Why does Undead=Evil

[Voadam]

The problem of mindless evil

So in 3.0 mindless undead were neutral while in 3.5 they are neutral evil.

Here is how I handled it.

3.0 neutral animated dead would need to be commanded to act, they would not do anything on their own except as commanded by others.

3.5 evil skeletons and zombies, can be commanded and controlled and ordered to do anything including good acts ("run into the fire, carefully pick up the baby, come out quickly to me") however their natural instinct is evil, so if uncommanded they will mindlessly seek out the nearest living thing and try to kill it. So uncommanded they are dangerous threats killing for no purpose and anybody creating them would be wise to quickly command them so they do not immediately attack.

This dichotomy also impacts what happens to uncontrolled ones when you create too many.

Neutral ones would just sit there inert, waiting to be commanded by anybody with the power to do so.

Evil ones become old school wandering monsters who attack the party.

 

[Scion]

Back off tangent:
'Mindless' undead are creatures with alignments. What alignment fits thier actions? (SRD extracts)
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil characters simply have no compassion for others.
Neutral characters have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others

Of the three, which makes sense? Evil.

no, neutral makes the most sense. While your skewing of the terms does tend to point in one direction that does not change the general case, even if it seems to make your point at the time (which it does not do completely even here, since undead lack 'any' commitments, so they cannot make choices at all).

Since they cannot make choices for themselves (should I save the child from drowning or hold the childs head underwater, it wont do anything, it wont even go so far as to think of the question) then they cannot have an alignment.

Could they radiate evil? Sure, that is a seperate issue. But should they have an alignment other than neutral. No. Why would something that cannot do anything of its on choice (it has no ability to even think of the question, let alone make a choice about it) have an alignment?

We can even go into the above and say:
Good = will sacrifice for others and will go out of the way to not harm
Neutral = will not sacrifice nor go out of their way to harm
Evil = will not sacrifice and will go out of their way to harm.

Useing this it is clear that they are neutral. They will not sacrifice, so they are not good. They will not go out of their way to do harm so they are not evil.

Of course this is also a very limited view of overall alignment but it shows the point of the example given above not working properly.

Or, if we go by someone earlier:
Good = will do the good things above
Evil = anyone/thing else.

Pretty harsh there, anyone who does not do good acts is evil. Needless to say this view does not work very well in the d&d system.

But, you say, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil."
A> Speak with dead: The spell description reads, in part: "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive."
Is this an action based on a morals (alignment)? If so, then a Corpse, due to having once been alive, can have an alignment other than nuetral based on its moral action.

Animals are neutral. Undead dont even rank up to animal status with their lack of int scores. If low int means one tends to be neutral then a lack of int doesnt make one much better than the local plantlife, it certainly isnt evil.

Speak with dead, the spell itself, grants a semblance of life. Without that spell there would be no semblance of life. Does any other spell even reference this imprint or did they simply use that as a description as to why it could remember anything at all?

The corpse doesnt get to 'choose', it simply does. If you are of a differing alignment then there is a save. What is the save based on? As if the creature was alive, since normally dead things dont get saves (or are immune to will saves entirely anyway), so this sort of line must be there for the spell to do anything at all.

B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.

If one cannot choose actions then one cannot be of an alignment other than evil.

No int? no choices. no nonneutral alignment.

Being without a mind does not make one evil (vermin are not evil).

So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.

Not all, simply everything that has no mind is neutral. The potted plant is neutral, the vermin is neutral, the sword is neutral, the mindless undead are neutral.

Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.

That is just it though. It looks like the mindless undead are evil because the spell has an evil descriptor. But, aside from taboo issues (which shouldnt apply broadly in d&d, they are too relative to be objective in the system) there seems to be no reason for it to be that way.

Saying that the spell is evil because undead is evil basically says little to nothing. In all likelyhood undead are evil because someone thought it would be better that way (ie houserule. it makes for better smiting, it makes it easier for people to know what to kill since killing evil is good, bah) which then made the spell evil.

So, there is little to no reason for it other than a way to make people feel better about killing certain things (much like how kobolds are evil by default).

However, that is not a good enough reason for this spell. It can be neutral, the undead created can be neutral, but then the stigma attatched to necromancers can make people 'feel' that it is bad. There is no reason to actually make it evil, especially since it takes away interesting options for differing cultures.

Without the tag then it falls into a general use spell that only certain types will deign to be appropriate. Along with following certain dieties much better (such as neutral gods of death/undeath) without having to make up a series of houserules.

The tag merely causes problems without any real use. It makes assumptions that should not be made in the objective d&d morality system. Even in that system there are many ambiguous areas, no need to add in extra problems (this society is good/neutral yet the core says that doing this is evil, but never says why). That just leads to confusion which would not be there otherwise and the general system would still get by with its other stigmas. Streamlining the system for more general, and some better, uses.

 

[Scion]

however their natural instinct is evil, so if uncommanded they will mindlessly seek out the nearest living thing and try to kill it. So uncommanded they are dangerous threats killing for no purpose and anybody creating them would be wise to quickly command them so they do not immediately attack.

Why would they attack?

SRD:
A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative.

It takes no initiative. It does only what it is ordered to do.

So, if they were just created but uncontrolled they would just stand there doing nothing, forever.

They have no desire to kill, they have no desires at all. All they do is follow commands from whoever is controlling them.

In fact, I would assume that even if 'uncontrolled' right now they will simply follow the last command they were given until a new command is given.

If you tell one to dig a trench and another to haul the dirt away then, for the rest of time or until someone gives a counter command, they will sit there digging that trench and hauling the dirt away.

Even if attacked I think they would still do this. Because they take no initiative. Now, you might say, 'dig this trench but if you are attacked fight back/flee/do a little dance'. That still isnt very complicated so it should work all right. Of course, after the fight they would probably not go back to digging.


Talon5: you are still confused between the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis. This is understandable as societies tend to push the Law = Good and Chaos = Evil mentality. D&d is seperate from that, or tries to be.

Also, you are apparently still thinking that there are only Good and Evil, but no neutral choices. If I decide have a turkey sandwhich today instead of a ham sandwhich is that good or evil? If I decide to put mustard on or not is that good or evil? These are very base level and simple, but the neutral options do work all the way up to big important decissions, especially on the good/evil chart (it may very well be that a big decission is neutral on good/evil but very much not so on law/chaos).

About the 'my pets are my friends' that does not stop them from being your pets. You own them, they do not own themselves. Likely, as it is with many pets, if let go to fend for themselves they will not survive because they have come to depend on you for food. Many people I know on farms treat all of their animals as friends, they treat them all nicely, but they are still used for food, burden, money, or whatever else. Just because they are treated nicely and a nicer term is used does not change what they are and what is going on.

If all you wish to do is sling insults however I would ask you to read the CoC first.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I disagree, D&D uses relativism in some cases which is part of the problem.
It's ok to kill evil creatures even though killing is considered evil.
Taking alignment into account breaks the absolutism of D&D morality.

You cannot relate the morale decision in absolutism to any factor.
If killing is evil then it's always evil, no matter the consequences.
Which is not the case of undead because there are some good ones.

I'll agree that relativism has crept in muddying the water.

The issue of 'killing'(to deal death) is one of murder vs killing within the D&D context. To kill, by itself in D&D is not evil, otherwise animal predators would be aligned so. The fact that good characters are expected to be able to kill means that the D&D default setting does not buy into this "killing is always evil".

In that sense, D&D has defined their absolute morality system along sensible lines. It would be no fun for paladins to be holy nurse maids.

 

[Talon5]

Talon5: you are still confused between the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis. This is understandable as societies tend to push the Law = Good and Chaos = Evil mentality. D&d is seperate from that, or tries to be.

LOL- oh God when will it stop.

Also, you are apparently still thinking that there are only Good and Evil, but no neutral choices.

Nope- never said there wasn't neutral. I think you believe the whole world is neutral and that you believe that there is only neutral in the world- nope not evil because its the norm.

I think you see the world- being that you did not dispute the adult taking advantage of an infant senerio, as neutral where neutral is the norm and good and evil where- well actually I have no idea where you think good and evil stand, you obviously think that if its in the norm then its okay.

About the 'my pets are my friends' that does not stop them from being your pets. You own them, they do not own themselves. Likely, as it is with many pets, if let go to fend for themselves they will not survive because they have come to depend on you for food. Many people I know on farms treat all of their animals as friends, they treat them all nicely, but they are still used for food, burden, money, or whatever else. Just because they are treated nicely and a nicer term is used does not change what they are and what is going on.

I guess you have never truely had an animal that was your friend. Never seen the emotion in their eyes. Few people take the time get get that close- I guess I have.

If all you wish to do is sling insults however I would ask you to read the CoC first.

I have. The placement of an insult was first done by you (I made no insult- if you felt one the I apologize), I made a point of indicating that I am an idiot and that you are arguing with an idiot, and that you have have completely lost sight of what this thread was about- you refuse to maintain the thread by forcing your views onto the thread.

The norm does not make an action less evil, it lets evil be accepted by the whole. Good people stand against evil when it raises its nasty head. I see evil in that you would be willing to allow evil to exsist as a norm. I am fighting that (what you would call an acceptable norm) "norm" because I find it offensive to those that would charish the good.

Like the quote says- "evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what," I refuse to allow Undead walking/floating/crawling/swimming to be called acceptable as good no matter the course.

Doesn't mean they won't be used by that LN Cleric of Wee Jas, just means the LG Paladin won't be teamed with her for long.

btw- you have inspired a new villian in my campaign. Thank you.

 

[Scion]

oh God when will it stop.

Some point after you realize that neutral things do exist and that there is a difference between the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis.

You mentioned in a former post that a good person would not rob a bank to feed some orphans. Why not? Robbing the bank isnt evil, it is unlawful. There is such a thing as chaotic good and neutral good. Either of those might have a reason to rob the bank to feed the poor.

Also, you have stated that you know where the 'line' is between good and evil. This assumes that there is nothing in between. Any action that is not good is evil and any action that is not evil is good. That is clearly not the case (remember the sandwhich question earlier).

While the d&d morality system tries to paint things very strongly even it says that most things in the prime are simply neutral, or very weakly tied to some axis.

Nope- never said there wasn't neutral. I think you believe the whole world is neutral and that you believe that there is only neutral in the world- nope not evil because its the norm.

I believe that many of your posts, relevant to this topic, have implied that nothing can be neutral, although I did not go back to reread them all to verify if you ever actually came out and said it directly. Still, the implication across them all is very clear.

There are more things than neutral in the world, of course, but neutral is the general relaxation state. If one does not try hard to get farther up one of the axis then they will tend to slide towards neutrality. Much like a gently sloped hill, it takes more effort to climb than to go back down (there are exceptions of course, but then there always are. typically what I have just said goes more towards law/good than the other side, but the same holds true in other ways for the evil/chaos branches).

Unless one is playing in a certain campaign setting (there is one where 'evil' has won and the heros are basically just guys trying to survive, I forget the name) then likely evil is not the most common alignment, or 'norm' as you put it. Even then though, I would think that more people would be neutral than evil, as it is just easier for them to be so.

Much like the average peasant only gets npc levels (usually commoner) they simply dont have the drive to be strongly aligned with any alignment generally.

Which is much like the animate dead problem. At its base it is merely useing some form of energy to make something move. Like telekinesis over a longer period of time. It can have negative connotations (or good, depending) but the definition of it should be neutral. Unless something evil is actually being done, which the core does not support (talk of soul imprints being tortured somehow even though they are only active for one spell, a different spell, and even that spell says that they remember nothing and are basically inert, without the soul to guide it is just like accessing a computer harddrive that you cannot save to).

I guess you have never truely had an animal that was your friend. Never seen the emotion in their eyes. Few people take the time get get that close- I guess I have.

This has no bearing on anything that has been presented before. It certainly has no bearing on ownership and no relevance to the discussion (as fragmented as it is, this still has no place).

It doesnt matter how much you love or care for your pet, it is still your pet. I will refer you to the point I made before about people on farms. Just because you wish to use a different term does not change what it is.

you refuse to maintain the thread by forcing your views onto the thread.

At this point I think I am one of the few voices of reason. There are several people who have said something that either directly says or amounts to, 'well, it says it is evil, so it is'. That is not a valid arguement.

Others have said various other points, to which I have posted refutals and counter examples from the raw.

Negative energy itself is not evil.
The use of negative energy is not evil (although there are evil people who use it, but that isnt terribly important, there are good people who use it as well and there are lots of tools that evil people use that are also not evil)
Nonintelligent undead should not have a neutral evil alignment, they cannot make the decissions necissary to have an alignment.
There is no mention of a soul being used or abused in any way, shape, or form for either animating the dead or useing negative energy attacks (so far, there may be some spell out there that mentions it, but the base rules for such does not say anything like that)
Using undead for ones own purpose is the same as useing any other tool, and less 'evil' than useing beasts of burden. The animals can feel pain, wants, desires.. the undead in question do not, cannot, and likely never will. Just like an animated object.

I have probably missed a few. Earlier someone said I had ignored valid points, when I asked them to post them I have seen no response so I suppose they either do not wish to have them taken apart or found where I did respond to them.

"evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what,"

Doesnt really matter, but of course this isnt true. Even good men can be tricked into thinking something is good even when it is actually evil.

The placement of an insult was first done by you

I have just gone through all of my responses to you. Not once do I make any insults towards you and yet I have gotten things back from you such as, 'you must treat your animals poorly'. Do stop the insults please.

 

[Bronn]

Scion stop wasting your virtual ink on this self proclaimed idiot.
He's applying is moral code to the situation to decide wether it is evil or not.

In that sense, D&D has defined their absolute morality system along sensible lines. It would be no fun for paladins to be holy nurse maids.

That's what they feel like to me already.

I still can't call it absolute though.
But that is semantic which is a waste of time.

 

[Scion]

Scion stop wasting your virtual ink on this self proclaimed idiot.
He's applying is moral code to the situation to decide wether it is evil or not.

As we all do of course I am just trying to explain that many moral codes in the real world most definately push Law as Good and Chaos as Evil.

The bank robbery example that was put up earlier was very telling indeed.

Ahh well.. Maybe someone will put up that list of reasonings that I have been told I missed. (there are a few which I will simply not discuss, like the baby example, I feel to disgusted by such things to be able to discuss it properly, and since it isnt necissary for either position to even talk about it then I will not)

 

[Sejs]

The placement of an insult was first done by you (I made no insult- if you felt one the I apologize)

Actually dude, you cast the first stone.

"Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't."

That would be where you veered to the wrong side of the Explaining vs Insulting divide. Things just snowballed from there.


Anyway, ideally we can all just let this noise drop and get back to our core issue of finding out which amongst us are Uptight Intractable Moral Elitists and which of us are Reprehensible Degenerate Amoral Miscreants. And also debating about the nature of undead and the repercussions of making them.

 

[BlackSilver]

A sorry goes along way

I am sorry that you all cannot seem to see the points being made regarding evil. I believe what Talon5 was saying is true in that "evil" (the essence of it) is something that "good" people refuse to immerse themselves in even a little bit.

Everyone here (at least those arguing with Talon5) seems to be willing to enter that state of evil- to understand it, you must enter into it as it would be- I can only guess at his intent, but I have read his posts and I guess he and I write or read alike because I can see what he's talking about-

When we accept evil as a normal state of being, then I think we are evil in and of ourselves. I think- no, I believe that is the point he is trying to make, a point I see in his writing very clearly.

Talon5 has made it clear to me that he believes in good, that he knows good and evil exist, and that there is neutral ground between the two.

He has also made it clear to me that he does not believe he is in himself good, as the D&D alignments would have it defined. Aside from some obvious problems (lacking in self esteem, being in obvious emotional pain, etc.) and some things I think he said in another post regarding (I think this was him) "having seen to much," and "done things that he's ashamed of," I believe that he is a better person then those that would attack him, thou I know neither and I am sorry if I am incorrect in this assumption.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone I do not normally take sides in arguments and it was not something I wanted to do here, but I felt it was necessary.