Why are undead inherently evil?

[VelvetViolet]

Is there anything in the RAW that specifically contradicts it? (That's an actual question, not a rhetorical one. I'm not aware of anything off the top of my head, but I haven't looked carefully and my knowledge of the deathless is mostly secondhand.)

The RAW is pretty incoherent on the subject of undeath and evil, which is why threads like this exist. I think any attempt at a cohesive explanation is going to have to go beyond what's stated in the books.

Aside from the BOED contradictory morals, the topic isn't really addressed. We're continually told undead are evil and unnatural but we're never actually given any practical justification for why this is beyond author fiat or rules convenience, and deathless are stated to be unambiguously inherently good. Yes, most undead are dangerous and many are evil, but this doesn't necessitate all undead being evil, anymore than deathless being inherently good, despite doing things like guarding their tombs or watching over wards like ghosts or mummies do.

If mindless undead are programmed to attack living creatures in the absence of orders (according to Forgotten Realms, anyway), this doesn't mean that they're evil at all. It means they're lawful neutral. Calling them evil is like calling a disease or a poison evil. Aside from being homicidal they don't demonstrate the other aspects of being evil like sadism.

I believe undead should be good or evil based entirely on circumstance, not any inherent alignment value on the part of undead or negative energy. I would judge an undead's alignment by their motivation. Most undead would be neutral, lawful neutral, or chaotic neutral based on whether they were just hungry, guarding their tombs, or crazy. Ones that deliberately sought to hunt and harm the living for no reason other than fun and knew what they were doing was wrong would be evil.

There should be a definite possibility for the existence of heroic necromancers or heroic undead who used their powers for good.

 

[MJS]

The awesome thing about D&D is that you can change it in your campaign!

This.
Personally, I have no problem having palpable evil in a campaign, but sure, there are strong arguments either way. Zombies and skeletons aren't intelligent enough to be evil, but their creation is so dispicable as to be detectable in their energy signature.

I have long been a champion of altering alignments, especially of goblinoids and other sentients.

As to why undead creation is evil - you're digging up somebody's Grandma to use the body for your zombie army. If you don't understand why that's evil, you might be evil yourself, since evil never sees its own shadow. More likely its just a philosophical mobius.

What is interesting, and compelling, though in my POV, isn't the good/evil axis, but the movement between. Vampires are interesting because they have human qualities. Hitler's pool man went to his grave saying Hitler was a swell guy to work for.

 

[Tovec]

Oh, I'm all for the rights of the deceased. But they only own the body while they are alive, and can sell rights to their corpse. After they're dead, the body belongs to any surviving family. If there is no surviving family, the corpse isn't owned by anyone.

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here - that's like saying murder is only evil until you run out of family members for the first person you kill. If you kill a hobo in cold blood = not murder = not evil.
Um.. no. We still define it as evil/murder regardless if there is anyone left to care for them. It is a social issue that you can't sidestep just because you want to. Trying to sidestep it, for nearly any reason, so you can murder people at any time - as many hobos as you want - makes you a problem and puts you distinctly outside society. You are a psyho who just likes killing, and not a good guy. But this (as with bringing them back) has more to do with the murderer/necromancer than it does the dead/zombie.

But those various beliefs about the afterlife are quantifiably wrong. Anyone who dies immediately gos to the afterlife that fits their alignment. Their funereal is irrelevant to that.

Well not necessarily. We know it goes immediately to the afterlife, unless it doesn't. It isn't clear where ghosts (spectres, etc.) come from or why they are bound to the world. It can be theorized that souls do go to the afterlife immediately but if they are not given proper rights or honoured in the way they expect that they'll come back. So, while we know those viking warriors end up in Valhalla that is no reason to stop doing the rights that we figure put them there. Now you could experiment but I would see no good reason to do so if it is working in society already.

People believe reanimating corpses is wrong because of social taboo. One could easily have a society where this isn't the case, where necromancy is a recognized as a legal profession and most people have zombie butlers and look forward to existence as a undying soldier that will defend the homes and liberty of their descendants. In such a society, dangerous undead would be seen as no different from, say, any other extremely dangerous man-eating monster like mindflayers, and you might even have people campaigning for zombie rights and zombie marriage.

Sigh, how do you go from the step of zombies don't have to be evil, to .. marriage and societies where it isn't wrong to do so? I just don't get it.

Beyond that, there is a difference between reanimating soldiers to keep fighting, to creating zombie butlers to serve you. You are ignoring that.

Or you could sidestep all these moral issues completely by only reanimating evil people, because being EEEVIIL automatically negates all rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit if happiness according to D&D's warped system of morality. I doubt the villagers would complain if everyone one of them had a zombified goblin slave-butler that had absolutely no purpose in unlife other than following their orders (and no, D&D zombies don't eat people, they just follow orders, like in voodoo).

A. No it doesn't.
B. If you want to have that conversation then go ahead and do it. I'm not going to participate because I already know what values "its evil, kill it" has to DnD and I've already had the conversation that not every evil guy should be evil. It isn't the conversation to have here and doesn't relate to creatures MADE evil. Demons are always evil, always. They can change on a personal level but you aren't going to find (in DnD) demons that start as neutral and fit into society as if nothing is strange. That's the point.

That isn't actually stated anywhere in the rules. Even the text of true resurrection does not actually state that being undead prevents resurrection (you can cast the spell on an undead to cure them), it only states that undead creatures that have been destroyed are valid targets for resurrection, not that the undead must be destroyed before the original person can be resurrected. Hypothetically you could use the spell to repeatedly resurrect yourself and animate your previous corpses as ghouls or whatever. Which brings up the question of what soul they are using if your soul is in your own body.

Resurrection (the spell) SRD:
"You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected."
True Resurrection (the spell) SRD:
"You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures."
Undead (the type) SRD:
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

So, yes. Being undead prevents resurrection. Big time. (I don't quite know why the last line of undead is written that way - it seems clear the spell disagrees.)

 

[sheadunne]

I was under the impression that the only reason undead were evil was because the spell used to create them was labeled [evil], at least in 3.5. Why are those particular spells labelled evil is just as relevant a question and one I've seen posed many times. I think it's mostly just a choice by the authors, which is fine. One could always just remove the descriptor or create a [good] version of create undead.

I played a neutral cleric who channeled positive energy but whose society animated undead (mostly skeletons) to serve as laborers. It was built into the history that the society viewed the animating of bones as a great honor. When someone died from your family it was expected that they would be animated to continue serving and providing for their family. Was this evil? good? did it matter? According to D&D it was [evil], but it was a simple enough change to make it fit into the backstory of the society (removing the [evil] descriptor from animate dead). We left create undead and create greater undead as [evil] spells since they were used to create sentient undead creatures.

 

[Umbran]

Aside from the BOED contradictory morals, the topic isn't really addressed. We're continually told undead are evil and unnatural but we're never actually given any practical justification for why this is beyond author fiat or rules convenience....

I was under the impression that the only reason undead were evil was because the spell used to create them was labeled [evil], at least in 3.5. Why are those particular spells labelled evil is just as relevant a question and one I've seen posed many times. I think it's mostly just a choice by the authors, which is fine. One could always just remove the descriptor or create a [good] version of create undead.

Ultimately, there's a point where one must make some assumptions - in math, they're called axioms. They aren't true or false (though, a system of axioms can be inconsistent), they just *are*. You do have to choose some base assumptions - if you try to make *no* choices, and allow the GM to do everything themselves, well, then you're not really giving the GMs a leg up, as they have to make all the choices and do all the work that results from those choices. They might as well just build their own game or campaign, if you're not making choices for them.

If we take as a given that, in the game universe, that there are some ways of violating the separation of life and death that are just *wrong*, the rest (like the alignment descriptor on the spell) follow reasonably on their own. Since it is axiomatic, you don't have to justify *why* Animate Dead is morally different from Raise Dead. You instead accept that they are different, and you think through the consequences of that difference.

Arguments of real-world morality may only apply if you're trying to drop D&D's absolute moral/alignment system in favor of moral relativism, or some other moral framework. That is equivalent to running a game with a different set of axioms. Which, of course, you're free to do. There's just some work involved.

 

[Mistwell]

The Open Grave 4e book, which I consider to be one of the top 5 D&D books of the 4e era (for any game, in any version of D&D), goes on at some length to explain why undead are evil. It's too much to post here, or even summarize. But much of it has to do with removing the soul, and the impact of having a vigorous animus (animated force with some lasting memory and emotion impressions left from the living) without have a soul.

Here is one short section:

Soulless Undead
Sentient living creatures have a body and a soul, the latter of which is the consciousness that exists in and departs from the body when it perishes. A body’s “life force” that drives a creature’s muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death. Unlike the soul, it fades from the body as the body rots.

If “revived” in the proper fashion, the animus can rouse the body in the absence of a soul. (This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead.) In some cases, the animus can even exist apart from the body as a cruel memory of life. Such impetus can come from necromantic magic, a corrupting supernatural influence at the place of death or interment, or a locale’s connection to the Shadowfell. Strong desires, beliefs, or emotions on the part of the deceased can also tap into the magic of the world to give the animus power.

Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature—driven to inhuman behavior by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can’t be sated. Nearly mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else. Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life. A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul. Even the dreaded wraith is simply a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy.

and

Body, Soul, and Animus
Most sentient creatures have a body, and most also possess a soul. The true nature and origin of the soul is subject to much debate, but most people can agree that, at the very least, the soul is synonymous with a creature’s consciousness, and upon the death of a creature, it departs.

Every creature’s soul is unique to it but apart from it, capable of granting the creature sentience (as opposed to the natural workings of the creature’s fleshy organs). Souls are immortal; they exist prior to birth and beyond the death of a creature’s body. When a creature’s seat of consciousness departs (streaking across the Shadowfell), that creature dies, sooner or later.

Without its soul, a body immediately begins to die, despite the animus that pumps blood and preserves physical memory. The animus is also a connection between the body and the soul that allows a creature’s physical and spiritual aspects to act in concert.

Most undead, including many intelligent ones, lack the soul that departed upon their body’s initial death. These undead are driven to inhuman, bestial behavior because they lack the moral compass that served them in life; now all that remains is a decaying body and an animus driven by needs unfiltered by conscience. Many of these undead have an insatiable hunger for living creatures.

A few undead retain their souls. Except for ghosts, it is unusual to run across an undead creature that retains its soul without having prepared for that eventuality prior to the creature’s death. Such is the case for a lich, which expends vast resources to perform the ritual that binds its soul to its body forever. Even when a lich’s body begins to rot, the soul remains. For this reason, liches and other undead that retain knowledge of the powers they commanded in life are rightfully feared.

and

Tainted Minds
Whether an undead is mindless or sentient, the mere state of undeath twists and transforms the creature’s consciousness. In the case of soulless undead, this transformation is terrible and obvious. If transformed into a wraith, even someone who devoted his life to caring for children would feast upon those he once protected. At best, such beings might decide to pursue other prey to spare a former loved one. However, if other prey is lacking, the creature always chooses to attempt to slake its hunger.

The transformation of undead that retain their souls is far more subtle. A former comrade can talk with a vampire or a lich about adventures they shared when they were both alive, and the undead might display the same feelings as it did in life. However, undeath gradually alters these beings’ perspective. Since they are no longer among the living, undead feel considerably less concern for the things and people they once cared for most. Their morals shift. They might still value friends or family members, but snuffing out the life of a random stranger ceases to be abhorrent, because they place no value on life. Ultimately, these undead cease to care about anyone or anything except for themselves and whatever agenda drove them to seek undeath in the first place. If an undead that has a soul did not choose undeath, revenge becomes one of its goals, even extending to those not responsible for its condition.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Thus have you refuted everyone who thinks that the wishes of the dead have meaning, and that respect is owed to them!

Yep.

At this point I'm not sure if you're trying to prove something about D&D, or something about real world practices around death and the dead,

Shame the real world has absolutely nothing to do with any point I've been making.

but your assertions have not been backed by any actual argument.

Except for, you know, all those page's I've quoted. And I find that accusation hilarious coming from the side that refuses to cite anything.

I prefer to read real philosophers and reflect on the practices of real human beings. If a long-live vampire has such contempt for people that they judge them as mere cattle, that tells me something about the vampire, but not much about the people.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone miss the point in quite as spectacular a fashion before.

Tell me more about the wolf.

...Wolf.

I might fault someone for choosing to become a wolf. Or if someone could only live by killing many others, I might expect them to sacrifice themself.

Would you sacrifice your own life for a couple of cows?

But those various beliefs about the afterlife are quantifiably wrong. Anyone who dies immediately gos to the afterlife that fits their alignment. Their funereal is irrelevant to that.

THANK YOU!

Or you could sidestep all these moral issues completely by only reanimating evil people, because being EEEVIIL automatically negates all rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit if happiness according to D&D's warped system of morality. I doubt the villagers would complain if everyone one of them had a zombified goblin slave-butler that had absolutely no purpose in unlife other than following their orders (and no, D&D zombies don't eat people, they just follow orders, like in voodoo).

Nope. Animating an undead is Evil period.

I would fault the vampire. He doesn't actually need to feed on humans in particular (or at all, barring the sustenance rules in Libris Mortis),

...And? They're still the rules.

and can just feed on animals or evil humanoids or use magic to create substitute blood that tastes better.

Both still Evil. BoED and BoVD are pretty specific.

Humans are equal mentally to vampires because both are capable of philosophy. Any vampire that feeds on humans is just being a jerk.

Again, why? From a vampire's perspective, he is clearly a superior being. It has bonuses to mental stats and has a few levels. Especially if it's a caster, which is a reasonable assumption if it's quite old, then I don't see why something with much higher mental stats would regard something it has to eat as an equal.

That is very good reasoning for why undead would be inherently evil. Sadly it's not supported by the RAW.

There's already a RAW reason. Evil and Good are objective. arbitrary, and divorced from reason. If anything, they're cosmically-defined laws.

Also, the "twisting the minds" or whatever is absurd. They are intelligent beings. Dead stop. They're capable of rational thought and independent decisions, and sure as hell won't just go "Oh, hey, I thought protecting these things is a good idea. *CHOMP*" Also, the Book of Bad Latin doesn't agree with you, and it's an undead book that's actually relevant to the discussion.

 

[VelvetViolet]

The Open Grave 4e book, which I consider to be one of the top 5 D&D books of the 4e era (for any game, in any version of D&D), goes on at some length to explain why undead are evil. It's too much to post here, or even summarize. But much of it has to do with removing the soul, and the impact of having a vigorous animus (animated force with some lasting memory and emotion impressions left from the living) without have a soul.

Here is one short section:

If anything, those actually support my point of view. Since undead are basically just animals, then creating and using them is not more immoral than using animals, assuming that you've acquired the rights to the corpse. Sure, they're dangerous, but that doesn't make them evil. Are lions and tigers with a taste for man evil?

What does 4e say about the Deathless?

 

[Umbran]

Sure, they're dangerous, but that doesn't make them evil. Are lions and tigers with a taste for man evil?

Let us be careful. We are forgetting that (in 3e and earlier) there's more to evil in D&D than intent. Evil is also a magical state, that interacts with particular magics (like, say, Protection from Evil) in specific ways.

Intelligent living creatures who actively pursue harm to others tend to end up as Evil.

Living creatures who lack the ability to make moral choices (like your tigers) don't become Evil, in the magical sense.

Basic undead are not living, and so the normal way that Evil accrues to creatures does not apply to them. While they may lack the ability to make moral choices, the Evil was imparted to them by the method of their creation, and it sticks with them forever after.

Basically, analogy between undead and living critters tends to fail, because MAGIC!

What does 4e say about the Deathless?

4e lacks the magical state of Evil - alignment has little to no mechanical impact in 4e, and so the question is irrelevant.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Let us be careful. We are forgetting that (in 3e and earlier) there's more to evil in D&D than intent. Evil is also a magical state, that interacts with particular magics (like, say, Protection from Evil) in specific ways.

Intelligent living creatures who actively pursue harm to others tend to end up as Evil.

Living creatures who lack the ability to make moral choices (like your tigers) don't become Evil, in the magical sense.

Basic undead are not living, and so the normal way that Evil accrues to creatures does not apply to them. While they may lack the ability to make moral choices, the Evil was imparted to them by the method of their creation, and it sticks with them forever after.

Basically, analogy between undead and living critters tends to fail, because MAGIC!

Why is creating undead evil? Why is creating deathless good?

Why should I be unfairly penalized for wanting to play a heroic necromancer or lich?

Resurrection (the spell) SRD:
"You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected."
True Resurrection (the spell) SRD:
"You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures."
Undead (the type) SRD:
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

So, yes. Being undead prevents resurrection. Big time. (I don't quite know why the last line of undead is written that way - it seems clear the spell disagrees.)

It doesn't. The spell says an undead creature that was destroyed can be resurrected as the person it used to be; that line is meant to explain whether a given corpse can be resurrected or not. When the spells says undead can't be resurrected, it means they can't be resurrected as undead. It doesn't say anywhere that an undead has to be destroyed first to be resurrected, or that being undead prevents resurrection. That's a misinterpretation of the text that many people seem to believe, but isn't actually supported by the text no matter how you parse the grammar.

You can, by the RAW, use true resurrection to create a new body even if the person's first corpse is walking around somewhere as an undead.