D&D General have we had a player race of undead?

[Vaalingrade]

why would the undead have an all-consuming need to kill the living?

The ultimate power in D&D: Lazy Writing.

 

[Voadam]

Undead in D&D have run a gamut on being evil and hating life or not.

Skeletons and zombies in AD&D and 3.0 were neutral. When animated by Animate Dead they could only do as commanded, not even attacking in self defense on their own. In 3.5 they were turned inherently mindless evil. In many editions they are used as common wandering monsters who will attack upon sight. 5e gives them some intelligence.

3e Ghosts were any alignment but as undead they always specifically detected as evil under a detect evil spell even if they were Lawful Good.

There is a long tradition of ghosts who watch over a site or a family and who are portrayed as good and not evil.

In D&D, as mentioned, there have also been the Baelnorn good elven liches, the Spelljammer Archliches who are always good undead, and the Deathless from Eberron who are not inherently evil and powered a little differently from normal undead.

A lot of undead in D&D are presented as evil and hating all life. There are a number who are different though.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm all for the shift to treating orcs and goblins as real people and not ethnic stereotypes. I see plenty of room for ghosts and ancestor spirits to be benevolent (or at least non-malevolent) post-death entities. But the undead, at least as defined by official game lore, are up there with demons and mind flayers as inherently hostile to humanoid life. And I'm okay with that.

It fits with their narrative heritage, where the fools who think they can negotiate with vampires or that their loved one's hungry zombie corpse can still be reasoned with are the ones who end up lunch. It fits with their game lore, where the undead are animated by negative energy that's inherently antithetical to life. It fits with their game function, which is to be a clear evil that can be fought directly and without compunction.

Now, it's possible to do something else with the undead. Heck, I played my share of Vampire: the Masquerade back in the 90s. But as I got older I've grown less fond of vampire sob stories about they feel really bad about all the terrible things they do. So if you want to create worlds of selfless necromancers elevating the worthy into deathless immortals that can coexist seamlessly with the living, go right ahead. I'll continue to enjoy my games of Smiting the undead scourge before they murder a village of innocents.

The only difference is that one playstyle is going to continue to get official support and the other isn't. That doesn't have to be a value judgment if you don't want to make it one. Just don't get upset or confused as to why one is getting official support and the other isn't.

mindflayer may be evil but they would be foes regardless they eat us and are parasites meaning they have to kill us in the name of survival
demons are made to be embodiments of the concept of evil thus their being evil is the point.

a zombie has been many things some mindless servants others a plague of death.

you do not need evil for it to fight you just a necromancer telling it to kill you.

it is more that you simply do not need the crutch of them always being evil with the motive kill all life when you could have diverse reasons for them to be opposed to you, some food, some because they told you to, some to make more of themselves some because they are just lashing out.

 

[Kurotowa]

Undead in D&D have run a gamut on being evil and hating life or not.

Skeletons and zombies in AD&D and 3.0 were neutral. When animated by Animate Dead they could only do as commanded, not even attacking in self defense on their own. In 3.5 they were turned inherently mindless evil. In many editions they are used as common wandering monsters who will attack upon sight. 5e gives them some intelligence.

It's complicated, because in older editions while the mindless undead were less innately evil, the act of creating them was more so.

In AD&D 2e the spell Animate Dead had a clause at the end stating "Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests use it frequently." In D&D 3e Animate Dead is tagged a "Necromancy [Evil]" spell, again denoting that using it is an evil act with alignment implications.

So the game has always been clear that undead are bad news. It's just the shift is from a cosmic moral judgment on the creator to a more mortal social censure for creating what's essentially a rabid animal on a loose leash. Which is an interesting shift in its own right, and probably reflects how the importance of alignment and their cosmic moral weight has been lessened over the decades.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's complicated, because in older editions while the mindless undead were less innately evil, the act of creating them was more so.

In AD&D 2e the spell Animate Dead had a clause at the end stating "Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests use it frequently." In D&D 3e Animate Dead is tagged a "Necromancy [Evil]" spell, again denoting that using it is an evil act with alignment implications.

So the game has always been clear that undead are bad news. It's just the shift is from a cosmic moral judgment on the creator to a more mortal social censure for creating what's essentially a rabid animal on a loose leash. Which is an interesting shift in its own right, and probably reflects how the importance of alignment and their cosmic moral weight has been lessened over the decades.

okay but why was it evil if the creature was not evil?
the second argument was made to justify a position, what is so scary about just stating undead and making them no more intrinsically wrong than any other action the pc do?
you are correct in what the arguments are but there to hide behind not deal with the fundamental out of universe question that matters.
this is not arguing that undead can't be used as antagonists nor that making the undead is a good thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

the second argument was made to justify a position, what is so scary about just stating undead and making them no more intrinsically wrong than any other action the pc do?

Being wrong on the internet. That's what's so scary.

No joke: I roasted some dude on the WotC forums in an argument over whether casting Animate Dead was evil, pointed out the 3e skels and zombs were mindless Neutral creatures, and proposed a scenario called Sol Sodata that involved a truly benevolent use of Animate Dead to protect a settlement Seven Samurai style.

Turns out that guy was one of the designers.

And then by total coincidence skels and zombs were Neutral Evil (despite still being mindless and the 'mindless creatures are Neutral' rule still being in the MM) replete with the stupid 'go on a murder spree if uncontrolled' that said guy tried to use before I pointed out wasn't in the MM now in the MM.

So basically this is my fault. Or Monte Cook's (who was not the guy I roasted), since he wrote it out in the Second Worst D&D Book Ever Printed, the BoVD shortly before the .5 edition change. So blame him.

 

[Incenjucar]

The world-building thing to do there is to make it easier to create or use undead created with evil spirits that hunger to tear the living apart than it is to use raw negative energy for neutral undead.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Being wrong on the internet. That's what's so scary.

No joke: I roasted some dude on the WotC forums in an argument over whether casting Animate Dead was evil, pointed out the 3e skels and zombs were mindless Neutral creatures, and proposed a scenario called Sol Sodata that involved a truly benevolent use of Animate Dead to protect a settlement Seven Samurai style.

Turns out that guy was one of the designers.

And then by total coincidence skels and zombs were Neutral Evil (despite still being mindless and the 'mindless creatures are Neutral' rule still being in the MM) replete with the stupid 'go on a murder spree if uncontrolled' that said guy tried to use before I pointed out wasn't in the MM now in the MM.

So basically this is my fault. Or Monte Cook's (who was not the guy I roasted), since he wrote it out in the Second Worst D&D Book Ever Printed, the BoVD shortly before the .5 edition change. So blame him.

I think it is more so great fear of what happens if we let the undead not be evil but I fail to see what that great fear is?

The world-building thing to do there is to make it easier to create or use undead created with evil spirits that hunger to tear the living apart than it is to use raw negative energy for neutral undead.

that would be interesting a divide between responsible and irresponsible undead use.

 

[Weiley31]

The ultimate power in D&D: Lazy Writing.

Ah yes, I KNEW the Undead had a good reason to hate the living. This confirms it!

 

[Voadam]

okay but why was it evil if the creature was not evil?

In 3e there were two big aspects.

One all undead creation spells had the [Evil] descriptor which I took to be that it tapped Cosmic Supernatural [Evil] as a force of the universe as part of their magical component, regardless of the morality of the individual use of the spell. Like in the movie Time Bandits. Supernatural evil as just part of undeath, which is separate from moral evil.

This ties into the second 3e aspect, all undead detect as evil under the detect evil spell. This is regardless of their actual individual alignment.

In my own games I house ruled undead as having the full on [Evil] monster subtype which explicitly makes you interact mechanically as evil regardless of your individual alignment.

I think undead being created and powered by supernatural evil works well narratively, even if they can individually be not morally evil.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it is more so great fear of what happens if we let the undead not be evil but I fail to see what that great fear is?

You might as well ask why the designers "fear" what happens if we let elves have human lifespans, or "fear" what happens if we let constructs reproduce biologically.

It's an aesthetic decision, based partly on the mythological roots of undead, and partly on the designers' personal preference. If you don't like that aesthetic, you're free to change it in your campaign. Personally, I think it gives animated undead much more resonance than making them smelly robots.

 

[Voadam]

Zombies and skeletons being bound by their creator's command allows things like Hollowfaust where a city run by lawful neutral necromancers uses tons of animated undead as armies and workers for the protection of their citizens to create a safe haven where people can thrive in a hostile environment. They are against making predatory undead and use their animated undead in utilitarian and not evil fashion. This creates a distinct different flavor area that can be interesting. This falls apart if their animated draft beasts and soldiers are actually at risk of running amok at any moment and killing the people the necromancers want to protect.

 

[Dausuul]

As far as healing undead goes, one solution would be an ability like this:

Life Drain: As an action, when you are within 5 feet of a creature that is not undead or a construct, you can drain some of its life-force to heal yourself. An unwilling target can make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Constitution modifier) to negate the effect. The target takes necrotic damage equal to twice your proficiency bonus, and you regain hit points equal to the amount lost. You can use this ability even when incapacitated or unconscious.

This would allow the undead PC to benefit indirectly from healing magic (you drain life from your buddy, then the cleric heals your buddy), without requiring a change to how healing magic works. It's thematically appropriate to the "parasitic" undead, and it makes things interesting when you go to zero hit points -- any of your allies can revive you, and it doesn't cost them an action*, but they have to get next to you and stay there till your turn. Or you can try to revive yourself unaided by targeting an enemy... but if you fail, you're likely to get whacked for an automatic crit and two failed death saves.

*It does cost you an action, of course; you will always lose a turn when reduced to zero hit points. This strikes me as more feature than bug, but YMMV.

Zombies and skeletons being bound by their creator's command allows things like Hollowfaust where a city run by lawful neutral necromancers uses tons of animated undead as armies and workers for the protection of their citizens to create a safe haven where people can thrive in a hostile environment. They are against making predatory undead and use their animated undead in utilitarian and not evil fashion. This creates a distinct different flavor area that can be interesting. This falls apart if their animated draft beasts and soldiers are actually at risk of running amok at any moment and killing the people the necromancers want to protect.

Yes, that is true. One could also have a scenario where a necromancer with good intentions recklessly raises an army of undead to defend their kingdom against an invader, and then the necromancer is slain and the undead turn on both sides, slaughtering them all. This scenario would fall apart if the minions weren't at risk of running amok.

Any given piece of lore supports some storylines and interferes with others.

 

[Tonguez]

okay but why was it evil if the creature was not evil?
the second argument was made to justify a position, what is so scary about just stating undead and making them no more intrinsically wrong than any other action the pc do?
you are correct in what the arguments are but there to hide behind not deal with the fundamental out of universe question that matters.
this is not arguing that undead can't be used as antagonists nor that making the undead is a good thing.

in 3e a Lawful Neutral cleric of a Neutral Evil god would Detect as Evil because of the taint of divine/cosmic ‘Evil‘ on them. In the same way a mindless (neutral) undead would detect as Evil because they were created by Evil magic/powers - it was their interaction with Evil powers that made them Evil not their alignment.
Undeath as a state challenged natural order and offended certain gods so by ‘cosmic‘ morality was inherently Evil. They rationale of cosmic morality seems to have been lost from the game, thus it becomes a world building point for each DM

 

[Paul Farquhar]

so all I am seeing is more reason the has to hate all living just because is foolish

So you also want to remove the "my character is dark and edgy" schtick!?

 

[Mind of tempest]

In 3e there were two big aspects.

One all undead creation spells had the [Evil] descriptor which I took to be that it tapped Cosmic Supernatural [Evil] as a force of the universe as part of their magical component, regardless of the morality of the individual use of the spell. Like in the movie Time Bandits. Supernatural evil as just part of undeath, which is separate from moral evil.

This ties into the second 3e aspect, all undead detect as evil under the detect evil spell. This is regardless of their actual individual alignment.

In my own games I house ruled undead as having the full on [Evil] monster subtype which explicitly makes you interact mechanically as evil regardless of your individual alignment.

I think undead being created and powered by supernatural evil works well narratively, even if they can individually be not morally evil.

but why is it supernaturally evil in the first place?

You might as well ask why the designers "fear" what happens if we let elves have human lifespans, or "fear" what happens if we let constructs reproduce biologically.

It's an aesthetic decision, based partly on the mythological roots of undead, and partly on the designers' personal preference. If you don't like that aesthetic, you're free to change it in your campaign. Personally, I think it gives animated undead much more resonance than making them smelly robots.

there is no conflict on elf life span, heck there are media settings where that is the case.
people fear robots reproducing in real life as people fear being usurped and all we did being for nothing, classic Frankenstein stuff.

my point is what is the fear of defying nature that thing which is an endless parade of violence and suffering?

where in mythology is undead pure hate the living kill on sight?
normally it is all about not being buried leads to the restless dead, others by making pacts with evil to cheat death, good never seems to offer much in the way of power for some reason which always bugged me as otherwise evil would long term win and drive good to extinction.
saying you can change it in your own campaign is not an argument it is a thought termination point it is saying this does not matter stop talking about it, nothing we do on this site and most of what we do off it is irrelevant and not productive does not mean we should just stop and go back to working instead.

in 3e a Lawful Neutral cleric of a Neutral Evil god would Detect as Evil because of the taint of divine/cosmic ‘Evil‘ on them. In the same way a mindless (neutral) undead would detect as Evil because they were created by Evil magic/powers - it was their interaction with Evil powers that made them Evil not their alignment.
Undeath as a state challenged natural order and offended certain gods so by ‘cosmic‘ morality was inherently Evil. They rationale of cosmic morality seems to have been lost from the game, thus it becomes a world building point for each DM

look what makes it evil if some gods say x thing is bad that would rapidly make everything evil as some god is against everything
dnd gods are a reflection of real-life moral codes and given the sire variety of them even something like charity has been seen as wrong.

cosmic morality makes no sense without the backing axioms that explain what good is otherwise good develops into a divine popularity contest which would be worthless.
secondly, your telling me the wizard who hurls acid or toxic gas and the one-man divine butcher that is most paladins who go through life like a merger between a tornado and slaughterhouse is better you want to be technical all almost every action nowadays would be evil rendering morality pointless.

So you also want to remove the "my character is dark and edgy" schtick!?

honestly yeah most people use it as a crutch to make something they feel rebels against the norm or are just doing it to justify their murderhobo desires, to kill the written text for it so they have to figure out how to do it properly.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

honestly yeah most people use it as a crutch to make something they feel rebels against the norm or are just doing it to justify their murderhobo desires, to kill the written text for it so they have to figure out how to do it properly.

Maybe so, but if you don't want an undead player species that appeals to the sort of player who likes to play undead characters, why do you want it?

 

[Voadam]

where in mythology is undead pure hate the living kill on sight?

Zombie apocalypse fiction comes to mind.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Maybe so, but if you don't want an undead player species that appeals to the sort of player who likes to play undead characters, why do you want it?

you assume edge lords are the only fans of darkness.

Zombie apocalypse fiction comes to mind.

that is not a myth, secondly most of those are plagues these days as it is not hate but hunger or the desire to spread the infection.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

you assume edge lords are the only fans of darkness.

No, that was your assumption. But you said your don't think undead PCs should be dark at all.