Again with the Undead? OY!

[Dannyalcatraz]

A while ago, there was a thread dealing with the question of why Undead were always evil. Most answers said it was because of their connection to the negative material plane or because raising the dead was inherently evil.

However, I (along with some other posters) pointed out there were examples, both in legend and in the game, where either 1) the undead were NOT connected to the NMP, or 2) were not evil (both Mummies and Ghosts may have non-evil alignments). Note: Some in category 1 have changed in the latter editions of this game. The mention of the Deathless as being good was countered by saying they were not Undead but Deathless- a position I found to be disingenuous at best. If it walks like an undead duck, and quacks like an undead duck, its an undead duck.

I found another one today. In Monsters of Faerun, there are 2 lich types listed that are Good- Archliches and certain Elven liches.

(I would have engaged in a little thread necromancy, but, alas, could not find that thread in my subscrption file. I know its in there- I just can't find it.)

Just passing it along.

 

[Teflon Billy]

If it walks like an undead duck, and quacks like an undead duck, its an undead duck.

Agreed.

I found another one today. In Monsters of Faerun, there are 2 lich types listed that are Good- Archliches and certain Elven liches.

That's lame. The Lich is traditionally eeevville incarnate. "Good" in D&D has enough tool sin the box without coughing up a superpowered "Goal" for PC's who can't stomach the idea of being a "bad guy".

You want to be a Lich? Sacrifice something for it. I definitely wouldn;t allow a goody-goody character to both be a Lich and have it be "business-as-usual...because this is a special Lich" :\

 

[Alzrius]

First of all, I think it's more properly "oi". Now that that's out of the way.

Originally (IIRC), Gary did say that mummies had a Positive Energy Plane connection back in the beginning of D&D. However, he's since recanted that (see Mongoose Publishing's Slayer's Guide to the Undead), which reflects the attitude of WotC as well.

In regards to why undead are "always" evil...they aren't. You just pointed out a few non-evil undead, and even creatures with an alignment listing of "always" can still have aberrantly-aligned creatures.

That said, 99.99% of undead are evil simply because their basic nature inclines them to be. Why? Because undeath is inherently evil, as defined by the Book of Vile Darkness; it's why mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies are still evil. 'nuff said.

Deathless aren't undead, per se. A fundamental part of what makes undead undead is a Negative Planar connection. Deathless are dead creatures that still move around due to a Positive Planar connection, and hence are a different kind of walking dead creature altogether, different from undead on a fundamental level.

 

[Shemeska]

That said, 99.99% of undead are evil simply because their basic nature inclines them to be. Why? Because undeath is inherently evil, as defined by the Book of Vile Darkness; it's why mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies are still evil. 'nuff said.

Skeletons and zombies should be neutral by default. I've never seen a persuasive argument for them being otherwise that doesn't devolve into circular logic.

Most undead are evil in DnD largely because of tradition in DnD, and perhaps some tradition in real life, rather than any real reason underlying that in detail. The best rationalization for undead are usually evil is that their being powered by negative energy (though the energy is a neutral, natural force of nature) makes them dispassionate and uncaring towards living creatures, and many of them that are intelligent enjoy killing them, even if it's an act of feeding.

Deathless aren't undead, per se. A fundamental part of what makes undead undead is a Negative Planar connection. Deathless are dead creatures that still move around due to a Positive Planar connection, and hence are a different kind of walking dead creature altogether, different from undead on a fundamental level.

Which I've always found to be innane at best. Things given 'life' by positive energy are one of two things: either they're what we call alive, or they're an animated object. If you want good undead, just have good undead, not the deathless which I don't consider worth giving the time of day.

Deathless seemed to be a poor attempt to make things that were exactly like undead in nearly every way but not animated by negative energy because negative energy is evil and icky, despite the fact that the energy itself is both natural and has no link to evil in any way shape or form. Innately inimical to life? Yes. But so is fire, and fire isn't evil. Neither is negative energy. Deathless also, once again, tried to associate good alignment with positive energy and evil alignment with negative energy. That's a false dichotomy there if there ever was one.

 

[painandgreed]

That's lame. The Lich is traditionally eeevville incarnate. "Good" in D&D has enough tool sin the box without coughing up a superpowered "Goal" for PC's who can't stomach the idea of being a "bad guy".

Lots of things in D&D don't match traditional versions, even if the traditional versions agree amongst themselves. Liches in D&D were magic-users that used magic to sustain themselves after death in an undead form. They were listed as neutral in the MM, or at least "Neutral (evil)" whcih I alwasy read to be neutral with evil tendencies.

Why are most undead considered evil while others try to distance themselves from the term? I suspect it is much like how necromancy gains the evil moniker. Not always evil but often considered such. I suspect that the animation of undead, either using positive or negative energy can be used to produce either inherently good, neutral or evil creatures or even creatures whose alignment is determined by the creature whose intelligence guides the animated corpse. However, it is probably easier to take the left hand path and animate dead with negative energy in an evil way. Therefore that is the road most often taken. The harder way is most often used to extend or restore life. Creating animated corpses that are good is possible and needed in some circumstances, but probably not generally as easy as bringing the person back to life. I have no idea if this is demonstrated by the various methods of creating undead versus deathless.

 

[Voadam]

Detect evil always detects undead as evil. Even if they are good.

In my campaign I view the evil of skeletons and zombies as an inherent aspect of them to try to kill any living thing they come across. They can be commanded to stand there and do nothing or even to do good acts, but on their own they become classic wandering monsters who attack on sight.

The 3e neutral ones I viewed as basically animated automatons who detected as evil.

I rationalize the always detecting as evil as they are powered by [EVIL] the primal supernatural force. That is why undead creating spells and undead always detect as evil regardless of their true alignment or the moral uses they are put to, they are empowered and infused with supernatural physical [EVIL].

I like the wandering monster 3.5 hostile animated dead who can be commanded better than the passive 3.0 neutral versions.

 

[Aidan mac Culloch]

I suspect part of the issue with the classification of undead is the difficulty involved with separating impressions from reality. It is hard to argue that most undead aren't at least creepy in appearance and action. Right or wrong, for the majority of people, creepy = evil, or at least a tendency towards evil. This impression is transferred to the player, unless you are really good at separating yourself completely from your character.

The primary argument I always hear usually involves clerics and turning. Would good-aligned clerics have this ability if undead weren't inherently evil? A valid point, maybe, but I think it mainly proves that good deities consider undead unnatural, perhaps a violation of life as it is intended. This is no more strong a vibe than the one a paladin would have if he caught his party's rogue stealing from an orphan. It does not follow that the rogue (or the undead, by similar argument) is evil, just that it offends a particular entity who can do something about it. In our case, the deities chose to give their servants power to repel undead. Does not, in my book, require an evil alignment.

Clearly, it is a muddy issue. Interesting to think about though.

 

[William Ronald]

First of all, I think it's more properly "oi". Now that that's out of the way.

Originally (IIRC), Gary did say that mummies had a Positive Energy Plane connection back in the beginning of D&D. However, he's since recanted that (see Mongoose Publishing's Slayer's Guide to the Undead), which reflects the attitude of WotC as well.

In regards to why undead are "always" evil...they aren't. You just pointed out a few non-evil undead, and even creatures with an alignment listing of "always" can still have aberrantly-aligned creatures.

That said, 99.99% of undead are evil simply because their basic nature inclines them to be. Why? Because undeath is inherently evil, as defined by the Book of Vile Darkness; it's why mindless undead such as skeletons and zombies are still evil. 'nuff said.

Deathless aren't undead, per se. A fundamental part of what makes undead undead is a Negative Planar connection. Deathless are dead creatures that still move around due to a Positive Planar connection, and hence are a different kind of walking dead creature altogether, different from undead on a fundamental level.

Well, first, Oy in this case seems to be from the Yiddish phrase Oy Vey, loosely translated as O Woe, or Woe is me.

As far as the undead, I don't really have a problem with non-evil undead. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Indeed, the rarity of the exceptions tends to make them all the more remarkable and compelling. ( Think of the protagonists of the series Forever Knight and Angel , as well as Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel . Many of the vampires on these shows were evil or at best amoral. However, the good vampires were exceptional because of this.)

I am neutral on the Deathless, as I don't use Eberron. I would argue that something the core rules does NOT do well is model ways to keep PCs and NPCs alive beyond their normal lifespans -- which is a standard trait of many figures in myth, legend, and fiction. (Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved does have some spells for this, and I think the Epic Level Handbook has a feat to extend natural lifespan.)

Perhaps what makes the Undead often evil is not a tie to a specific plane, but an attitude towards other sentient beings. Good presupposes a belief that others have inherent rights. Evil tends to view individuals as resources to be used by the powerful, without regard for rights. So, perhaps an undead who has to feed on the living might grow contemptuous of mortals.

 

[Zzyzx]

For me, the definition of evil is using others as tools instead of independent actors (or treating them as means instead of ends in themselves). I read too much Emmanuel Kant in school.

Intelligent undead that consume other intelligent creatures are therefore evil.

Creation of undead by animating corpses of intelligent creatures is therefore also an evil act, although more arguably so.

That plus "icky=evil" and "unnatural false life=evil" explains it well enough for me.

 

[Aaron L]

First of all, I think it's more properly "oi". Now that that's out of the way.

That just made my night. Not entirely shure why though.


Oi Oi Oi