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

[Jeff Wilder]

I would hold that anything mindless would be neutral... like animals that do not have the capacity to distinguish our perceptions of morality or ethics.

In fact, this was the case in every edition of the game up to, but not including 3.5, and the change, unfortunately, was partially my fault. (Well, maybe not, but I suspect so very strongly.)

Up through and including 2E, mindless undead were, in fact, Neutral, exactly like animals and for pretty much exactly the same reason.

In 3.0, undead were aligned "Neutral," but the very, very poorly constructed text and table of detect evil could be read to apply to all Undead. (It didn't have to be read as such, but most people did.) So undead, whatever the alignment, had an "evil aura." I got into a massive argument about this, in fact, and lost a $500 bet over it (long story). My back and forth with Wizards was long and extensive, which is why I think I was at least partially responsible for the change in 3.5, in which mindless undead became Neutral Evil.

Note that even assuming the designers intended undead to radiate evil (which I personally doubt) and Wizards wanted the same thing (for whatever reason), mucking about with alignment (with its incredibly important component of "intent") wasn't the way to do it. All they had to do was change it so that all undead have the [Evil] tag, like most evil outsiders. (There should probably also be a "N/A" entry available for alignment, but that's a different discussion.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

In 3.0, undead were aligned "Neutral," but the very, very poorly constructed text and table of detect evil could be read to apply to all Undead. (It didn't have to be read as such, but most people did.) So undead, whatever the alignment, had an "evil aura." I got into a massive argument about this, in fact, and lost a $500 bet over it (long story). My back and forth with Wizards was long and extensive, which is why I think I was at least partially responsible for the change in 3.5, in which mindless undead became Neutral Evil.

It's still the case in 3.5 that an undead creature with a non-Evil alignment (Baelnorn, for example, or one of those unique individuals that bucks the 'Always' trend to be a non-Evil vampire (Angel or Spike, say)) shows up on a Detect Evil spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's still the case in 3.5 that an undead creature with a non-Evil alignment (Baelnorn, for example, or one of those unique individuals that bucks the 'Always' trend to be a non-Evil vampire (Angel or Spike, say)) shows up on a Detect Evil spell.

Not necessarily. The text and table of the spell can be interpreted differently. I don't know if it's still the case in 3.5 -- I haven't examined it closely, since the point is largely moot -- but in 3.0, reading the text and table of detect evil as detecting non-evil undead actually required a weird pre-determination of "evil," with no way to make that determination except to refer to the table, which required you to already know, but you couldn't know without looking at the table, and so on and so forth. Lots of recursive fun.

I have no intention of arguing this, BTW. I know your arguments, and fully understand them, and likewise fully understand why people read detect evil that way. As of that reading becoming "official," I interpret the spell that way myself. I simply maintain that it's not the only way to read the spell, and -- at least in 3.0 -- doing so created bizarreness.

Also note -- as an aside -- that I'm not exactly opposed to mindless undead pinging under detect evil. I'm simply opposed to mindless undead having an Evil alignment. It's stupid and unnecessary and adds one more complication to an already difficult to internalize alignment system. It would have made much more sense to give undead the [Evil] subtype.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... but in 3.0, reading the text and table of detect evil as detecting non-evil undead actually required a weird pre-determination of "evil," with no way to make that determination except to refer to the table, which required you to already know, but you couldn't know without looking at the table, and so on and so forth.

I never found it so.

Detect Evil detects evil auras, and the things with evil auras are listed on the table.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Detect Evil detects evil auras, and the things with evil auras are listed on the table.

Sigh.

No. Detect evil detects the "presence of evil." It says so in the very first line of the spell.

Once evil is detected, if necessary you refer to the table to determine the strength of the "evil aura." There is absolutely no reason -- by the text of the spell -- to refer to the table for a one-round detection, because D&D already has rules for what is evil or not: those rules are alignment, alignment descriptors, and alignment subtypes.

Detect evil effectively creates a new subcategory of "evil' in D&D that exists absolutely nowhere else ... not in Smite Evil, not in protection from evil, not in dispel evil. Only for the spell detect evil is this new category of evil created and (supposedly) necessarily: "That which detect evil detects is evil."

So, in order to effectively interpret the "1st round" entry of detect evil, you need to already know that something is evil according to -- wait for it -- detect evil, even though it's not evil anywhere else in the entire rules system.

Gee, thanks, Wizards. That's very handy.

And that's me. I'm out. Peace, y'all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, in order to effectively interpret the "1st round" entry of detect evil, you need to already know that something is evil according to -- wait for it -- detect evil, even though it's not evil anywhere else in the entire rules system.

So... you mean you can't read half the spell and stop, and come to the right conclusion?

I'm not seeing the problem.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So... you mean you can't read half the spell and stop, and come to the right conclusion?

I'm not seeing the problem.

I know. Most people don't. Let me ask you a question:

What's the name of the table in the spell? What exactly, by the headings of the table, does it provide?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What's the name of the table in the spell?

Aura power?

What exactly, by the headings of the table, does it provide?

... Aura power?

Do I understand that your only concern is in the first round?

You're content that in the second and third rounds, undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities will ping as possessing evil auras, but you feel that in the first round, undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities will not trip the "presence of evil" sensor?

I don't have a problem with that - I don't agree with it, because I think in the context of the spell as a whole, "the presence of evil" refers to evil auras as defined in the table, but I can accept that someone would read it that way.

But I can't accept at all a reading that says that undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities would not show up in the second and third rounds.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Aura power?

Yes. It provides the power of an evil aura. It says so right on the table. The table says absolutely nothing about giving results pertaining to the presence of evil, which is what detect evil pings on. And that's fine, because the table doesn't need to provide that information ... there are already rules in D&D for what is evil or not.

The mistake you -- and many, many other people, including Wizards -- are making is that you're taking a table that is specifically designed to output the strength of an evil aura, and you're expanding its scope -- without any textual justification -- to include, additionally, whether or not something is evil in the first place.

And again, there are already rules for determining whether something is evil.

In other words, the table is designed for a DM to input a preexisting determination -- "this whirligig is evil" -- and get meaningful output -- "your evil whirligig is, in fact, exactly this evil."

You -- and many, many other people -- are mistakenly reading that table to not only provide "aura power," which is clearly is designed to do, but also to provide "aura presence," which nowhere -- absolutely nowhere -- does the table purport to provide.

And I'll say again, because it bears repeating: there's no reason to read the table that way, because D&D already has other rules for determining the presence of evil, and because reading the table that way creates an entirely new subcategory of evil that doesn't fit in with any of the other rules of the game that deal with the interaction with evil.

Reading the table that way creates a tautology: "Evil is what detect evil detects." Worse, it's a tautology with a huge exception: " ... but ignore this determination of what's evil for every other spell and effect in the rules." You don't get how absurd that is?

(God, I have no willpower when it comes to argument.)

You're content that in the second and third rounds, undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities will ping as possessing evil auras, but you feel that in the first round, undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities will not trip the "presence of evil" sensor?

First of all, let me state yet again that I now abide by the "official" ruling on the spell, which is to say I now interpret the spell exactly as you do. (Primarily because I'm going through a bit of an "anti-house-rules" phase.)

But the actual wording of the spell is that non-Evil undead and non-Evil clerics-of-Evil-gods don't register as "evil" (because, well, they're not). Not in the first round, not in the second round, not in the third round. They are, by every (other) rule in D&D, simply "not evil." Since they are, by every rule in D&D, "not evil," there is no reason to determine how strong an "evil aura" they (don't) have. You don't have "evil - yes" to plug into the table to receive an "evil - this much" answer. (EDIT: Note that this is actually no longer true, as a rule has been added directly to clerics and other holy or unholy classes that states whether or not detect evil will ping on them.)

But I can't accept at all a reading that says that undead creatures (of non-Evil alignment) and Neutral clerics of Evil deities would not show up in the second and third rounds.

That's because you're adding meaning to the table that it simply doesn't textually have, doesn't purport to have, and, IMO, wasn't intended to have. If you add rules where they're not written, you're not going to understand the results achieved under the rules as written.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just as an aside, here's what I meant by my "recursive fun" comment earlier.

Note that according to Hypersmurf's interpretation of detect evil (which is now the "official" interpretation") one looks to the table for not only the "power" of an evil aura, but also for whether something is "evil" in the first place.

Now note the first entry on the table: "Evil creature."

So ... I need the table to determine if Creature X is "evil." Which line of the table do I use?

...

Yeah. Like I said, thanks a lot, Wizards.