Why are undead inherently evil?

[VelvetViolet]

That's nice. But exceptions to the rule are still exceptions.

That's stated to be the norm whenever a ghoul is pregnant (the in-story author was a necromancer who captured undead to experiment on them). It's where we get half-ghouls from. So we know for a fact that ghouls, which are otherwise evil, are capable of feeling affection for offspring they have after their reanimation.

For me, evil implies a degree of sadism and active cruelty. If undead creatures are simply hungry and not harming living creatures out of spite, then they should qualify as neutral. If they're attacking out of hatred or insanity, chaotic neutral. If they're just defending their tombs from grave robbers, lawful neutral. If they're attacking for pleasure, then they're chaotic evil.

Note that being non-evil does not mean an undead isn't dangerous or a pest like locusts or rats. It just means it isn't evil. It's the same reason why slaad aren't evil despite doing most of the same things undead do (e.g. they reproduce by laying eggs inside people). Or why formians aren't evil despite regularly genociding the inhabitants of planets they conquer.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm talking about the D&D rules, not real life.

So is he. It's the rules that undead are evil. He's giving you the explanation - that the process of making them undead is a sacriligious act to the former soul that occupied that body. And he's saying that position by the D&D rules is somewhat of a mirror of real world religions (like lots of rules are mirrors of real world mythology).

But I'm pretty sure most real world religions don't believe that the soul literally stays inside of the corpse.

No, they say desecration of a corpse is an offense to the soul that moved on.

Otherwise, why aren't people protesting the entire institution of archaeology as glorified grave robbing and putting grave goods and mummies on display as sacrilege and blasphemy that keeps the souls of the deceased from moving on?

They do. But it's not about keeping a soul from moving on, it's from committing an act of desecration.

Why aren't we demanding that all murderers, even accidental ones, be executed so that their victims can rest in peace? Isn't the whole point of the afterlife to be a place for souls to go after dying? Being trapped in your own rotting corpse for eternity would a horrible hellish nightmare (assuming you could still feel it, since your nerves are all rotted); at that point, being reanimated as a zombie wouldn't make any difference to the deceased if their existence otherwise consists of feeling themselves rotting forever and unable to move.

Nobody is arguing that the soul remains in the corpse. They're arguing that desecrating a body is an offense to the soul. The soul has moved on, but still exists, somewhere.

Is this really new news? The entire death rites and burial ceremony are based on these belief systems.

But I digress... we're talking about D&D. Not real world religions.

In this case, D&D agrees with real world religions. Both agree.

 

[VelvetViolet]

No, they say desecration of a corpse is an offense to the soul that moved on.

If you were a petitioner, would you care that your corpse was being used as zombie labor? You have no need for it, you can't feel it, and you wouldn't even know unless someone told you. Why would you care if that body no longer has any kind of value to you?

What if you came back in another body and then reanimated your first corpse as a zombie? Would that be considered desecrating yourself? Would that be more or less evil than someone else doing it instead?

Key issue here: Do intelligent undead like ghouls and mohrgs still have the same souls they had before they died? Because nowhere in the description of Create Undead is the status of the original soul mentioned. Does the spell create new souls out of negative energy? Do spontaneous or spawned undead still have their original souls?

 

[Jester David]

No, they aren't. One is fact, the other isn't. If it's provable that the soul leaves the body, then once it leaves the body then the body is then a meaningless hunk of meat. Necromancy is a completely logical move.

Hunk of meat yes. But meaningless? That's dependant on the belief structure. It doesn't matter if the soul scrubbed all soul fragments away with spirit bleach, if Pelor/ Desna/ Lathander says the body is sacred and should not be defiled then the body is sacred and should not be defiled.

As a baseline. You can do whatever you want in a homebrew.

 

[Jester David]

That's stated to be the norm whenever a ghoul is pregnant (the in-story author was a necromancer who captured undead to experiment on them). It's where we get half-ghouls from. So we know for a fact that ghouls, which are otherwise evil, are capable of feeling affection for offspring they have after their reanimation.

So you're arguing we should use a single article in a licenced yet unofficial source published by an amature author should be used to determine the norm?

For me, evil implies a degree of sadism and active cruelty. If undead creatures are simply hungry and not harming living creatures out of spite, then they should qualify as neutral. If they're attacking out of hatred or insanity, chaotic neutral. If they're just defending their tombs from grave robbers, lawful neutral. If they're attacking for pleasure, then they're chaotic evil.

Most undead are pretty malicious and regularly described as hating the living. The two exceptions are skeletons and zombies, but you can argue that they have an alignment as they're tainted by evil.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Hunk of meat yes. But meaningless? That's dependant on the belief structure.

The belief structure is completely meaningless. The facts are the facts.

It doesn't matter if the soul scrubbed all soul fragments away with spirit bleach, if Pelor/ Desna/ Lathander says the body is sacred and should not be defiled then the body is sacred and should not be defiled.

Not unless Pelor reaches down and Consecrates/Hallows/Blesses/makes into magic items the corpses of all his followers.

As a baseline. You can do whatever you want in a homebrew.

I'm not talking about any homebrew. I am talking about the rules.

Most undead are pretty malicious

Predatory, sure, but malicious? I'd like a source on that.

Or, let me put it this way: Is it wrong to eat a cow? No? Then is not an old and high-level vampire as far from a human as a human is from a cow? From its perspective, it's simply eating a herd animal, a lower creature that's alive to be food.

and regularly described as hating the living.

Citation?

The two exceptions are skeletons and zombies, but you can argue that they have an alignment as they're tainted by evil.

No, you can't. They're Evil because they're Evil. Evil is completely arbitrary. There is no "taint" involved, it's just that the cosmic forces declare them to be evil and therefore they are arbitrarily evil, dead stop, the end.

Also, you forgot ghosts.

 

[Jester David]

If you were a petitioner, would you care that your corpse was being used as zombie labor? You have no need for it, you can't feel it, and you wouldn't even know unless someone told you. Why would you care if that body no longer has any kind of value to you?

Who says you can't feel it?
And it still belongs to you, so using it without permission is theft.

But, again, I don't think you can point to one single reason as THE reason undead are evil. It's the combination of disrespect for the dead, body theft, violation of the natural order, using the magic of anti-life, creating creatures that might create spawn. All before you get into the issue of corrupting souls, trapping souls, and the like.

Key issue here: Do intelligent undead like ghouls and mohrgs still have the same souls they had before they died? Because nowhere in the description of Create Undead is the status of the original soul mentioned. Does the spell create new souls out of negative energy? Do spontaneous or spawned undead still have their original souls?

The rules don't say one way or another.

However, given souls are a big deal in hell, it's likely mortal magic can't easily create one. And resurrection an expensive process, which would be cheaper if you could fabricate a new soul. This is logically backed up by the spells trap the soul, designed to prevent resurrection magic. It's an 8th-level spell and if someone could just create a new soul via the 6th-level spell create undead it would be silly to try and trap souls.
I think it's fair to say that mortal magic cannot create souls.
Plus, souls contain the memories of the person in D&D. And intelligent undead retain the memories of their past life.
So it's a very safe bet that intelligent undead would have to have the same soul.

 

[Mistwell]

If you were a petitioner, would you care that your corpse was being used as zombie labor? You have no need for it, you can't feel it, and you wouldn't even know unless someone told you. Why would you care if that body no longer has any kind of value to you?

I get you feel that way. I am not objecting that you feel that way. I, and others, are explaining that most religions, including those in D&D, appear to disagree with your view. It's as simple as that. Corpse desecration is against the law in pretty much every nation in the world, and has been for thousands of years. All societies see some value in respecting the body of the dead.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

I get you feel that way. I am not objecting that you feel that way. I, and others, are explaining that most religions, including those in D&D, appear to disagree with your view.

Including the ones that suggest destroying corpses completely?

Or, and here's the big thing, in D&D any such belief is objectively wrong.

It's as simple as that. Corpse desecration is against the law in pretty much every nation in the world, and has been for thousands of years.

I'd like stats on that if you don't mind.

All societies see some value in respecting the body of the dead.

Only if you redefine "respect" to include things like torching the corpse and being done with it or various other methods of destruction, and there are a few who just leave it.

But, hey, Euro-centrism I guess.

 

[Jester David]

The belief structure is completely meaningless. The facts are the facts.

And a 9th level caster can cast commune and ask Pelor "is it bad to do things to this corpe?" If he says "yeah bro, that's totally defiling and like rude" then that is also a fact.

Knowing something for a fact and believing something without a doubt are functionally the same thing. They are not the same thing but they act like the same thing.
I don't know that the light is going out in the refrigerator when I close the door, I just believe it very strongly. I don't need to close myself in the fridge to see for myself. And knowing for sure won't change how I act.

Not unless Pelor reaches down and Consecrates/Hallows/Blesses/makes into magic items the corpses of all his followers.

Just because an item does not have the "holy" special quality does not mean it's okay to mutilate. Things can be a sin even if they're mundane. Most gods have some mundane restrictions and dogma.

I'm not talking about any homebrew. I am talking about the rules.

(You were actually referring to some setting you were writing.)

Predatory, sure, but malicious? I'd like a source on that.

Do you have a source that they're not?
In all seriousness, most intelligent undead are typically written as being uniformly evil. There are the typical exceptions, but that's standard of D&D, as it just needs those tortured good guy vampires, and liches, and drow.

Or, let me put it this way: Is it wrong to eat a cow? No?

Vegetarians say yes. And cows also aren't sentient creatures. And they're seldom alive when you begin to eat them.

Then is not an old and high-level vampire as far from a human as a human is from a cow? From its perspective, it's simply eating a herd animal, a lower creature that's alive to be food.

That's what they believe yes. But they are EVIL so I think they might have some bias.

Citation?

Seen it in a few undead entries.
But I'm already 20-minutes late for bed so digging through a dozen monster books from five editions of the games seems... unproductive at best. And the Hypertext SRD is pretty fluff light so that's of no use.

No, you can't. They're Evil because they're Evil. Evil is completely arbitrary. There is no "taint" involved, it's just that the cosmic forces declare them to be evil and therefore they are arbitrarily evil, dead stop, the end.

Also, you forgot ghosts.

Ghosts are intelligent, so no.
And I think we've given so big justifications over this thread, so I wouldn't say it's completely arbitrary.