Again with the Undead? OY!

[Psychic Warrior]

"Are you a good lich, or a bad lich?"

"I'm Dorothy Gail, from Kansas. I'm not a lich at all."

I have no problem with the occasional creature that breaks the mould. Not every undead has to be evil, just as not every orc has to be evil. Just mostly.

Oh that's dead funny that is

 

[demiurge1138]

Linky to a very long post addressing how I conceived of addressing the problem of undead (and evil/negative energy) from a cosmological point of view (a couple of years old now):

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=808188#post808188

Note it does not include accounting for newer stuff (such as "good liches") but I have to agree with Teflon Billy... Laaa-aamme.

Honestly, the longer an edition is allowed to go, and the more stuff gets "tacked on" by supplement after supplement, the less (not more) internally consistent it becomes.

Good liches aren't new. Monsters of Faerun was the second monster book WoTC published for d20. Before that, there were baelnorn in Faerun (the good elven liches) that got mentioned in novels, and the 2e Monstrous Compendium mentioned archliches briefly in the lich entry. It's not like this just popped up; this certainly isn't a case of any specific edition becoming less internally consistent over time. It's a case of the lack of internal consistency in D&D, period.

And personally, I have no problem with the occasional non-evil undead, but the undead do strongly tend towards evil in my games.

Demiurge out.

 

[mythusmage]

When you can expect to be around for a few thousand years it tends to change how you plan the conquest of the world.

Henchman: Master, the heroes are here to destroy the doomsday device and foil your plans to conquer the world.

Lich: They're what? That old thing's been rotting in storage for the past century. Let 'em have it. I'm going to work on that rapid transit spell of mine. It'll make it easier to keep the empire together when I get it established.

 

[tylermalan]

While I agree that Undead are evil, the concept of evil always seems to be relative, though this is exactly why I think that Undead are evil. Morality issues in society are usually judged by the standard, meaning that if everyone thinks you're evil, you're evil. Undead usually do one of three things: hate life, eat life, or generally just take life. Even assuming that Negative Energy is inherently neutral, the acts that most Undead commit are considered evil by the standard, because the standard is good.

This concept confused me for a long time: Why do typical Drow have an Evil alignment when its normal to murder in Drow society? If its not evil for them, why are they considered Evil?

I always thought it made more sense (though it isn't easier) to judge moral issues exactly like ethical issues are handled, making Law and Chaos relative concepts depending on what's expected of you. Drow are Lawful because they follow their society's laws, but if they followed their laws in a society that didn't support them, they would be considered chaotic by those residents. As such, Undead don't HAVE to be evil, but the norm says they are, so they are.

I don't remember if that was my point, or if I even had one, but I hope its good none-the-less!

 

[bodhi]

Lich: They're what? That old thing's been rotting in storage for the past century. Let 'em have it. I'm going to work on that rapid transit spell of mine. It'll make it easier to keep the empire together when I get it established.

I think in my next campaign I will stick in a BBEG who would be a major threat if he could just focus and stop playing SimCity and Civ.

 

[Altalazar]

Brains! Brains! BRAINS! Is that evil or just hungry?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If negative energy is supposed to be evil because it happens to kill people, how about positive energy? Spend a day on the positive energy plane and then tell me about how wholesome and life-supporting that is. After we scrape you off the walls, that is.

 

[Satori]

This is one of those issues that causes hexagonal castle sieges, craft-based propoganda pictures, and perform check-related protests. No one can agree, and everyone thinks that they have the right answer.

Wanna know how my group and I have dealt with this tricky situation? Well, you're gonna read about it whether you want to or not!

We don't try to solve it. In fact, we don't LET it be solved. We keep it as an unknown, then allow human nature to deal with it within the game.

Combine this with a HIGH magic world and a city run by mindless undead and what do you get?

POLITICS! WOOT!

There is a city ruled by a developing constitutional monarchy that is inhabited by both the living and the undead. Some type of intelligent undead sits at the top, who is then influenced by the Undead Council and the Living Council. Mindless undead do all of the grunt labor within the city, and a centuries long philosophy involving a form of ancestor worship and continual service ensures that the labor force is continually renewed.

Within this city are the Fundamentalists and the Progressives, two opposing political parties (both living and intelligent undead) that constantly wage political wars about the main topic...

THE UNDEAD ISSUE:
-Is the soul completely gone when a zombie is raised? If not, then is it ethical to utilize zombies/skeletons as labor?
-Are undead inherently evil? If so, then do they deserve the same living rights as humans?

These topics are continually debated to no end...but it creates some very interesting RP scenarios.

 

[Li Shenron]

These topics are continually debated to no end...but it creates some very interesting RP scenarios.

And always will be, for our pleasure

Part of the problem is that D&D (or rather the gamers) often require certain overall rules about stuff which is just subjective to the authors themselves, and it's always better to leave it as a setting-specific or campaign-specific decision. The books try to come out with new options, and it's gamers' fault if those options become rules you can't escape... That's the case if a DM freaks out "oh my god they released a good lich in book X, I have to re-design my entire world if undead can be good!"

Furthermore, D&D rarely invents something truly new, the ideas are rather gathered from folklore, legends or famous fiction. So different specific undead have very different background:

- some undead are evil because they wanted to cheat death, and that's evil e.g. from certain religious perspective (e.g. the archetypical Lich is someone who didn't want to accept death at any cost); however in a world with common resurrection spells, it may not be so evil in principle, and it could be conceived a good lich who stays in the world to help the cause of good; at that point, good/evil may depend either on (1) what the NPC was since the start or (2) what means are used to obtain lichdom

- other become undead because they are evil (instead of the opposite); perhaps Ghouls are those so depraved (cannibals) which were unaccepted even in the afterlife

- necromancy (re-animating) may be evil because it goes against nature or gods, and often against the will of the dead; it may also expose the dead to further chances of doing evil (esp. if they are not in full control of themselves, e.g. skeleton/zombie) after the soul is supposedly already clean

- ghosts have various background: from "person who did something bad, and needs to make up for the evil done" (evil), to "person who was done something bad, and cannot rest properly" (good)

 

[glass]

While I agree that Undead are evil, the concept of evil always seems to be relative, though this is exactly why I think that Undead are evil.

Except in D&D, morality isn't relative, it's absolute. Good and evil are real objective forces in the universe.


glass.