Why are undead inherently evil?

[VelvetViolet]

Yes. Good and Evil are completely objective.

Actually no. They're purely arbitrary distinctions made by some loony self-righteous gods because a large number of mortals fed them their faith. The D&D cosmology is a consensus reality: good and evil are defined the way they are because that's what a bunch of racist, hypocritical, uneducated, medieval peasants believe is true, not what is actually true. And even then you can have things like evil angels or good demons or good undead according to the rules.

Using something from a series without completely objective morality to support your case for one with objective morality won't work.

I'm not using Warhammer morality. I'm using basic logic. Can you argue that Tyranids are evil by D&D standards? If yes, then that means that bacteria, ants, and anything else that eats other living creatures to survive is evil. D&D morality is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Sure. They're just irrelevant to D&D.

Those "books" are D&D Monster Manuals. All of which include undead that are "usually evil" or "neutral" or "same alignment as the base creature." This definitively proves that undead are not inherently evil, since you can have an arbitrarily large number of lawful good undead.

That "reasoning" is terrible for two reasons. One, it is, in fact, inherently evil because the rules say it is. Dead stop, the end. Second, trying to support the argument with crap that does not matter, whether it's from real life or a crappy book series, doesn't matter, because in D&D, morality is completely objective. Those series do not matter whatsoever. In D&D, raising a corpse is always Evil simply because it is. Nothing else, it's just inherently Evil.

D&D morality is already well-established to be self-contradictory and hypocritical, and supports things like ethnic cleansing and laying your eggs inside the bodies of sapient creatures, which are considered good or non-evil under numerous circumstances. Not to mention it is not actually objective, but supported by consensus reality.

 

[TwoSix]

As much as it pains me to agree with [MENTION=6750006]Cyclone_Joker[/MENTION], he's pretty much right. The moral values for Good and Evil aren't based on any sort of teleological principles. Which is kind of interesting, because it means that D&D is itself Lawful Good, since Lawful Good is pretty Kantian, and Chaotic Good is more of an ethical utilitarianism.

 

[TwoSix]

D&D morality is already well-established to be self-contradictory and hypocritical, and supports things like ethnic cleansing and laying your eggs inside the bodies of sapient creatures, which are considered good or non-evil under numerous circumstances. Not to mention it is not actually objective, but supported by consensus reality.

Wait, wait, wait. Did D&D suddenly become Mage? (No 3.X/PF jokes about it already being there!)

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Actually no.

Actually yes. What's good and evil is objective. It's empirically testable, even.

They're purely arbitrary distinctions made by some loony self-righteous gods because a large number of mortals fed them their faith.

First off, where exactly does it say the gods defined it? I don't remember that and Deities and Demigods seems to contradict that, if memory serves.

The D&D cosmology is a consensus reality: good and evil are defined the way they are because that's what a bunch of racist, hypocritical, uneducated, medieval peasants believe is true, not what is actually true.

No, they're what they are because that's what they are.

And even then you can have things like evil angels

Which are still (Good).

or good demons

Actually, you can't. BoVD specifies that allowing a fiend to exist is an Evil act, so any Good demon or devil won't be staying that way very long.

I'm not using Warhammer morality. I'm using basic logic.

That's tough, because it really doesn't matter. Your conclusion through basic logic is wrong.

Can you argue that Tyranids are evil by D&D standards? If yes, then that means that bacteria, ants, and anything else that eats other living creatures to survive is evil.

...And?

D&D morality is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Actually, it's not self-contradictory. Just stupid.

Those "books" are D&D Monster Manuals. All of which include undead that are "usually evil" or "neutral" or "same alignment as the base creature." This definitively proves that undead are not inherently evil, since you can have an arbitrarily large number of lawful good undead.

...

BoVD. Heroes of Horror. Both are very nicely disproving you.

D&D morality is already well-established to be self-contradictory and hypocritical,

You keep saying those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

and supports things like ethnic cleansing

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's still Evil.

but supported by consensus reality.

[citation needed]

 

[Cadence]

As an aside from 2004, at least 25 more pages to go before worrying about setting a record on the topic... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?99818-Why-does-Undead-Evil

The end of that thread offered:

Okay, how's this for an explanation:

An undead creature's existence reverses the natural flow of positive and negative energy through the multiverse, because the negative energy ends up moving "the wrong way." This reverse flow, in effect, "plugs up" the system. As a result, some new souls (that are born of positive energy) find themselves unable to find purchase in their intended physical forms. Just by existing, undead cause stillbirths and/or birth defects elsewhere in the cosmos.

That's why creating undead is Evil...it creates conditions that harm innocent souls.

Undead creatures are almost always Evil themselves because while Negative Energy is fine when it "stays in it's place" as an impassive force for cleaning out the universe and making room for new life, its purpose (destroying life indiscriminately) is Evil once it is given form and gets out in the world.

Ghosts have an obsession that can overcome the Negative Energy's life-destroying purpose. This obsession also means that ghosts can't help being ghosts, and can't just destroy themselves, so they get a free pass on the whole "blocking up the world with negative energy" thing and are allowed to be Good. On the other hand, they still create a blockage, so it's still Good to turn/destroy them by channeling positive energy. Especially since they'll just come back later. It's best, however, to befriend Good ghosts and help them fulfill their purpose. That will get rid of the blockage permanently.

As for non-Evil Mummies...let's assume that they're in the same boat as Ghosts, except for the whole "coming back" thing.


I like it because I think it does not violate any of the pre-existing assumptions about what happens after you die. I don't think it has any problematic implications with respect to existing spells or other game mechanics. How souls are created and put into bodies is not well-detailed, so I figure it's easier to just make stuff up about that without breaking anything.

On the other hand, while it does account for why creating mindless undead is Evil, it doesn't explain why mindless creatures that are incapable of independent action are Evil. I guess you could say that, in the absence of a strong will (like ghosts), they are just tainted by the act of creation? That works well enough, I think. It goes along with the idea of places and things that are "tainted by Evil."

 

[Cadence]

As much as it pains me to agree with @Cyclone_Joker, he's pretty much right. The moral values for Good and Evil aren't based on any sort of teleological principles. Which is kind of interesting, because it means that D&D is itself Lawful Good, since Lawful Good is pretty Kantian, and Chaotic Good is more of an ethical utilitarianism.

I've read a few of the ____ and Philosophy books but didn't get the D&D one yet. Anyone read and liked it? How are its chapters on alignment?

 

[VelvetViolet]

I know what the rules say. Undead are evil because of objective morality. I'm looking for teleological reasons that prevent the existence of heroic necromancers, liches, vampires, ghosts, etc.

Should I just use a blanket statement that all undead with a good alignment are deathless, and that if an undead somehow acquires a good alignment it automatically becomes deathless? For every type of undead, there is also a deathless version that is good-aligned? Good liches, friendly neighborhood vampires, deathless morhgs that punish murderers, heroic mummies like in that 90's kids show Mummies Alive, etc?

Because I'm perfectly happy playing a necromancer who uses positive energy to reanimate the dead to create good-aligned deathless skeletons and zombies that dance and sing to entertain children like in Tim Burton films. Because according to the rules, using positive energy makes it automatically good, like using afflictions and changing an evil person's alignment to good through mind-control.

 

[Mistwell]

None of that really sounds specifically evil. So they lose the ability to care about other people. Does that cause them to decide that it's in their best interests to start burning down villages for fun? It sounds neutral or lawful neutral to me.

It says, "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."

That's nearly the words used to describe the evil alignments. It sounds to me like you're arguing moral relativism in a game with defined morality.

 

[Umbran]

Should I just use a blanket statement that all undead with a good alignment are deathless, and that if an undead somehow acquires a good alignment it automatically becomes deathless? For every type of undead, there is also a deathless version that is good-aligned? Good liches, friendly neighborhood vampires, deathless morhgs that punish murderers, heroic mummies like in that 90's kids show Mummies Alive, etc?

That's not for us to answer. IN game teleology depends upon the metaphysics of the game word. I, personally, have never been a fan of, "Well, the evil versions are cool, so we should have a good version of the same thing!" style of worldbuilding. Complete symmetry is not so interesting. So, for my worlds, I'd say no, in general. It is more interesting to have very rare exceptions than to say that every alignment has it's own version of the same thing.

Because I'm perfectly happy playing a necromancer who uses positive energy to reanimate the dead ...

If you're playing them, you're not the GM, are you? SO then you don't get to say whether or not they can exist.

 

[VelvetViolet]

It says, "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."

That's nearly the words used to describe the evil alignments. It sounds to me like you're arguing moral relativism in a game with defined morality.

Weren't you listening to me when I explained why the Formians and Slaad should be evil but aren't? This is the exact same thing! What those undead do isn't any worse than what Slaad or Formians do, therefore they shouldn't be more evil than those guys just because they're undead. Undead aren't "unnatural" either since they arise spontaneously on the negative energy plane and the plane of shadow without anyone making them.

If you're playing them, you're not the GM, are you? SO then you don't get to say whether or not they can exist.

The GM told me I had to come up with a good reason why Paladins won't try to smite me on sight despite not actually being evil, since he portrays the fight between good and evil in D&D as the nazis versus the taliban (without actually contradicting any of the rules or fluff, since D&D's idea of "good" is repulsive by real world standards, what with good heroes doing things like genociding goblins and looting tombs, much less the hypocrisy of the BOED; he simply took that to its logical extreme and added things like Salem-style witch hunts, concentration camps for orcs, and breeding lobotomized chromatic dragons as slaves).