• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why are undead inherently evil?

I agree that yes, undead can be "evil" because of the circumstances of their creation, but I don't believe the condition itself should be inherently evil. Skeletons and Zombies don't automatically have the urge to attack living creatures (this being a detail added later to justify them having an evil alignment), and the Paladin's smite ability can be altered to include positive energy (since if they can heal people they should certainly be able to hurt zombies the same way). In D&D, evil implies a degree of sadism and premeditation; "hatred" is not inherently evil (or else it would be wrong to take revenge on evil people who hurt you). I find it really questionable that "insane" is often equated with "evil," despite insane meaning that the creature can't actually tell the difference (which would make them chaotic neutral instead).

Why should people who were brutally murdered come back as evil gits just as likely to hurt their family as the people who killed them? It would make more sense for them to want not only revenge but to finish their other unfinished business like caring for their loved ones. Wraith: The Oblivion got a ton of mileage out making ghosts into three-dimensional characters with their own motivations and character flaws (in fact, those games got a ton of mileage out of making traditionally villainous characters into heroes, sometimes).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Most sources I've seen on the subject flip-flop over whether undead are inherently evil or not, despite negative energy itself being neutral and a perfectly natural part of nature.
The flippant but short answer is because author of the game decided it was Evil (with a capital "E", as the Rules of the universe decree it to so). And said author was influenced by the general view of necromancy as black magick, or the blackest of black magick.

Any other answer is hand waving at best and fan wanking at worst, a justification for how the world works.
But I'll play ball. Why are undead evil?

You hit on most of the arguments, but present them very one-sided. So let's start by looking at those.

1) Desecration of a body. This is ridiculous because people in D&D have solid proof for the afterlife and therefore death holds absolutely no mystery or suspense for them. Therefore they shouldn't treat their dead the same way we in the real world do, because they know for a fact that corpses are nothing more than hunks of rotting meat that retains impressions of the memories of the soul that used to own it, but the actual soul has moved on to the afterlife and has no connection to the body other than for purposes of resurrection.
People in a D&D world have solid proof for an afterlife, which also means they have solid proof their bodies are the creation of god(s) and they have tangible knowledge of the existence of the soul. So animating the dead is desecrating the creation of a god and being rude to the vessel of a soul that is not yours.
There's no reason they wouldn't want to treat bodies with respect. We treat bodies with respect because we believe they had a soul. Why would knowledge negate that?

2) Negative energy is evil, positive energy is good. For one thing, enough positive energy will make you explode. For another thing, without negative energy nothing would ever be able to die and make way for new things to exist. (or else, why would these two planes even exist?) Positive and negative energy represent life and death, respectively. But because death is scary, people assume it is therefore evil and then we get things like various grim reaper monsters that simply carry out the natural workings of the cosmos receiving "evil" as their alignment.
This is an iffy one. Presentation of the Negative Elemental Plane is spotty at best.
The argument that without negative energy things would not be able to die is... questionable. Death is arguably the absence of positive energy not the presence of negative energy. And the NEP typically represents "unlife" more than "death". It's anti-life.

3) Undead are unnatural/It prevents resurrection magic. How is raising someone from the dead any less unnatural than raising them as a zombie? In fact, resurrection is MORE unnatural because it actually drags the soul from the afterlife and places it back in the body. Scratch that, raising it as an undead is just as natural as letting it rot, since both reanimation and the natural cycle of decay are caused by negative energy (otherwise, why would the plane exist?). Which is really inconsistent that the force responsible for natural rot also preserves undead bodies, but we'll ignore that little self-contradiction.
This is the big one.

First, arguably decay is caused by the positive plane as microorganisms are alive. But that's likely a side topic on how death and decay works in a magical world...
Second, resurrection magic has been presented as "unnatural" on more than one occasion and more than one Death god has been anti-resurrection. But, at its worst, raising the dead just delays the natural order. And most resurrection magic explicitly cannot be used on somewhat natural deaths (old age). And you cannot raise an unwilling creature, so it's not forcing someone to come back (no dragging back a soul like in Buffy).

Raising the undead is a continual violation of the natural order. It's a continual slight against nature.

4) Animating a zombie/skeleton/whatever tortures the soul inside it. For one thing, most undead explicitly do not have souls, as stated by any spells that can manipulate souls. The only undead that retain their souls are things like liches and vampires, whereas others are either mindless hunks of meat/bone or developed a simple intelligence to replace their original soul. For those latter undead, their souls are enjoying the afterlife, and nowhere near the reanimated corpse. Even for intelligent undead, their souls aren't being tortured, they were either evil to begin with or had an alignment shift (or were/stayed good for some reason), which still isn't soul torture and is usually reversible.
You overlook ghosts and the like. Spectral undead are tortured souls being denied a peaceful afterlife (or escaping their just punishment).
And while liches are not tortured, they're very much the exception. Not everyone chooses to be a vampire: most vampire spawn are victims, potentially still with a soul that is slowly being corrupted and tainted with years of unnatural hunger. The same could be said for ghouls.

The reasons are also not exclusive. A vampire is both #3 and 4, which makes it worse than just raising the dead or torturing a soul.
An unmentioned reason is that many undead infect others with undeath spreading their curse to innocents. Wraith, specters, shadows, ghouls, and mohrg create spawn.
 

There are numerous examples of non-evil liches in multiple settings and multiple editions.
Monster Manual, page 167:
Alignment: Any Evil
Page 168:
"The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil..."
Book of Vile Darkness, page 8:
"Unliving corpses - corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit."

Oh, also, according to BoED 31, a Vow of Peace lets you kill Necropolitans and ghosts just fine.
 

Undead shouldn't be inherently evil. Inherently predatory, perhaps, but not evil. My setting's undead are simply given some form of animation by minor extraplanar entities, most of which are just a bare sliver of conciousness desiring nothing but to feed. Mindless undead are as neutral as a carnivorous plant. Actually sentient ones are created in much nastier ways, and would fit a human definition of evil in most cases. And stuff like liches are something quite different. To use them as an example, the ritual to become one involves a couple of low-grade atrocities, and is almost only ever actually done by those who have already merrily leaped past the Moral Event Horizon.
So, my favored way of doing things gives reasons for undead to be viewed as inherently evil by the living. But aside from asinine D&D morality, nothing says it's automatically the case. If a GM wants morally complex undead, go for it. Sounds awesome.
 

Undead ARE inherently evil. All evil all the time. Any argument otherwise is likely to be wheedling from a necromancer to slip something by a strongly opinioned good character like a priest or paladin.
 

People in a D&D world have solid proof for an afterlife, which also means they have solid proof their bodies are the creation of god(s) and they have tangible knowledge of the existence of the soul. So animating the dead is desecrating the creation of a god and being rude to the vessel of a soul that is not yours.
There's no reason they wouldn't want to treat bodies with respect. We treat bodies with respect because we believe they had a soul. Why would knowledge negate that?
The soul has moved on. The body is literally nothing more than a lump of lifeless meat. It's no more "rude" to the former inhabitant than digging through their garbage bin. And I would argue that mind-control, tattoos, non-vanilla sexual proclivities, or dozens of other things could be considered "desecrating the creation of a god." D&D morality doesn't make much sense to begin with, since it tries to be both objective and follow progressive/liberal societal mores, and instead ends up creating bizarre and offensive situations like a gay half-elf paladin angsting about being mixed-race and gay while happily slaughtering and looting goblin villages (while ignoring the fact that he can just use magic to change his race and sexual orientation as easily as he changes his clothes).


This is an iffy one. Presentation of the Negative Elemental Plane is spotty at best.
The argument that without negative energy things would not be able to die is... questionable. Death is arguably the absence of positive energy not the presence of negative energy. And the NEP typically represents "unlife" more than "death". It's anti-life.
Despite being "anti-life," undead are little different from living creatures aside from various immunities. You can use positive energy to create the exact equivalent of undead (immunities and all), and somehow its not considered evil or unnatural despite being identical in every way but in energy type. I'd hazard a guess that there are probably dozens of planets in the D&D verse that are otherwise normal aside from all the life using negative energy instead of positive, where paladins and good clerics channel negative energy, and evil clerics and anti-paladins channel positive energy and creatures powered by positive energy are considered evil and unnatural.


First, arguably decay is caused by the positive plane as microorganisms are alive. But that's likely a side topic on how death and decay works in a magical world...
Second, resurrection magic has been presented as "unnatural" on more than one occasion and more than one Death god has been anti-resurrection. But, at its worst, raising the dead just delays the natural order. And most resurrection magic explicitly cannot be used on somewhat natural deaths (old age). And you cannot raise an unwilling creature, so it's not forcing someone to come back (no dragging back a soul like in Buffy).

Raising the undead is a continual violation of the natural order. It's a continual slight against nature.
Reanimating corpses doesn't affect the soul and the various create undead spells cannot create undead with souls like liches or vampires. Creating a golem is arguably evil because you're enslaving an elemental spirit. Saying it's unnatural makes no sense because negative is natural. It's the classic appeal to nature fallacy.

You overlook ghosts and the like. Spectral undead are tortured souls being denied a peaceful afterlife (or escaping their just punishment).
And while liches are not tortured, they're very much the exception. Not everyone chooses to be a vampire: most vampire spawn are victims, potentially still with a soul that is slowly being corrupted and tainted with years of unnatural hunger. The same could be said for ghouls.

The reasons are also not exclusive. A vampire is both #3 and 4, which makes it worse than just raising the dead or torturing a soul.
An unmentioned reason is that many undead infect others with undeath spreading their curse to innocents. Wraith, specters, shadows, ghouls, and mohrg create spawn.
Only some spectral undead actually retain their souls, and are generally undone if they're unfinished business is fulfilled, while others are just impressions of emotions bound with negative energy. The intelligent ones retain their living alignment and are good or evil like normal people. A vampire's soul is not being corrupted over time: they were shifted to evil as soon as they arose, and killing and resurrecting them turns them back into the creatures they used to be with no side effects. Furthermore, vampires can hypothetically retain their good alignment (remember Jander Sunstar?), and by the Monster Manual do not need blood to survive (barring the sustenance rules from Libris Mortis, and it's not like they can't just feed on animals or evil humanoids). The best you can argue is that certain types of undead are evil because they were evil while alive or became evil because their wills were overcome by an evil undead, but not that all undead are inherently evil.
 

Monster Manual, page 167:
Alignment: Any Evil
Page 168:
"The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil..."
Book of Vile Darkness, page 8:
"Unliving corpses - corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit."

Oh, also, according to BoED 31, a Vow of Peace lets you kill Necropolitans and ghosts just fine.

If you want me to quote examples of explicitly non-evil liches, I can. I created a few of them in print.

Also, the BoED also seems to think that magical forced torture to alter someone's alignment to good is a perfectly good act, and poison that causes horrible suffering is bad unless it's a ravage that only affects evil people... so yeah, probably not the best source on determining if something is evil or not.
 

The soul has moved on. The body is literally nothing more than a lump of lifeless meat. It's no more "rude" to the former inhabitant than digging through their garbage bin.
That is your belief. It is not shared by many major religions.

And I would argue that mind-control, tattoos, non-vanilla sexual proclivities, or dozens of other things could be considered "desecrating the creation of a god." D&D morality doesn't make much sense to begin with, since it tries to be both objective and follow progressive/liberal societal mores, and instead ends up creating bizarre and offensive situations like a gay half-elf paladin angsting about being mixed-race and gay while happily slaughtering and looting goblin villages (while ignoring the fact that he can just use magic to change his race and sexual orientation as easily as he changes his clothes).
We're discussing the morality of animating the dead. Whether or not X should be evil or not is a side discussion.
(I'd be careful bringing up homosexuality in that tone, even as an example. Let's not get into that topic. It'll derail things and lead to a lock.)

Despite being "anti-life," undead are little different from living creatures aside from various immunities. You can use positive energy to create the exact equivalent of undead (immunities and all), and somehow its not considered evil or unnatural despite being identical in every way but in energy type. I'd hazard a guess that there are probably dozens of planets in the D&D verse that are otherwise normal aside from all the life using negative energy instead of positive, where paladins and good clerics channel negative energy, and evil clerics and anti-paladins channel positive energy and creatures powered by positive energy are considered evil and unnatural.
Deathless are part of one world (Eberron) and hardly common, and were created far after the decision to make undead evil. I wouldn't use them to set the rule.
Plus morality is a litte fuzzier in Eberron at the best of time. It's more of a suggestion than a hard rule.
And one could argue that Deathless are good not because of their connection to the elemental plane but because of the culture, and sacrifice asked of those who become Deathless.

Reanimating corpses doesn't affect the soul and the various create undead spells cannot create undead with souls like liches or vampires. Creating a golem is arguably evil because you're enslaving an elemental spirit. Saying it's unnatural makes no sense because negative is natural. It's the classic appeal to nature fallacy.
Ummm... Create Undead creates ghoul, ghosts, mohgrs, and mummies. All of which are intelligent undead. Which do have souls according to the Magic Jar spell. And Create Greater Undead allows for spectral undead which are souls.

Only some spectral undead actually retain their souls, and are generally undone if they're unfinished business is fulfilled, while others are just impressions of emotions bound with negative energy.
They have to retain some connection to their past selves or they'd be unaffected by ressurection magic.

The intelligent ones retain their living alignment and are good or evil like normal people. A vampire's soul is not being corrupted over time: they were shifted to evil as soon as they arose, and killing and resurrecting them turns them back into the creatures they used to be with no side effects. Furthermore, vampires can hypothetically retain their good alignment (remember Jander Sunstar?), and by the Monster Manual do not need blood to survive (barring the sustenance rules from Libris Mortis, and it's not like they can't just feed on animals or evil humanoids). The best you can argue is that certain types of undead are evil because they were evil while alive or became evil because their wills were overcome by an evil undead, but not that all undead are inherently evil.
Jander spent the entire book struggling not to be evil.

And casting a spell that ends up eternally corrupting a soul sounds pretty evil to me.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top