
As mentioned above, I have yet to come across a story where a necromancer wants to conquer the world with dead servants.



> Similarly, a priest of Osiris (a good greater diety) might find it the greatest honor to be preserved in his god's temple or his Pharoah's pyramid as a (D&D Greater) mummy to keep the temple from being defiled by unbelievers and tomb raiders. Even a valued guard might volunteer for such eternal service. Yet, by definition within D&D, each will be considered evil, despite volunteering for this duty in the service of a good god.




Honor does not equate to being good. Besides, in most pulp fiction and adventure stories, mummies are infact very evil. 
There are Games that do cater to a more noble image of old egyptan dead (did you try Mummy: the Resurrection?). But in the "classic" adventure story a mummy is a bandaged monstrosity thats after the life of the protagonists.




> This does not make sense!




I hope so.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 7, 2004)

> As I recall, there is even a branch of one such faith (Nepalese Buddhism?) in which the bodies of the deceased are left on the mountainside for vultures to pick clean.




Well, thats Tibetan Buddhism (Nepal is a Hindu country.. albeit with many tibetan refugees).

The bodies are left for vultures, because to bury them would mean to defile the earth itself and angre the spirits of the land who would then take possession of the body to ravage the land in anger (i.e. undead).

Historically, the practice of leaving bodies for the birds can be traced to the fact that burying bodies is impossible in Tibet (the ground is frozen 11 out of 12 months a year) and wood is a very rare thing, to precious to be wasted on the dead. 

Leaving a body is actually a pretty clean way to dispose of it compared to moldy crypts or stone cairns that will likely lead to the spread of disease.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

Thanks for the correction, Zweischneid!

While we're on it, though, I know that there are a lot of animist faiths out there that claim that all things have souls.

In the example you mentioned while correcting me, are those possessing spirits those of  deceased humans, demons, or actual spirits of the land?

I ask because each would have different alignment consequences- I would naturally assume that possession of a dead body by demons would result in evil undead, while possession by nature spirits would result in TN undead.  Humans:  Who knows?


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 7, 2004)

> Mr Gone, from what I learned in my comparative religion classes, many of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism and others) do not consider the body sacred. Rituals may be performed, but they are more to guide the spirit of the deceased than to venerate the body.




And they do that, because of the things that happen when the spirit is not guided properly are evil things indeed. 

Infact both Hindu and Shinto consider it corrupting to even touch or handle a dead body often employing outcastes (or untouchables in Hindu countries) to handle the business of the dead.

Now try to imagine what they would think about a walking corpse. 

(Infact both Hindu and Shinto lore have a rich reservoir of stories about vengeful dead, none of them very good and the sheer amount of rituals, prayers, dances and customs to keep dead spirits out of the house in both religions is staggering.)


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 7, 2004)

> ask because each would have different alignment consequences- I would naturally assume that possession of a dead body by demons would result in evil undead, while possession by nature spirits would result in TN undead. Humans: Who knows?




Both versions exist... Tibetan Buddhism is a messy religion, mixed with old Bon Animism, Demon Worship, Hindu Customs and a score of other things.

I would argue they are nature spirits, but since their actions are very much violent and threating to the people when they possess a body, the also qualify as evil.

By default of the land they live in, nature tends to oppose the Tibetans on every turn and they do not have much love for their land. 
The very mountains that surround them are mostly evil and vengeful deities that must be appeased with sacrifices.


Either way.. it wouldn't apply much to a reqular D&D game which is very muched based on european concepts of death and afterlife.

It might be worth reading into it for an Oriental campaign though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2004)

> I would argue they are nature spirits, but since their actions are very much violent and threating to the people when they possess a body, the also qualify as evil.
> 
> By default of the land they live in, nature tends to oppose the Tibetans on every turn and they do not have much love for their land.
> The very mountains that surround them are mostly evil and vengeful deities that must be appeased with sacrifices.




Well, the first statement standing alone seems counterintuitive- they are, after all, reacting to a defilement!  You might as well call anyone who fights back evil!

However, in the context that the Tibetans consider their local nature spirits evil (and who could blame them, really) that would make sense.


----------



## Zweischneid (Sep 7, 2004)

> Well, the first statement standing alone seems counterintuitive- they are, after all, reacting to a defilement! You might as well call anyone who fights back evil!
> 
> However, in the context that the Tibetans consider their local nature spirits evil (and who could blame them, really) that would make sense.




Well, I am only making assumptions on bits and pieces I've picked up.

Tibetan Religion takes a lifetime to understand and more than that to master.


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Sep 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Positive and negative energy are not aligned. So what is the problem with useing one or the other as a power source to make something move?




Hmm negative energy is inimical to all (natural) life, snuffing it out and causing the loss of lifespan, health and soul through contact with it.  As far as abstract force/energy can be evil, this very well fits the descriptor for "evil" as in "very detriminal". Unless of course one considers the extinguishing of (all) life something worthwhile  and "good"

Positive energy is the opposite, rejuvenating, healing and boosting the natural processes of life. Contact with it is not harmful per se. It has little if any detriminal side-effects. 




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The raw states that the spell is evil, but it does not say why. There is nothing in the srd that says anything about the soul, merely that you have to target a dead body. The material focus is a gem so going with the 'needing a spark from item XX to help focus the power' we can say that the gem itself is providing the evil necissary, or is working as a conduit for the energy needed (which is not evil), or any number of things. It just isnt said.




It employs negative energy, which is as close as you can come to a pure evil energy (without pulling out the BoVD), and it does so not simply for a momentary effect, but for an extended enslavement of other people's mortal shells, entirely at the caster's whim. Unless you consider enslavement or abuse of other people's property (their dead shells) an acceptable act.
 The gem analogy doesn't fly, simply because it a focus, therefore it serves to concentrate and maintain the negative energy used to animate the corpse.




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Why is it evil? who knows. Taboo shouldnt come into play on the good/evil axis, something being taboo does not necissarily make it evil. Many taboo's have come about because of safety concerns that have grown on the communities conscious. Effectively they are incredibly strong bonds of something that should not be done by being told not to do it, which would make them fall under the law/chaos spectrum. Of course in the real world it is very hard to see the difference between good/lawful and evil/chaotic, as there are many forces which try to say good = lawful = good and evil = chaotic = evil.




There are things that can be called evil - perhaps read up on some philosophy, I recommend Immanuel Kant and perhaps Nietzsche on theories of moral and ethical absolutes and rules. Very enlightening. in a nutshell Evil constitutes actions which cannot stand unchallenged, because their proliferation will destroy humanity and human interaction. Like unchecked murder. Like denial of basic rights. Live and interact and such a way as you yourself expect to be interacted with.
And - if someone chooses to not call something "evil" it does not in any way make it factually any less so, it still stays evil.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Also, disrespecting someone isnt Evil. It may not be Good, but that does not make it Evil. If someone does a bad job on, say, a craft and you tell them so this could be looked at as disrespect, especially if it was said by an understudy. This does not make the understudy evil.




An evil person can be disrespectful, but being disrespectful does not make you evil. (in a general sense of course).[/QUOTE]

Criticism is not disrespect, especially from someone who makes decisions depending on the work criticised, or who has paid for a work of a certain standard. That's a basic human right of free speech and freedom of opinion, but even there, rules of conduct and propriety apply. An unwarranted or unasked for criticism is something else. But whoever performs in the public eye (often to be appreciated ) also exposes himself to public scrutiny, and hence criticism, be it positive or negative. That is _not_disrespect.

While taking possession and control of someone's mortal shell, without their explicit permission to do so, for an infinite amount of time, and no restrictions on what to do with their remains... Now, that _is_ disrespectful. Because it violates any ideas of free will and whatever the deceased wished for his mortal shell, not even starting on the subject of enslavement. Lets not even start on the sanctity of one's own body and the basic (human - sounds corny in a fantasy context, so lets include all demi-humans, humanoids etc. ) right of self-determination regarding one's own mortal flesh and its (ab-)uses others. We are slowly slipping into the territory of RL-abuse here, so lets be careful were we tread, shall we ?

Animate Object etc. on the other hand uses objects that never (naturally) were the body/mortal shell of any conscious lifeform, and hence their "use" and animation does not violate anyone's rights. Besides not being of an infinite duration. And besides _not_ being inherently "non-objects" like corpses. 
But yes, if you use "animate object" on a corpse, that would be a rather disrespectful act (against the will of its previous occupant, aka, the soul ) in and of it itself, on the borderline of evil. Of course, "animate dead" then adds enslavement, abuse (you didn't want it around for decoration and company, did you ?) and use of negative energy to that basic scenario, which makes it distinctly worse - due and the corrupting effects they may have on their wielder.




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Without the evil tag the spell would pretty much be right along the same lines of animate objects. With it there is a much lesser scope of use. It probably should not have the evil tag however, not without there actually being something evil involved. There are good undead after all, even if they sometimes come with a different name.




As stated elsewhere, those "few and far between" good undead are universally hypercharged by positive energy, keeping them "alive" far beyond the constraints of their mortal bodies. They do not try to proliferate their undead state and destroy life like all (excluding animated skeletons and zombies here ) other undead do.
And if you do not regard the issues of abuse, enslavement and employing anti-life negative energy which are involved as morally abhorrent (and yes, as stated above, there are moral absolutes, independent of any religious doctrines. Just consider that they occured in any stable human society independent of religious affiliation or geographical proximity... ), than I  suspect you either have a great deal of growing up ahead of you, or are going to get into serious conflict with civilized society sooner or later, sorry to say. In a way, I honestly hope you are taking your stance just to be provocative..... 




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Negative energy =! Evil




Hmm, lets have a short descritption of the Negative Energy Plane (MotP)

"Its the hunger that devours the soul."
"..its aneedy greedy plane that sucks the life out of anything that is vulnerable"
"it greedily sucks the energy out of anything it can"
"its a place inimical to all life..."

With other words  - pure, uncontrolled entropy, the enemy of all life. Now, if it had a will or consciousness, that would be a distinctly "evil". And consider - even if a power is merely a power, now would the power supplied by a demon prince supplied to a worshipper be neutral and "un-aligned", even without disregard to its source and method of generation ?

Face it, within the constraints of the D20 game, even non-sentient objects and energies can be imbued with "hallow" or "unhallowed" aspects. And yes, that means that power can actually, literally corrupt. If that you don't accept that premise, make up a house-rule. But don't complain about the "unfairness" of the rules, or try to rationalize the ethically questionable aspects of necromancy.


----------



## Kalanyr (Sep 7, 2004)

Ah neither Baator nor the Abyss nor Gehenna nor Hades are sentient but they are Evil, says so in their alignment description because everything that makes them up is Evil. The energy planes lack either Good or Evil descriptors, and since sentience is not a requirement ...... 

Oh and negative energy is definitely not a bad thing exclusively. Imagine the nightmare earth would become if nothing ever died. We'd be overcrowded and starving or eaten by some creature that should have long died off. Either positive or negative energy in extremes are bad for mortals to much Positive Energy makes mortals EXPLODE, that doesn't seem very good to me, and seems very inimical. 

Its just that as a society we view decay as evil and rejuvenation as good despite the occasional acknowledgement that without both things wouldn't work out so well.


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Sep 7, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Ah neither Baator nor the Abyss nor Gehenna nor Hades are sentient but they are Evil, says so in their alignment description because everything that makes them up is Evil. The energy planes lack either Good or Evil descriptors, and since sentience is not a requirement ......
> 
> Oh and negative energy is definitely not a bad thing exclusively. Imagine the nightmare earth would become if nothing ever died. We'd be overcrowded and starving or eaten by some creature that should have long died off. Either positive or negative energy in extremes are bad for mortals to much Positive Energy makes mortals EXPLODE, that doesn't seem very good to me, and seems very inimical.
> 
> Its just that as a society we view decay as evil and rejuvenation as good despite the occasional acknowledgement that without both things wouldn't work out so well.




None of the Inner planes can have alignments as they represent energies . While the Outer planes such as Baathor, Carceri etc are the created and manifested homeplanes of aligned beings of immense power, incarnations of raw power, mirroring their creators and rulers attitude and alignment. Hence they are evil (or good, lawful or chaotic depending upon their place in the sheme of things ).

As for positive energy making people  explode...Lol, of course anything can become dangerous with overdosing, but where is the logical connection to positive energy being not benficial in general ?
While negative energy is universally dangerous and harmful even in small doses (to the lifeforms of the D20 universe that is - we can of course argue a hypothetical universe where everything is turned around, but  what is the point ?), high doses and exposure to it commonly change you into a creature that is driven only by the nature of its negative energy charge, draining more and more "life" and proliferating, causing an ever increasing drain of the world if unchecked. Positive energy (or any of the other elemental energies at  that ) doesn't. Negative energy is by its consuming, unchecked nature an unabashedly selfish force. It gives nothing, it takes everything. So what is there to it that is not malevolent ?

Negative energy is perhaps a necessary force, but only because it cannot be done without to balance the universe - game mechanics wise. But its not the natural cycle of things, but the focused, distilled force of entropy, which has no place in the normal course oftime passing. And decay, autumn and winter are part of a cycle of constant rejuvenation and _change_ not irretrievable consumption, and not destruction for its own ends. What decays gives life in the next cycle. Nothing indicates that negative energy gives anything back that it takes.


As for our society and its (lamentably hyped ) points of view - premature decay and destruction, outside the natural cycle of change and rebirth is definitely not "good", desirable or usually beneficial, regardless of how spoiled contemporary society might view and alledgedly worship youth and wellness. Ask anyone who has actually grown old and has to deal with the shortcomings of a frailer body, and while they cherish their lifes' experience and wealth of memories, they wouldn't mind doing without the fraility.
 BTW, I was not talking rejuvenation in the sense of eternal life in the first place, but accelerated healing and mending of un-natural damages, vigour and stamina beyond mortal limits.  mea culpa if I used a confusing terminology. 
And there is no life-prolonging or extending magics in (core) D&D anymore these days that is not based on negative energy, so no foundation for your claim that positive energy does actually prolong life to be found there, disturbing the natural cycle. But, actually, that might make a nice seed for a non-standard campaign....


----------



## green slime (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Mr Gone, from what I learned in my comparative religion classes, many of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism and others) do not consider the body sacred.  Rituals may be performed, but they are more to guide the spirit of the deceased than to venerate the body.




So none of these cultures would particularly object if I "desecrated" their grave sites, collected the bones of their ancestors and ground them into paste I sell as fertilizer, and create jockstraps from their skin and skulls? Or use "Uncle Bob's left foot" as an ashtray. Somehow, I think not.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As I recall, there is even a branch of one such faith (Nepalese Buddhism?) in which the bodies of the deceased are left on the mountainside for vultures to pick clean.




Zoastrians in Iran practice this, I believe. IIRC, it comes originally from some ancient form of Sun worship. But just because this is a correct way to dispose of a body for them, and to some of us may seem disrepectful, does not mean that as a Zoastrian you can dispose of a corpse in any old fashion you may desire. No indeed.


----------



## dcollins (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Mr Gone, from what I learned in my comparative religion classes, many of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism and others) do not consider the body sacred.  Rituals may be performed, but they are more to guide the spirit of the deceased than to venerate the body.




Let's take Hinduism as an example (apologies to anyone if I misstep here unintentionally). The final rites there demand that the body be cremated and completely consumed.



> Cremation is a ritual designed to do much more than dispose of the body; it is intended to release the soul from its earthly existence. "Hindus believe that cremation (compared to burial or outside disintegration) is most spiritually beneficial to the departed soul." This is based on the belief that the "astral body" will linger "as long as the physical body remains visible." If the body is not cremated, "the soul remains nearby for days or months".
> http://mailerindia.com/hindu/veda/index.php?death




On a more personal note, at my last full-time job in Boston, I worked with a Hindu gentleman. On afternoons when I needed to clear my head, I often took a stroll at a very peaceful, beautiful nearby cemetary.

One day when he looked tired (and I suppose I wasn't thinking clearly), I suggested the same thing to him. He really looked rather stricken and said he couldn't ever walk through a cemetary.

So, to him, the very idea that dead bodies are even still around is pretty dreadful. The idea of _using_ dead bodies like raw materials would be beyond unthinkable to someone of that faith.


----------



## Scion (Sep 7, 2004)

uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> Hmm negative energy is inimical to all (natural) life, snuffing it out and causing the loss of lifespan, health and soul through contact with it.  As far as abstract force/energy can be evil, this very well fits the descriptor for "evil" as in "very detriminal". Unless of course one considers the extinguishing of (all) life something worthwhile  and "good"




The same can be said for fire. Do you think that fire is evil?

It is used to hurt, to destroy, and to corrupt. It must be evil.

However, it is not. Nor is negative energy. Just because something is good at causing harm does not make it evil. A sword is not evil, yet it is used for killing.

Negative and positive energy are simply that, energies. They can be used for this or that, but they are very specialized. Two sides of a necissary coin to make the d&d universe run properly.

None of that makes negative energy or positive energy into any sort of good or evil in and of themselves. They can be 'used' for good or evil, but then either one can be used for either side, depending on the situation.

Remember, not everything that is not Evil is Good, and not everything that is not Good is Evil. There is neutral as well. Animals are neutral. Tools are neutral.

The forest fire that rages is not evil, it is not malign. It is killing and harming sure, but it is not evil. Whoever set it might be evil, but then they also might be good.



			
				uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> It employs negative energy, which is as close as you can come to a pure evil energy (without pulling out the BoVD), and it does so not simply for a momentary effect, but for an extended enslavement of other people's mortal shells, entirely at the caster's whim. Unless you consider enslavement or abuse of other people's property (their dead shells) an acceptable act.
> The gem analogy doesn't fly, simply because it a focus, therefore it serves to concentrate and maintain the negative energy used to animate the corpse.




Once again, negative energy is not evil. It is simply energy. If you would like some pure evil energy you will likely need to channel one of the evil planes or pull out the BoVD. Negative energy is merely a tool.

Also, animate dead does have a duration of instantaneous, nor does it create a link to the negative plane, so it is fairly momentary. Undead tend to move around just fine in an antimagic field. All it does is put in enough energy to run the body. That is all. It could use positive energy to do the same thing, there would be no difference effectively.

Enslavement of what though? If you animate your chair have you enslaved it? If you have a grove of trees are they enslaved? If you mow your lawn have you just caused great pain to your pile of slaves in your front yard?

Skeletons and zombies have no int, so they dont think much. But, before they were undead it might have been 'their' whim to be turned into undead. Even if it was not however, what does it matter? The soul is not burdened in any way, it is still free to roam its eternal rest. How is it any different to animate a tree or animate a dead creature? Besides that, I doubt that property rights really come into play, do you own anything in the mortal realm once you are no longer part of it?

As for the gem, it is the part that is destroyed (component, not a focus) and it starts off as a black onyx.. and we all know black = Evil. So maybe that is where the evil comes from. Monetary greed is evil, gems represent this. Black is evil, the gem is black. The gem turns into a worthless burnt out shell, so obviously something was taken from it. It must be its incredible amount of stored Evil.

From that perspetive it makes the most sense that the gem itself is providing the evil.

Of course in the game perspective it is the 'spell' that is doing it. Gems dont detect as evil and negative energy does not either. Neither the gem nor negative energy are evil.



			
				uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> There are things that can be called evil




Can be called evil. Sure, I can call jaywalking evil as well but that does not make it so.

Most of the time these taboos come from things that would hurt the society, at least potentially. So they were told not to do them (law). Anyone who is doing this is breaking the law, hence the law/chaos axis. However, much of the time people have tried to equate law = Good and chaos = Evil.

Which is exactly what I said before. You are simply putting up people who have taken it to even further extremes. This merely reinforces my point.

Is killing someone evil or not? Depends on the circumstances, unless every paladin never lasts less than one session of d&d.




			
				uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> Criticism is not disrespect, especially from someone who makes decisions depending on the work criticised, or who has paid for a work of a certain standard. That's a basic human right of free speech and freedom of opinion, but even there, rules of conduct and propriety apply. An unwarranted or unasked for criticism is something else. But whoever performs in the public eye (often to be appreciated ) also exposes himself to public scrutiny, and hence criticism, be it positive or negative. That is _not_disrespect.




Dictionary.com:
Disrespect:
Lack of respect, esteem, or courteous regard.
To show a lack of respect for: disrespected her elders; disrespected the law.
Want of respect or reverence; disesteem; incivility; discourtesy.
Impatience of bearing the least affront or disrespect. 
an expression of lack of respect
a disrespectful mental attitude 
a manner that is generally disrespectful and contemptuous
have little or no respect for; hold in contempt

All in all I would have to say that you are wrong about your view on disrespect.

Disrepect can be as simple as my thinking of someone and not having respect for them. It can be openly showing no respect. If someone walks by a homeless person on the road and ignores them they are showing disrespect. If someone asks a question that another consideres uncourteous then disrespect has been shown. Challenging someone to a dual in front of their peers? disrespectful in some circles.

Also, freedom of speech is a pretty new concept as well. So you are saying that just about every ruler ever has been Evil?

Once again, even thinking about having a lack of respect to someone is disrespectful. At that point, and with the definition given before, everyone is evil.

In other words, the definition about disrespect being evil seems very wrong indeed. Otherwise, there are likely no good people.



			
				uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> And if you do not regard the issues of abuse, enslavement and employing anti-life negative energy which are involved as morally abhorrent (and yes, as stated above, there are moral absolutes, independent of any religious doctrines. Just consider that they occured in any stable human society independent of religious affiliation or geographical proximity... ), than I  suspect you either have a great deal of growing up ahead of you, or are going to get into serious conflict with civilized society sooner or later, sorry to say. In a way, I honestly hope you are taking your stance just to be provocative.....




This is inflamatory and insulting. Please stay away from this sort of post in the future. I would prefer not to have to report such things, but another one like this and I will be forced to ;/


----------



## ARandomGod (Sep 7, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Well, I guess I might be simple-minded, and ma always told me I had a terribly low IQ, but I always figured raising dead was evil because it's a perversion of the natural order, and a mockery of life itself.  What once was the living vessel of an immortal soul becomes a grotesque puppet, powered by the energy of death itself.  And within that cage of rotting flesh, the soul must lie in endless torment, ripped from the bliss of the afterlife and bound to a cage of filth and corruption.





Aww, you're not simple-minded, you're just differently abled...

And they're not perversions of nature, they're the embodyment of recycling!

Heh. Actually, a lot of people see it as evil, and if it's looked at in the way above, it IS evil to that person. If it's looked at differently, it might not be evil. As long as it's not actually harming or using a soul in any way, there isn't anything other than interpretation.

Yea, D&D doesn't say why the spell is evil, it just is. 
Healing can, if looked at properly, be seen as a perversion of the natural order, a denial of life to later generations, a mockery of life itself powered by foul necromantic magics. And, even if they've attempted to disguise healing magic by calling it "conjuration", it's still by definition necromancy.

But, this leads us down an interesting path. If healing is not necromancy, and raise dead is... well, why not make a spell that does the exact same thing (animates a corpse) but is conjuration (or some other justification of non-evil) instead?

And Lo! It was done. Right in the very book that gave us the Vow of Poverty, and special "non-evil" poisons, which aren't poison, because poison is evil, but is something else that's exactly the same with no real (read: "good IMO")justification as to why the first was evil or why, really, this type of poison isn't... 

My point? It's evil because "they" say.
Other things that are the exact same aren't because they don't want it to be.
If you think that's unreasonable, say it differently. Simple. So simple it's already been done.

Remember, though, you aren't evil. You're "differently aligned".


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 7, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Ridley, I have an excellent grasp of what I'm discussing.




You have scattered pieces of information, but you seem to have trouble keeping track of context.  Nothing you have said is a coherent counterargument to the views I put forth regarding animating the corpses of the deceased into mindless zombies at the control or the necromancer.  Was that not the original topic of the thread?

I would agree with you that D&D handles "ghosts" and similar beings very poorly -- shoehorning a number of very different beings into a few evil pigeonholes.   Likewise mummies are treated as Hollywood villains with no reference to their intended purpose.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2004)

> You have scattered pieces of information, but you seem to have trouble keeping track of context. Nothing you have said is a coherent counterargument to the views I put forth regarding animating the corpses of the deceased into mindless zombies at the control or the necromancer. Was that not the original topic of the thread?




No, that wasn't the original topic.

And I have no trouble at all with the context.

I didn't respond specifically to your claim about necromancers and zombies because the BIGGER context of the thread was (if clumsily expressed by the OP, Moff_Tarkin) why there is an assumption in D&D that the creation of undead is universally equated with evil.

As I have pointed out, that is not the case in the legends, mythology and popular fiction upon which D&D and similar FRPGs were based, and thus implied that a DM need not be constrained by the "Undead = Evil" equation.  That equation entered the game presumably as a convenient game design shorthand or convention.

Others have pointed out that even official D&D products vary from this equation.  Rarely, but it does happen.

But lets specifically examine your example of a *necromancer raising mindless undead*.

1)  Nothing in the spells that create mindless undead indicate that the spirit or soul of the deceased is being bound to the corpse.  Rather, the bodies are animated by negative energy.  So the necromancer is not forcing anyone's spirit to be bound to their corpse.  He is merely using one kind of magical energy- negative energy- to animate bodies.

2)  Exposure to negative energy, as has been pointed out, may be inimicable to life, but so is exposure to fire, and both are neccessary for the natural order of the D&D universe.  It is the game cosmology's version of entropy, in a sense.  As such, negative energy is NOT intrinsically evil.  It may be used for evil purposes, but so can anything.

3)  A necromancer (be he priestly or arcane) raising mindless undead is not neccessarily evil.

He could be a TN or LN servant of Death (greater god) using the undead army to defeat heroes who would give humanity true immortality.  Death, being a neccessary force of the universe, feels this would be a breach of the natural order, and thus is defending existence itself from this potentially devastating breach.  The undead are the only force Death needs to or is likely to raise, for he has an "infinite" supply of them and they are his to command absolutely.  Why bother with other outsiders when your army of the deceased outnumbers them?

Or, returning to my oft repeated example, they could be volunteers who are defending their temple, city, country, whatever.  After all, the necromancers cannot make everyone who might volunteer thusly into sentient undead- they simply don't have the spellpower to do it, and not everyone would make the best sentient undead anyway.  They may instead volunteer to be buried in a special cemetary designed expressly for those who volunteer their bodies for the purpose of being animated to defend their cities.

Far fetched?  Every year, thousands of people donate their bodies to science today so that medicine can learn about exotic diseases, how bodies decay and the effects of certain chemicals or environments on human bodies for forensics, or even basic anatomy.  They have NO PROBLEM having their bodies cut up, dissected, and even shipped to different parts of the country in the name of advancing the science of medicine because they think these are worthwhile and good goals to have.

Thus, I have no problem believing that similar-minded individuals could make the choice to be reanimated as undead defenders, even mindless ones, if it meant their goals were met.  This is especially true if motivated by extreme emotions ("I really hate those invaders!"/"I really love my city!") or religion ("I will make any sacrifice my god demands of me.")

Closer to the edge of what I would consider evil would be that same necromancer raising the dead of his enemy (say, those killed in the last skirmish) to use against his enemy.  While this is done presumably against the will of the deceased, they ARE invaders.

(Were that to become a common tactic, I'm sure its the kind of thing that would be outlawed by that world's equivalent of the Geneva Convention, since it ignores the burial rites and customs of the opposing force.)*

BTW- Still no cogent answers about the distinctions between undead and golems constructed from body parts?  Anyone?*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Shadowdweller (Sep 8, 2004)

> 1) Nothing in the spells that create mindless undead indicate that the spirit or soul of the deceased is being bound to the corpse. Rather, the bodies are animated by negative energy. So the necromancer is not forcing anyone's spirit to be bound to their corpse. He is merely using one kind of magical energy- negative energy- to animate bodies.



 It does, however, say under the resurrection spells that you cannot raise someone whose corpse has been animated unless it is destroyed first.  Which implies to -me- at least, that mindless undead DO in fact possess their former souls.

There's absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest it, but in my games I often houserule something like that animating dead burns a piece of the soul(s) so used (Most don't consume anything...so they have to get energy SOMEHOW, don't they?).  Or at the very least that it involves imprisoning a conscious, intelligent entity for extremely long periods of time in a painful existence where one has less facility than an actual slave (i.e. the inability to control one's own body or mind).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2004)

removed


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 8, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *BTW- Still no cogent answers about the distinctions between undead and golems constructed from body parts?  Anyone?*



Looking at the golem entry, they are crafted and an unwilling elemental spirit is bound to the automaton.

By the RAW doing so is not an evil act, likewise the calling of elementals is not an evil spell. This implies that elemental spirits are not like mortal spirits and are so alien that they are outside alignment issues.

That's pretty satisfactory to me. 

I would imagine that in the implied default campaign setting, flesh golems in particular would need to be hidden from sight otherwise rumours of necromancy would see mr wizard run out of town. Also graverobbing is still a crime so there'll be questions there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 8, 2004)

That was a pretty coherant and well done piece of deduction there, Raven Crowking.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2004)

*The golem tangent*



> Looking at the golem entry, they are crafted and an unwilling elemental spirit is bound to the automaton.
> 
> By the RAW doing so is not an evil act, likewise the calling of elementals is not an evil spell. This implies that elemental spirits are not like mortal spirits and are so alien that they are outside alignment issues.
> 
> That's pretty satisfactory to me.




Overall, an ironic post coming from someone going by the handle "FreeTheSlaves."

To the point, even elemental outsiders have alignments, free will, etc.- how can they be outside of alignment issues?  How can involuntary, open-ended servitude until death/dissolution not be evil?

Plus, if raiding the graves for animation is bad, how can doing the same for golem parts be thought of any differently?

For the record, part of the Flesh Golem entry reads "Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor," namely, _animate dead_. (I don't know if there are 3Ed/3.5Ed stats for Bone or Blood Golems.)

I guess that answers that.

As an interesting side note, however, note that creating a Clay golem (and only the Clay golem) requires both _commune_ (to talk to the elemental spirit?) and _resurrection_ despite being used on a body that was never alive.  An interesting nod to the original golem legends...

PS:  Nice bit of reasoning there, Crowking.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 9, 2004)

I think the point differentiating between undead and golems is that D&D takes an approach where the spirits of mortals are more important than elementals. Elementals are a sentient force of nature similar in spiritual status to animals. I.e not much.

Where are the elemental planes? They are the inner planes, building blocks of the prime.

Where is the adventure set? Prime.

Where do the souls of dead mortals go? Outer planes to their afterlife. Where gods reside.

Where do the dead elementals go? Nowhere, their remains become what they are made of.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Luckily, there is another spell that can animate mindless corpse, and it might provide us some clues.
> 
> The 3rd level cleric spell, _speak with dead_, grants "the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it."  This spell allows the body to understand language, and to make reasonably complex responses to spoken questions.  We also know that this is a partial animation, and that the body is nevertheless relatively mindless:
> 
> ...




The corpse is not aware of anything happening to it. Speak with dead only gets reactions based on the imprint of the soul, not a conscious soul itself, the imprint can only react, not decide autonomously whether to answer or not, it is a purely instinctual non voluntary action based on alignment and strength of will of the former soul. The soul imprint has no experience, positive or negative from being talked to (it is not even aware of it) and by your connecting this to the animate dead spell the animate dead therefore have no consciousness to be tortured, just mindless imprints that allow the animated corpse to react to complex stimuli such as questions or commands.

With the speak with dead spell you do not interact back and forth with the imprint of the soul "It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse."


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2004)

*Reincarnation*

So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be reincarnated, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. The magic of the spell creates an entirely new young adult body for the soul to inhabit from the natural elements at hand.

* * *

A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be returned to life by this spell.  Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be reincarnated. The spell cannot bring back a creature who has died of old age

So you can't be reincarnated if your body is undead. But you can be reincarnated from only a portion of the body leaving the rest. So then there is this left over body. Which can be talked to with a speak with dead, after all it has the imprint of the departed soul. This will not take your soul out of your new body. And under the RAW the old body could even be animated. This would not take your soul out of your new body unless, of course, the DM house rules it to be so.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2004)

*Alignment Descriptor =/ morality of action*

The alignment descriptor does not indicate the morality of an action in D&D.

They can coincide but it need not be so under the RAW.

For example, a wizard of any alignment can summon anything on the summon monster lists regardless of the alignment descriptors and command them to fight anybody they choose to designate as a target, and the summoned thing cannot refuse.

An evil wizard can summon an angel and have it attack paladins and innocent orphans. The spell will detect as good, even though it is an immoral action. I think few people will say that this is an inherently good act just because it has the good descriptor in the spell and summoned creature.

The evil descriptor for creating undead indicates that the spell will detect as evil with a detect evil spell, and a few other minor effects regarding evil spells.

All undead detect as evil under detect evil as written, regardless of their actual alignment.

So the evil descriptor means that animating corpse with animate dead detects as evil, while using animate object does not.

The morality of the actions are a separate matter.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2004)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> But they could do so only once, on the day of Ragnarök.
> Like the christian armageddon or similar scenarios, I'll make exceptions for when your whole campaign world comes crashing down in big ole apocalypse.
> Point is, they come back for battle and not for the unnatural extended long unlife of the undead, and even with that, I would find it tempting to classify ghostly norse ravagers as evil as they go if eyed throught the lense of classical D&D.




Incorrect. Backwards actually.

In Valhalla the dead Einherjar fight each other and die everyday only to be reborn each night for carousing and to do it again the next day. Ragnarok is the only day they don't come back after being killed. And that is when the nine worlds are destroyed.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To clarify my own posts- I'm not saying that the warriors of Valhalla *are* undead, but that of all the beings in the norse mythology, they come closest to meeting that description.  Personally, I don't know what to call them in particular, but aknowledge the fact that their post-death existence is a glaring oddity in the context of the teutonic mythos- they have attributes that not even their gods have.




I think the dead in hell, who rise up on Loki's ship at Ragnarok to fight the Gods, are pretty good candidates for norse undead. As are descriptions of draugr.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 10, 2004)

A big thank you, busy Voadam!

Your version of the norse legends about the Einherjar (couldn't recall the name) conforms to the mythology I'm familiar with.

I just checked my encyclopedia of mythology-couldn't find draugr.  I'm not familiar with the term.  Could there be an alternate name or spelling?

As for Loki's force, one could argue that they were spirits in their natural form and not truly undead.

FreeTheSlaves wrote-


> Where do the souls of dead mortals go? Outer planes to their afterlife. Where gods reside.
> 
> Where do the dead elementals go? Nowhere, their remains become what they are made of.




You're comparing apples and oranges.

The *spirits* of dead mortals go to their designated afterlives, and their *bodies* decay and are reduced to their component minerals- ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Dead elementals' *bodies* consist of their component elements as well.  As for their *spirits*?  Destroyed?  Returned to their home plane?  I don't know.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 10, 2004)

In one of my books on norse myths, Odin actually dies when he hangs on Yggdrasil with the spear through him. In death he learns the runes and brings himself back to life.

The einherjar are Odin's (and Freya's) servitors, dieing and being brought back each day until Ragnarok where the first casualty is Odin himself.

The myths don't connect Odin to their resurrecting each day but it is a plausible inference, and explains why they don't come back after Ragnarok. It could also be the fields of Valhalla where they fall that resurrects them, and when Surt burns the worlds the fields are no longer there. Odin could even have plausibly put a big resurrection rune under the field. 

Norse Mythos speculation and extrapolation can be fun.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 10, 2004)

draugr are from Norse folklore, not mythology, they never show up in any of the god stories. They are dead men who were not cremated who rise up and were really tough to kill. I've read some stories with them but I can't remember if they were original folkore or just modern writings in the genre.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 11, 2004)

Sorry, missed out on this earlier, but just want to pop in on an earlier point:


> Hmm negative energy is inimical to all (natural) life, snuffing it out and causing the loss of lifespan, health and soul through contact with it. As far as abstract force/energy can be evil, this very well fits the descriptor for "evil" as in "very detriminal". Unless of course one considers the extinguishing of (all) life something worthwhile and "good"
> 
> Positive energy is the opposite, rejuvenating, healing and boosting the natural processes of life. Contact with it is not harmful per se. It has little if any detriminal side-effects.




Negative energy and positive energy are both neutral, natural, harmonious things - just ask any druid.  Negative energy is inimical to all natural life, but that's perfectly okay _because life is supposed to end at some point._  That's how it works.  The old dies and is cleared away for the new to take its place.  Positive energy isn't any more 'good' just because it prolongs or promotes life.  It can prolong the life of a villian or a disease carrier just as easily as that of an innocent - the energy doesn't care.  It's just happy to make more life... detremental or not.  Cancer?  Gee, thanks positive energy.

As for contact with positive energy being not harmful?  Try saying that while standing unprotected on the positive energy plane - get this: it kills you just as quickly as its counterpart.  Tetsuo from Akira style, even.  Not pleasant.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Celtic_Bear (Sep 11, 2004)

*Good and Nuetrally Aligned Undead*

There are nuetrally and goodly aligned undead, at least in the Realms.  I can only think of Baelenorns (Goodly and Nuetrally aligned Elven Liches) right off the top of my head, but I am sure there are more.

Namaste,

cb


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Scion (Sep 12, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, the general association as the rules are written is that negative energy = evil and positive energy = good.





Any place other than with clerics? Because as is that does not associate it in a useful way.

It is just that good gods tend to like quick ways to further certain causes and evil gods tend to like quick ways to further other causes.

If they had instead used 'fire' and 'cold' then would people assume that one was 'good' while the other 'evil'?

Just because the gods in d&d were made pretty simplistic and always pick the easy way out (whether or not it really fits their porfolio or not) does not mean that positive material = good and negative material = bad. Just that it is easier to heal with one (generally considered a beneficial thing) and easier to harm with the other (generally considered a bad thing).

Just because something can be beneficial does not make it good, just because something is harmful does not make it evil.

So, are there other trends which imply this as well? (note, cure/inflict spells are not aligned)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Any place other than with clerics? Because as is that does not associate it in a useful way.
> 
> So, are there other trends which imply this as well? (note, cure/inflict spells are not aligned)




Yes, there are.  The entire definition of alignments pretty much supports this:
Saving people and helping each other = Good
Killing people = Evil

Positive Energy = rejuvination and healing
Negative Energy = entropy and death

And yes, as well, common taboos of our time and the past lead to the assumption that death is bad.  Yes, there are also cultures that don't think death is evil.  D&D is NOT based on those cultures.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> The alignment descriptor does not indicate the morality of an action in D&D.




Don't have it with my at this time, but the BoVD says in it that all spells with [evil] descriptors are, in fact, evil acts.  It then suggests adding evil descriptors to a couple more spells than already have them in order to fit its definition of what evil spells should be.

Also, YES the core rules are contradictory on this subject, mostly because they were written by a couple different authors, each of which had varying opinions on this topic.

Animate dead doesn't say anything about binding souls to bodies.  That is mostly due to the writers wanting to remove as much "setting" material as possible from the PHB to avoid telling anyone what is and isn't true setting wise, letting each person make up their own reasons.  Also, due to lack of space in the PHB and trying to use as much of it as possible for purely rules information.

It's pretty much said (especially with recent discussions on Eberron) that elementals, being all neutral and being basic building blocks of the universe are morally ambiguous and therefore not evil to bind.  Although, in my games, due to this discussion creating Flesh Golems will likely be slightly evil in my game, purely by using dead flesh in such a way.

I, personally, LIKE the fantasy standard of "messing with the dead is bad".  Frankenstein tells us that those who play god with the dead are evil, even if they are trying to do good.  It's this theme that pervades fantasy literature and fits the "feel" of the game.  It is perfectly reasonable to say "From my point of view, it's just a bunch of dead flesh, no different from a chair or some rocks."  But that is not what D&D is trying to simulate, and if true would make a lot of typical fantasy plots make no sense at all.  A lot of the principles most of the current D&D campaign settings are based on would have to be changed if that was the truth in them.  There would likely be Undead everywhere as every mage would have them following him carrying his stuff, cities would be built by them.  After all, no reason not to, right?

In response to the original poster:  YES, killing your horse and animating it is a LOT more convenient.  That's kind of the point.  The standard good vs evil arguement in standard fantasy stories is that evil is normally easier, which is why those who want to good need strength of heart to avoid using the evil method.  It ruins some good story telling and the reason why good triumphs over evil.

The moral of the story always is:  Evil never SEEMS evil.  It just IS.  And it is easy and convenient and possibly powerful.  There never seems to be a good reason NOT to do something evil, other than the fact that you know it is evil.  Which makes the ones that are able to resist its lure more heroic, because you know that if you were in their shoes, you aren't sure you could have made the same decision.

Majoru Oakheart


----------



## Scion (Sep 12, 2004)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yes, there are.  The entire definition of alignments pretty much supports this:




This is not true unless you also consider fire evil.

Positive and negative energies are merely tools. Tools can be used for Good or Evil.

Good gods still kill, but when they do it there is good involved. Evil gods still save, but when they save there is evil involved.

Like I asked before, is there anywhere else in the core that actually supports your statement? The cleric example doesnt really, becuase it is simply useing the force that helps do whatever they like easiest. It wouldnt make any sense to pick the one that is harder to do what you want with (like picking a sword over a gun when trying to kill someone at range, it just doesnt make any sense). However, just because something does something a bit better does not make it Good/Evil. A gun is not evil because it can kill. It can be Good when used to kill an animal (neutral) to feel a starving person and save them. It can be evil when used to murder.

Just a tool.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 12, 2004)

*Creating Undead = Evil in DnD Generic Setting*

Interesting, if very long and prone to sidetracking, thread.

Heres my opinion. In the baseline, generic edition of DnD, as represented in the RAW, creating undead is an Evil act. An act contrary to nature itself. The Undead may be tainted by this evil, usually the mindless ones, while more intelligent and willful undead may be able to choose to not be swayed by thier means of creation.
  Is that to say that all undead must be evil? No. It means that if you use the core rules to create an undead, Evil is involved and can affect the target and caster of the spell.
 Perhaps there once were "Create Enduring Protector, Good" spells that infuse a willing target with the Undead type. Perhaps those spells still exist.
 In the RAW, the only ones PC's have access to are the Evil kind.
 So what is this 'Descriptor' all about anyway? What does it do? 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, *with alignment*, and so on.



 The RAW leaves it up to the GM. Can a 'Good' Mage cast Raise Dead to help defend the village from sure slaughter? Sure. Will he become 'Evil' by doing that? Hard to say. Perhaps its the first step down the slippery slope of convienance. Perhaps his intentions are good, but a contingent of skeletons escape unnoticed into the bowels of the earth, only to return 10 years later and slaughter the now defenseless villagers.
Are the undead that defend the village 'Evil'? At a base level, yes. Perhaps they can rise above that. Perhaps not. How can I say this? 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Bless Water, Transmutation, Good: This transmutation imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with positive energy, turning it into holy water.



 Holy water deals damage to Undead and Evil outsiders. Why? Because its a Good weapon that deals damage to Evil beings.  

IMHO, this shows that Positive=Good since it also affects Outsiders who have no connection to the Negative Energy. I think the SRD did not add the Good descriptor to the Positive Plane in order to be as generic as possible.

 ///Philosphy alert/// Why are these spells [Evil]?


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Revivification against One’s Will: A soul cannot be returned to life if it does not wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the character attempting to revive it and may refuse to return on that basis.



 Raise Dead, Ressurection, and Reincarnation leave the 'free will' of the soul. Create Undead oppresses this free will and makes any future Raise, Ressurection, or Reincarnation impossible.
 Is this evil? 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> “Evil” implies hurting, *oppressing*, and killing others
> 
> Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
> Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.
> Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.



Evil cares not for the 'free will' of others. They only care about thier convienance and desires. It matters not that the soul of thier newly created Undead has been irrevokably barred from returning to life.
 I think these spells are Evil because of the removal of 'free will'. I think a Palidon would consider the use of these spells as something to stop, regardless of good intentions.
Good versions of these spells would allow the soul to chose thier future, which would never be unlife as a 'mindless' undead. This would put the Good spells at a higher level, again.. being Evil would be much easier and convienant for the caster. 

So.. unless some other method of creating undead is found, the available method of creation imbues them with Evil. It is possible for intelligent Undead to make thier own choices and shake of this taint. It is also possible for an alternate method of creating undead that does not imbue an alignment, or even imbues Good. End result is that most Undead will be Evil by default of thier creation.

Final note. D20 DnD is a generic, black and white fantasy world. Undead are unnatural creatures that the Hero's strive to defeat. The real world arguments and situational morals do not exist as written. You are welcome to play alternate versions in your own campaign. I myself delve often into the grey moral issues as there lay the issues that can truely challange a 'Hero'. 

After all, being law abiding means stopping at the stop sign at 2 in the morning when you can see that no-one is coming for 5 miles in any direction.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2004)

Undead are generally powered by the negative material plane, sure. But then some are powered by the positive material plane (more in 2nd edition than I have seen in 3rd, but still).

Holy water is again with the cleric which is again with the undead creation (which clerics are the best at over all casters). Holy water has the 'good' descriptor because good clerics make it and it hurts undead who are powered by the negative material plane.

Someone can be killed by a million negative energy levels and yet still go to the afterlife. No mention of it destroying the soul.

SRD:
Energy Drain (Su): This attack saps a living opponent’s vital energy 

This really isnt that much different than any other damaging attack. Certainly no different than poison (which work under incredibly similar circumstances).

While the book of exalted deeds (and possibly book of vile darkness as well) define poison as evil those references are simply wrong. It is generally unlawful (hence why the paladin cannot use it), but it is no more evil than hitting someone with a burning torch or with your sword. Merely another way of dealing damage.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> P.S.: Yes, I know that mindless undead are not evil themselves. Evil has, however, been done to the soul imprint left in the body.




Actually, mindless undead 'are' listed as evil. Which is a further contradiction. something within a mind, and therefore cannot have intent or thought processes (even less than animals, which are neutral), has an alignment other than neutral.

Also, I still see no reason for evil to have been done to the 'soul imprint'. I read those arguements earlier but they seemed to be a lot of guesswork. Why does it have to be a soul imprint? why cant it just be knowledge retained in the brain? Not necissarily having any connection at all with the soul.

Anyway though, my comments about negative energy benig the same as fire stem from the fact that how one is described can generally fit the other. Both destroy. Both cause pain. Both can be used for evil.

So, if someone says, 'but it kills! it must be evil!' then I'll say, 'then you believe fire is evil'. But thinking that fire is evil I believe most people would see as nonsensical, hence why it needs to be said.

Good clerics tend to use positive energy. Evil clerics tend to use negative energy. This does not make either of those good or evil anymore than monks usually useing their unnarmed strikes makes those attacks generally lawful (eventually they get lawful ki strike of course, but that is neither here nor there, useing ones fists is not inherantly 'lawful' because a lawful class uses them often)


----------



## ecliptic (Sep 13, 2004)

I haven't really read the replies.

Here is my answer.

Since you use negative energy to power undead, you are bringing that negative energy to the Material Plane. The more negative energy on the Material Plane, the more suffering, sadness, etc there is.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 13, 2004)

Well, you know the undead always intrude on conversations and derail them and make political comments about how only stupid and evil people vote for the other party.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Scion, how do you define evil?




Unimportant. It is too big of a discussion for this thread. Merely stating that a tool is not inherantly evil, no matter how that tool normally operates, should be enough.

Animals can do no evil, no matter what they do really. A baseball bat can do no evil, although whoever weilds it might be able to. As such, a skeleton in and of itself, which is merely powered by some form of energy (much like steam powers some kinds of trains), is not evil. The game says that it is and gives no explanation as to why. That is good enough, unless someone asks 'why'. The answer to that? Just because the game says so. This is not really a sufficient answer to the 'why' question. It can be used, but it is completely unsatisfactory.

Why would useing negative energy be considered evil? We could ask the same question for every energy type.

So, it is unimportant what I consider to be evil because a nonaligned energies are, by definition, not aligned.

Saying that undead are evil because they use negative energy is just like saying a forest fire is evil because it uses fire.

Basically, for the d&d system skeletons are evil because the gods say so. But, for the question of 'why' that answer does nothing.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 13, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Skeletons and Zombies are evil. Creating an evil being is evil.



 Uh oh. Where's Neitchze when we need him?

Why do skeletons and zombies always have to be assumed as "evil"? Because it says so in the MM?

How can the creation of anything be deemed as "evil"? Isn't it destruction that's evil, not creation?


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 13, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> There is of course a difference between 'not good' and 'Evil'.
> 
> Also, there is a difference between 'unlawful' and 'Evil'.
> 
> ...



 Completely agree with this position, 100%.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 13, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> It's very simple why creating undead is an evil act, and it has nothing to do with defiling a corpse.  When you animate undead, you are binding that person's soul back into his flesh to serve as the animatory force - you are stealing their soul from the afterlife (good or bad) and trapping in their corpse.
> 
> Not only that, but as far as most things are concerned (outside of a grand total of 2 spells that can counteract it), if the undead is then destroyed that person's soul is destroyed as well.  No second chance at the afterlife.  Just shredded beyond all recognition, no longer a cohesive soul, gone, destroyed.
> 
> ...



 No, not clear enough in the least!

For starters, who says that animating undead brings that person's soul back and binds it to it's former body? If this is the case, where's the person's former intelligence and abilities? What you're speaking of sounds a lot more like Resurrection, which is supposed to be "good" in theory and practice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 13, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Undead are generally powered by the negative material plane, sure. But then some are powered by the positive material plane (more in 2nd edition than I have seen in 3rd, but still).



Could you point me to even one undead powered by the positive material plane in 3.x?  I'd be honestly very interested in checking this out, since AFAIK, such a creature does not exist.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Sejs (Sep 13, 2004)

> Could you point me to even one undead powered by the positive material plane in 3.x? I'd be honestly very interested in checking this out, since AFAIK, such a creature does not exist.



 In 3.X, I can't say.  In 2nd Ed, mummies were linked to the positive material plane if I remember correctly.


Anyway - negative energy:  Is negative energy evil? No. It's not intelligent, so it cannot choose to be evil, it just exists.  However its effects are commonly seen as evil by people who are capable of making moral judgements, and (and largely because) it is commonly used by people who can and do choose to be evil.




			
				Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> For starters, who says that animating undead brings that person's soul back and binds it to it's former body?



 Why can you not _Raise Dead_ someone who has been animated as undead?  Why, if you have a part of the original body when the majority of the corpse is raised as undead, can you not _Ressurect_ that person?


			
				Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> If this is the case, where's the person's former intelligence and abilities?



 Equate it glueing a broken vase back together again.  If you do a good job, it can still hold water - ghosts, liches, vampires, etc are all undead that retain the person's former intelligence and abilities.  If you do a sloppy job, it's still vaguely vase-shaped, but can't do its job any more - like undead that have an intelligence but can't remember who they were in life.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Could you point me to even one undead powered by the positive material plane in 3.x?  I'd be honestly very interested in checking this out, since AFAIK, such a creature does not exist.




Deathless from BoED and Eberron.  They are essentially undead powered by positive energy instead of negative energy.  They are always good.  Also, I have yet to see one that was mindless either.  They are what you are looking for if you want a more "this person has been granted eternal life by their deity in order to protect this holy site" type creature.  The description from the BoED on them is, I believe, better than the one in the Eberron book.

By the way, this is more evidence of the whole positive energy=good, negative energy=evil thing.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Saying that undead are evil because they use negative energy is just like saying a forest fire is evil because it uses fire.
> 
> Basically, for the d&d system skeletons are evil because the gods say so. But, for the question of 'why' that answer does nothing.




Actually, I think the problem is that you are starting with a concept and wondering why the rules don't support it.  What you should be wondering is the other way around, what concept do the rules support?

By the RAW, undead are all evil, they are powered by negative energy.  Casting an Animiate Dead spell is evil.  Evil clerics cannot channel positive energy, good clerics cannot channel negative.  Deathless are powered by positive energy and are always good.  Holy water harms evil outsiders and is powered by positive energy.  Positive energy turns evil undead, and heals the living.  Poison is evil according to the BoED.  The alignment section says that morals and alignment are NOT subjective (something doesn't stop being evil because you believe that it is just like something else).

My conclusion from this information is that some acts are evil BECAUSE they are evil.  Whether it is the gods, some uber-god above the rest of them, some will of the universe itself, or Bob, the guy down the street, someone decided "these things are evil, these things are good."  Now, you could wonder who the creature or beings are that created these rules and wonder about their motivations.  Maybe that's what this thread is about...I'm not really sure at this point.

It is possible to say "Well, in my opinion, negative energy is not evil and therefore it should not be an evil act to channel it."  Great!  Then change Animate Dead to a non-evil spell in your game.  However, if you want to know WHY it is evil in D&D in the RAW, then it is this simple:

D&D is based on certain cultural beliefs as to what is right or wrong.  These beliefs are in the game because a lot of them are typical fantasy elements in books and stories.  Unless I'm wrong and the necromancer walking around helping people with his army of helpful undead has become a common literary device.  These cultural beliefs about what are right and wrong foster a certain setting and theme.  A number of the D&D rules have these setting elements built into them.  If you don't like these elements, that's fine, it's easy to remove them.

Basically, the reason seems to be that negative energy (or just the undead themselves) are evil for one reason or another.  You have yet to prove that negative energy is JUST an energy like fire.  Besides, if it is...why doesn't it burn people?  Oh wait, that's because it's not fire.  Why isn't it wet?  Because it isn't water.  Why isn't fire evil?  Because it's not negative energy.

Majoru Oakheart


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 13, 2004)

"Evil" or "Good" requires intelligent motive, a desire to act or not act in a harmful way, a weighing of options and morality.

For the sake of completeness, animals are not good or evil because they are acting entirely out of instinct to preserve themselves, making them neutral.

"Negative Energy" (like "positive energy," fire and water in previous posts) is not evil because it cannot act or refuse to act- it merely *IS*.  It can be used or not used, which makes it a potential tool.

Once, people used the term "natural evil" to describe things like floods and earthquakes.  This was in the context of the argument about how an omnibenevolent God (the God of the Abrahamic faiths) could allow bad things to happen to good people, how could such a God allow evil in His world.  Simply put, if God is omnibenevolent, how could He allow a good person to die in a flood.

The eventual response on the point of things like floods and other natural disasters was that such things are not evil, they simply are a part of the way the world works, part of the divine plan, as it were.

"Evil" was thus relegated to the actions and inactions of beings capable of making moral decisions.

So, unless there is something that can ask "Should I do this?" there cannot be an attribution of Evil.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "Evil" or "Good" requires intelligent motive, a desire to act or not act in a harmful way, a weighing of options and morality.




Not in D&D.  In D&D, an object can radiate evil.  A place can radiate evil.  The BoVD says that places where a lot of evil has happened should radiate evil afterwards.  It is tangible and you can actually say "that thing is evil, let's not touch it."

That's why entire planes can be evil.  Not because evil creatures live there.  Rather it is the other way around, the creatures live there BECAUSE the place is evil.

Evil has just as much form and substance as water, magic, or hamburgers.

Plus, if you look at some of the examples from the BoED and BoVD as to what evil is, you will find that one CAN commit evil without knowing one is, if the person hasn't bothered to even try to figure out if the easiest path is the correct one.  You were told that guy was a demon in disguise and you just killed him?  Did you even detect evil on him?  Did you even check to make sure the person who gave you the information wasn't lying?  Try communing with your god to determine if that was the correct course?  No?  Well he wasn't a demon...and you, my friend are now evil.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 13, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> "Evil" or "Good" requires intelligent motive, a desire to act or not act in a harmful way, a weighing of options and morality.
> 
> Not in D&D. In D&D, an object can radiate evil. A place can radiate evil. The BoVD says that places where a lot of evil has happened should radiate evil afterwards. It is tangible and you can actually say "that thing is evil, let's not touch it."




This is basically the magical principle of contagion, usually as a result of the residue of evil magic (like a curse) being done. With contagion, the THING isn't evil in and of itself, but rather it has been exposed to so much evil that it has become tainted, as if it were dyed.  This changes for things like artifacts and such that are able to have egos or may even contain bound demons or spirits.



> That's why entire planes can be evil. Not because evil creatures live there. Rather it is the other way around, the creatures live there BECAUSE the place is evil.




Contagion again.  The plane cannot act in an evil fashion, but it seems evil because it has contained evil.  Thus, the plane IS evil because evil creatures live there.



> Plus, if you look at some of the examples from the BoED and BoVD as to what evil is, you will find that one CAN commit evil without knowing one is, if the person hasn't bothered to even try to figure out if the easiest path is the correct one. You were told that guy was a demon in disguise and you just killed him? Did you even detect evil on him? Did you even check to make sure the person who gave you the information wasn't lying? Try communing with your god to determine if that was the correct course? No? Well he wasn't a demon...and you, my friend are now evil.




The BoED/BoVD example you posted is still about a choice.  The person who acted thus is evil if he killed someone without taking steps to acertain the veracity of the statement "This person is a demon;" he _chose_ not to try to determine the truth of the statement before comitting a violent act based on the statement.  He is not evil because he killed someone, but *rather* because he was lazy and uncaring about whether the person actually was demonic.  This is a classic "sin of omission," or sloth in another form.  As you posited, there were steps the person could have taken to figure out whether that person was a demon, but instead of expending a little effort, simply accepted the gossip as gospel.  The value the killer placed on human life (besides his own) was so small that mere innuendo caused him to violate a basic cultural taboo against killing.

If that person had reason to believe that his killer was a demon, and had _no way_ of ascertaining the truth, the question is much murkier.  Was he in fear of imminent harm from his victim?  No?  Lean towards evil.  Yes?  Lean towards good.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Contagion again.  The plane cannot act in an evil fashion, but it seems evil because it has contained evil.  Thus, the plane IS evil because evil creatures live there.




I see this is where we disagree.  I believe that evil can just be evil.  Why is it that demons are evil?  Because of their choices?  They ARE evil.  When they are born they are evil.  They are embodiments of evil.

At least the way I read both the RAW and the lore behind the rules is that in D&D one doesn't say "This item harms those who are evil, let me touch you with it.  It burns you!  Well, I guess you made a couple of wrong decisions, let's try to fix that."  It is more like "I'm sorry, you are evil!  Good energy such as this item harms you because of it.  Your mere flesh is infected with evil, and it IS evil until you can rid yourself of it.  Where you go, you will leave a slight taint of evil.  You generate it."

You could say that the person is not in fact evil, he just has evil taint upon him, or it could be the other way around, he is creating the evil taint.

Still, what rules or passages in the rule books would make you believe that items cannot be evil?  Where does it say that evil requires will other than your opinion?  What is it that gets on the walls of a room when evil has been performed there if not...EVIL as a substance.  You detect something when you cast detect evil.  It may not be physical, but it sounds like evil exists as an "object" of some sort to be able to infect planes and people and places.  Which means it might be able to taint or radiate from negative energy or spells.

I just don't see any evidence other than opinions that objects cannot be evil.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 13, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Contagion again.  The plane cannot act in an evil fashion, but it seems evil because it has contained evil.  Thus, the plane IS evil because evil creatures live there.



I have to disagree with you Danny.  In the _Manual of the Planes_, rules are laid out for creating planes that are evil by their very nature.  You can create a plane that has never harbored life, that no living thing has ever known existed, and yet is evil, in and of itself.  Unholy magic items can be created, that have never been used before.  They aren't evil because of what's been done with them, or because of what they were made of (necessarily).  They are simply evil.

It's true that mindless animals cannot commit evil acts and, being a part of the natural order, are therefore Neutral.  But even though skeletons are mindless creatures and therefore cannot commit evil acts, their creation itself is a thing of evil, and thus they, like Demons and Devils, are _inherently evil._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 13, 2004)

*Boiled down and parsed..*

I think I have figured out where the issue is here.

Its a question of whether Evil is a relativistic/subjective aspect of moral choice or actually exists as 'pure' Evil.

DnD assumes 'pure' Evil exists. The rules support this assumption. There are acts and things that are Evil. Most of these are contrary to the conventional 'Hero' archtype that the PC is supposedly trying to be.


But.. I actually had something new to add to the discussion (besides me getting sniped at by Raven for my CP2020 username   BTW, thanks for the catch on those spells.. I usually run a low magic game and have never actually used them in play! )

Fire is not Evil because it is a tool that can be used for both Good _and_ Evil. It can kill, hurt, and destroy. It can provide warmth, comfort, and be used to cook food.
Negative Energy cannot be used for Good. All it can do is kill, hurt, and destroy. 
 And before you say that you can use Undead for good by protecting a village..let me avoid that tangent, that is using the Undead.. not the Negative Energy. The position to defend is if the element itself is either Good or Evil.

Therefore, as DnD's Evil is an actual force, and Negative Energy is imbued with this actual force, any use of it taints the user and the product of the use. This means any Undead created with the available spells is automatically tainted with Evil.
===========

Danny: I think your argument is stemming from your belief of Good and Evil in the Real World (tm).  While that would be an interesting discussion over things like the misconstrued 'omnibenevolent' deal , one that would surely get a couple feathers ruffled, this thread is on why DnD's Undead are considered to be Evil. Having read the entire thread I have seen many of the same arguments from both sides and very little consession on either. It seems that the discussion has wandered off-track, with one side still arguing the "Why of the DnD RAW" and the other side arguing "It shouldn't work like that".

Tuzenbach: "Isn't it destruction that's evil, not creation?" A common theme is storytelling is about 'Man' attempting to take over the job of 'God' by creating Life. Read Frankenstien and other similar Golum stories. In the black and white world of DnD, this concept is included as part of the archtypical story. Hence creation the of Undead is a blasphemous and Evil act.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 13, 2004)

> Therefore, as DnD's Evil is an actual force, and Negative Energy is imbued with this actual force, any use of it taints the user and the product of the use.



  The difficulty I have there is that there are a number of spells that use negative energy that are not evil.  Inflict Wounds, Harm and Enervation, for instance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2004)

Removed


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 14, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> With contagion, the THING isn't evil in and of itself, but rather it has been exposed to so much evil that it has become tainted, as if it were dyed.




Tainted with what?  Dyed with what?  Something...a substance has infiltrated it...ergo...evil is a substance.  Existing of it's own.

Of course you can go the choice route and become evil..and radiate the "substance"...gather the "substance" to you, etc.

See in my campaign I have it both ways.  You can become evil by choice or by getting tainted with it...OR like a helm of opposite alignment.

Hopefully if you are pure of heart you can choose to fight off the taint...or infection if you will and cure yourself...see evil is like a disease.

very interesting campaign....


----------



## Scion (Sep 14, 2004)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> evil is a substance




Negative energy is not this substance. Negative energy isnt even evil (so it doesnt contain said substance).

Useing negative energy to kill is no different than useing fire to kill. The acts may be evil, but the power used to do it is not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2004)

Re: Objects being evil & principle of contagion.

Contagion is all over the D&D magic system.  That is how spells like Object Read and the aformentioned communicating with the dead spells work- you are magically sensing things that have happened to or around the object being magically read.

Re: Evil Planes- I'll grant you Ravenloft, but that plane is often described as having a will, and thus, in some sense, an intellect.  I don't own the MoP, so I'll have to defer on that.

Raven- I do realize that many cultures ascribed motives to natural forces.  This principle of animism, though, presupposes that these things are, in some sense, alive and intelligent.  If it is alive and intelligent, then it has the capacity to make moral decisions, and thus the capacity to do evil or good.  Ergo-this dosn't damage my argument in the least.

As for:


> (But wait, you'll say, if evil can damage you, and fire can damage you, then either evil isn't evil or fire is evil.....Syllogisms of the Monty Python "She's a Witch" School of Logic.)




No.  Anything can damage you, be it good, evil, or even non-aligned, in the right circumstances.  The point of the fire/negative energy comparison is to illustrate that the capacity to do damage to someone is not a sufficient cause to call something evil.  And there have been several people who have used a similar rationale along the path of this thread.  However, by that logic, the entire arsenal of damaging spells and even weapons could be considered evil.  But since they are obviously tools, we know this is not the case.

Also, as some have pointed out, there are negative energy spells that *are not* evil.  If the mere use of negative energy isn't evil 100% of the time, then negative energy cannot be pure evil.  Otherwise,  by that interal logic, you could use pure evil to do good and pure good to do evil.

So, if negative energy isn't evil because it does damage, and it obviously isn't considered evil to use it for some spells and it is for others, and it is possible to have dealings with the dead without it being evil...there has to be another rationale behind making undead evil.  What is left is the "Undead  = Evil" as a simple game design tool, and even THAT has been shown not to be universal within WOTC's own products.

I mean, they may say that the Eberron Deathless are not undead because undeath is a mockery of life, but the Deathless aren't, but it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.  Description aside, the Deathless are good-aligned undead!
====

Primitive Screwhead, I'm arguing from RW religious theory, mythology, legends, and fiction, just like everyone else.  After all, those are the sources for the game in the first place.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2004)

> Sorry, but the text in speak with dead is extremely clear in this case; you are speaking with the soul's imprint left in the body.




Exactly- you aren't talking to the soul itself, but its imprint.  That's contagion.

The duck crack was basically a dig on the writers of the Eberron setting.  Telling me that something that has almost all the same characteristics (appearance, immunities, and so forth) as undead, except that it is good and thus not undead is really kind of silly.  "Because I said so." is insufficient justification for such an assertion.



> To wit, you are attempting to make a syllogism that says:
> 
> Forces are not either good or evil,
> Negative energy is a force,
> Therefore, negative energy is not good or evil.




No, I am countering the syllogism:

_     Things that damage you are evil,
      Negative energy damages you.
     Therefore, negative energy is evil_.

By bringing up the counterexample of fire.  Fire can damage you, but it isn't evil.



> You are also correct that there "are negative energy spells that are not evil. If the mere use of negative energy isn't evil 100% of the time, then negative energy cannot be pure evil." It has been pointed out, as well, that later resources (ex: Book of Vile Darkness) suggest that these spells should, in fact, be considered evil.
> 
> However, if negative energy was pure evil, then presumably the negative material plane would have an alignment descriptor. Also, the BoVD is not part of the SRD.
> 
> Then again, the "positive energy" undead are not part of the SRD, either. Within the core rules, undead are evil.




And:


> The Manual of Planes specifically allows one to build planes that are intelligent, as well as planes that are evil, and planes which are not intelligent, but are evil. However, as pointed out previously ad infinitum ad nauseum, within the MoP, the negative material plane does not have an alignment descriptor.




The MoP has no more force than the BoVD or any other expansion.

Thus we are caught in a logic whipsaw.  This entire thread has been devoted to discussing *why* "Undead = Evil."

"Because creation of undead involves negative energy, it must be evil" has been disproven.  (Negative energy has no alignment.)

"Because it damages you, negative energy must be evil, and thus undead which tap into negative energy" has been disproven.  (There are things that damage you that have no alignment, like fire.)

"Because you're messing with the dead" has been disproven.  (There are ways to mess with the dead that are not evil, like Speak with Dead or Resurrection or even Soul Bind.)  Side note- why isn't Soul Bind evil?  If you're Binding a good person, you are wrenching a soul away from his faith's version of Paradise to return them to the imperfect mortal world.  Most people would object to being wrenched away from paradise to be imprisoned in a gem.

"Because negative energy is the opposite of positive energy, and thus undead which tap into negative energy" has been disproven. (Neither energy has an alignment.)

"Because spells with negative energy are used in the creation of undead" has been disproven.  (There are negative energy spells that are not evil.)

Which leaves, by my understanding, "Because they said so," with no real logic behind it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 14, 2004)

Disproven only to you, Danny...

Edit:  Sorry this post was trite and pointless, and posting such a response is counterproductive.  My apologies.

Still, I will stand behind my point, if not the way I stated it.  Danny, I don't think anything has been disproven.  Others have done a great job in this thread showing why Undead=Evil.  Although you refuse to accept any of these explanations as valid, others, such as myself, certainly do.


----------



## Arkhandus (Sep 14, 2004)

DannyAlcatraz, not be condescending or disrespectful, but you keep focusing on the teleological (results-oriented) matters and not the deontological (act-oriented) matters.  No matter what the reason, for example, killing an innocent is always evil, even if it is for the sake of the greater good.  The act is evil, even though the consequences may be good (i.e. in case that person was inadvertently about to bring on the apocalypse and yet was completely convinced that their experiment or whatever was only going to benefit humanity).  The overall result may be profoundly good for everyone else, but it is still quite bad for that one innocent and thus evil because it violates their inherant right to life and contentment.

Your arguments are Utilitarian, based on what produces the most overall good or least overall evil.  This is not usually sound reasoning when it comes to ethics, though it _is_ often valid.  Oftentimes the most important ethical/moral matters are those revolving around the act itself, not the results (if the act itself didn't matter, people would just immediately nuke any country that had a dictator or international terrorists based in it, because it would provide more good for the world at large, but obviously that would be flawed logic, because there are plenty of innocent people in those countries who would also be nuked and yet never wanted anything to do with the tyrants/terrorists; as already mentioned, killing innocents is evil no matter the reason and no matter what 'greater good' may come of it).  I do realize now, though, that some of my reasoning earlier was flawed, because I haven't been able to find any references now in the Core Rules of 3E that say negative energy carries a taint, so I must have just been remembering seeing such references in non-Core books for D&D, or maybe something from 2nd Edition (which are of course invalid in the current Core Rules As Written).

D&D has a relatively black-and-white alignment system that has personifications of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, so many creatures, objects, forces, spells, and acts in D&D are inherantly Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.  Fiends in D&D are infused with Evil even if someone reforms them later to be saintly, and likewise many undead in the Core RAW are infused with Evil regardless of what they do after their animation.  Creating undead is Evil in the Rules As Written, by the Core Rules at least.  All Core spells that make undead are capital-E Evil, so the creation of undead is an evil act regardless of its consequences.  The consequences don't change the fact that making an undead in the first place is Evil by the Core Rules.  It would seem by the Core Rules that since creation of undead is an Evil act, that there must be some reason for it.

Lacking any better indicators, the only reasons seem to be that the spells channel substantial negative energy with each casting, and that the act itself violates the natural order of things (birth, life, death, decomposition/rebirth, etc.).  Also, by the Core Rules, making someone into undead apparently prevents their soul from returning through Raise Dead or whatnot, and probably prevents them from enjoying their proper afterlife (or prevents them from suffering in some purgatory as they rightly deserve, if they were evil in life).  This obviously violates the natural order of the black-and-white D&D alignment system and multiverses.  This would seem to be the reason why creating undead is evil by the Core Rules, though it is merely a hypothesis based on the most obvious things in the Core RAW.

Channeling negative energy might not always be evil, but the only real uses for negative energy are destruction and the animation of undead (the latter is, again, Evil by the RAW).  Many other things can be used for destruction, including positive energy (excessive amounts of it, such as from the attacks of a Ravid in the Monster Manual, or from the Positive Energy Plane in the MotP, can overwhelm a living creature and thus harm them).  However, most things useable for destruction also have some benign uses as well.  Fire can provide comfort, warmth, cooking, and forging, while positive energy can heal living creatures, acid can be used for etching words/patterns into stone and metal, as well as having a potential use in creating underground delves for dwarves and their ilk, and electricity can power technology, provide light, and so on.  So most of these forces are not evil in and of themselves, but they can be used for evil purposes, just as with nearly anything.  Many of these forces are entirely natural as well, such as the five standard energies of 3E D&D.  The elements and energy planes are likewise neutral in D&D's core rules.  Their use is only evil if they are being used to harm relatively-innocent creatures, or if being used to destroy property or nature's essentials (nature can regenerate and replace a great deal, and its bounty is there for the taking, but it's still wrong and harmful to the ecosystems and nature itself in D&D to take too much of nature's material, for instance).

Raise Dead, Resurrection, and such have no alignment descriptor because they can be used to bring folks back to life (a normal life, and they don't allow the subject to live beyond their natural lifespan, so there's no violation of mortality and natural order).  They grant true life, and since they have no alignment descriptors, it's obvious that something in D&D's Core makes them acceptable in the natural order (mind you, this is just the Core Rules, homebrew settings and variant campaign worlds can differ).  At the very least, they allow someone a chance to resume their life generally where they left off, maybe a chance to reform themselves, a chance to complete unfinished business the right way, and later die of natural aging or whatever to return to the natural cycle or to their afterlife with potentially fewer troubles burdening their soul.  They can be used to bring back someone evil, but then it's only the results that are evil, as the Resurrection or whatever generally is not by the Core RAW.  This is just like using Inflict Serious Wounds to hurt an innocent, in that it may be evil, but not capital-E Evil by the rules.  Any Cleric can cast ISW, because it channels negative energy to smite someone, and that someone may be evil, making it justified, but in other circumstances it wouldn't be.  However, Animate Dead is capital-E Evil by the RAW, meaning that something about the spell/act itself is Evil, regardless of its uses or consequences.

Trap the Soul, Soul Bind, etc. aren't capital-E Evil by the Core RAW, because they can be used for a range of purposes from the righteous to the neutral to the vile, from denying a fiend Resurrection to preventing a gold dragon or dryad from Resurrection.  No one wants the just-defeated evil warlord/fiend/whatever to rise up again and resume its reign of terror, so some goodly wizard Binds its Soul once his adventuring team slays the villain.  Likewise, an evil wizard could use the same spell to deny a return by some goodly crusader, but according to the RAW, Bind Soul and such is not inherantly aligned (for whatever reason), so the spell itself may not be evil even though its use might sometimes be so.  Again, Animate Dead differs in that the RAW define it as an Evil spell, so apparently the essence of Soul Bind's effect is not evil (it does not violate the natural order or whatnot in Core D&D, for whatever reason).

BoVD, BoED, MotP, CD, MotF, Eberron, and such are not Core Rules material, so they don't really factor into this argument much, because they are specific to certain settings (whether it's the core setting of Greyhawk or not, they're still not part of the Core Rules, so they're essentially like homebrew/flavor supplements; relevant only in the context of their associated setting and the design assumptions made for that particular campaign setting alone).  Okay, I'm done now.  I've clarified my point and noticed my earlier mistake, and described Ethics as taught in college right now.  If I've made any spelling/grammatical errors, it is to be noted that it's past 1 AM here in Arizona now, and I've had an exhausting/frustrating day.  {:^)


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 14, 2004)

In regards to the negative energy issue:

Within the context of D&Ds (default) great wheel cosmology, all of the inner planes (fire, earth, air, water, positive & negative) are simply the building blocks that were drawn upon to create the prime material.

In this cosmology, negative energy is as necessary to the existance of life as say, fire. Negative energy is the force that determines life spans to make room for more generations to live. 

There are spells that simply tap the negative plane to use it's power & there are spells that upset the established balance with negative energy. D&D simply tags the latter with the [Evil] descripter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2004)

Lord P, I understand the compulsion to get snippy, on occasion.    However, just as several people have defended the equation, several people have punched holes in it.

I mean, I don't have time to do it right now, but if you wish, I can point out individual posts that disprove each of the statements I say have been disproven.

For example, FreeTheSlave's latest post points out the non-aligned nature of negative energy and the existence of non-evil negative energy spells.  Thus, my first and last statements stand- mere use of negative energy or negative energy spells is an insufficient condition to call something evil.

Arkhandus, some other day, some other thread, we can continue the discussion on the deaths of innocents- it really doesn't matter right now.  But trust me, I know of exceptions- I'm Phi Sigma Tau (philosophy honors society), and had to go through years of discussing that problem.

At any rate, you wrote:


> Trap the Soul, Soul Bind, etc. aren't capital-E Evil by the Core RAW, because they can be used for a range of purposes from the righteous to the neutral to the vile, from denying a fiend Resurrection to preventing a gold dragon or dryad from Resurrection




And:


> Lacking any better indicators, the only reasons seem to be that the spells channel substantial negative energy with each casting, and that the act itself violates the natural order of things (birth, life, death, decomposition/rebirth, etc.). Also, by the Core Rules, making someone into undead apparently prevents their soul from returning through Raise Dead or whatnot, and probably prevents them from enjoying their proper afterlife (or prevents them from suffering in some purgatory as they rightly deserve, if they were evil in life).




Yet you also say:


> Also, by the Core Rules, making someone into undead apparently prevents their soul from returning through Raise Dead or whatnot, and probably prevents them from enjoying their proper afterlife (or prevents them from suffering in some purgatory as they rightly deserve, if they were evil in life). This obviously violates the natural order of the black-and-white D&D alignment system and multiverses. This would seem to be the reason why creating undead is evil by the Core Rules, though it is merely a hypothesis based on the most obvious things in the Core RAW.




And:


> Any Cleric can cast ISW, because it channels negative energy to smite someone, and that someone may be evil, making it justified, but in other circumstances it wouldn't be.




Your examples are the same kind of ends justifying the means rationale you condemn in the creation of undead.  This is no less a utilitarianistic argument than any of mine.  How does casting ISW or Soul Bind differ from creating undead?  I may be trying to do good, raising an undead army to save innocent refugees from attack, after all.

By your own logic, how can *trapping some being's soul* in a gem, cutting it off from possible paradise (or damnation or ressurection) NOT be evil?  "Because I'm good and he is bad" isn't a valid justification.

Soul Bind does the same thing you claim some of the evil undead-creating spells do- it binds the soul of a sentient being to a place where it cannot be ressurected, raised, or even wished to freedom.  Now, that spell doesn't explicitly channel negative energy- while necromantic in school, it is essentially a conjuration because you have summoned the being's soul into the sapphire- but the mere channelling of negative energy is not an evil act.  Otherwise, Enervate and Energy Drain would be Evil.

To continue, from their descriptions, Blight and Circle of Death would be evil...unless there's some other force that snuffs out life-force.  And why would merely being able to tell with a glance the health status of creatures be evil, as per Deathwatch, when necromantic spells that actually harm or kill are not?  Vampiric Touch isn't evil, nor is Slay Living.  And of all the necromantic Symbols, only Pain is evil, not even Symbol of Death rises to that level.  All those necromancy spells- how do they damage without negative energy (and thus, by your logic, avoid being evil)?

What I'm saying here in aggregate is that the treatment of necromancy and negative energy is inconsistent and arbitrary, and the treatment of undeath is similarly arbitrary.

I mean, either channeling negative energy is evil or it isn't- degree shouldn't matter.  If it did, a spell that channelled excessive amounts of positive energy into a living being to kill it would also be capital "E" evil.



> I do realize now, though, that some of my reasoning earlier was flawed, because I haven't been able to find any references now in the Core Rules of 3E that say negative energy carries a taint, so I must have just been remembering seeing such references in non-Core books for D&D, or maybe something from 2nd Edition (which are of course invalid in the current Core Rules As Written).




If, as you admit, negative energy carries no taint, then how can you assert that channelling lots of it be evil?  After all, if T(Taint of Evil)=0, then 50xT=0.

For something to be evil, you have to look at motive.  Mens Rea, as we lawyers call it- Evil Mind- is required for criminal culpability.

Demons, Devils-they're evil because they consistenly make the choice to do evil.  From RW religion, Satan/Lucifer (the model for many demons and devils in D&D) wasn't created evil, he chose evil.  They have the option of making the choice to do good, and do the opposite.  If you have an example of an evil being who has changed alignment yet still detects as evil, I'd be forced to say that that is probably based on contagion or a philosophy requiring posthumous repentence for evil acts not repented for in life.

As for good aligned undead- others have rightly pointed out they aren't core rules.  They are, however, official WOTC products, and several are not campaign world specific.  So while you may not accept the Deathless of Erberron, what about those from BoED?

_Edited to change order of paragraphs to enhance clarity._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 14, 2004)

*RW vs DnD*



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> For something to be evil, you have to look at motive. Mens Rea, as we lawyers call it- Evil Mind- is required for criminal culpability.
> Demons, Devils-they're evil because they consistenly make the choice to do evil. From RW religion, Satan/Lucifer (the model for many demons and devils in D&D) wasn't created evil, he chose evil. They have the option of making the choice to do good, and do the opposite. If you have an example of an evil being who has changed alignment yet still detects as evil, I'd be forced to say that that is probably based on contagion or a philosophy requiring posthumous repentence for evil acts not repented for in life.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Evil subtype
> A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned.



 Posit. A newborn NightMare is immediately teleported to the Prime Material plane. What has it done that fits contagion or a philosophy requiring posthumous repentence for evil acts not repented for in life?
The Feinds do not choose to be born on an Evil plane, but because of that they gain the Evil subtype. This is a base nature that cannot be removed by alignment changes. Perhaps you can get into the Karma/reincarnation stuff...

But yet again, you are "..arguing from RW religious theory, mythology, legends, and fiction, just like everyone else. After all, those are the sources for the game in the first place."
 While the 'source' of Fiends are 'based' on Satan/Devil, so was the movie 'Starship Troopers' 'based' on the book of the same name.

I am arguing from the viewpoint of a reality where Evil is. Not a situational ethics thing. Not Karmic thing. Nothing of that sort is in the RAW, but Evil is. Something that Good fights against. Something for Heroic characters to test thier mettle against and defeat in glorious battle.In this reality, Undead are Evil because they: Disrupt the natural order of things, destroy the future of the deceased soul, are "easier and faster" (to quote a certain 900 year old puppet).
 IMHO, Negative Energy should be Evil. All uses of this energy should carry a taint of that Evil, the creater the use, the more the taint. As to with Positive Energy. These Energies do not have real world equivilents, unless you want to delve into real world religion topics and claim they are the will of God/Kali or whoever. 
You are right, the RAW is very arbitrary in this regard and probably needs to have someone review its entire scope to ensure that Evil has its place, is neatly defined and compartmentalized.

 Or is it the place of a general setting to clarify Evil in this manner?

 Having looked over the SRD in regards to the Evil subtype, the Skeleton and Zombie templates actually remove _all_ alignment subtypes. So a Skeletal Fiend would not be Evil, just aligned NE ... interesting. Lich's, Mummy's, and Vampire's descriptions do not reference removal of alignment subtypes, so you could have an Good typed, CE Vampire....even more interesting.


----------



## Scion (Sep 14, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The argument is, I believe:  "Because creation of undead involves utilizing negative energy in a manner detrimental to the soul, and/or in opposition to the natural order, it must be evil."





Negative energy is part of the natural order of things, so that point is pretty well moot.

As for detrimental to the soul, how?

SRD:
ENERGY DRAIN AND NEGATIVE LEVELS
Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. The creature making an energy drain attack draws a portion of its victim’s life force from her. Most energy drain attacks require a successful melee attack roll—mere physical contact is not enough. Each successful energy drain attack bestows one or more negative levels on the opponent. A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained.
–1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
–1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
–5 hit points.
–1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level). 
If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level. 
Negative levels remain for 24 hours or until removed with a spell, such as restoration. After 24 hours, the afflicted creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 attacker’s HD + attacker’s Cha modifier). (The DC is provided in the attacker’s description.) If the saving throw succeeds, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. The afflicted creature makes a separate saving throw for each negative level it has gained. If the save fails, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one.
A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight. A creature gains 5 temporary hit points for each negative level it bestows (though not if the negative level is caused by a spell or similar effect).

Enervation
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray of negative energy
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.
If the subject has at least as many negative levels as HD, it dies. Each negative level gives a creature a –1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities).
Additionally, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from his or her highest available level. Negative levels stack.
Assuming the subject survives, it regains lost levels after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15 hours). Usually, negative levels have a chance of permanently draining the victim’s levels, but the negative levels from enervation don’t last long enough to do so.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4x5 temporary hit points for 1 hour.

Energy Drain (Su): This attack saps a living opponent’s vital energy and happens automatically when a melee or ranged attack hits. Each successful energy drain bestows one or more negative levels (the creature’s description specifies how many). If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount. Unless otherwise specified in the creature’s description, a draining creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) for each negative level it bestows on an opponent. These temporary hit points last for a maximum of 1 hour. An affected opponent takes a –1 penalty on all skill checks and ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, and loses one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level. A spellcaster loses one spell slot of the highest level of spells she can cast and (if applicable) one prepared spell of that level; this loss persists until the negative level is removed. Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.
Features: An undead creature has the following features.
—12-sided Hit Dice.
—Base attack bonus equal to 1/2 total Hit Dice (as wizard).
—Good Will saves.
—Skill points equal to (4 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the undead creature has an Intelligence score. However, many undead are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.
Traits: An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
—No Constitution score.
—Darkvision out to 60 feet.
—Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
—Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
—Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
—Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
—Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
—Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
—Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
—Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
—Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
—Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
—Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.

Speak with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One dead creature
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No
You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.
If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. 
This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.
Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.
This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.
The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.)
Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit)
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones. 
Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.
Material Component: You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells.

Animate Objects
Transmutation
Level: Brd 6, Chaos 6, Clr 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: One Small object per caster level; see text
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate.
An animated object can be of any nonmagical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or an equivalent number of larger objects per caster level. A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as sixteen, and a Colossal object as thirty-two. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell.
This spell cannot animate objects carried or worn by a creature.
Animate objects can be made permanent with a permanency spell


Nothing about damaging the soul anywhere. Nothing about the soul imprint being able to feel/remember anything (in fact, it specifically cannot remember, plus it is only active for the speak with dead spell. But, it is just as easy to assume that the 'soul imprint' is nothing but a copy of the memory left behind, which isnt anything important either. Much like a boot print is not the boot and has nothing further to do with the boot.)


So, no damage to the soul. No soul binding. No harm to the soul in the afterlife. Negative energy isnt evil. Animate object isnt evil.

One might as well say it was the gems that supplied the evil.


----------



## Nail (Sep 14, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Negative energy isnt evil.



True.  Why should it be?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 14, 2004)

*What is Evil?*

Scion: In DnD, the realm we are discussing, what is 'Evil'?

And no, I do not need a quote from the SRD, that has been reposted enough times. I think it has been well documented that the treatment of Evil in the SRD is fragmentary at best.

In your mind, your viewpoint, is Evil an actual Malevelant Force in and to itself?


----------



## Sejs (Sep 14, 2004)

> In your mind, your viewpoint, is Evil an actual Malevelant Force in and to itself?




In the sense of a single, cohesive, identifiable body, like the sun, and from which all subsequent evil generates?  Or more in a sense of an identifiable phenomenon, like beta radiation, which may be generated from dissimilar sources even though the evil produced is identical?


----------



## Scion (Sep 14, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> True.  Why should it be?




::shrugs:: some people on this thread want it to be evil to justify their stances. Every now and then someone has to reiterate that it isnt evil.

Edit: woo! 2k posts! lol


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 14, 2004)

Well, I was going to respond to this thread again, but Raven Crowking has just dropped a monster of a post here and said most of what I would have said (and much more), only much more eloquently.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 14, 2004)

Heh, part of our collective problem here is that you know... we're giving this topic -way- more thought than the game designers did.  That being said, I'm pretty sure I've got the answer to RCs "Why are undead considered evil in the D&D 3.X rules?" question:

So good guys can blast them with stuff that only works on evil targets.


----------



## The Great Bear King (Sep 14, 2004)

> Demons, Devils-they're evil because they consistenly make the choice to do evil. From RW religion, Satan/Lucifer (the model for many demons and devils in D&D) wasn't created evil, he chose evil. They have the option of making the choice to do good, and do the opposite. If you have an example of an evil being who has changed alignment yet still detects as evil, I'd be forced to say that that is probably based on contagion or a philosophy requiring posthumous repentence for evil acts not repented for in life.




That makes sense. If a demon or devil chooses good over evil they eventually become celestials. The reason most fiends begin evil is because they are raised to be evil by their elders.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2004)

The Great Bear King said:
			
		

> That makes sense. If a demon or devil chooses good over evil they eventually become celestials. The reason most fiends begin evil is because they are raised to be evil by their elders.




Eh, no.

In fact, a Galbrezu who eventually becomes Lawful Good and takes Paladin levels still has the [Evil] subtype, and will still radiate an aura of Evil to a Detect Evil spell.

He'll also radiate an aura of Good to a Detect Good spell, but that's neither here nor there.

A demon or devil is Evil because, at a fundamental level, they are made up of the stuff of Evil - remember, Outsiders do not have a dual nature (body and soul).  They are one and the same.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 15, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Heh, part of our collective problem here is that you know... we're giving this topic -way- more thought than the game designers did.



I agree.  It's like those threads you see every once in a while, complaining that the prices for goods in the PH and the Craft (item) rules do not delineate a viable economy.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Sep 15, 2004)

The Great Bear King said:
			
		

> That makes sense. If a demon or devil chooses good over evil they eventually become celestials. The reason most fiends begin evil is because they are raised to be evil by their elders.




No, demons and devils are always evil. They have no choice. They cannot choose good, any more that a water elemental can choose to be made of fire. 

It is possible for them to change magically (Helm of Opposite Alignment, some stuff in the Book of Exalted Deeds), but not normally. 

Of course, this is for core D&D; some specific settings may change this. 

Geoff.


----------



## Bronn (Sep 15, 2004)

I think Sejs is absolutely right. I dislike this lack of logic though.
Illogical things are tough to relate too since they make no sense.

Zombies are mindless, they do not choose to kill innocents, the ones who orders them does. They are the evil ones here not the body with no choice.

I doubt I will care what happens to my body after I'm dead since I'll be gone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2004)

Apologies to all who posted between my previous post and this one- I'm preparing my house for an influx of relatives fleeing Ivan, so I'm not taking the time to read this stuff right now.

I'm not ignoring those previous posts, however, and will return to them as soon as possible.

However, I found this to be worth posting in my few moments online tonight.

A little research on my part has turned up an error that we have largely ignored.  We mostly assumed that the 3x Designers made all or almost all undead irrevocably evil.  *They did not.*  Besides the Osiris example brought up before, and the Deathless of BoED/Eberron, I turned this up-

Undead Alignments by book:

*Monster Manual*

Mummy-"Usually Lawful Evil"

*Monster Manual 2*

Banshee, Deathbringer- "Usually neutral evil"
Corpse Gatherer - "Usually Neutral"
Gravecrawler - "Always Neutral"
Jahi-"Usually Lawful Evil"
Ragewind- "Usually Chaotic Evil"
Death Knight "Same as character (always evil)"

*Magic of Faerun*

Crypt Spawn- "Usually Evil"

*Dieties and Demigods*

Osiris-"Lawful Good"
Greater Mummy-"Any"


As you can see, some of these undead are given alignments that can vary.  One, Osiris, is a unique being, so he can be discounted.  However, note that the Crypt Spawn is only "Usually Evil," the Corpse Gatherer is "Usually Neutral" and the Greater Mummy can be "Any" alignment.

(The Death Knight is presented to show that when the designers want to say that something is always evil, they do.)

So, in a sense, this thread's  predicate quesion is incorrect: "Undead = Evil" is not the case in 3xEd.  There is merely a presumption of evil, and DMs are given the option to control when.

The question THEN becomes why are some evil and not others- why is the equation not true?  As I have stated before in previous posts, I believe that is because of the will of the creature becoming undead.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 15, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The question THEN becomes why are some evil and not others- why is the equation not true?  As I have stated before in previous posts, I believe that is because of the will of the creature becoming undead.




One thing you should consider is that in 3.0, all the mindless undead were all neutral.  The designers felt as you did, they didn't have enough will to be evil, they couldn't decide to be.

However, I believe players were complaining about the fact that their spells that smited evil, did more damage to evil, etc. didn't work on skeletons and zombies.  Paladins everywhere were wondering why, when the classic fight in literature was the being of good against an army of mindless, walking dead, did their smite evil not work on them.

Osiris and the greater mummy are both pretty much exceptions for the same reason: There still is a lingering concept (part of the reason this thread exists) of undead that are that way for a holy purpose.  When the BoED came out, someone decided to solve this by making the deathless type so that they could keep undead evil.  I believe this likely applies to the gravecrawler as well, but I can't remember.

Yes, because of issues beyond the bounds of the books themselves, there are   problems with the logic at certain points.  When you have 4 different people who are writing a book, one of which may believe as you do and a couple more who believe as I do, then you tend to get parts of books that were written by one person ending up one way, and others ending up another.

A good example of this is the planes.  They used to have a unifying reason for being there.  Each campaign world in second edition was part of the cosmology.  Some information about some of the old D&D worlds still being in existance in the 3rd Ed cosmology were there, despite the fact that they aren't supposed to anymore.  This was discussed by Erik Mona from Dragon Magazine recently.  He mentioned that there was unlikely to be any more references to the Spelljammer, despite the fact that one slipped into the Manual of the Planes.  It was one authors attempt to make D&D more like he wanted it than the "default" setting.

What it comes down to right now, is due to game balance reasons(and likely disagreements between designers), the designers didn't make everything that used negative energy evil.  But they instead HINTED at in being evil, as things that used it were generally evil.  Monte, when he wrote the BoVD said that for the books to make logical sense, one would have to turn the spells that used negative energy ALL to use the [evil] descriptor.  Of course, I'm guessing there was enough disagreement amongst others at WoTC that it didn't make it into 3.5 edition.

I understand wanting some logic.  Really, there are only two or three solutions to make it internally consistant:

Say that EVIL exists and that negative energy is a form of it.  Then, you'll have to change the rest of the spells that use negative energy to have the [evil] descriptor and probably give the negative energy plane a evil alignment as well.  You'll also need to change all undead to evil aligned from older books. 

Another possibility is that negative energy isn't evil at all, and since mindless undead can't commit evil acts, that puts them firmly back in the neutral alignment.  You can also likely remove [evil] from Animate Dead.

The last choice is that the mismatch of rules somehow makes sense and it is only because zombies and skeletons are evil that creating them is evil.  Perhaps it is because their soul is being enslaved or any other number of reasons not written in the book.  It could just be that the gods have their own, highly subjective and politcal reasons why one thing is innately evil and another isn't.

It isn't a matter of no logic existing, just no logic being written in the book.  Being creative, I can come up with a number of different reasons (all logical) WHY the book can be right AND make sense.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 15, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> I think Sejs is absolutely right. I dislike this lack of logic though.
> Illogical things are tough to relate too since they make no sense.
> 
> Zombies are mindless, they do not choose to kill innocents, the ones who orders them does. They are the evil ones here not the body with no choice.
> ...



 Don't they need to eat, though? Even friendly/neutral zombies get hungry, yes?


----------



## neelum (Sep 15, 2004)

OK, first off, there are a bunch of things going on here both RL and fantasy. Int the fantasy realm, there are several occurrences of non evil, even good undead. TV gives us eternal Knight, D&D gives us Jander from I, Straud, and also in second ed. monster manual (not sure of what version or addendum it was in) there was an undead gaurdian, Elf no less, that would sacrifice his life for the protection of some ancient treasure or some such.  What this gives us is the premise that among undead, good tends to be the major minority, not nonexistant.
not only that, but how many times in fantasy and other fiction is it pointed out that the tool or power is not evil, but the intent with which it is used?
  Although he might have used a blanket statement, which by my general principle is incorrect, he was considering a valid point.
in real life how many people do you think see a goth kid, dressed in black, all pale and looking al gaunt and somber, and assume things like "i bet that is one of those kids that tries to be like a vampire and drink blood like those freaks I read about a few years ago"? How about racists, age or sex discrimination? (all examples of taking superficial looks and generalizing  into bad reactions thoughts etc.  OK, now for in game examples.  I was running a game  in which I had a paladin, druid, rogue, bard, and a psychic warrior.  The paladin was using his detect evil power while they were in a city walking down the street or some such.  He detected a charater, who by the way was lawful evil, that happened to be a gaurd and wanted to do something about it.  In the game the gaurd was a corrupt one, accepted bribes, abused his powers as a gaurd and such. The rest of the party said he is a gaurd, a good guy, you are wrong (all a paraphrase mind you), because they don't have the benifit of just knowing the way he does.  Further, there was another time when I had them come up against a character who was Stalking around in the woods along a road btween two cities wearing all black a hood and cape and such.  The party approached him when they heard, search, and found him. He gave them a story, which was true, about setting somrthing up  as a surprise for a noble who was to arrive in the morning or next day.  The party believed this to be a lie, even though the Pally said he wasn't evil.  So, it is possible, even with the proper tools to make an errored judgement, after all. 
  I think that in the end I would determine his characters nature on his reasons and deeds accomplished, but my characters might not, depending on how I thought their perceptions were.  This also holds true with the commoners in a world.  They would Probably  think a man who rode into town on a skeletal horse an evil man. (And if he also had two goblin skeletons as protectors or something, oh my!)


----------



## Sejs (Sep 15, 2004)

> Probably think a man who rode into town on a skeletal horse an evil man.




An evil man with really good balance and buns of steel.  Skeletal horses just -can't- be comfortable to ride on.


----------



## Bronn (Sep 15, 2004)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Don't they need to eat, though? Even friendly/neutral zombies get hungry, yes?




Why in hell would a thing with no metabolism need to eat?

I can understand people shunning you if they know your a Necro.
But evil is always relative because it depends on our upbringing.

If you were raised in a community that used the dead to help them you would most likely not see it as evil. You would know that your body would be preserve through necromancy to help the community after your death.

Making them evil with no reason other then to make bad guys you can slaughter without remorse is just dumb.
The ends justifies the means in one case but not the other.


----------



## dcollins (Sep 15, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> But evil is always relative because it depends on our upbringing.




This is precisely the opposite of how D&D is set up. From the PHB chapter on Alignment:



> Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 15, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> But evil is always relative because it depends on our upbringing.



As dcollins points out, this is real-world morality, not D&D morality.  In our arguments regarding undead, we need to remember we are arguing the point in the D&D universe, not the real-world.  That is to say, we aren't speculating on whether undead would be evil were they created on Earth a la _Resident Evil_.  We're arguing about undead in the D&D universe, where Good and Evil are _quantifiable forces_.

I think that several individuals in this discussion are giving too much weight to the fact that there are non-evil undead.  Consider the Angel TV show.  Does the fact that Angel and Spike are "good undead" disprove the assertion that vampires=evil?  No, they don't.  They are the exceptions that prove the rule, not the average vampires that disprove it.

A few examples of good undead have been put forth in this thread, and there's no doubting that "good undead" do exist.  But to say that their existence means that Undead /= Evil is incorrect.  Rather, those undead who are _not_ evil are the exception to the general rule.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Sep 16, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> Why in hell would a thing with no metabolism need to eat?
> 
> I can understand people shunning you if they know your a Necro.
> But evil is always relative because it depends on our upbringing.
> ...



 LoL! So, unlike "Resident Evil", zombies don't eat people? LoL.


----------



## Bronn (Sep 16, 2004)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> LoL! So, unlike "Resident Evil", zombies don't eat people? LoL.




They can try but it won't work without a working metabolism.


----------



## Bronn (Sep 16, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> They are the exceptions that prove the rule, not the average vampires that disprove it.




That has to be a sophism.

Exceptions can only prove that rules are not absolute.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Sep 16, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> That has to be a sophism.
> 
> Exceptions can only prove that rules are not absolute.




The old meaning of 'prove' was more like 'test'. Ie: you test the rule by looking for exceptions.
Or, the exception that proves the rule to be incorrect.

Geoff.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 16, 2004)

Personally I can't fathom how, in the D&D universe, good or even neutral undead can exist.

I know that a driving reason that the game designers put them in was to create interesting encounters but they seem to be either ignorant to the premise that exists regarding undead or actively working to undermine it. 

Ghosts & Revenants need a different creature type, [Undead] doesn't do them justice and creates a sense of inconsistency. I like this idea of [Deathless], that is something that is driven by an overriding sense of goodness to remain on the Prime. The default druid would be equally as abhorred to learn of such an unnatural existence, balance and all that.

Mind you I believe that the whole undead set-up needs to be reworked from the ground up. I cannot differentiate between wraiths, spectres and ghosts when it comes to describing them. I haven't got Monte's AU but has he not got rules for 2 types of [Undead]: corporeal & uncorporeal? Such a rule set could then have modulated powers based on the [Undead]s intelligence (int)& self awareness (wis & cha). (Liches would be the pinnacle of [Undead] corporeal power.)


----------



## Bronn (Sep 16, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> The old meaning of 'prove' was more like 'test'. Ie: you test the rule by looking for exceptions.
> Or, the exception that proves the rule to be incorrect.




Which in no way disproves that what he said was false logic.
A rule cannot be proven good by showing it not working in some cases.
Prove to me that the rules always work or accept that they are imperfect.

If you're under a Dominate spell and commit an evil act, is it an evil act?
Failling a Will save doesn't sound evil to me, sorry.
Not taking into account the situation leads to silly situations.
If your comfortable with that then use it, I can't because it lacks logic.

Undead are evil because that allows the player to kill them without question is not a valid reasonning for me. It is relativist since the alignment of the target matters in this situation. Which shows the flaw of D&D's morality right there. It simply can't be pure absolutism. They might has well explain a system that works instead of one that doesn't.

Send the damn Sacred Cows to the killing floor, they are way overdue.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 16, 2004)

Ha! A relativist morality system would bog D&D with endless debate without hope of relief. Things are complex enough with an absolute alignment system, why would we want to enter the twilight zone?


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 16, 2004)

I apologise that I don't have time to read all the other posts, and so I may not add much to what is already said.

It's kind of obvious that the choice of making necromancy evil-oriented has reasons in the original authors' culture, which is anyway shared by almost all the people in the world IMHO: if necromancy existed in real life, how many would actually not think it's a bad thing to go against god's or nature's laws? (Keep in mind that resurrection is not the same as animation of the dead) Not impossible to conceive a world where this is different, but eventually it's easier to write a setting this way.

There is one thing specifically I cannot think of as non-evil. As soon as the DM/author decides that undead are evil creatures by default, someone who creates undead is someone who turns people into evil creatures, and frankly I can hardly imagine anything more evil than this...


----------



## Scion (Sep 16, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> to go against god's or nature's laws?




If it can be done then, by definition, it must be in accordance with god's or nature's laws. Since one cannot step outside of them (even magic is simply natures laws for magic, merely a different course but not outside of nature).


----------



## Voadam (Sep 16, 2004)

from the SRD

[DESCRIPTOR]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 16, 2004)

If you say that using evil spells makes you evil, then using good spells makes you good.

So the evil conjurer who constantly summons angels to attack orphans will eventually end up with a mechanical alignment of good.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 16, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, since the imprint can react, and can react based upon the caster's alignment, the imprint can certainly be said to be aware of what is currently happening to it, even if it is not capable of later remembering (or learning from) what happens.
> 
> RC




The imprint reacts based upon pure alignment interaction, not based on awareness of the person interviewing it, not based upon its past history of interacting with the person.

"The corpse, however, cannot learn new information."

New information includes such things as an awareness of the person questioning it or what is currently happening to it.

The limits of what can be provided are "it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive." An awareness of the current situation is not knowledge it had when alive.

Having awareness of the current situation seems inconsistent with only having the knowledge it had when alive.

From that line of the spell it seems pretty clear that "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive." is purely a reaction, not a conscious choice.


----------



## dcollins (Sep 16, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> If you're under a Dominate spell and commit an evil act, is it an evil act?




Actually, yes -- look at the _atonement_ spell. Even if a creature "committed the evil act unwillingly or under some form of compulsion", you still need the _atonement_ spell to properly remove the burden of those evil deeds.




			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> If you say that using evil spells makes you evil, then using good spells makes you good.




Absolutely not. Evil in fantasy is a slippery-slope arrangement: easy to slide down, very hard to climb back up.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 16, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> If it can be done then, by definition, it must be in accordance with god's or nature's laws. Since one cannot step outside of them (even magic is simply natures laws for magic, merely a different course but not outside of nature).



That assumes that magic is within the scope of the god's and/or nature's laws.

The default gods of Greyhawk look anything but omnipotent, more like the Greek gods in that they have massive power but are ruled by their somewhat blinkered viewpoints. (I'd go so far to say that without their divine magics their number of followers would be few indeed, but I digress.) Wizards otoh are not beholden to gods or nature as they seem to tap the magic at it's source. Whether this is inside the scope of nature or going beyond is anyones guess but the recurring theme of mad, evil wizards seems to point to going beyond nature. Of course this is highly speculative.  

Anyhoo

If however it is taken that the creator gods were good, then it would be ok to say that [Evil] spells go against nature because it is not granted to their followers.

And again, if the creator 'god' is in fact the force of nature, again Druids can't cast such spells so is ok to say it goes against nature. Their 'balance' schtick kicks in at this point because they're gonna be opposed to [Good] spells to boot.

Neutral & Evil creator gods, loosen and reverse this premise. Ravenloft is a good example of [Good] spells annoying the powers that be.

All the above is built on the assumption that the creator force defines what is the scope of nature.


----------



## Scion (Sep 16, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> That assumes that magic is within the scope of the god's and/or nature's laws.




Sure, magic is outside of nature if nature is defined in a very narrow fashion. However, one cannot break the laws of nature. If a way is found to do something then doing it merely uses a different law and the first law was not actually completely understood.

Magic and nature can be defined as seperate things, but at the core they are exactly the same thing, just looked at in a different manner. (The moving of the stars seems magical if one does not understand what is happening, and magic itself can seem unnatural since it may behave in ways unseen before, but they are still the same thing, everything that happens is part of the natural universe)


----------



## Bronn (Sep 16, 2004)

If my Paladin commited an evil act under a Dominate spell and DM asked me to attone I would leave the game and never return.
Why the hell should I attone for failling a Will save? It's mostly luck damn it.
I have principles I do not break, one is accountability for one's actions.
I am not accountable because I did not control my body to do it.
The population might try to lynch him though and force him into exile.

I am not a religious guy so trying to convince me with religion will never work.

I find relativism simpler because it makes sense.
And I have already said that if you were raised in a society that used preserved zombies to help them you would not find it odd.
Applying the same rules to completly different situations will give good results in some cases and really stupid ones in other. It's unavoidable.
If you like D&D's simplistic approach then use it. What do I care.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2004)

Another hit-and-run (still dealing with Ivan refugees; not much free time):

Osiris was problematic for 2 reasons:

1) He is undead, but good.  However, as a unique being, he can qualify for a certain amount of rules breaking attributes because he is evil.

2)  He CREATES undead.  This is far more problematic since he is Lawful Good.  If the mere act of creating undead is inherently evil, he couldn't do this.

Thus, even excepting the flimsy BoED/Eberron rationale of Deathless as not undead, you have a LG diety creating undead without having alignment consequences.

Possible solution- as someone pointed out earlier in this thread (apologies to the person who had the original idea), perhaps it is as simple as there being non-evil versions of these spells, long lost to most of the world.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 16, 2004)

*Don't try to justify an evil act by saying its good intentioned*

If a Paladin is Dominate Person-ed and attacks an orphanage and kills everyone in it- that is an evil act and he must atone for it.  

When you creat undead you use part of the subjects soul to host their dead body; Jake is killed and raised as a zombie by a nercomancer, part of Jake's soul is now part of the zombie.  So Jake goes into an orphanage and kills everyone inside at the command of his master.  Jake needs an atonement spell because his LG god thinks he commited an evil act.

Taking someone's free will away is evil.  Taking away their ability to do what they want to do is evil.  How is it that someone can justify that stripping away a person's peaceful after life is not evil?

Raising undead will always be an evil act in my campaigns.  Whether you raise up a bugbear or a Paladin of Heironous- necromancers that do so are evil, plane and simple.


----------



## Scion (Sep 16, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> When you creat undead you use part of the subjects soul to host their dead body




No part of the soul is used or damaged.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> Taking someone's free will away is evil.




Skeletons and zombies are mindless, there is no free will involved. Just like the chair that was animated has no free will involved.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> How is it that someone can justify that stripping away a person's peaceful after life is not evil?




No part of the soule is used or damaged.

There is no stripping away of any afterlife.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 16, 2004)

> No part of the soul is used or damaged.




Then why can you not _Resurrect_ or _True Resurrect_ someone whose body has been reanimated as undead, and is currently active?

As for damaged - you can _Raise Dead_ someone who has died, but you cannot _Raise Dead_ someone who has died, been brought back as undead, and then subsequently destroyed. Why is that?  In order to bring them back to life you need to use a spell that is able to reconstruct the whole person but requires only a small constituent piece (or in the case of True Res, nothing) to do so.  Again, why is that?


----------



## Bronn (Sep 16, 2004)

What scion said.

A Paladin under a Dominate spell that destoys an orphanage is not evil because it did not do it! The caster decided on the action and he should be accountable for it because it was "HIS" decision.
Would you like being judged for the actions of others? I sure wouldn't.

A tool is not evil, it does what you tell it to do.
Otherwise swords and guns are evil because they are made to kill people.
Trust me, you don't want to get into that argument.


----------



## Scion (Sep 16, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> What scion said.




Actually, I have no problem with the paladin needing to atone for what he was forced to do. His case may be a bit of a special one though, but even for most anyone I would expect them to feel some massive amount of guilt for evil being done by their own hands (whether or not they were in control of said hands at the time. Know why we have the nobel prize? Guess who invented dynamite and then felt very bad about it later, his own version of atonement).

So, for the paladin at least, I would expect him to need to atone. It doesnt matter if he wasnt in control at the time, to him it was evil being done by him.

But, he has a very strict code to go by, so it makes even more sense in his case.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 16, 2004)

Paladins get unduly screwed on alignment issues, we all know this.  It ranks up there with the earth being round and water being wet as far as common knowledge amongst gamers goes.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 17, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Paladins get unduly screwed on alignment issues, we all know this.  It ranks up there with the earth being round and water being wet as far as common knowledge amongst gamers goes.



I agree, though I'm lucky at the moment to have a DM who has a good grasp of his vision of a paladin and how they fit into his world.  (His description of a paladin to another player was "He's like a Jedi on steroids." )







			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So, for the paladin at least, I would expect him to need to atone. It doesnt matter if he wasnt in control at the time, to him it was evil being done by him.



I strenuously disagree, but to delve into that would be to derail this thread entirely, so I'll bite my tongue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> Taking someone's free will away is evil.  Taking away their ability to do what they want to do is evil.




Except that all the spells that directly take away someone's free will are not listed as evil. Dominate, charm person, Geas, command. Even speak with dead, you are forcing the soul imprint to answer your questions.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Bronn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd actually word the conumdrum a bit differently.

If your body is _dominated_ and used to commit an evil act, are you responsible for it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IJump to _speak with dead_:
> 
> You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.
> 
> ...




Are you interpreting the spell that the soul imprint could choose to foregoe its save if it chose? That it has more than a binary option of answer or not based on alignment differences? Could a LG imprint choose to foregoe the save for a NG interlocutor?

Here is where we differ in interpretation of this spell, you see interaction with the soul imprint, I see the soul imprint simply reacting to stimuli. You see it as aware of current things even though it "cannot learn new information" while I see it as simply an accessible resource of information that is harder to access if you are a different alignment. You see the soul imprint as a lesser form of a soul with similar ethical implications, while I see the echo as not a soul but simply a reflection that does not affect the actual soul.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Back tot he origin of the thread, please.



			
				Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Most books I have read and people I have talked to believe that raising undead is an evil act, and I cant figure out why. Is it becouse of some belief that the body is sacred and must not be defiled? Or are they just simple minded people who say "If its nasty and evil looking it must be evil." The same logic some people use when they go "Look. He's dressed in black. He must be evil." I've never got why raising undead was such a big deal. Its no different the animating an object to attack someone. I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.




Talon5 campaign-
LG cleric casts Animate Dead on a dead Goblin.  The spell fails automatically and the next casting of any spell gets no result.  Mr Cleric needs to seek some kind of atonement whether through a spell or some action (lot of  prayer, sacrifice (no, not that kind) or.... whatever).

The spell has the discriptor of evil- why?  Because good people do not bring the dead corpses of people up to do their bidding.  

Good people do not rob banks to save orphanages, good people do not believe in the ends justifing the means, good people find other ways to get things done- ways that do not harm or hender the goodness of all things (yes, even that evil sob that we hate so much).

(Incidentally- I believe in some ends justifying some means, so being good- I am not, I know that and I can live with it.)


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I strenuously disagree, but to delve into that would be to derail this thread entirely, so I'll bite my tongue.




I see it more as a personal choice than a game requirement. All of them would atone just because that is what they are  Each game will be different on this score I imagine though (sometimes I make up a 'paladin' for each god, running the gambit from LG to CE, which obviously have differing ideals)



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I suppose that depends on what you mean by "natural order of things" doesn't it?




Doesnt get more with the 'natural order of things' as being a plane that the prime is based on.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.
> 
> Which seems to suggest again that negative energy is not natural, but supernatural.




 'Supernatural forces' just means 'magical', which is merely another aspect of overall Nature. It is just a different nature than people are usually used to walking around in the forest (then again, in a d&d world even that isnt true, as there are some very odd things wandering around the forest.. in a world where 'supernatural' occurs as much as 'natural' I would expect a whole gradient system, but to keep things simple the d&d game ignores that, much in the same way it ignores levels).

This still does not make it evil or wrong, merely that it works in the same way as animated objects.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Animated dead are aware of language, in that they can be commanded.




Guess what, so are animated objects.

Also, just because the spell grants the corpse the ability to respond (and such, grants only access to knowledge that the character had before dieing, it does not check the soul, all it does is magically grant the 'semblance' of life. It does not remember, it cannot grow, it is basically like the read object power for psionics.) They made the spell such that it only allows the gaining of some information. Drawing more conclusions than that is definately stretching things greatly.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think if you go back and actually read those posts, you'll see that what is said is that negative energy isn't evil per se, but it is linked to evil, and that most applications of negative energy in D&D 3.X are evil.
> 
> Not quite the same thing.





Still blatantly and horribly mistaken. Painfully so.

Either way you try to break it down, or reword various complaints, or paint it in a better light it is still just plain wrong.

Unless of course, once again, fire is evil. As it fits pretty much all of the criteria being used.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the case of animate dead, the bodies, and (I argue) the soul imprints within said bodies are enslaved. This is evil.




I find your arguement very hollow however. The imprints are only active for a single spell, speak with dead, and even then they are obviously nothing like the actual soul.

Nothing evil there.

If anything the body is free, now it can move around again! and with awaken undead then it creates a new consciousness. 

Once againg, nothing different here than a regular animated object.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, while the general nature of negative energy is likely to make whatever is animated by it evil




Only because the game designers arbitrarily decided to make it so.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Add to this that most undead, when created, are enslaved by their (most often evil) creators,




The creators are likely evil because the spells are currently evil. So that isnt a very good point. The system currently forces a certain mindset, pointing to that and saying it proves the point does not work. Assuming the point to prove the point, not good.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> and you'll soon see why most undead are evil. They've gone through a lot.




That must be why my chair is evil. Its been through a lot.


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The spell description reads, in part:  "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell *as if it were alive*."  (emphasis mine)
> 
> The SRD also states:  "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."
> 
> If the corpse gains a saving throw as if it were alive, and if it were alive one aspect of that saving throw would be the ability to voluntarily forgo that saving throw, then the corpse can voluntarily forgo the saving throw.




It says that it makes the save as though it was alive since dead things usually dont get saves (like objects). However, since it has no intelligence it seems doubtful that it would be able to voluntarily forgo its save.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the soul imprint is simply a repository of information, why do you see it as being allowed a saving throw?




Because the spell says so. If the spell didnt say so then it wouldnt have gotten one. Also, it has to say, 'as thought it were alive' because otherwise no one would have any idea what sort of save it would get (like if it said that the corpse gets a save without saying as though it was alive). No copy of the will, no will involved at all.




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why do you see the spell as being language dependent?




Because it works off of the languages that the creature knew in life. It only gets to use that information so you cant talk with it in a language it didnt know.

Easy. Still no will involved.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yet _animate dead_ clearly draws upon the knowledge resident in the body to allow it to understand the tasks it is given.




It clearly does not since the animated dead has no intelligence. It merely works in the same way that animated objects work (as they can also follow commands).


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> The spell has the discriptor of evil- why?  Because good people do not bring the dead corpses of people up to do their bidding.




Just because something is not good does not make it evil.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Only because the game designers arbitrarily decided to make it so.




Wow!     Guess devils and demons arn't evil either- just misunderstood.     I mean someone somewhere just arbitrarily made them that right?  



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The creators are likely evil because the spells are currently evil. So that isnt a very good point. The system currently forces a certain mindset, pointing to that and saying it proves the point does not work. Assuming the point to prove the point, not good.




A close friend of relitive dies, would you mind them walking about doing things, serving tea or wandering the streets looking for something moist to eat.  I would not want that of my loved ones, but I guess we're from different sides of the street- Understand what evil is when I see it.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> That must be why my chair is evil. Its been through a lot.




Guns, chair, knivies, desks, computers, shaving kits, dice, masking tape, swords, shoe laces, sharpened credit cards, all of it is not evil until it is used in an evil way.  Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't.

Have a nice evening.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Just because something is not good does not make it evil.




What is it then?  A dark shade of gray?  (good = white and evil = black)


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 17, 2004)

The question can't be answered.  Undead !=Evil.

Ghosts, by ratio, are more often good than Halflings are.  'Nuff said.  End of story.  Period.  Deal.


----------



## Fieari (Sep 17, 2004)

Undead themselves appear to be nuetral according to the MM, but the CREATION of Undead is clearly marked as evil, by the RAW.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> Wow!     Guess devils and demons arn't evil either- just misunderstood.     I mean someone somewhere just arbitrarily made them that right?




Different situation. You are talking about creatures who are the embodyment of evil vs a spell which makes something move around. There is a bit of a difference there.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> A close friend of relitive dies, would you mind them walking about doing things, serving tea or wandering the streets looking for something moist to eat.  I would not want that of my loved ones, but I guess we're from different sides of the street- Understand what evil is when I see it.




So, if you were from a society where that sort of thing is the norm, you would still see it as evil?

What about a culture, as they do exist, that believes that embalming the dead is the most horrible and evil thing you can possibly do to defile the corpse? Would you still let your relative be embalmed? even though these other people see it as incredibly evil, possibly destroying their soul or denying them their afterlife.

Of course, the d&d universe generally just assumes that when you die your soul passes on to wherever it is going. The body is left behind. Depending on the culture there will be different beliefs and taboos, but these are mainly on the Law/Chaos axis, not the Good/Evil. Another big difference.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> Guns, chair, knivies, desks, computers, shaving kits, dice, masking tape, swords, shoe laces, sharpened credit cards, all of it is not evil until it is used in an evil way.




Even if used for evil the item still isnt evil.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't.




[Parody]
Animating objects to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you cant see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you cant. [/Parody]

It is hard to be a 'slave' if you have no intelligence or will. It is like saying all of the garden sheers in the world are 'slaves'. Even animals have intelligence, and yet they are still treated as property and used as 'slaves'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## BlackSilver (Sep 17, 2004)

*One question and 2% of a dollar*

This is not the forum to ask, but I do not want to start a thread just to find this out- what is the SRD?  It seems to be software or files that have D&D rules- if it is- where can I get it?

Thank you, and sorry for interrupting.

For what it is worth- Talon5 has a sig "evil is what good men won't do," or something like that.  I think the sig is very right, thou I dislike arguing points, esp. where there appears to be hostility like there seems to be here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> What is it then?  A dark shade of gray?  (good = white and evil = black)




Strangely enough, something called 'neutral' exists in d&d. In fact, only things that are very strongly aligned on the various axis are actually not neutral. The majority of things out there are actually neutral.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Undead themselves appear to be nuetral according to the MM




My srd says that skeletons are evil. Seems odd for something that cannot make decissions has an alignment (note, not just radiating evil or whatever. It isnt that they simply have evil stuck on them like so much paint, they actually have an 'alignment'. an object can radiate a good/evil or law/chaos, but these guys actually 'are' evil. Something that cannot make choices 'is' evil. something is wrong with that. Radiate evil because it it infused with it, fine, but have an alignment of evil with no mind? nah, nonsensical).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You are correct in noting that animated objects are aware of language, and aware of concepts complex enough to perform mundane tasks. The SRD doesn't tell us where the animated objects gain this motive intelligence from (and yes, I know they have no Int in the game term sense of things), but one might reason that they are animated by elemental spirits, as are golems.




And one also might reason that it is simply magic doing the animated and interpretting. Therefore nothing is bound, since nothing is described as being bound this would make more sense.

The newly created undead does not just respond to orders in languages it used to know, it accepts all commands (this is completely different than speak with dead).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that objects gained a saving throw against the read object power.




This matters how? I said, 'like'. After all, it only grants the semblance of life, not real life. It is just a proxy, and not a very good one.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In any event, there is one significant piece of evidence which I am using in order to draw conclusions: casting animate dead is an evil act.




So, to the question of, 'why does undead = evil' you are saying, 'because the spell is evil'. Not helpful. Many of the conclusions you are drawing simply do not follow logically however, especially the connections between speak with dead and animate dead. It falls apart after just a simple inspection (there is no mention of any soul type being used in the animate dead, the soul imprint depends on knowledge of the former body but animate does not. It shares much more in common with animated object than anything else).

It might be evil because of taboos (which would make it more chaotic than evil), it might be evil because the designers just felt it was more flavorful that way :shrugs:: it isnt the first time that a bad houserule made it into the core), it might be because only evil gods allow it (but then they allow other things which are not evil, so this isnt very convincing).

All in all, your first premise just does not work. So everything following it falls into question.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That is a line of reasoning that I, and others, have answered ad infinitum ad nauseum.




Of course, it keeps being answered poorly. Mainly with things like, 'but fire can be used to cook food!'. Well, waves of exhaustion can help someone sleep. There we are, sleeping pills can help people.

Saying that fire can be used for purposes other than evil says nothing. Negative energy can be used for things other than evil as well.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Rule 0 is there for a reason.




Oberoni fallicy.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Well Scion- wow, its amazing to see someone that can't see the line between good and evil- nope its all neutral.  Good luck with that view.  The only thing you have convenced me of is that you'll make a good defense lawyer one day.

You must treat your animals poorly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 17, 2004)

1) While we all make assumptions one way or another, unless something has very recently changed, there has NEVER been a statement that Alignment spell descriptors are actually aligned acts to cast.  Right now, casting an [Evil] spell does not, officially, make you more evil any more than a [Fire] spell makes you more 'fire'.  Technically, anything stating that spell X is an aligned act is house ruling, which proves nothing.

2) The closest thing to 'negative energy is evil' that is ever shown in the books is that 'bringing negative energy in to the world' is an evil act (sorta like flooding the world with radiation).  However, temporary uses of it have never been labled as always evil acts.  While non-core, there's even a good-aligned FR NPC with Enervation.

2b) Negative Energy is actually more useful in being merciful than fire is.  Fire does not, generally, weaken a foe so that they can be easily captured.  It just roasts them to a crisp, period.  Let me see, what allows mercy better... Magic Missiles, or Strength Drain..

2c) I've heard people argue that Negative Energy attacks 'attack the soul' and thus are horrifically painful.  The ACTUAL flavor text, however, makes it sound about the same as if you come down from a serious sugar rush.  You feel weak as hell, but you're not exactly spasming in pain.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 17, 2004)

> Read themselves appear to be nuetral according to the MM, but the CREATION of Undead is clearly marked as evil, by the RAW.




Except that at least one LG being can create undead.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 17, 2004)

> You must treat your animals poorly.



 Ahem.  None of that now.  Even if we disagree, we can all be civil about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Geoff Watson (Sep 17, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Except that at least one LG being can create undead.




LG arcane spellcasters can learn and cast Evil spells. It's not recommended, but they can.

As for Osiris, well that is campaign specific. D&D never claimed to be a universal RPG.

Geoff.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> If it can be done then, by definition, it must be in accordance with god's or nature's laws. Since one cannot step outside of them (even magic is simply natures laws for magic, merely a different course but not outside of nature).




I wouldn't say "by definition". There's a large number of scientists for example who participate in bioethical committees around the world to discuss about the existence of a limit to what medicine should do even if it can be done.

It's not a very serious argument of mine, but it should be obvious that to be able to blow up the planet with a nuclear explosion doesn't make it a legitimate idea...


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The SRD is not very useful here: "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."




The books are no more useful.



> Barring a better quote on the meaning of the [Evil] spell descriptor (3.5 Player's Handbook, anyone?) I have to cede this to Incenjucar.




You have my respect for that willingness.



> Within core D&D, negative energy is not evil, simply because, if it were, the negative material plane would presumably have an alignment trait, which it does not.  However, the use of negative energy (evil clerics), and especially the dependence upon negative energy (undead) creates a strong link between the use of negative energy and committing evil acts.  Quite simply, it is easier to do evil with negative energy than it is to do good.  When an effect relies upon negative energy, a good character is wise to view it carefully before employing it.




The only thing that makes negative energy (in SOME uses, not most) dangerous is that if you go too far, it can have a negative effect (wights and such).  Again, like radiation.  Great weapon, just try not to make mutants.



> After all, in D&D, "good and evil are objective states, not just opinions," and it is possible to do evil regardless of one's personal opinion of morality.




That isn't core, unless they did something whacky to the SRD.  They are 'concrete', not 'set in stone'.  There's a difference.



> From the SRD:  "A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain.




A character subject to enough magic missiles is also instantly slain.  Or fire.  Or stampeding poodles.  Or a gold dragon paladin tripping and falling on them.



> Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight."




Powerful weapons should never be in the hands of fools.



> Not necessarily more merciful, depending upon the effect.




More in how you use it.



> Guilty.
> 
> What flavor text are you refering to, specifically?




The info on negative energy in the books.



> "Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat" doesn't sound like coming down from a sugar rush.




"Some bunnies possess a fearsome habit of nibbling on a farmer's carrots."

Being weakened will make you quite fearful, I'm sure.  But that goes with EVERY form of damage, neh?  Is fire not fearsome?



> "You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes" sounds rather painful.




Suppression sounds more like 'weighs down' to me.  Where does it say 'hurts'?



> _Ray of enfeeblement_ and _ray of exhaustion_ might sound like coming down from a sugar rush, but they are not specified as negative energy in the SRD.  Are they in the 3.5 PH?




Don't think so.  They're just necromancy.



> In any event, nice to read an opposing post that actually makes some answer to the issues.  Looking forward to your reply.
> 
> RC




Granted.

And, while I realize many here despise it, the WotC boards have some strong discussions on this issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Bronn (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, by definition.




I agree, I did not mention who's action though. The action was made by the caster. He is to blame since he commited the action with a tool.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> A close friend of relitive dies, would you mind them walking about doing things, serving tea or wandering the streets looking for something moist to eat. I would not want that of my loved ones, but I guess we're from different sides of the street- Understand what evil is when I see it.




If you were raised in a society were it is normal you would think differently.
Perception dictates what we believe is right and wrong but our perception of things is based on our knowledge and how we were raised.
Seperating the two is simply illogical.
If you were born in a place where Animate Dead was used to help in the community and you entered a community where they do not, you would find it weird. It's logical, you were raised to believe it's normal.
The problem here seems to be that you cannot seem to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and try to imagine what they would think.
You seem to believe you are right.



> Guns, chair, knivies, desks, computers, shaving kits, dice, masking tape, swords, shoe laces, sharpened credit cards, all of it is not evil until it is used in an evil way. Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't.




Free the guns, no more gun slavery!!
Zombies have no more free will then guns. They are both tools.
Tools can be used for anything the user desires be it good, evil or neutral.



> What is it then? A dark shade of gray? (good = white and evil = black)




You have watched too many bad Hollywood movies.
I've never in all my life meet someone I could claim was all black or all white, everything is in shades of grey. In D&D it's called neutrality.



> Well Scion- wow, its amazing to see someone that can't see the line between good and evil- nope its all neutral. Good luck with that view. The only thing you have convenced me of is that you'll make a good defense lawyer one day.




That line is traced by each of us based on our knowledge and upbringing.
Everything is neutral until you apply your perception to it. There is no morality without perception because you cannot base your opinion on nothing. Morality is just an opinion based on our knowledge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 17, 2004)

Ok, can we keep the real world beliefs out of the thread please?

This is all about undead being evil in the default D&D setting. The morality of alignment is absolute, there is no doubt or argument there. 

If we want to change D&D's alignment paradigm to relativism & consider the logical consequences, that would best be suited to another thread.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> The spell description reads, in part:  "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell *as if it were alive*."  (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...




A couple points here.

The spell does not say the imprint knows the alignment, it only says it gets a spell if the alignment is different. A LG imprint does not know whether the questioner is NG or CE.

I see it as language dependant as language is the interface for the spell to provide information with something that only has knowledge known by the creature in life.

Why a saving throw? And why if there is an alignment based difference? Because alignments have mechanical interactions with spells, particularly divine ones. I have no problem conceptualizing a divine spell not working as well when targeting something of another alignment.

And as to your point that animate dead "clearly relies upon the knowledge resident in the body to allow it to understand the tasks it is given." The corpse does not need to speak your language or even understand any language, you can animate rats or fish if you wanted and command them with language, because that is the interface the spell uses.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> May I suggest that this is exactly the crux, and perhaps the only real point of discussion here?  Of course, the question is not, do zombies have free will, but are zombies aware of what is happening to them?
> 
> If, as you suggest, zombies are simply tools, then they, like a gun, are not aware of what is happening to them.  They are simply animated inanimate objects.  This seems to be the point Scion is trying to make re: the _animate objects_ spell.  Parse the rules this way, and the [Evil] descriptor on _animate dead_ is simply foolish.
> 
> ...




Allow me to throw out an alternative view of the Evil descriptor.

Evil is a supernatural force in addition to being a moral judgment.

Certain spells tap into dark supernatural forces that are classified as [Evil] and some creatures are composed on an elemental level by supernatural Evil power and therefor have the Evil subtype. Evil alignment is different, orcs are evil but not subtype [Evil] because they are just bad and mean and do not tap supernatural elemental Evil power.

All undead are powered by this elemental Evil and so any spell that creates them will have the [Evil] descriptor and cause undead to detect as moderatlely powerful evil just short of comparable power [Evil] outsiders under the detect evil spell even if they are a good baelnorn or the good undead god Osiris.

Therefore casting a spell that taps into supernatural evil to create undead, even if not a morally evil act will have the [Evil] descriptor and show up as evil under detect evil.

Note that using a neutral spell such as dominate person for a horribly evil purpose will not detect as an evil act or impose the [Evil] descriptor.

And again, animating a corpse with animate object, still forces the dead remains to serve you but does not involve an [Evil] descriptor, it simply is not tapping supernatural Evil power.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 17, 2004)

On track with the Zombies  

"Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple."

They have Int-, wis10, cha1 and Neutral Evil alignment.
_____________________________________________________________
(Taken from the SRD and edited for brevity)
INTELLIGENCE (INT)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills.

WISDOM (WIS)
Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.

CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Every creature has a Charisma score.
__________________________________________________________

Every creature has to have wis & cha, int seems optional & the zombie description takes this into account.

At first it would appear that cha & wis are the defining abilities that determine alignment, but animals are non-aligned (defaulting to neutral) so that theory is put to rest.

Hmmm, I need to think on this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 17, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You seem to be arguing from an assumption that "if it isn't in the rules, then it cannot be."
> 
> I, on the other hand, choose to examine the rules, then see what seems likely based upon comparing what is implied in one portion of the rules to what is present in other parts of the rules.




I am actually going off of the question posted rather than assuming it is true already.

You are assuming that it is already correct and trying to draw parallels where they just do not exist. Trying to stretch out meanings and place them in other areas where they simply do not fit (especially the attempt to link speak with dead and animate dead, the parallels attempted there simply fall apart on too many levels to be helpful).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope you don't mind that I put my quote back into context there.  I'm sure it wasn't your point to take it out of context.




Actually, I dont feel that I took it out of context at all.

You stated that you had some reasoning, which I had just gone through disproving yet again, and then after that you stated that Rule 0 is there for a reason.

But, if something is incorrect in the core then obviously it should be changed in the core. Hence, you telling me that it is ok I can just change it falls within the oberoni fallicy. It is not ok, it is simply an arbitrary decission. Nothing you have said disproves that. In fact, the majority of your arguements effectively say that it is true therefore it is true and then give some convoluted steps that dont match up or prove anything as a 'proof'. Not useful.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I very specifically pointed out that there are rational interpretations of the rules, and that there is no need to claim that the game designers were "arbitrary" simply because you do not like the decisions they made.




I have specifically broken down your arguement and pointed out the flaws that kill it.

Arbitrary decission to make it evil still stands.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> Well Scion- wow, its amazing to see someone that can't see the line between good and evil- nope its all neutral. Good luck with that view. The only thing you have convenced me of is that you'll make a good defense lawyer one day.




Once again, you do realize that neutral does exist? Lets go through a rundown of the alignments.

Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
True Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil

Looks like there is neutral all over the alignment system. In fact, 5 out of the 9 have neutral as part of them. Only 3 have good, only 3 have evil, only 3 have lawful, only 3 have chaotic. Looks like the neutrals have it.

Also once again, just because something isnt good does not make it evil. Just because something isnt evil does not make it good.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> You must treat your animals poorly.




Where are the rolling eyes when they are most needed.

It isnt about treating them poorly. Slaves can be treated very well indeed, but that does not change the fact that they are slaves.

Since animals have an intelligence, and animated dead/objects do not, it sounds 'more' evil to subjugate the animals than it does the others. After all, the others simply dont care, they have zero feelings, whereas the animals might wish to simply roam free. Now who is evil?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Quite simply, it is easier to do evil with negative energy than it is to do good.




Meaningless. I could say the opposite and be just as 'correct' (as in, not at all). After all, negative energy can make it much easier to subdue rather than kill. That has to be a good thing.

Sure, it does harm, but then so does everything else effectively.

It simply does what you have it do. Most everything can be used for evil and most everything can be used for good.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the zombies are aware of what is happening to them, however, as I claimed by my examination of speak with dead and animate dead, then they are very different from simple tools. Parse the rules this way, and the [Evil] descriptor makes sense.




Animals are definately aware of what is happening around them.

Having animals (beasts of burden/pets/whatever) is evil by this definition.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> I am actually going off of the question posted rather than assuming it is true already.




Except it *is* true already - that undead == evil - your opinions notwithstanding.  The question is, "Why?"



> Animals are definately aware of what is happening around them.
> 
> Having animals (beasts of burden/pets/whatever) is evil by this definition.




An animal may decide to *not* do what you want it to do, hence the presence of the Handle Animal skill - the ability to convince an animal to do what you want.  Note that it functions similarly to a Diplomacy for the Stupid.

Undead - especially non-intelligent undead - do not have such a luxury.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 17, 2004)

*Again?*

"Why, in DnD RAW, are Undead = Evil"?

Because, in DnD Raw, the only way to create them is Evil and makes them that way.

Unless we all can crawl into the designer's minds and have a great mind-meld communal discovery, that is the best we are left with. 

Perhaps it has to do with the game balance of being able to Smite them.
Perhaps it has to do with an unwritten Evil taint to negative energy.
Perhaps it has to do with certain designer's watching the Night of the Living Dead too much.

My best interpretation is that there is an Evil taint to negative energy. Some applications provide a strong enough link to alter the targets/casters alignment. Some do not.
 Creating undead, with the current spells available, usually causes irrepairable harm to the soul of the corpse. This act is Evil. Whether this act can affect the casters alignment is up to the DM.

Back off tangent: 
 'Mindless' undead are creatures with alignments. What alignment fits thier actions? (SRD extracts)
  Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
  Evil characters simply have no compassion for others.
  Neutral characters have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others

Of the three, which makes sense? Evil.

But, you say, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil."
A>  Speak with dead: The spell description reads, in part: "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive." 
 Is this an action based on a morals (alignment)? If so, then a Corpse, due to having once been alive, can have an alignment other than nuetral based on its moral action.

B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.

So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.
 Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.

 Hmm, perhaps thats how they came up with this


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except it *is* true already - that undead == evil - your opinions notwithstanding.  The question is, "Why?"




One cannot assume it is true to prove the point. Hence, assuming it is not true and attempting to prove or disprove its validity to be true.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> An animal may decide to *not* do what you want it to do, hence the presence of the Handle Animal skill - the ability to convince an animal to do what you want.  Note that it functions similarly to a Diplomacy for the Stupid.




At which point they are forced to do what is wanted of them. The very fact that they can choose one way or another, and then be forced to do it no matter what they decide, proves the point about slavery.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Undead - especially non-intelligent undead - do not have such a luxury.




They have no 'ability' to do so. They are simply nonintelligent. It is not that the luxury is taken away, they do not have the ability to do so on any level in the first place.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Using your interpretation, I assume that I could then arm the rat skeletons with tiny swords, and they would be able to weild them?
> 
> 
> RC




Nope, you could give them commands though such as guard this area, just as if they were a human skeleton. It is your command, not their previous knowledge that I understand as being the important component. Or are animated wild animals uncommandable? How about creatures that speak a different language?


----------



## Aesmael (Sep 17, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> In the sense of a single, cohesive, identifiable body, like the sun, and from which all subsequent evil generates?  Or more in a sense of an identifiable phenomenon, like beta radiation, which may be generated from dissimilar sources even though the evil produced is identical?




That just struck me as the second [best/funniest/most interesting/awesomest] thing I've read today. Mind if I yoink it?

Should probably try to contribute something to the topic now that I've responded. The digression seems easier, so: I do not like the idea of a character (the poor, tormented hypothetical paladin) being held responsible for actions their body commits just because they failed a will save. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that their deity (or other power source) would withdraw its favour from them once it realises evil is being done by their body, even though it understands they are being coerced - it is only sensible to limit their capabilities to do harm even if it is not their fault. Atonement is then their way of saying "Hey, I'm back in control here." If the paladin dies before they can atone there should be no problem getting to their eternal rest because the power in question has understood all along that they are still paladin-worthy in themself. If that makes sense.

Thanks for the digression, it has allowed me to solve (to my satisfaction, at least) something that has been bothering me.

Otherwise I continue to follow this thread with great interest, especially with Raven Crowking's question about awareness. Although my first impulse is to disagree with your conclusions so far in this thread, I feel now that it is on the verge of something ... great.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That is an excellent interpretation of the evil descriptor.  Logically, under this interpretation, all undead would have the [Evil] descriptor regardless of their actual alignment.  I certainly agree that this would work better than making mindless undead have evil alignment, and I hope it makes it into 4.0.
> 
> The problems that I see insofar as it answering the question related to the current SRD are twofold:
> 
> ...





Thank you, I gave it a lot of thought when I saw that all undead detect as evil regardless of alignment. Plus the whole protection from good is an Evil spell thing. My good eldritch knight wanted that spell when he was forced to fight some angels and demon summoning evil casters regularly want the Good portection from evil spell.

As for your two points I think it is still possible to harmonize those elements as presented in the SRD.

1 Undead are created more than just negative energy, there is an actual element of supernatural evil involved. Therefore other uses of just straight negative energy (cause wounds spells) do not tap this supernatural evil the same way undead and undead creating spells do.

2 Alignment subtypes are generally for outsiders only, even paladins only have an aura of goodness special quality not a good descriptor. Another reason would be that demons are made up of elemental Evil and Chaos while undead are a mix of elemental Evil and either a neutral body or a non elementally Evil spirit. This mix would explain why they always detect as evil but not as strongly as evil outsiders and why they don't have the Evil descriptor even though their creation spells do.

However in my campaign as well they have the Evil descriptor to better go with the supernatural evil of their creation spells.


----------



## Aesmael (Sep 17, 2004)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.
> 
> So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.
> Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.
> ...




And change all constructs without intelligence scores to evil too?


----------



## Bronn (Sep 17, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> This is all about undead being evil in the default D&D setting. The morality of alignment is absolute, there is no doubt or argument there.




I disagree, D&D uses relativism in some cases which is part of the problem.
It's ok to kill evil creatures even though killing is considered evil.
Taking alignment into account breaks the absolutism of D&D morality.

You cannot relate the morale decision in absolutism to any factor.
If killing is evil then it's always evil, no matter the consequences.
Which is not the case of undead because there are some good ones.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.
For absolutism to work you would need a rule for every possible situation.
WotC could make even more money with the D&D Code of law.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Okay Scion you have made a few good points- and I still believe that including neutral into the mix you can't see where the line between good and evil is- but thats.... no, I won't go there.

In a society where the undead walk, where that is the norm- as you brought forth, this might not be seen as evil.  Neither might say an adult having sex with an infant, I mean if thats the norm then that would not be seen as evil- right?  That would be seen as norm instead, and thus not evil.  That is the line I refer to that you can not see, that you are avoiding in your rantings.

If demon's and devils are the norm then what they do can't be seen as evil, by what you have said.  I beg to differ- evil is what good men won't do- no matter the price, no matter the cost.

I understand that you think I am missing your point regarding neutrality of the world, that there is only good and evil.  I myself am not very good, and in fact might well be seen as evil on the scales of D&D alignment, my point is that I know where I stand because I can see the line, I know when and where to cross that line, what I will and won't do.

With regards to my critters- the way I treat them can be seen as odd.  My dog understood better then thirty words of english.  Two cats- both understand more then a dozen words of english.  I understand them better then I think most people understand their animals, but then that might be because of how much time I have spent with them in the past four years.  They are not "kept" or "enslaved" they are my friends.

Now considering that this thread has gone completely off it's rails and you are partially to blame for that I would suggest that someone re-post so that it can be started again without all this side line B stuff.

BTW- never argue with an idiot, you lose even when you win and I will admit that you beat me hands down in this little debate.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Nope, you could give them commands though such as guard this area, just as if they were a human skeleton. It is your command, not their previous knowledge that I understand as being the important component. Or are animated wild animals uncommandable? How about creatures that speak a different language?




I thought I should back this up.

Here is the spell description:

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.
The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.)
Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit)
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones. 
Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.
Material Component: You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells.

When I animate a dead wolverine or whatever and give it commands I expect it's animated corpse to follow those commands regardless of the knowledge it had when alive.

This is based off the phrase "that follow your spoken commands." without any qualifier.


I interpret this as the way the magic works, the commands of the creator are the important part, not the underlying individual base creature used.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 17, 2004)

*The problem of mindless evil*

So in 3.0 mindless undead were neutral while in 3.5 they are neutral evil.

Here is how I handled it.

3.0 neutral animated dead would need to be commanded to act, they would not do anything on their own except as commanded by others.

3.5 evil skeletons and zombies, can be commanded and controlled and ordered to do anything including good acts ("run into the fire, carefully pick up the baby, come out quickly to me") however their natural instinct is evil, so if uncommanded they will mindlessly seek out the nearest living thing and try to kill it. So uncommanded they are dangerous threats killing for no purpose and anybody creating them would be wise to quickly command them so they do not immediately attack.

This dichotomy also impacts what happens to uncontrolled ones when you create too many.

Neutral ones would just sit there inert, waiting to be commanded by anybody with the power to do so.

Evil ones become old school wandering monsters who attack the party.


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Back off tangent:
> 'Mindless' undead are creatures with alignments. What alignment fits thier actions? (SRD extracts)
> Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> Evil characters simply have no compassion for others.
> ...




no, neutral makes the most sense. While your skewing of the terms does tend to point in one direction that does not change the general case, even if it seems to make your point at the time (which it does not do completely even here, since undead lack 'any' commitments, so they cannot make choices at all).

Since they cannot make choices for themselves (should I save the child from drowning or hold the childs head underwater, it wont do anything, it wont even go so far as to think of the question) then they cannot have an alignment.

Could they radiate evil? Sure, that is a seperate issue. But should they have an alignment other than neutral. No. Why would something that cannot do anything of its on choice (it has no ability to even think of the question, let alone make a choice about it) have an alignment?

We can even go into the above and say:
Good = will sacrifice for others and will go out of the way to not harm
Neutral = will not sacrifice nor go out of their way to harm
Evil = will not sacrifice and will go out of their way to harm.

Useing this it is clear that they are neutral. They will not sacrifice, so they are not good. They will not go out of their way to do harm so they are not evil.

Of course this is also a very limited view of overall alignment but it shows the point of the example given above not working properly.

Or, if we go by someone earlier:
Good = will do the good things above
Evil = anyone/thing else.

Pretty harsh there, anyone who does not do good acts is evil. Needless to say this view does not work very well in the d&d system.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> But, you say, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil."
> A>  Speak with dead: The spell description reads, in part: "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive."
> Is this an action based on a morals (alignment)? If so, then a Corpse, due to having once been alive, can have an alignment other than nuetral based on its moral action.




Animals are neutral. Undead dont even rank up to animal status with their lack of int scores. If low int means one tends to be neutral then a lack of int doesnt make one much better than the local plantlife, it certainly isnt evil.

Speak with dead, the spell itself, grants a semblance of life. Without that spell there would be no semblance of life. Does any other spell even reference this imprint or did they simply use that as a description as to why it could remember anything at all?

The corpse doesnt get to 'choose', it simply does. If you are of a differing alignment then there is a save. What is the save based on? As if the creature was alive, since normally dead things dont get saves (or are immune to will saves entirely anyway), so this sort of line must be there for the spell to do anything at all.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.




If one cannot choose actions then one cannot be of an alignment other than evil.

No int? no choices. no nonneutral alignment.

Being without a mind does not make one evil (vermin are not evil).



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.




Not all, simply everything that has no mind is neutral. The potted plant is neutral, the vermin is neutral, the sword is neutral, the mindless undead are neutral.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.




That is just it though. It looks like the mindless undead are evil because the spell has an evil descriptor. But, aside from taboo issues (which shouldnt apply broadly in d&d, they are too relative to be objective in the system) there seems to be no reason for it to be that way.

Saying that the spell is evil because undead is evil basically says little to nothing. In all likelyhood undead are evil because someone thought it would be better that way (ie houserule. it makes for better smiting, it makes it easier for people to know what to kill since killing evil is good, bah) which then made the spell evil.

So, there is little to no reason for it other than a way to make people feel better about killing certain things (much like how kobolds are evil by default).

However, that is not a good enough reason for this spell. It can be neutral, the undead created can be neutral, but then the stigma attatched to necromancers can make people 'feel' that it is bad. There is no reason to actually make it evil, especially since it takes away interesting options for differing cultures.

Without the tag then it falls into a general use spell that only certain types will deign to be appropriate. Along with following certain dieties much better (such as neutral gods of death/undeath) without having to make up a series of houserules.

The tag merely causes problems without any real use. It makes assumptions that should not be made in the objective d&d morality system. Even in that system there are many ambiguous areas, no need to add in extra problems (this society is good/neutral yet the core says that doing this is evil, but never says why). That just leads to confusion which would not be there otherwise and the general system would still get by with its other stigmas. Streamlining the system for more general, and some better, uses.


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> however their natural instinct is evil, so if uncommanded they will mindlessly seek out the nearest living thing and try to kill it. So uncommanded they are dangerous threats killing for no purpose and anybody creating them would be wise to quickly command them so they do not immediately attack.




Why would they attack?

SRD:
A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. 

It takes no initiative. It does only what it is ordered to do.

So, if they were just created but uncontrolled they would just stand there doing nothing, forever.

They have no desire to kill, they have no desires at all. All they do is follow commands from whoever is controlling them.

In fact, I would assume that even if 'uncontrolled' right now they will simply follow the last command they were given until a new command is given.

If you tell one to dig a trench and another to haul the dirt away then, for the rest of time or until someone gives a counter command, they will sit there digging that trench and hauling the dirt away.

Even if attacked I think they would still do this. Because they take no initiative. Now, you might say, 'dig this trench but if you are attacked fight back/flee/do a little dance'. That still isnt very complicated so it should work all right. Of course, after the fight they would probably not go back to digging.


Talon5: you are still confused between the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis. This is understandable as societies tend to push the Law = Good and Chaos = Evil mentality. D&d is seperate from that, or tries to be.

Also, you are apparently still thinking that there are only Good and Evil, but no neutral choices. If I decide have a turkey sandwhich today instead of a ham sandwhich is that good or evil? If I decide to put mustard on or not is that good or evil? These are very base level and simple, but the neutral options do work all the way up to big important decissions, especially on the good/evil chart (it may very well be that a big decission is neutral on good/evil but very much not so on law/chaos).

About the 'my pets are my friends' that does not stop them from being your pets. You own them, they do not own themselves. Likely, as it is with many pets, if let go to fend for themselves they will not survive because they have come to depend on you for food. Many people I know on farms treat all of their animals as friends, they treat them all nicely, but they are still used for food, burden, money, or whatever else. Just because they are treated nicely and a nicer term is used does not change what they are and what is going on. 

If all you wish to do is sling insults however I would ask you to read the CoC first.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 17, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> I disagree, D&D uses relativism in some cases which is part of the problem.
> It's ok to kill evil creatures even though killing is considered evil.
> Taking alignment into account breaks the absolutism of D&D morality.
> 
> ...



I'll agree that relativism has crept in muddying the water. 

The issue of 'killing'(to deal death) is one of *murder* vs *killing * within the D&D context. To kill, by itself in D&D is not evil, otherwise animal predators would be aligned so. The fact that good characters are expected to be able to kill means that the D&D default setting does not buy into this "killing is always evil".

In that sense, D&D has defined their absolute morality system along sensible lines. It would be no fun for paladins to be holy nurse maids.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Talon5: you are still confused between the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis. This is understandable as societies tend to push the Law = Good and Chaos = Evil mentality. D&d is seperate from that, or tries to be.




LOL- oh God when will it stop.   



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Also, you are apparently still thinking that there are only Good and Evil, but no neutral choices.




Nope- never said there wasn't neutral.  I think you believe the whole world is neutral and that you believe that there is only neutral in the world- nope not evil because its the norm.

I think you see the world- being that you did not dispute the adult taking advantage of an infant senerio, as neutral where neutral is the norm and good and evil where- well actually I have no idea where you think good and evil stand, you obviously think that if its in the norm then its okay.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> About the 'my pets are my friends' that does not stop them from being your pets. You own them, they do not own themselves. Likely, as it is with many pets, if let go to fend for themselves they will not survive because they have come to depend on you for food. Many people I know on farms treat all of their animals as friends, they treat them all nicely, but they are still used for food, burden, money, or whatever else. Just because they are treated nicely and a nicer term is used does not change what they are and what is going on.




I guess you have never truely had an animal that was your friend.  Never seen the emotion in their eyes. Few people take the time get get that close- I guess I have.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> If all you wish to do is sling insults however I would ask you to read the CoC first.




I have.  The placement of an insult was first done by you (I made no insult- if you felt one the I apologize), I made a point of indicating that I am an idiot and that you are arguing with an idiot, and that you have have completely lost sight of what this thread was about- you refuse to maintain the thread by forcing your views onto the thread.

The norm does not make an action less evil, it lets evil be accepted by the whole.  Good people stand against evil when it raises its nasty head.  I see evil in that you would be willing to allow evil to exsist as a norm.  I am fighting that (what you would call an acceptable norm) "norm" because I find it offensive to those that would charish the good.

Like the quote says- "evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what," I refuse to allow Undead walking/floating/crawling/swimming to be called acceptable as good no matter the course.

Doesn't mean they won't be used by that LN Cleric of Wee Jas, just means the LG Paladin won't be teamed with her for long.

btw- you have inspired a new villian in my campaign.  Thank you.


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> oh God when will it stop.




Some point after you realize that neutral things do exist and that there is a difference between the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis.

You mentioned in a former post that a good person would not rob a bank to feed some orphans. Why not? Robbing the bank isnt evil, it is unlawful. There is such a thing as chaotic good and neutral good. Either of those might have a reason to rob the bank to feed the poor.

Also, you have stated that you know where the 'line' is between good and evil. This assumes that there is nothing in between. Any action that is not good is evil and any action that is not evil is good. That is clearly not the case (remember the sandwhich question earlier).

While the d&d morality system tries to paint things very strongly even it says that most things in the prime are simply neutral, or very weakly tied to some axis.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> Nope- never said there wasn't neutral.  I think you believe the whole world is neutral and that you believe that there is only neutral in the world- nope not evil because its the norm.




I believe that many of your posts, relevant to this topic, have implied that nothing can be neutral, although I did not go back to reread them all to verify if you ever actually came out and said it directly. Still, the implication across them all is very clear.

There are more things than neutral in the world, of course, but neutral is the general relaxation state. If one does not try hard to get farther up one of the axis then they will tend to slide towards neutrality. Much like a gently sloped hill, it takes more effort to climb than to go back down (there are exceptions of course, but then there always are. typically what I have just said goes more towards law/good than the other side, but the same holds true in other ways for the evil/chaos branches).

Unless one is playing in a certain campaign setting (there is one where 'evil' has won and the heros are basically just guys trying to survive, I forget the name) then likely evil is not the most common alignment, or 'norm' as you put it. Even then though, I would think that more people would be neutral than evil, as it is just easier for them to be so.

 Much like the average peasant only gets npc levels (usually commoner) they simply dont have the drive to be strongly aligned with any alignment generally.

Which is much like the animate dead problem. At its base it is merely useing some form of energy to make something move. Like telekinesis over a longer period of time. It can have negative connotations (or good, depending) but the definition of it should be neutral. Unless something evil is actually being done, which the core does not support (talk of soul imprints being tortured somehow even though they are only active for one spell, a different spell, and even that spell says that they remember nothing and are basically inert, without the soul to guide it is just like accessing a computer harddrive that you cannot save to).




			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> I guess you have never truely had an animal that was your friend.  Never seen the emotion in their eyes. Few people take the time get get that close- I guess I have.




This has no bearing on anything that has been presented before. It certainly has no bearing on ownership and no relevance to the discussion (as fragmented as it is, this still has no place).

It doesnt matter how much you love or care for your pet, it is still your pet. I will refer you to the point I made before about people on farms. Just because you wish to use a different term does not change what it is.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> you refuse to maintain the thread by forcing your views onto the thread.




At this point I think I am one of the few voices of reason. There are several people who have said something that either directly says or amounts to, 'well, it says it is evil, so it is'. That is not a valid arguement.

Others have said various other points, to which I have posted refutals and counter examples from the raw.

Negative energy itself is not evil.
The use of negative energy is not evil (although there are evil people who use it, but that isnt terribly important, there are good people who use it as well and there are lots of tools that evil people use that are also not evil)
Nonintelligent undead should not have a neutral evil alignment, they cannot make the decissions necissary to have an alignment.
There is no mention of a soul being used or abused in any way, shape, or form for either animating the dead or useing negative energy attacks (so far, there may be some spell out there that mentions it, but the base rules for such does not say anything like that)
Using undead for ones own purpose is the same as useing any other tool, and less 'evil' than useing beasts of burden. The animals can feel pain, wants, desires.. the undead in question do not, cannot, and likely never will. Just like an animated object.

I have probably missed a few. Earlier someone said I had ignored valid points, when I asked them to post them I have seen no response so I suppose they either do not wish to have them taken apart or found where I did respond to them.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> "evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what,"




Doesnt really matter, but of course this isnt true. Even good men can be tricked into thinking something is good even when it is actually evil.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> The placement of an insult was first done by you




I have just gone through all of my responses to you. Not once do I make any insults towards you and yet I have gotten things back from you such as, 'you must treat your animals poorly'. Do stop the insults please.


----------



## Bronn (Sep 18, 2004)

Scion stop wasting your virtual ink on this self proclaimed idiot.
He's applying is moral code to the situation to decide wether it is evil or not.



> In that sense, D&D has defined their absolute morality system along sensible lines. It would be no fun for paladins to be holy nurse maids.




That's what they feel like to me already. 

I still can't call it absolute though.
But that is semantic which is a waste of time.


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> Scion stop wasting your virtual ink on this self proclaimed idiot.
> He's applying is moral code to the situation to decide wether it is evil or not.




As we all do of course  I am just trying to explain that many moral codes in the real world most definately push Law as Good and Chaos as Evil.

The bank robbery example that was put up earlier was very telling indeed.

Ahh well.. Maybe someone will put up that list of reasonings that I have been told I missed. (there are a few which I will simply not discuss, like the baby example, I feel to disgusted by such things to be able to discuss it properly, and since it isnt necissary for either position to even talk about it then I will not)


----------



## Sejs (Sep 18, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> The placement of an insult was first done by you (I made no insult- if you felt one the I apologize)




Actually dude, you cast the first stone.

_"Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't."_

That would be where you veered to the wrong side of the Explaining vs Insulting divide.  Things just snowballed from there.   


Anyway, ideally we can all just let this noise drop and get back to our core issue of finding out which amongst us are Uptight Intractable Moral Elitists and which of us are Reprehensible Degenerate Amoral Miscreants.  And also debating about the nature of undead and the repercussions of making them.


----------



## BlackSilver (Sep 18, 2004)

*A sorry goes along way*

I am sorry that you all cannot seem to see the points being made regarding evil.  I believe what Talon5 was saying is true in that "evil" (the essence of it) is something that "good" people refuse to immerse themselves in even a little bit.

Everyone here (at least those arguing with Talon5) seems to be willing to enter that state of evil- to understand it, you must enter into it as it would be- I can only guess at his intent, but I have read his posts and I guess he and I write or read alike because I can see what he's talking about-

When we accept evil as a normal state of being, then I think we are evil in and of ourselves.  I think- no, I believe that is the point he is trying to make, a point I see in his writing very clearly.

Talon5 has made it clear to me that he believes in good, that he knows good and evil exist, and that there is neutral ground between the two.  

He has also made it clear to me that he does not believe he is in himself good, as the D&D alignments would have it defined.  Aside from some obvious problems (lacking in self esteem, being in obvious emotional pain, etc.) and some things I think he said in another post regarding (I think this was him) "having seen to much," and "done things that he's ashamed of," I believe that he is a better person then those that would attack him, thou I know neither and I am sorry if I am incorrect in this assumption.    

I am sorry if I have offended anyone   I do not normally take sides in arguments and it was not something I wanted to do here, but I felt it was necessary.


----------



## driver8 (Sep 18, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> Most books I have read and people I have talked to believe that raising undead is an evil act, and I cant figure out why. Is it becouse of some belief that the body is sacred and must not be defiled? Or are they just simple minded people who say "If its nasty and evil looking it must be evil." The same logic some people use when they go "Look. He's dressed in black. He must be evil." I've never got why raising undead was such a big deal. Its no different the animating an object to attack someone. I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.




I think it depends on what setting you play. Doesnt Eberron have the Aerenal elves who revere death and have Lawful non evil liches? 

Anyway, I have always thought the undead were considered evil because the fact they are up and about instead of well buried or in some state of repose. Default DnD takes this from alot of cultures beliefs in this-the idea that the dead should be honored,venerated , and/or allowed to rest.

Since the undead are usually brought out by evil doers to do thoer well evil work, undead are evil becasue they are an abomination against the norm. They are evil, but its not their fault. To paraphrase, "Theyre not evil theyre just drawn that way."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 18, 2004)

> The norm does not make an action less evil, it lets evil be accepted by the whole. Good people stand against evil when it raises its nasty head. I see evil in that you would be willing to allow evil to exsist as a norm. I am fighting that (what you would call an acceptable norm) "norm" because I find it offensive to those that would charish the good.
> 
> Like the quote says- "evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what," I refuse to allow Undead walking/floating/crawling/swimming to be called acceptable as good no matter the course




I agree with the first statement absolutely.  RW example- slavery.  No form of slavery stands up to an honest moral appraisal.

However, Re:Undead- there are too many examples in mythology, legend, pop culture and the game itself that are exceptions to the *U = E* equation to ignore.

The task then becomes to discern why these exceptions exist.

As for undead always detecting evil, I cannot help but admit that if you read the spell as written, that is true.

Its also true that according to the MM (a *core* book), Ghosts (and Greater Mummies from Dieties & Demigods) can be of _any_ alignment, and that Mummies of the MM are only "Usually" evil (something BTW that seems to have been largely ignored).

Thus, either Detect Evil is a flawed spell (it gives false positives), a spell with a flawed description (its detecting something other than or in additon to evil), or that there is just something about being a Ghost or Mummy or any kind of undead that makes you detect as evil even though you may not actually be evil.

I have to say, that last formulation sounds odd to me in a vesion of D&D in which almost any sentient race can be used as an NPC/PC Paladin.

And Scion has done a good job of recounting various refutations of claims of the origin of evil in the undead state:


> Negative energy itself is not evil.
> The use of negative energy is not evil (although there are evil people who use it, but that isnt terribly important, there are good people who use it as well and there are lots of tools that evil people use that are also not evil)
> Nonintelligent undead should not have a neutral evil alignment, they cannot make the decissions necissary to have an alignment.
> There is no mention of a soul being used or abused in any way, shape, or form for either animating the dead or useing negative energy attacks (so far, there may be some spell out there that mentions it, but the base rules for such does not say anything like that)
> Using undead for ones own purpose is the same as useing any other tool, and less 'evil' than useing beasts of burden. The animals can feel pain, wants, desires.. the undead in question do not, cannot, and likely never will. Just like an animated object.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 18, 2004)

Bronn said:
			
		

> I still can't call it absolute though.
> But that is semantic which is a waste of time.



Agreed, it is getting outside the scope of this thread.


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 18, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Except, in D&D, the use of negative energy is not treated like radiation or fire.  Because killing something by negative energy -- or even animating it with negative energy later -- prevents _raise dead_, _speak with dead_, and the like, _and nothing else does_, negative energy clearly has some unique traits in the way it interacts with the soul/body connection.




*bzzzt*  A skeleton or zombie does not hold the soul of its former owner.  The issue is that their body is occupied and not set up for habitation by a normal life form.  It's basically like an irradiated Soul Jar effect.



> In another way, though, the radiation analogy is near perfect:  When you encounter radiation, there is a possibility of damage that will never go away.  Ask two out of three players if they prefer to encounter fire or level-drainers, and they'll tell you:  In core D&D, burns heal without complications.  Very different from the Real World [tm].




I'm sure you'll agree that scary doesn't exactly mean automatically evil.



> The part I quoted up there ("good and evil are objective states, not just opinions") actually comes from the SRD:
> 
> Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.​





Lovely WotC vague language.  The debate is as to whether or not acknowledging something actually means it's true.

Personally, I just go with 'internal intent', which WotC does about half the time (I'm sure everyone can agree that WotC is mixing messages like mad when it comes to alignment issues), which is, essentially, objective.  It's just that the DM has to force their players not to BS them about the -real- reason a character does things.



> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.





> I quoted the above both for context, and because the part about animals would seem to support the view that some capacity for moral choice must exist to be good or evil....for being from the Prime Material, anyway.  Fiendish rats are still evil.




It's the ability to intend the state of others for reasons beyond survival, basically.  But considering undead are essentially vermin-brained constructs... they're as alignment-deserving as the average heart worm.



> Sure, fire can be fearsome.  I did not claim that it was not.  Rather, I questioned your depiction of negative energy.  When I ask what flavor text you are referring to, specifically, stating "The info on negative energy in the books" simply isn't helpful.  If your argument relies upon text, you should be willing to cite what text you're using.  That way, others can fairly evaluate your argument and draw conclusions therefrom.




You'll have to excuse me if I don't hire a cab so I can get my books.  Ask someone here who has their books in less than a 45 minute drive's span to look it up.  It's in the DMG, I think, in 3.5.



> If your bunny quote had been in the rulebook, btw, you might have had a point.  Had that been the case, I would certainly not trust the way WotC used adjectives!      However, level-draining is described as "fearsome" not "tiring."




Tiring would suggest it slowed you down.  The descriptions are that it weakens you.  Fearsome is essentially meaningless except to say "it is not confidence-inducing".



> As for _ennervation_, you may be correct that suppressing the life force merely "weighs down" the victim.  When I read it, it sounds painful.  Others may have different opinions on this.  The SRD certainly doesn't say.




Again, vague language, but considering what it does, it makes sense.  You'd think an obscenely painful form of attack would have side-effects.  Even fire doesn't do that (which actually makes sense, since fire would outright kill your nerves).



> Really?
> 
> Out of curiosity, did WotC participate in those discussions?




Just as much as they are doing here.  What's your point?  Are you a WotC employee now?

I noted that because, on the WotC boards, we have a NegEn/Undead !=Evil thread pop up at least once a month.  And in the more lasting threads, I actually had my books handy.  What is revelation to some here is old news to the WotC board members.  Ya'll are behind the times.    



> Were there any official answers to these questions?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know!




Feel free to ask customer service.


----------



## PhoenixDarkDirk (Sep 18, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Unless one is playing in a certain campaign setting (there is one where 'evil' has won and the heros are basically just guys trying to survive, I forget the name) then likely evil is not the most common alignment, or 'norm' as you put it. Even then though, I would think that more people would be neutral than evil, as it is just easier for them to be so.




I believe you mean Midnight, published by Fantasy Flight Games.


----------



## RonYon (Sep 19, 2004)

*Peoples of the book...*

This whole debate reminds me of situtions in RL where a group of discontents struggle to change the teachings of their group.
Never mind that the basis of their professed belief involves a top down dictation of "revealed trueth", and not a trueth built democraticly or consensously.
So they stuggle on, and eventually they either A)Manage to get the changes they wanted, or B) Leave the orginzation to start a new one that teaches the "real trueth". 
In the event of B), no big deal, unless the new orginization takes to many resources with it.
In the event of A), there will almost certainly be a schism caused, resulting in the conservative elements leaving the organiztion to preseve the purity of the "one true trueth".
So, what does this mean?
Undead are evil.That is the revealed trueth dictated from the top of this here organization.Reasons dont matter, the man has had his say.
Those who dont like it can either lump it, plead thier case until the man gives in, _or play with varient rules_<gasp!>.
If wotc does hear the cries of the necromancer inthe wilderness,takes pity on his plight and makes the undead nuetral, then we can expect the true belivers to either ; lump it,like it(cause wotcs word is and should be law),plaed their case for a roll back to the good old days, or _play with varient rules_<gasp!>.
No one is likly to quit playing D20 behind this, they will just be left feeling either gratified or dissatisfied ....
No real corpes or souls will be missused.
No one will be saved .


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 19, 2004)

Ghosts.


----------



## RonYon (Sep 19, 2004)

*Now onto pratical matters...*

My necromancer is ...ethical. Not good or evil, ethical. He does what he does for reasons of his own, and bends to the conventions of society often but only so much.
He generally only animates the corpes of the non sentient. This is out of respect for the sesibilities of the living, practical fear of being mistaken for a grave robber, and uncertianties about the nature of the soul.What he does know is that any culture or being willing to geld a horse, pig or bull so as to make it more useful to its owner, has little to say about how he might treat that animals "soul".Real physical pain and loss vs. theoretical metaphysical torture? Come on now.
Still there are those who will allow a man to drug himself to death, just so long as he has a presciption, damnit!
To keep them happy, my necroman casts a false aura on the taxidermied corpes before he animates them. Now they turn up as a nuetral animated object , and this cuts down on drive by turnings as well.
At latter levels he will animate his own cloned bodies, as well as bodies made with the stone to flesh spell.These will be preseved with oil of timelessness to keep them fresh.
3.5 has eliminated the two ways I knew to make ghosts,but there are still grave spawn,and the crypt thing, and perhaps a undead familier.
If he is a cleric he will take the eberion domain of shadow, just so he can create lesser plannar allies with shadow conjeration, and release them after swearing(geas) them to good conduct.Evil outsiders will be brand new, and thus without sin.They will be offered atonement/ geas, disolution back into shadow, or death.
Finally The Dead Letter Offices will be opened, run by shadow spawned folk,who in adition to their own travling capabilities, will also employ
taxidermied skeleton horses as long endurance  mounts.Skeletons can run all day and night.
Now by the book, My necromancer is evil.
Also by the  book, a "LG" fighter who kills all goblinoids as a race, is A ok.
Yeah, the "races of evil" thingdisturbes me more than making bone dance.
But By the book racism it a ok with good peaple! After all , goblins are are evil.


----------



## Keoki (Sep 19, 2004)

*Read the Books*

It's very different than animating an object. Most real-world religions do consider the body sacred, a gift from the Creator (whoever that might be). For the majority of people in the world, religions define what is good and what is evil. For pure D&D terms, you can check out the Book of Vile Darkness. It doesn't take even simple logic, just a bit of education.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 19, 2004)

RonYon said:
			
		

> Also by the  book, a "LG" fighter who kills all goblinoids as a race, is A ok.



No he is not LG if his reason to kill is based on race alone. 'Usually' evil will include the occasional neutral and there are degrees of evil anyway. 

He is almost certain to harm innocents due to bigotry. By the RaW he is, or will be, LN to LE.


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

RonYon said:
			
		

> Undead are evil. Reasons dont matter.




Apparently you missed the title of the thread.

Also, not all undead are evil. As was pointed out just after your post.



			
				Keoki said:
			
		

> It's very different than animating an object.




In game terms, why? The spell has an evil descriptor, other than that there is no difference.

There are also real world religions who dont care at all about the body once the person is dead, so that cant be used as a basis.

The BoVD and the BoED have very serious issues at times, contradicting themselves, the core, and each other. So those arent much help either.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 19, 2004)

> Ghosts.




AAAAH!  Where?!


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> AAAAH!  Where?!




quick little buggers arent they?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You cannot prove or disprove something simply by stating that you have done so.  Until you actually address said arguments/reasoning, you have done nothing more that pat yourself on the back.




As I, and others, have quoted from the srd items that prove what I have said to a very high degree I think you should start stating useful things in your posts.

This last post of yours says nothing relevant to the topic at all except to imply that my reasoning was not addressing your point. But, since it directly contradicted your point useing the srd as a source then my assumption is that you are currently simply trying to ignore what I have said.

That is your perogative, freedom to think as you will of course, but it matters not at all here.

I will state it at least in part yet again. Your extrapolation from speak with dead to say that the soul imprint is tormented by animation has some very serious flaws. Of which we have that there is nothing about the soul mentioned in animate dead, the soul imprint is effectively made up soley (heh) for that spell and it is not able to remember anything put to it after death (ie it does not react), and the two spells in question work under completely different sets of conditions (part of which is that speak with dead is language dependant on what the deceased knew in life, animated dead has nothing remotely like that in need).

So, while they are both spells that are cast on a body, that is where they stop being similar. Conclusions being sought after for understanding of the evil descritpor simply do not come from the speak with dead spell. They are too dissimilar and have effectively nothing in common (even disintegrate may be cast on a dead body, but I doubt anyone will try to draw parallels from it, except that possibly it is yet another example of doing things to dead bodies not being evil)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The soul imprint mentioned in _speak with dead_, perforce, must also exist when _speak with dead_ is not being cast.  By D&D definitions, the soul imprint has no INT score (i.e., it cannot learn), but it does have a Will save, and whether or not the Will save occurs is based upon the alignment of the questioner and the deceased.  _Speak with dead_ demonstrates, if nothing else, that dead bodies are not treated the same as other objects within the D&D 3.X game.




The spell lets you talk with a dead guy. Of 'course' it is not going to work on something that was never alive. However, that doesnt help show anything useful.

Sure, dead bodies and other objects are treated differently for certain things. One used to be alive whereas the other might not have been alive.

So, the former creature gets a save as though it was still alive. Great. A dead body has some properties that other objects might not have (might be able to talk with it, could possibly resurrect it, etc), but then other objects might have these things depending (a dead tree might be able to be resurrected, there arent any spells for that directly as the rules tend to be more humanoid centric) of course, if the tree had been awakened then a case could definately be made to allow it to be ressurected/reincarnated. Would actually be pretty nice.

Still, in the rules different things that are around tend to have different properties. Be they formerly alive, or cut out of the forest, or found in some sort of mine. Each object has its own special properties and able to be affected by various spells (like only crystalline objects are effected by certain types of spells).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, if I had claimed that this is what *has* to be happening, you would be right.  But, over and over, I claimed that this is *one interpretion of what may be happening*.




Of course I have shown that this cannot be the case useing simple rules from the core books and examples of what is going on.

Sure, you can interpret anything you like, you can say that the aoo rules let you interpret that fire does cold damage, but that doesnt really matter for general purposes.

Even just going through the basic example it is clear that completely seperate things are going on.

I even went back and restated a couple of them yet again. It is well beyond boring to repost it again at this point, feel free to reread.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You have also refused to clarify your position re: evil, and one is left to assume that you are using a morally relativistic stance.




This is a good start:
SRD:
ALIGNMENT
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. 
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. 
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. 
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> An argument that boils down to "For any object or force X that is claimed to be evil, I can point out object or force Y, which is similar, but not evil," requires one to conclude either that (1) nothing is evil, or (2) the similarity between objects/forces X and Y does not, in and of itself, provide an argument that X is not evil.




In order to have an alignment, other than neutral as it can be used as a special case, there has to be thought and motivation. Choice has to be made.

As for your conclusions, 1) is obviously completely fallacious. Objects are obviously unaligned. The stick on the ground has no alignment, the fire in the hearth has no alignment, and similarly the pile of negative energy has no alignment. Each can be used for good, evil, or whatever, but that does not make them evil.

As for 2), once again, objects do not have an alignment. If one tries to state that something is evil because it does X then saying, 'well, this does X but it isnt evil' is a valid response. Especially if they have almost all of the same properties.

Of course, as far as 2) goes you are trying to say that because evil clerics use negative energy then it must be evil. So, you dont mind associating things that work for you (no matter how little sense it makes, might as well say that if an evil cleric picks up a stick to beat someone with suddenly that stick becomes evil) but not when they dont (all fire does is consume and destroy, all negative energy does is consume and destroy)


So, if these are the arguements that you say I 'missed' then I will have to disagree.

The difference between some objects and others is just how the game woks, some are effected differently by different spells. Of course it seems that one could use animate object on a corpse, odd that, wouldnt even have the evil descriptor.

The interpretation useing speak with dead to say that a soul is under torment falls on its face for multiple reasons stated before.

Anyway, have fun, I am sure you will figure it all out sometime.


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Still, if the alignment descriptor means nothing as far as alignment goes then that means the 'only' good reason for it to be there is to prevent good clerics from casting it. Seems like it could easily be taken away.

It still leaves the question of why unintelligent undead have an alignment of evil. Without a choice being made they simply cannot have any alignment other than neutral into themselves.

So, they are not evil because of the spell (the descriptor means nothing)
They are not evil because of negative energy (it is not evil)
They are not evil from choice (they have no mind to make a choice with)
They are not evil because of some sort of soul binding (there is no soul bound, damage, exploited, or otherwise maligned. That would fall under making the spell of the evil descriptor however, which means nothing)

What does that leave?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> They are not evil because of negative energy (it is not evil)




Some applications are.

Note that Defenders of the Faith states unambiguously "Channeling negative energy is an evil act".  This seems to refer to 'channeling' in the sense of 'expending a turn attempt', since Inflict Light Wounds, for example, isn't defined as evil.

But it does make a connection between certain applications of negative energy, and evil.  Given that all undead show up on a Detect Evil spell, regardless of alignment, it seems reasonable to infer that 'powering undead existence' is one such application.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 20, 2004)

*evil is still evil no matter how you look at it*



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> What does that leave?




That you are trying to justify your good aligned character can indeed use Animate Dead and Evil Descriptor spells.

That you believe that once something becomes "normal" its no longer evil that it can be accepted as neutral, then eventually work it in as good thus you should get the +1 caster level for having a good domain.


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Some applications are.




Note that since undead are treated effectively as evil by the core then channeling negative energy in order to control said evil may be what makes it evil.

In essence, it is an evil act because it is being used to control the evil. Whereas channeling positive is good because it is being used to destroy the evil (there are lesser forms of each, but I bet that every cleric is trying for the maximum rather than the minimum effect).

So, that would make for a pretty circular arguement. Channeling negative energy is evil because it is used to control evil undead, undead are evil because you have to channel negative energy into them and that is evil because it is evil to channel negative energy to control them.

To help support this, is it good/evil to turn/rebuke elementals? animals?


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> That you are trying to justify your good aligned character can indeed use Animate Dead and Evil Descriptor spells.




Personally, I couldnt care less if any of my characters are ever able to use animate dead. Be they good, neutral, or evil.



			
				Talon5 said:
			
		

> That you believe that once something becomes "normal" its no longer evil that it can be accepted as neutral, then eventually work it in as good thus you should get the +1 caster level for having a good domain.




Apparently you have still missed the point. As you are completely off base here I will invite you to reread the posts that you are referring to, and a few others in order to get a feeling for arguements that may have spanned more than a single post.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 20, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> That you are trying to justify your good aligned character can indeed use Animate Dead and Evil Descriptor spells.




A good character can. A cleric of a good god cannot.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 20, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Apparently you have still missed the point.




Apparently but it appears that you too have missed a number of points.


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> Apparently but it appears that you too have missed a number of points.




Only if by 'missed' you mean 'didnt agree wholeheartedly with whichever poster you were agreeing with at the time'.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 20, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> A good character can. A cleric of a good god cannot.




I know, I was only pointing out that Scion seems lacking in that understanding and that he seems dedicated to the cause of justifing his actions (or something) in whatever campaign he's in presently or will be in in the future.  

I have read this thread from the on set and it seems to me that one thing keeps getting pounded into us without any attempt at realizing what evil really is or accepting what evil is.

Presently I have two character capable of using Animate Dead- well actually one, one is a CG Cleric, and the other is a NG Wiz6/ArcaneOrder4- he won't because he views Animating the Dead as the act of an evil person or the act of someone that wants supreme domination over someone less capable then himself.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 20, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Only if by 'missed' you mean 'didnt agree wholeheartedly with whichever poster you were agreeing with at the time'.




Or anyone elses


----------



## Scion (Sep 20, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> I know, I was only pointing out that Scion seems lacking in that understanding and that he seems dedicated to the cause of justifing his actions (or something) in whatever campaign he's in presently or will be in in the future.




Yet again, you have blatantly missed the point and refuse to read over the part that you are completely misremembering.

::shrugs:: personal attacks seem to be what you like, that is unfortunate.

However, one last time, you had mentioned something about a situation given in a society where it would be amoral to do so. Hence, I asked what if you were brought up in a society that did allow it and it was not amoral. Effectively showing the contradiction in your, 'it is obviously evil, anyone can see that because society says it is evil' case.

That apparently did not work as you missed the subtelty. Hopefully pointing it out explicitly to you will do the trick.


----------



## BlackSilver (Sep 20, 2004)

*Take a deep breath both of you and answer me this*



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> However, one last time, you had mentioned something about a situation given in a society where it would be amoral to do so. Hence, I asked what if you were brought up in a society that did allow it and it was not amoral. Effectively showing the contradiction in your, 'it is obviously evil, anyone can see that because society says it is evil' case.




Scion & Talon5,
I have noticed that you are both missing something.

Scion, I think is saying that if its acceptable in a society then that means it is not evil?

So an example I think Scion will agree with- in a society where rape is acceptable it is not evil.

Talon5, I believe is trying to explain that if it is evil then it does not matter what society says.

While Talon5 says that even in a society where rape is acceptable its still evil, no matter if you are looking from the outside in or from the inside at the acceptable act.

I would be thankful to you both if you would please stop this line of conversation, it is making me feel more then uncomfortable.


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 20, 2004)

Ahem.

There is no logical argument, within the confines of the D&D RAW, that shows that using the corpses of creatures in any way is inherently evil, just like killing, causing pain, imprisoning, theft, and so forth, do not have inherently evil ties (indeed, to WotC's credit, they didn't shove a bunch of alignment absolutes up our arses.  at least not in the core).

For evil, you have to show malice or knowingly harming someone without remorse.

In D&D, the soul requires the body to return to.  IF it is going to return.  However, serfs rather rarely have that sort of spare cash.  If they die, chances are, they stay dead.  The body is something of a portal key for the soul, but one can well sell a portal key if one never intends to use it.

The soul leaves behind an impression, a foot print in the mud that is the body.  From the way the text explains it, it would seem that the will of the former body owner creates a more complex thought pattern, more difficult to gather.  Considering that a sleeping target fails all saves automatically, the dead body is actually treated as being more defensive than the sleeping living body.  Notably, this same effect (sans the save, because there was no mind at any point) works for Stone Tell, and similar spells, though I'm not sure which of them were ported to 3e.  However, there is absolutely no reference to how this effects the soul itself, and, likely, there is none.

Flesh is flesh. In the real world, we make use of the dead all the time.  In the real world, we usually -respect- organ donors, who leave their legacy of flesh in another even after their death.  A willingly-given body is basically just one big giant organ.  Is it any worse to have your body be a house keeper than to be cut open and experimented on by medical students?  What about when they do experiments with electricity to try and make muscle tissue move?

--

Society's acceptance isn't what's important, what's important is the motive of the individual.

If a society accepts random sexual encounters, without the consent of an individual (some strange peace-keeping tradition, or whatever), and despite their upraising, someone tries to refuse, but is forced anyways because the rapist just doesn't care what they feel, that, then, is an evil act.

However, in that same society, if someone grabbed you to take you out back, but you just accepted it with a shrug and a grin, and they did it solely out of society's ways, it wouldn't be evil.  It'd just be bonobo-style.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2004)

Removed by author


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 20, 2004)

Silver,

That's pretty close.  If that is indeed Scion's pov then that's what I figured.  I understand that societies all over the world view rights differently and what seems acceptable to some is considered evil by others.

Raven that was very interesting.  I accept the ideas you put forth in that and commend you on the writing- very cool indeed, not preachy either.  

Apologies extended to those who found offense in what was being said.  I never felt that my point was heard and still don't (re- evil) but from what I have read evil is more accepted then I wished to know, so thank you very much

Silver- again thanks


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 20, 2004)

*applause*


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2004)

Now, folks... we _are_ all going to keep this thread civil and avoid taking shots at the other posters, _aren't we_?

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 21, 2004)

> As skeletons and zombies are always neutral evil, as creatures that are always evil "may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it," and as skeletons and zombies cannot possibly be said to have gained their alignment through heredity, it must be that the alignment comes from a plane that predetermines it.




Or that the spell itself is what supplies the alignment.  Considering that certain fiends are capable of casting the spell naturally, it is likely that it originated with them.  They are, thus, going to teach the 'tainted' version, rather than trying to purify it.  The deities, on the other hand, who grant the spells, are generally going to prefer evil-aligned forces which their clerics can more readily empower.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Incenjucar (Sep 21, 2004)

Precisely my thinking.  Or, in the case of "Eye Bite", I'd expect a Night Hag, or, at least, a powerful Hag Covey, invented it.

Evil would, after all, be happy to put a teeny bit of energy towards making the world a creepier place.  In exchange for a bit of personal power, they are happy to make it slightly easier for Necromancers and Evil clerics to raise undead armies (since sane mortals would probably avoid them more often than goodly leaders).

I'd either up the level, increase the material cost, increase the physical requirements (time, contact, etc) a bit for the non-aligned version, but maybe make aligned versions for all, with slight quirks to reflect it (maybe different resistances that somehow relate to alignment...?).

I've seen psuedo-undead animated by the primary elements rather than 'energy', so it's hardly a new idea.  Just a really interesting one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Voadam (Sep 21, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> One may then assume that animate dead draws upon the imprinted soul remaining in a corpse or skeleton to provide a general understanding of orders given, and a reasonably complex ability to carry them out.
> 
> That last paragraph was flat-out wrong.      The SRD and Monster Manual are clear in stating that the skills, feats, and abilities of undead animated dead are not based upon the skills, etc., that they had while living, but based upon their creature type.  Therefore, it seems conclusive that the motivating factor is either completely new (replacing the old soul imprint, and making _speak with dead_, _reincarnation_, and _raise dead_ useless thereafter) or totally remakes it (to the same effect).​




Also note that the animated corpse can be commanded and it does not say the creature needed to be able to speak your language when it was alive. You could command an animated dead dear to follow you or to guard a place and it will. So based on the animate dead spell itself it seems that it is not the former knowledge of the corpse but the spell that provides the awareness.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2004)

> There is an argument that states, for example, that fire and negative energy "have almost all of the same properties," but this is simply untrue. The statement "All fire does is consume and destroy, all negative energy does is consume and destroy" is clearly fallicious, because fire does much more than consume and destroy. Fire, for example, can be used to bake cookies, smelt metal, melt water, and warm your hypothermic body. Negative energy does nothing but consume and destroy.




I don't know who originally posted that line of thought, but that is NOT the thrust of the argument of the fire counterexample.

Someone early in this thread attempted to argue that, since negative energy damages all who contact it, it must be evil.  Fire was the obvious counterexample- a non-aligned force that damages those who come into contact with it.

Originally Posted by Incenjucar


> Or that the spell itself is what supplies the alignment. Considering that certain fiends are capable of casting the spell naturally, it is likely that it originated with them. They are, thus, going to teach the 'tainted' version, rather than trying to purify it. The deities, on the other hand, who grant the spells, are generally going to prefer evil-aligned forces which their clerics can more readily empower.




Raven Crowking added:


> In fact, you might rule that any spell with an [Evil] descriptor originated with fiendish powers. You might also rule that there are non-[Evil] and even [Good] versions of such spells (although I would, at a minimum, make the requirements for the spells more stringent, such as requiring the agreement prior to death of the beings to be animated for a [Good] version of the spell).




I and others suggested something like that pages ago...it makes for a good HR if nothing else.  It definitely breaks out of this cycle of hammering round pegs into square holes.  Now, Osiris isn't doing evil when he creates his undead minions, and his minions are not evil.

The only thing it doesn't address it the "Detect Evil" problem, but I suppose that that would be impliedly taken account of within the HR.  To whit- "Detect Evil" detects all undead created with the fiendish versions of the spell, whereas "Detect Good" would detect those created with the divine version.


----------



## Khaalis (Sep 21, 2004)

Moff_Tarkin said:
			
		

> As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.




Saying you will sacrifice another to save 1,000 is evil or at absolute best neutral.  Saying you would sacrifice yourself to save those 1,000 people would be the good act. 

As for a "Good" version of a raise dead spell? Wouldn't that be similat to _Planar Ally_?  The souls/spirits of the dead reside as Parishioners on the various outer planes...  Asking the dead for aid is different than enslaving their body or soul. IMHO, Necromancy that does anything but heal or destroy undead is neutral at absolute best.

JMHO.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2004)

Removed


----------



## FireLance (Sep 22, 2004)

Much like some undead creature itself, this thread just keeps going (so, is it Evil )?

For what it's worth it seems to me that there are two different questions being discussed (no names mentioned):

1. _Given that_ the act of creating undead creatures is evil (or all undead creatures are evil), what explanation can be given for this?

2. _Is_ the act of creating undead creatures (or, are all undead creatures) _always_ evil?

The answer to the first question supposes that it is a *fact* that the act of creating undead creatures or all undead creatures are evil, and merely supplies an explanation that is as logical as possible. There is an inherent conflict because the second question challenges the validity of the first.

As to the argument on absolute vs relative morality, in the core D&D world good and evil are absolutes and some acts are inherently good and evil regardless of social acceptability. In some societies, personal advancement by murdering your superior may be acceptable or even encouraged, but it doesn't make the act any less evil. That said, there are social norms which are neither good nor evil, e.g. the acceptability of eating chicken or ham.

Thus, in core D&D, mindless undead are evil, _animate dead_ is an [Evil] spell and possibly an evil act, regardless of how socially acceptable it is and whether or not it should be the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Metallian (Sep 22, 2004)

*Regarding Scion and Talon5*:

Talon5: Yes, D&D has absolute morality that has nothing to do with cultural relativism. A given society may believe that aristocrats should be able to kill commoners on a whim because the aristocrats' possession of wealth and status "proves" that they are "better." However, in a default D&D world, they would still be Evil if they killed a commoner on a whim...because such an act would violate the way Good is defined in the rules:



> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life...“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.




However, I think what Scion is saying is that, unless you can prove that animating a corpse somehow _inherently_ violates that definition of Good above, people's feelings about it (that it's creepy and wrong or that it's considered "normal") are simply a product of their culture and have no moral weight. That does _not_ mean that Scion thinks culturally-sanctioned murder and rape are okay, because they clearly violate the definition of Good above in a way that Animating Dead does not.

Even the personal preferences of a god do not dictate Good and Evil. Good and Evil are absolutes to which even the gods must adhere. So we can't just say "Well, the gods don't like and that's all we need to prove that it's evil."

Bear in mind that D&D characters live in a world where the metaphysics of life and death are observable, and can be dealt with in reliable, repeatable ways. So if you make a statement like "using corpses as if they were mere objects is Evil because it disrespects them," and claim that it is more _morally correct_ than the statement "using corpses to help the community is Good because it allows the departed to stay with the community and continue helping their loved ones," you should be able to back it up with objective facts that _prove_ that animating corpses causes some kind of harm to innocents.

"Absolute morality" does not mean that you always get to say "just because," though sometimes you can. By my reading of the Alignment section, the key point is whether or not you cause innocents to suffer (Evil), allow innocents to suffer through laziness/apathy/inaction/fear (Neutral), or whether you make personal sacrifices to prevent innocents from suffering (Good). The statement that "causing the suffering of innocents is bad" is an arbitrary starting assumption. Therefore, it's perfectly vaild to say that harming innocents is Evil "just because."

However, to say that any given act is Evil still requires one to show that it does, in fact, _cause innocents to suffer_. Given the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, any moral judgement that is not based on the suffering of innocents is an arbitrary cultural construct.

In this case, it is not clear from the books that animating a Skeleton causes an innocent to suffer. However, the rules (which reflect the natural laws of a D&D universe...which are observable and real to the characters living there) say that it is Evil, so it cannot be a mere cultural construct. That's why we have this big huge thread trying to connect the dots between the definitions of Good and Evil and the statements that creating mindless undead is Evil.

*Regarding Raven Crowking*:

I like your explanation a heck of a lot, because it attempts to derive a credible link between the creation of undead and suffering. It's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for to explain why Undead are Evil in a way that would make sense to a D&D character that could observe the mechanics of life and death in a way that we cannot in real life.

However, I'd like to know your answers to the following questions:

- If the sticking point is that it prevents Raise Dead and Reincarnation, why is it not Inherently Evil to burn or disintegrate a corpse?

- A man dies of old age. He cannot be Raised, Reincarnated, Resurrected, or Truly Resurrected by any means. Why, then, is it a problem if you animate his corpse and thereby prevent him from being Raised or Reincarnated? After all, they couldn't be Raised or Reincarnated _anyway_.

- What if a person consents (with full knowledge of what undeath is all about) to be made undead before they are alive? Why is this different from being an organ donor? 

- How do Ghosts fit into all this? They cannot be created against their will, but just kind of "happen." They can be of any alignment, but even Good ghosts are full of negative energy. 

- Why is channeling positive energy to turn or destroy a Good ghost considered a Good act?

- Does any form of undeath (including the types that preserve the memories and personality of the living being) affect the person's actual soul from going into the afterlife? Does a person's soul chill out in paradise or burn in hell while their "imprint" runs around on Negative Energy fuel? Is a person's soul morally responsible for what it's "remnants" do as a Shadow or Wight or Vampire Spawn?

- If the "imprint" has sentience and "value," why is it okay for it to be left behind in a rotting corpse to begin with?

                                          The Metallian


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 22, 2004)

My explanation in a nutshell is that the unnatural magic to create a zombie tends to inadvertently harm the soul because of the strong link between the soul with the body.  This is a reasonable hypothesis based on common contemporary, historical, and fantasy theories of magic.  This, of course, is not in the RAW.  Just speculation.

I suggested this early in the thread.  Some "insightful" person then called me ignorant for not realizing that the fact Odin could ressurect the chosen of Valhalla every morning proved me wrong.   :\


----------



## Metallian (Sep 22, 2004)

Okay, how's this for an explanation:

_An undead creature's existence reverses the natural flow of positive and negative energy through the multiverse, because the negative energy ends up moving "the wrong way." This reverse flow, in effect, "plugs up" the system. As a result, some new souls (that are born of positive energy) find themselves unable to find purchase in their intended physical forms. Just by existing, undead cause stillbirths and/or birth defects elsewhere in the cosmos.

That's why *creating* undead is Evil...it creates conditions that harm innocent souls.

Undead creatures are almost always Evil themselves because while Negative Energy is fine when it "stays in it's place" as an impassive force for cleaning out the universe and making room for new life, its purpose (destroying life indiscriminately) is Evil once it is given form and gets out in the world.

Ghosts have an obsession that can overcome the Negative Energy's life-destroying purpose. This obsession also means that ghosts can't help being ghosts, and can't just destroy themselves, so they get a free pass on the whole "blocking up the world with negative energy" thing and are allowed to be Good.  On the other hand, they still create a blockage, so it's still Good to turn/destroy them by channeling positive energy. Especially since they'll just come back later. It's best, however, to befriend Good ghosts and help them fulfill their purpose. That will get rid of the blockage permanently.

As for non-Evil Mummies...let's assume that they're in the same boat as Ghosts, except for the whole "coming back" thing.
_


I like it because I _think_ it does not violate any of the pre-existing assumptions about what happens after you die. I don't think it has any problematic implications with respect to existing spells or other game mechanics. How souls are created and put into bodies is not well-detailed, so I figure it's easier to just make stuff up about that without breaking anything. 

On the other hand, while it does account for why _creating_ mindless undead is Evil, it doesn't explain why mindless creatures that are incapable of independent action _are_ Evil. I guess you could say that, in the absence of a strong will (like ghosts), they are just tainted by the act of creation? That works well enough, I think. It goes along with the idea of places and things that are "tainted by Evil."

Anyway, I welcome any explanations of why (according to the Core Rules...there's no way to account for every supplement out there) this theory would not work or would cause problems. Hopefully I can refute them and make the theory stronger, but if not, at least I'll know the theory is flawed and try to come up with a new one.

                                        The Metallian


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2004)

Removed


----------



## Metallian (Sep 23, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Etc.
> 
> Metallian, this works perfectly well within the context of the rules.  It is neat, and clear, and doesn't require _pages_ to explain.  It is not the use of negative energy per se, in your explaination, but the _enduring_ use of negative energy needed to create undead which is evil.




Thanks! That was what I was going for.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ridley's Cohort's explanation is also simple and works well.  Personally, I tend toward more involved speculation that ties in more aspects of the game world, but sometimes simpler is better.




I definitely appreciate your approach as well. It's true that it's more complex, but it also requires less "invention." I've pondered the question that started this thread many times in the past, and this thread has been very interesting to me as I have not yet settled on the "best" answer for me and my campaign.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Metallian, I would still like to answer your questions.
> 
> Assuming that you are using the explanation I gave, which may not be the case, these are the answers I would give.




Yes, I was asking the questions in reference to your theory. Thanks for taking the time to answer them! Hopefully, I shall ponder your answers more fully when I have the time, but they do seem pretty solid.

                                        The Metallian


----------

