Why does Undead=Evil

[Dannyalcatraz]

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]

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]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[FireLance]

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]

Removed

 

[Metallian]

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]

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]

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]

Removed