What makes Undead, Undead? and are all Undead evil?

Zaruthustran

The tingling means it’s working!
Jack Simth said:
Oh, and there is a not-necessarily-evil Core undead - the Ghost has "alignment: any." He's alone in the crowd, though, Core, and he still detects as evil....


[yoda voice]
No... there is another.
[/yoda voice]

See the "Summon Shadow Companion" feature of the Shadowdancer PRC (DMG). Slim Shady is an undead with alignment = the alignment of the Shadowdancer.

-z
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nyeshet

First Post
Prior to 3.5e creating undead was not necessarily an evil act. At the very least, the spells involved did not have an evil descriptor - that was added in 3.5e. Similarly, until 3.5e (and, technically, even in 3.5e) negative energy is not evil. It is as purely neutral as positive energy, force, fire, air, water, earth, acid, cold, lightning, etc. Note that Cure spells do not have a 'good' descriptor, and Inflict spells do not have an 'evil' descriptor.

Thus, whether or not creating undead is innately evil (as in having an evil spell descriptor) seems to vary from DM to DM. All but one that I have played under have removed the evil descriptor from the spells as an automatic houserule. I note that the one that did not first started playing under 3.5e D&D, so he - unlike the others - never knew a time when it did not have that descriptor. All that started playing prior to 3.5e removed the evil descriptor from those spells.

Personally, when I GM I play it like this:

Some undead return on their own. They have tasks unfinished, etc. They may return as ghosts or revenants (a wight variant in our games, don't know if an official creature exists with that name or not). They have the alignment they did in life, they are remarkably difficult to destroy (although exorcism can potentially permanently send them into the afterlife), and they leave / cease to exist (as ghosts / revenants) as soon as their task is complete. Often they are limited in various ways (reminders of how they died can act as wards against them, for example; some cannot leave certain locations or must be near / follow certain items or individuals, etc).

Spells can force a spirit to return, perhaps even forcing it into a corpse. They are treated as if Dominated until the spell wears off - which may require the death of the caster or the destruction of some object used in the ritual that called them. Being dominated, they can act in ways quite different from their former alignment, although this does not affect their alignment (usually, unless Tainted). Non-mindless undead always require a non-mindless spirit (from a sapient being). Note that geases can also force a spirit to return to fulfill its purpose.

Often Necromancers will call upon animal spirits for 'mindless' undead - usually even slaying the animal at the time of the creation of the undead, binding its spirit to the corpse / skeleton intended. Most neutral necromancers follow this route - and use skeletons as they are less identifiable as a given specific individual and are thus more readily accepted by a populous (than the rotting corpse alternative that might possibly be identifiable). Typically the corpses of criminals executed for major offenses are used in such instances - and the practice of using mindless skeleton undead is strictly regulated by whatever kingdom / city-state / republic (ie: rome style, not modern style) the necormancer happens to be in.

Only a few locations allow the creation of non-mindless undead from these skeletons - a sort of decades or even centuries long community service, I suppose. Most view it with extreme suspition as there is a rare but potential chance that one day the skeleton might resist / break its domination. In specific, any time command changes between wizards there is a chance of freedom, and freedom is certain if the one holding the domination dies without having passed on command to another. Non-mindless skeletons are often marked so that if they break free of their domination they will be more readily identifiable from the mindless workers. However, as such are uncommon in the few places where they even exist, it is unlikely that most outside such communities would even recognize what the markings meant.

In addition to these undead there are the Tainted Undead. These are spirits or corpses affected by Tainted influences. All 'contageous' undead - vampires, ghouls, wights, etc - fall under this category. All (even the wights) must consume life force in some manner. The wights take it directly by touch, the Vampire consume it via blood, and the ghouls absorb it through the flesh they eat from still living or even recently deceased victims. The creation of such blasphemies is outlawed by every religion, as it was the Fiends that are the initial origin of such Taint - and only through the use of Taint can such a creature be created.

(Note, I use a variant cosmology - one in which all fiends are Tainted and on one side of existence and all deities (regardless of AL) are non-Tainted and on the other side of existence. Each is weakened as they move towards the other side - with the Prime being in the center. On it the least Imp cannot exist and the greatest Fiendlord is little better than an average fiend. Similarly, the least celestial cannot exist on the Prime and the least deities are no more powerful than typical celestials. Greater deities tend to warp existence. They can't pass through the Prime to the other side without leaving global cataclysms in their wake. This would destroy most of their worshippers - and leave them notably weaker. Most of the greater Fiendlords were originally powerful deities that made it to the other side but were so weakened by the loss of so many worshippers that they were easily overcome by the fiends - and Tainted with their essence. Taint is merely another tool of the Fiends to gain more 'followers' - an experiment not quite gone as intended that corrupts those affected but does not change them into Fiends. Mortals that die Tainted always rise as Tainted undead.)

Creation of a Tainted undead is always an evil act, as it only serves the evil Fiends that are the source of Taint. While such are always initially in the control of their creator, eventually the creator dies or leaves the plane and the control is lost. Also, as the control is akin to domination there is always a chance that control may one day be lost due to some chance incident. It doesn't matter much, however, as Taint always warps and corrupts the soul, twisting alignment towards Evil. Those that resist most may avoid corruption at the cost of their sanity or possibly the destruction of their soul / awareness - becoming mindless in the latter instance.

Non-Tainted undead 'live' off of positive energy, while Tainted undead 'live' off of Negative Energy. This energy, however, is destructive in nature. To prevent their own slow destruction they must consume living essence. Positive energy in its raw form reacts with their negative energy, harming them. A less pure form of negative energy, however, can both lessen the dangerous negative energy that infuses them and grant them enough 'life' to continue their existence. If they don't consume life the negative energy in them may reach dangerous levels, slowly destroying them from within to keep them going (rather like a starving person's body will eventually canabalize its own muscles to keep the overall body alive).

It's a delicate balance they must maintain. Too much or too pure positive energy could potentially wipe out their negative energy - destroying the force that grants them animation / existence. Too little and the destructive force will begin weakening them (permanent hp loss until life is consumed) until they 'die.' Vampires can use stupor to avoid this for a time - reducing loss to a few hp a year instead of a day.



This is merely how I treat undead IMCW. Others have their own ways of dealing with them. For your own campaign world you need to decide for yourself. Do you use the same cosmology as core D&D (ie: the Great Wheel, or perhaps the Faerun Tree or the Eberron Atom)? Is Negative Energy innate neutral or evil? What exactly happens when an undead comes into existence? Are their different ways for such to occur - such as naturally, only due to a spell (including geas) or spell-like / supernatural ability, or some combination of these? How are such viewed in the world? How are those that traffic in such viewed (ie: necromancers, etc)?
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I've seen it quoted that negative energy is evil, and by RAW I believe that to be correct.

Not AFAIK. The Negative Material Plane is "inimical to life" not immune to its effects, but the energies of the Positive Material Plane will kill you just as dead, just as quickly, if you're not immune to its effects.

There was also a HUGE thread about the OP's topic (including stuff about negative/positive energy), what...a year ago? If someone can find it and provide a link to it (assuming it still exists), it might save EVERYONE a lot of typing. Oh yeah- and help the OP! ;)

Prior to 3Ed, there were more neutral and even good undead...and Mummies were powered by Positive energy.

Ghosts & Shadowdancer's summoned shadows, as mentioned above, are not neccessarily evil.

If you examine mythology and fiction, you'll see that not all undead are evil. Patrick Swayze, anyone? Hamlet's relations? Mummies as guardians of the Pharoah?

Undead = Evil is a default game convention.

Personally, IMC, mindless undead are neutral...BUT will detect as evil and be affected by anti-evil magics- they had no say in their creation, so almost by definition, you're talking about the desecration of a corpse.

Intelligent undead, OTOH, can be of any alignment, and will detect and be affected by magic as such.

However- the Turning mechanics remain unchanged. Undeath is still an unnatural state, and a Cleric's ability to turn/rebuke them is based upon their faith & god's attitudes towards undeath, not on the nature of a particular undead being.
 
Last edited:

frankthedm

First Post
Nyeshet said:
Prior to 3.5e creating undead was not necessarily an evil act. At the very least, the spells involved did not have an evil descriptor - that was added in 3.5e. Similarly, until 3.5e (and, technically, even in 3.5e) negative energy is not evil. It is as purely neutral as positive energy, force, fire, air, water, earth, acid, cold, lightning, etc. Note that Cure spells do not have a 'good' descriptor, and Inflict spells do not have an 'evil' descriptor.
Channeling positive and negative energies is a moral desicion.

Neutral Clerics and Undead
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information.

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.
 

RigaMortus2

First Post
Nightfall said:
I've always considered mindless undead to be neutral. The only exception being the flesh/brain eating zombies, but still that's an unusual one.

If the flesh/brain eating zombies are also mindless, should they also not be considered neutral? They have an inherent instinct and craving for flesh, it's not their fault. Just as a hungry bear might attack a human out of instinct, not because the bear is evil...

Also... (this is not directed at Nightfall)... I don't see see Positive and Negative Energy as inherently "good" and "evil" energy. It's like calling Protons "good" and Electrons "evil". They are just opposite energy types (north and south). It is what you do with them that makes them evil. And yes, some spells that channel negative energy ARE evil. But that has more to do with the theme/intent behind the spell than it does the energy used to power the spell.
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Hero
Undead existence is inimical to life, and mindless undead attack the living. While negative energy is not per se, evil, the relationship of positive and negative energy to life is so essential that for an intelligent being to tap into that power is basically evil. In the case of turning and rebuking, the connection is powerful enough that turning undead is always good and rebuking them always evil. In the case of inflict spells, the negative energy basically just burns someone, which is not the same thing. While turning undead is a good act, it is not only the use of positive energy which makes it good, although that is part and parcel in it. Turning undead affects spirits and souls through positive energy.

Now, something like a ghost has enough intelligence that it can have its own alignment, which can be quite different than an existence inimical to life. A ghost's existence might be, in some definition, evil or inimical, but the ghost may choose not to act in an evil fashion.

Something like a shadow or a vampire (or a nightwalker) has a different relationship with negative energy, essentially being animated by a negative energy force rather than a shell of a person's soul.

I think the final answers to these questions really depend on your campaign's cosmology, the nature of the soul, and so forth. IMC, at least, undeath is a condition that emanates from the Negative Energy Plane, but is not identical to negative energy. Undeath is hateful to life, and even a good ghost or reformed lich leads an existence that is ultimately draining on the living in both a physical and spiritual sense.

Thus, a LG ghost either passes on, fades away, or evolves... possibly into a more vengeful ghost, but perhaps into something like a spectre.

IMC, undeath is inherently parasitic. Even something like a nightwalker ultimately owes its existence to the spiritual energy of living things tinged with suffering. Without death, there would be no undeath.
 

Nyeshet

First Post
frankthedm said:
Channeling positive and negative energies is a moral desicion.

Neutral Clerics and Undead
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information.

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.
This has to do with Turning. Specifically, it is due to the fact that good deities - for whatever reason - all grant positive energy channelling to their clergy, while evil deities - again for unknown reasons - all grant negative energy channelling to their clergy. Those of Neutral alignment don't usually care what their clergy channel, but due to the traditions established by the good / evil deities if their cleric should choose to channel negative energy they are considered to be sliding towards evil - even if they never commit an evil act or use a spell with an evil descriptor. It is an oddity of the game that many I know ignore. Indeed, some have arranged for good deities whose clergy channel negative energy (a destructive energy with which to smite the evil foes of their deity) and some evil deities in their campaign worlds have their clerics channel positive energy - the better to heal themselves and the followers of the deity - thus making it easier for them to live to do their deity's bidding another day.

A question to those that long played the 1st and 2nd edition: Was turning always affected by the morality of the deity? By that I mean, have clerics of Good deities always turned rather than rebuked, and have clerics of Evil deities always Rebuked rather than Turned? I note that prior to 3e there was no spontaneous curing / inflicting, so no matter the alignment of the deity, the cleric could prepare either (or only one or the other) as they wished without it reflecting their alignment or that of their deity. With 3e that seems to have been tied to Turning.

If it turns out that prior to 3e all clerics Turned or that Turning / Rebuking was decided on a cleric to cleric basis (or on a deity to deity basis) irregardless of alignment, then have the designers of 3e ever stated why they tied Turning to Good aligned deities and Rebuking to evil aligned deities - effectively adding morality to non-moral energies? It seems to me that the system often contradicts itself - first stating that the energies are not aligned in any manner, are utterly / absolutely neutral, but then stating that Clerics that serve a deity are committing a moral act (for Good or Evil) whenever they channel either of these non-aligned energies? Any answer to this quandary?
 

pawsplay

Hero
In RC D&D, Lawful clerics cast cure, whereas Chaotic clerics could choose between cure and cause wounds spells. For whatever reason, "reversing" spells was the province of Chaos, thus only chaotic clerics cast darkness, cause light wounds, and so forth. More details are eluding my memory.
 

frankthedm

First Post
Nyeshet said:
This has to do with Turning. Specifically, it is due to the fact that good deities - for whatever reason - all grant positive energy channelling to their clergy, while evil deities - again for unknown reasons - all grant negative energy channelling to their clergy.
Neither reason is unknown. Channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

Looking at the 1e PHB and 1e DMG seems to indicate only Evil clerics got to try to compel service from the undead. Clerics could not be true nuetral so LN and CN Turned away the undead as well.

My 2e PHB is boxed up ATM.
 

taliesin15

First Post
The possibility of bodies and skeletons being turned into Undead is one of the main reasons the main cultures in my milieu (Gemanic and Celtic, FWIW) ritually burn bodies instead of burying them.

Typically, IMC undead occur in places remote from "civilization," such as it is, or in places where there were great battles, perhaps areas where evil humanoids overran human/-oid settlements, and necromancers moved in. Or vice-versa.

I do like the notion that some undead, typically ghosts, are spirits with unfinished business. In real world mythology, I believe this emerged from the Roman Catholic notion of spirits going to Purgatory. Not sure, however, if most RPG campaigns have a notion of a Purgatory.
 

Remove ads

Top