D&D 5E Animate Dead and Alignment Restrictions

[Dausuul]

There are many things that are taboo to certain cultures that aren't evil. Many people consider corpses to be dirty, creepy, disgusting, etc. I don't see entire worlds suddenly implementing mass undead labor just because the spell animate dead lost the [evil] tag.

I do. Taboos fall by the wayside real fast when society finds a way to derive enormous benefit from breaking the taboo. And that's especially true when war is involved. Undead are the perfect soldiers--not because they're great fighters, but because the logistical concerns that weigh like shackles on a living army don't touch them at all. They can march twenty-four hours a day. They don't need food. They don't need water. They're immune to disease, which historically was far more deadly to a soldier than combat. They're cheap to recruit and totally loyal. They can even see in the dark! (And at night, a world without electric lighting is very, very dark.)

All else being equal, a nation that was willing to raise an undead army would crush a nation that wasn't. Just maneuver around their plodding troops, dart into their home territory, and lay waste. Cut their supply lines, scorch the earth ahead of them, and watch them starve. After a while, the only nations left would be those that were willing to send their dead to war. Once that taboo had fallen, why not find a use for the undead in peacetime?

Of course, under 3E and later rules, the supply of undead is limited by the supply of necromancers powerful enough to create and command them, so they wouldn't displace living soldiers altogether. But even a small force of skeletal troops would be invaluable as scouts and raiders. Without a compelling reason not to use them, they would quickly become widespread. "They will blight the earth and leave both sides desolate" is a compelling reason. "They let Orcus control your brain" is a compelling reason. "They're icky" isn't.

 

[Mistwell]

I had posted this on the WotC forums and just copy/pasted it here, as I thought it could be a good discussion. That, and you never know, maybe the good folks at WotC visit these boards too.

That's also not a good way to get a rules change.

Is it just that you don't like using Twitter? I can ask him for you, if you like.

[Edit - I went ahead and asked him about it]

 

[Falling Icicle]

By the fantasy rule that outer form is usually indicative of inner nature (unless your inner nature is deception), aren't things that are evil dirty, creepy, and disgusting because they are evil? Evil things are aren't dirty, creepy, and disgusting by accident. A corpse is awful to look upon because it represents an evil in the world. An animated corpses is even more horrid to look upon because it represents a more horrid evil in the world.

Every culture has practices that other people find to be disgusting or repulsive. That doesn't make them evil. Burial practices in particular vary widely from one culture to another. Some cultures bury their dead, some burn them, some leave them out for scavengers to eat, some even practice cannibalism. There are monasteries whose walls and ceilings are decorated with the bones of dead monks. Those practices aren't evil just because other people find them repulsive. Some other cultures look at western civilizations' practice of conducting autopsies on the dead to be grotesque and disrespectful to the dead. Others would point out the benefit to science and how it helps the living. Those views aren't wrong or evil just because other cultures disagree.

I think people naturally are repulsed by the sight of corpses for a few reasons. For one, it is a reminder of our own mortality, something we prefer not to think about. There may even be biological reasons why we find corpses disgusting. Just as we have a natural fear of heights, we've evolved to instinctively recognize things that can be dangerous. Rotting corpses often carry disease, so it would make sense that we have a natural tendency to be afraid of them.

 

[Falling Icicle]

That's also not a good way to get a rules change.

Is it just that you don't like using Twitter? I can ask him for you, if you like.

Sure, if you don't mind. I don't have a Twitter account myself.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I do. Taboos fall by the wayside real fast when society finds a way to derive enormous benefit from breaking the taboo. And that's especially true when war is involved. Undead are the perfect soldiers--not because they're great fighters, but because the logistical concerns that weigh like shackles on a living army don't touch them at all. They can march twenty-four hours a day. They don't need food. They don't need water. They're immune to disease, which historically was far more deadly to a soldier than combat. They're cheap to recruit and totally loyal. They can even see in the dark! (And at night, a world without electric lighting is very, very dark.)

All else being equal, a nation that was willing to raise an undead army would crush a nation that wasn't. Just maneuver around their plodding troops, dart into their home territory, and lay waste. Cut their supply lines, scorch the earth ahead of them, and watch them starve. After a while, the only nations left would be those that were willing to send their dead to war. Once that taboo had fallen, why not find a use for the undead in peacetime?

Of course, under 3E and later rules, the supply of undead is limited by the supply of necromancers powerful enough to create and command them, so they wouldn't displace living soldiers altogether. But even a small force of skeletal troops would be invaluable as scouts and raiders. Without a compelling reason not to use them, they would quickly become widespread. "They will blight the earth and leave both sides desolate" is a compelling reason. "They let Orcus control your brain" is a compelling reason. "They're icky" isn't.

The problem with your argument is that you're assuming animate dead is something so cheap and easy to do that it can be effectively mass produced. How many spellcasters can a kingdom be expected to have that are both high enough level to cast that spell and also know animate dead? And what about the fact that spellcasters have limited spell slots and have to keep renewing them on the spell each day or the undead go out of control? There was a material component for this spell in older editions that they might bring back, but that also puts a cost on the spell that makes mass production of undead difficult. You don't see undead mass produced for the same reason you don't see magic items mass produced. In a high magic setting, such a thing is more likely. In a low magic setting, not so much.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to making undead horrors. If undead are indeed mere mindless automatons, then the logical consequence of animate dead on a large scale is a utopian society where most physical labor is done by skeletons.

Well, lesser undead are basically mindless automatons in my world, but I promise you that the societies that utilize undead as servitors and manual labor are anything but utopian.

I agree that fundamentally, this depends on the cosmology. But I think the more you think about the physics of the world compared to the time you spend thinking about game mechanics, the less reasonable that it seems that everything about a spell is described by its short little block of text.

 

[Celebrim]

Every culture has practices that other people find to be disgusting or repulsive. That doesn't make them evil. Burial practices in particular vary widely from one culture to another. Some cultures bury their dead, some burn them, some leave them out for scavengers to eat, some even practice cannibalism. There are monasteries whose walls and ceilings are decorated with the bones of dead monks. Those practices aren't evil just because other people find them repulsive. Some other cultures look at western civilizations' practice of conducting autopsies on the dead to be grotesque and disrespectful to the dead. Others would point out the benefit to science and how it helps the living. Those views aren't wrong or evil just because other cultures disagree.

There are several basic flaws in your argument.

First, you are basing it off the practices of people in this world, which may be different than the fantasy world in question. In particular in at least one area we can say its certainly different - this world doesn't have animated skeletons and zombies.

Secondly, you are assuming that no one in the arguments you mention is actually right and that it is all a matter of opinion. You are neglecting the possibility that maybe cannibalism or autopsies really are not just repulsive but also evil, and that your opinion of them is in error. Evil and good are what they are, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. It could be for example that even if no one believed murder, or slavery, or rape, or some such other thing was wrong, it would still be wrong. Leaving aside whether that is true in the real world (which is not a fitting topic of conversation for these forums, per the instructions of the owner), it is certainly true in the fantasy world being discussed where evil and good appear to have provable objective reality.

Thirdly, you are comparing things that might not be comparable. It could be true that there are both things which are matters of opinion and custom and not really matters of good and evil at all, and also there are also customs and laws which absolutely are not matters of opinion. Since these two things belong to different categories of things, to draw conclusions based on examining one doesn't really tell you a lot necessarily about the other. It could be that which car you drive or even which day you bow down to pray on are really just matters of social whim, arbitrary custom, and tradition. But to point out that this is so, even if you could prove it is so, doesn't prove that everything is a mere matter of whim and preference.

I think people naturally are repulsed by the sight of corpses for a few reasons. For one, it is a reminder of our own mortality, something we prefer not to think about.

Since the people of the fantasy world in question have assurances of an afterlife, I would imagine that they are at least not more fearful of death than we are in this one.

There may even be biological reasons why we find corpses disgusting. Just as we have a natural fear of heights, we've evolved to instinctively recognize things that can be dangerous. Rotting corpses often carry disease, so it would make sense that we have a natural tendency to be afraid of them.

Yes, but do bacteria exist in the world we are describing, or is disease the result of evil spirits and humors in the air?

 

[Falling Icicle]

There are several basic flaws in your argument.

First, you are basing it off the practices of people in this world, which may be different than the fantasy world in question. In particular in at least one area we can say its certainly different - this world doesn't have animated skeletons and zombies.

Our world is the foundation upon which the fantasy worlds of DnD are based. You're also missing my point. I'm simply pointing out that different cultures have different views of right and wrong, proper and improper, sacred and repulsive, etc. That's no less true in DnD than it is here on Earth.

Secondly, you are assuming that no one in the arguments you mention is actually right and that it is all a matter of opinion. You are neglecting the possibility that maybe cannibalism or autopsies really are not just repulsive but also evil, and that your opinion of them is in error. Evil and good are what they are, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. It could be for example that even if no one believed murder, or slavery, or rape, or some such other thing was wrong, it would still be wrong. Leaving aside whether that is true in the real world (which is not a fitting topic of conversation for these forums, per the instructions of the owner), it is certainly true in the fantasy world being discussed where evil and good appear to have provable objective reality.

Thirdly, you are comparing things that might not be comparable. It could be true that there are both things which are matters of opinion and custom and not really matters of good and evil at all, and also there are also customs and laws which absolutely are not matters of opinion. Since these two things belong to different categories of things, to draw conclusions based on examining one doesn't really tell you a lot necessarily about the other. It could be that which car you drive or even which day you bow down to pray on are really just matters of social whim, arbitrary custom, and tradition. But to point out that this is so, even if you could prove it is so, doesn't prove that everything is a mere matter of whim and preference.

Even in DnD, there are many different gods and philosophies and even gods of the same alignments don't always agree about the specifics. There are some common elements, however. Good is about compassion. Good people don't harm others unless they must. They even go out of their way to help others. Evil people act without regard for whether or not it causes other people to suffer. But animating the dead doesn't have anything to with those things. A corpse is no longer alive, and regardless of what anyone does, it's inevitably going to decay and be recycled into the environment in time. A corpse is "worm food" either way. Using bones as a tool is not harming anyone.

Now, you can certainly argue that it defies traditions of showing the dead reverence, proper burial, etc. But that would make animating the dead a chaotic act, not an evil one. Traditions and customs are part of the law vs chaos alignment axis, not good vs evil. Look at Robin Hood as an example. He breaks the law and steals, but he does it out of a desire to help others, not out of selfishness. That's why he's chaotic good. By the same token, I think a necromancer who defies burial traditions in order to serve heroic ends is likewise chaotic good. And that's using DnD's own definitions of alignments.

Since the people of the fantasy world in question have assurances of an afterlife, I would imagine that they are at least not more fearful of death than we are in this one.

Many people on Earth sincerely believe there is an afterlife, and yet are still fearful of death. You could argue that people in a fantasy world where there is magic and clerics and proof of gods' existence that people would be less fearful of death, and in some cases that might be true. But not all. After all, there are many examples of people in fantasy, and DnD in particular, that try to cheat death, whether by becoming immortal, a lich, etc. Whether or not there's an afterlife, people have a natural fear of death.

Yes, but do bacteria exist in the world we are describing, or is disease the result of evil spirits and humors in the air?

That's beside the point. I was simply pointing out why people often feel naturally afraid of or repulsed by corpses. It was in response to the argument that if something feels disgusting, that's proof that it is "evil." It's not.

 

[Umbran]

First, you are basing it off the practices of people in this world, which may be different than the fantasy world in question. In particular in at least one area we can say its certainly different - this world doesn't have animated skeletons and zombies.

Right. So, in the real world there no zombies chewing off your face! Kinda figures that a culture without zombies is apt to be less harsh on the matter of undead than the cultures who do have to deal with them. But, this line of argument is kind of silly, insofar as there's no way that fantasy would should or shouldn't be, except insofar as the structure makes or uses interesting tropes.

What's interesting about necromancy that doesn't have darkness attached to it? Yippee. Dead, stinky bodies move around. You can do damage. Those can be accomplished by a bazillion other spells that aren't necromantic. Telekinesis, ray of frost, unseen servant, and so on. I submit that making necromancy "neutral" then reduces it to just one more power. Fire is cool because things tend to burn - there's a threat of destroying more than you intend. If necromancy is all fluffy-bunny... what's special about it? It loses it's flavor.

Anyone here play White Wolf games? Their Werewolf game had a lost tribe - the White Howlers - in the world backstory. They had turned evil (into "Black Spiral Dancers") so by the time the game started, you could not play a White Howler. Which, of course, meant that everyone *wanted* to play one. Everyone wanted to play the one remaining good White Howler. But, of course, if everyone could play them, then they'd cease to be special, and we'd not want to play them any more than any of the other tribes. It sounds really awesome, until everyone gets it, and then nobody really cares anymore.

Which is to say - enforced rarity is a thing that can enhance savor. Don't toss it away lightly.

Since the people of the fantasy world in question have assurances of an afterlife, I would imagine that they are at least not more fearful of death than we are in this one.

Only if they know without reasonable doubt they're going to a positive reward. If they fear (or in this case, maybe even know) that the *eternal* afterlife is going to suck, they're not going to be sprinting to the finish line to get to what's next.

Here's the #1 reason to be a lich. You had impulse control problems in your life, so that you know sure as anything that you're going to the Abyss, and the life of a human soul there isn't fun. So, you make sure you never go there....

Yes, but do bacteria exist in the world we are describing, or is disease the result of evil spirits and humors in the air?

Or magic. I've not seen too many fantasy games that worry all that much about germ theory.

 

[Celebrim]

Our world is the foundation upon which the fantasy worlds of DnD are based.

No, it isn't. D&D is based on the stories we in this world have told. It doesn't draw on this world for inspiration. It draws on myth and legend, yes, but also on Fritz Leibur and Howard's Conan and Tolkien. It draws on stories explicitly set in worlds not our own it is itself almost always set in worlds not our own. Our world is only tangentially attached to the worlds of D&D.

You're also missing my point. I'm simply pointing out that different cultures have different views of right and wrong, proper and improper, sacred and repulsive, etc. That's no less true in DnD than it is here on Earth.

And I'm saying, "So what?" Disagreement proves nothing. That fact is, in the D&D world certainly, some of those views are actually right.

Incidently, repulsive isn't the opposite of sacred. The opposite of sacred is profane - which means 'to show contempt for things that are owed do respect'. The opposite of repulsive is attractive. But in a fantasy setting, the sacred, the right, and the attractive are generally all on a team and of a piece. Undead are repulsive, profane, and improper all of one easy piece.

But animating the dead doesn't have anything to with those things.

How would you know? Can you put that to the test? How do you know that conjuring up undead isn't the magical equivalent of depleting the ozone, polluting the drinking water with carcinogens, and spreading radioactive waste around everywhere? What are the physics of making the dead walk while remaining dead? What power is at work?

More importantly, in the stories people tell about animating the dead, these aren't happy stories. No matter how scientific minded the person, no matter how good his intentions, when he finishes his great work, Frankenstein looks up and realizes he's created a horrible monster. And your story is, "Oh posh. It's just a body; it's nothing of significance!" Well, sorry, but your story doesn't seem to strike a very mythic cord. For one thing, people have never treated a body like it was just a body. We've been burying our dead and performing rituals around them and protecting them and caring for those bodies for something like 50,000 years. And for almost all that time we've been telling stories about restless spirits back from the grave. And you are going to tell a story about how corpses are just tools to be utilized, and you think that is going to resonate as the first and most important story about walking dead?

A corpse is no longer alive, and regardless of what anyone does, it's inevitably going to decay and be recycled into the environment in time. A corpse is "worm food" either way. Using bones as a tool is not harming anyone.

Sure, that sounds rational and reasonable. And you can tell an interesting story I think around the culture that accepts that dad, and your rapist, and the six kids from that family across town that just died from typhus, are all just tools to animate and use for the good of the community. You can try to convince me that obedient automatons composed of decaying corpses of your village love ones doesn't ruffle the social fabric at all, and that the powers of unlife aren't really in opposition to weal and life, and that there are absolutely no dangerous side effects, and undead that go uncontrolled and start attacking people because their master has an accident, or because some evil necromancer took control are treated as neutrally as car accidents and run away horses. I'm just not sure you can tell that story, come to the conclusion, "It never meant anything", and it be an interesting story. And if you want to blow up the trope, "I am Legend.", did that years and years ago. Most notably though, any time you blow up the trope - from "I am Legend" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it involves proving that what's on the inside isn't a match for what's on the outside. You can't do that with mindless undead.

Now, you can certainly argue that it defies traditions of showing the dead reverence, proper burial, etc. But that would make animating the dead a chaotic act, not an evil one. Traditions and customs are part of the law vs chaos alignment axis, not good vs evil. Look at Robin Hood as an example. He breaks the law and steals, but he does it out of a desire to help others, not out of selfishness. That's why he's chaotic good. By the same token, I think a necromancer who defies burial traditions in order to serve heroic ends is likewise chaotic good. And that's using DnD's own definitions of alignments.

Sure and I agree as far as that goes, though presumably raised in a society where animating the dead was routine, cremating your loved ones remains to keep them out of the body mill would be chaotic.

But your fixating now on the social traditions around burial, and not on the necromancy itself. You don't need to convince me that social traditions around burial could be flexible. You have to convince me that animating the dead is not only an act with out moral weight in a fantasy setting, but that that ought to be our default expectation.

That's beside the point. I was simply pointing out why people often feel naturally afraid of or repulsed by corpses. It was in response to the argument that if something feels disgusting, that's proof that it is "evil." It's not.

No, you aren't get it. It's not that it feels disgusting. It is disgusting. We aren't talking about subjective disgustedness. I'm asserting that it a feature of fantasy worlds that disgusting, horrible and ugly and things of that sort aren't subjective.