No Animate Dead?

[Falling Icicle]

Is that true? I thought the rules for resurrection said you couldn't res a body if it had been made into undead. This also applies to True Res which doesn't require the body.

The inference is that making something undead ties it's soul to it even if the soul has no power over the resulting 'object'

Are you talking about 3e or 4e?

 

[VannATLC]

The thing is, nothing about animating mindless corpses makes it necessarily evil, by the book's definition of evil. Enslaving intelligent corpses, souls, etc could certainly be considered evil, but a mindless corpse is no more evil than a golem. The [evil] tag on 3e animate dead was purely arbitrary, and was only there because skeletons and zombies had an evil alignment. But that didn't make any sense, since they're mindless. How can a mindless automaton have morality of any kind?

This really shouldn't be an argument about whether or not alignments are absolute. It should be an argument about whether or not creating mindless minions from corpses is always an evil act. In my opinion, it is not. Some cultures may frown on the pracitice, seeing it as defiling the remains of the dead, but that's a cultural view, not a moral one. I would argue that animating a corpse is not evil because:

1) The corpse of a dead creature is just an object, even if it is creepy. The soul has abandoned the body, leaving it an empty husk. A corpse would just rot in the ground, why not put it to good use? If you're going to argue that using a corpse as a tool is evil, you'd be effectively saying that native americans are evil for using the bones and hides of slain animals for tools and clothing and their flesh for food. And don't say it's evil just because it is human remains. A corpse is a corpse. It's worm food either way. And if you are going to make that argument, would you still consider animating dead evil if I only create animal zombies?

2) You're not creating a sentient being, so there's no slavery involved.

3) Even though animated undead can be used as a weapon, weapons aren't inherently evil. How can one argue that using a corpse to attack someone is evil, but charring their flesh with fireballs and acid storms is not?

4) Animated undead can save the lives and health of living people by doing hazardous or strenuous labor for them. Isn't it better to risk a corpse that would have rotted in the ground anyway, rather than risk a living person?

In 3.5, all the animating force comes from the Negative Material Plane (Excluding those Eberron Undead and later releases powered by raw positive energy)

Negative Material Planar energy, would be Planar!Evil.

*That* Is why its an evil spell, and why animating a Golem was not.. And why a Flesh Golem could be created without an evil spell.

 

[Falling Icicle]

In 3.5, all the animating force comes from the Negative Material Plane (Excluding those Eberron Undead and later releases powered by raw positive energy)

Negative Material Planar energy, would be Planar!Evil.

*That* Is why its an evil spell, and why animating a Golem was not.. And why a Flesh Golem could be created without an evil spell.

Then why aren't all negative energy spells [Evil]?

Negative energy is not necessarily evil nor is positive energy necessarily good (just being in the positive energy plane can kill you, in fact). Negative energy effects can heal, while positive energy can harm, even though they usually do the opposite. 3e sometimes tried to make the negative energy = evil and positive energy = good association, but it was never explicit or all-encompassing.

Besides, 4e has dispensed with those planes altogether. And I have yet to see a single spell, necrotic or otherwise, labeled as [evil]. Thank the gods for that! it seems that the 4e designers have finally realised that a power is neither good nor evil, it's how the individual chooses to use it.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. The relative intelligence of the rules aside, I'm simply stating that THAT'S what the rules say. And, in 3e terms, there is no relative morality. Morality is absolute. You can have beings which, regardless of any action they take, are inherently Good or Evil (angels and demons). A LG demon is still Outsider [evil].

I don't care what the rules say. The rules are wrong. The book is wrong, because lawful good [evil] outsiders is stupid, ridiculous, and does not make sense. Just because the book says something is X does not make it correct. Animating the dead is a morally relative act. An entire society that makes use of the dead is just as lawful good in their eyes as the society that buries their dead respectfully considers themselves lawful good.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Animating the dead is a morally relative act. An entire society that makes use of the dead is just as lawful good in their eyes as the society that buries their dead respectfully considers themselves lawful good.

... in your game.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, nothing about animating mindless corpses makes it necessarily evil, by the book's definition of evil. Enslaving intelligent corpses, souls, etc could certainly be considered evil, but a mindless corpse is no more evil than a golem. The [evil] tag on 3e animate dead was purely arbitrary, and was only there because skeletons and zombies had an evil alignment. But that didn't make any sense, since they're mindless. How can a mindless automaton have morality of any kind?

This really shouldn't be an argument about whether or not alignments are absolute. It should be an argument about whether or not creating mindless minions from corpses is always an evil act. In my opinion, it is not. Some cultures may frown on the pracitice, seeing it as defiling the remains of the dead, but that's a cultural view, not a moral one. I would argue that animating a corpse is not evil because:

1) The corpse of a dead creature is just an object, even if it is creepy. The soul has abandoned the body, leaving it an empty husk. A corpse would just rot in the ground, why not put it to good use? If you're going to argue that using a corpse as a tool is evil, you'd be effectively saying that native americans are evil for using the bones and hides of slain animals for tools and clothing and their flesh for food. And don't say it's evil just because it is human remains. A corpse is a corpse. It's worm food either way. And if you are going to make that argument, would you still consider animating dead evil if I only create animal zombies?

2) You're not creating a sentient being, so there's no slavery involved.

3) Even though animated undead can be used as a weapon, weapons aren't inherently evil. How can one argue that using a corpse to attack someone is evil, but charring their flesh with fireballs and acid storms is not?

4) Animated undead can save the lives and health of living people by doing hazardous or strenuous labor for them. Isn't it better to risk a corpse that would have rotted in the ground anyway, rather than risk a living person?

This would be true except for the fact that zombies are NE in 3.5 edition. Skeletons are also Neutral Evil. They are not golems. They are aligned.

You are using a spell that creates evil creatures. How can that possibly be a good act?

As far as using negative energy, some spells carry the Evil descriptor and some don't. Certainly all spells that deal with the creation of undead carry it. To be honest, in core, there aren't that many spells that channel negative energy. The Inflict spells don't carry the Evil descriptor, for example. I suspect that's a game mechanics thing to allow good clerics to cast the spells, rather than any commentary on the alignment of negative energy.

I don't care what the rules say. The rules are wrong. The book is wrong, because lawful good [evil] outsiders is stupid, ridiculous, and does not make sense. Just because the book says something is X does not make it correct. Animating the dead is a morally relative act. An entire society that makes use of the dead is just as lawful good in their eyes as the society that buries their dead respectfully considers themselves lawful good.

Actually, it makes perfect sense when you accept the idea that alignment is objective in 3rd edition. I'm unsure how you could possibly have moral relativism that co-exists with the Great Wheel cosmology. When you have aligned PLANES, it's pretty tricky to have a sliding definition of what is good or evil.

In other words, some creatures aren't good because they do good things, they're good because they're actually made of goodness.

 

[robertliguori]

You are using a spell that creates evil creatures. How can that possibly be a good act?

As you have said, using the spell is Evil. It's just that you can turn around and use the results of the spell for a great deal of Good trivially. If you believe in Good effects that, when used in certain circumstances, produce Evil results, then it follows that you can have Evil effects that produce Good results.

Another quick example is the Jack Bauer scenario. Unlike reality, D&D has rules for torture as an effective interrogation technique; in the reality of D&D, you can relatively reliably torture someone and get them to give you information accurate to the limits of their knowledge. Let's say that a spectre-bomb is about to go off, unleashing a cascade of spectres all ordered to obey someone who knew a particular keyword. Let's say that a single-classed fighter has managed to subdue the necromancer responsible. Torturing the necromancer for the keyword (and shutting down the spectre-bomb) will result in the preservation of the humanoid population of the local plane; this is a Good act. However, the torture itself is unquestionably Evil. Just like you can use controlled burns to limit the spread of forest fires, you can use evil to harm the cause of evil.

As far as using negative energy, some spells carry the Evil descriptor and some don't. Certainly all spells that deal with the creation of undead carry it. To be honest, in core, there aren't that many spells that channel negative energy. The Inflict spells don't carry the Evil descriptor, for example. I suspect that's a game mechanics thing to allow good clerics to cast the spells, rather than any commentary on the alignment of negative energy.

Enervation can create undead. I'm personally curious about the relative evil charge potential of casting Animate Dead on an animal corpse versus Enervate and Command Undead on a random humanoid peasant. In one case

 

[robertliguori]

I don't care what the rules say. The rules are wrong. The book is wrong, because lawful good [evil] outsiders is stupid, ridiculous, and does not make sense. Just because the book says something is X does not make it correct. Animating the dead is a morally relative act. An entire society that makes use of the dead is just as lawful good in their eyes as the society that buries their dead respectfully considers themselves lawful good.

Again, I encourage the usage of bang notation. If [good] means made of good-energy bits the same way that a fire giant is made of fire-energy bits, then there's no reason you can't have an evil [good] creature. It just means that you need new terms for moral and immoral, or for societally-approved-of and not-societally-approved-of.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This would be true except for the fact that zombies are NE in 3.5 edition. Skeletons are also Neutral Evil. They are not golems. They are aligned.

You are using a spell that creates evil creatures. How can that possibly be a good act?

I already adressed that issue, but I'll repeat, I think it was stupid that mindless undead had alignments, simply because they were undead. They were MINDLESS. Mindless beings can't think, much less have morals.

Actually, it makes perfect sense when you accept the idea that alignment is objective in 3rd edition. I'm unsure how you could possibly have moral relativism that co-exists with the Great Wheel cosmology. When you have aligned PLANES, it's pretty tricky to have a sliding definition of what is good or evil.

I've never said there should be a "sliding" definition of good vs evil. To me, it's always seemed pretty clear. Good people care for others (in a general sense), evil people do not. Evil is about pursuing your own goals and desires without any regard for the rights of others. You will kill, enslave, destroy, steal, etc, because you don't care about anyone but yourself. So to me, considering that rather clear definition of what evil is, the act of creating a mindless automaton from the corpse of a dead creature is not evil, because it doesn't harm anyone.

In other words, some creatures aren't good because they do good things, they're good because they're actually made of goodness.

But what is goodness, exactly? Shouldn't the alignment of a creature be determined by its intentions and actions rather than the type of energy it's composed of? I think it should. Even the purest angel can fall from grace and become evil.

 

[hamishspence]

alignment

Subtypes have gone, and exceptions exist for creatures with alignment Evil, Good, etc. So you can have a Good demon, or devil, without them suffering from the Evil subtype.

Zombies and skeletons are both unaligned now, despite zombies apparently defaulting to Kill anything On Sight.

So, it looks like in 4th ed at least, animating undead will not be automatically evil, and maybe not forbidden to Good or Lawful Good characters. I believe a warlock power effectively allows a warlock to animate a dead enemy. And warlocks can be LG if the want.

So, it looks like 4th ed, unlike 3rd, will match your views on some topics at least: that mindless dead aren't evil. Worlds and Monsters had much to say on the subject.