Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VelvetViolet" data-source="post: 6183788" data-attributes="member: 6686357">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.Then you're misinterpreting those  lines. What it is supposed to mean is that an undead creature or the corpse of  an undead creature can be resurrected, but it can only be resurrected  as the living creature it was and not the undead it became (if dead).  The "and then destroyed" line doesn't mean that the undead has to be  destroyed first, it simply means that an undead creature that was  destroyed can be resurrected. According to the official D&D novels,  you can resurrect someone even when their undead corpse is  walking around somewhere, and one novel even revolved around a woman's  previous corpse developing a mind of its own and trying to kill her  because it believed she stole its soul. Being undead doesn't prevent  resurrection or true resurrection.That's not what I'm saying. The rules basically say that undead are evil solely because the gods say so, and those same gods also say that lots of things that would otherwise be considered evil are good (see the BOED). The reasoning given in that post said undead were evil because they were unnatural, and that deathless are also evil because they're unnatural (despite the rules stating that deathless are automatically good because they are powered by positive energy). Aside from "because the gods said so," there isn't any self-evident reason for all undead to be specifically evil any more than, say, the Tyranids are supposed to be evil. Many of the books give the implication that a given type of undead can be neutral or good.Here's a quote from another discussion:</blockquote>

Verification