Why does Undead=Evil

Mark me as another who believes that Necromancy's evil because it disturbs the just rest of the dead. Patlin pretty much hit the nail on the head with his description of how Animating The Dead might work: it's not pretty, it's not just turning corpses into puppets, it's about binding the souls of the dead into dead flesh and bones to create minions.

...And, of course, there's nothing garanteeing that the corpse belongs to the soul in question: after all, what's easier, reaching into the afterlife for someone's soul, or just snatching up any lost soul wandering about within reach and putting it to work?

I'll also refer to Relics and Rituals: Excalibur when it comes to explaining the classic medieval outlook on death and necromancy. Basicallt, in such settings, people are used to death and the sight of corpses, because death comes easily in an age before modern medecine (even with magical healing). But this familiarity with death also breeds an attitude of respect for the dead: even peasents get a proper burial, and armies will call truces at night so each side can gather it's dead for funeral. Saying unkind words about the dead is considered incredibly rude, and often a cause for violence if spoken within earshot of a relative of the dead.

This leads to the notion that using magic to call the dead or summon them to unlife is the greatest desecration of the sanctity of death possible.

Now, of course, different cultures might have different outlooks. Eberron's Elves of Aerenal use magic to allow them to preserve their most worthy elders beyond death as Deathless, while the same campaign world's nation of Karnath resurrects it's own dead soldiers to use replenish it's army. But both of them have special circumstances which lead to those practices.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

the reasons why undead=evil are 2-fold IMO, 1) mindless creatures can be killed without any moral dilema, defiling the dead is an out-of-game taboo.

but, u can see a neat attempt at a slightly different moral center regarding the dead if you read wotc's Jakandor setting. its cool.

sorry 4 shorthand, have new baby daughter in hand - typing 1 handed and teaching her d20
 

***
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moff_Tarkin

I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.

I think it's a very poor idea to start off by calling everyone with a different viewpoint than yours "stupid".
***

Especially when you misspell "people" and "don't," use a comma when you should use a semicolon, and forget the question mark at the end of a question. Normally I don't fuss over these kinds of errors, but when someone accuses people of not having an "IQ large enough," they stand out.

Most cultures - especially the sorts of cultures most D&D games take place in, as well as the RL cultures most of live in - do not consider dead bodies to simply be "objects," like rocks or tables. What kind of person would make an ashtray out of their late uncle's foot? This is not a position taken on a strictly rational basis, but most cultural taboos aren't. It would be easy to invent a culture for a D&D game in which creating and using undead were not evil actions (and there's some of that in Eberron's ancient, undead elves). But it's also quite plausible that many cultures would consider such acts evil.

The Spectrum Rider
 

me and my friends had an argument similar to this, but the subject wasn't necromancy, it was n3crophilia (3 there because my comp has a word censor). Can you come up with an objective reason why it is wrong? It hurts no one, is certainly less of a crime than rap3, hell its not not consensual...so why do we have a gut reaction that says it must be wrong?

take that farther: is anything objectively wrong? How is wrong if everyone dies eventually? How is stealing wrong if material possessions cant be proven with laws that were made by man? NOTHING can be proven objectively, including existence itself.

Which is why all such things must be taken in context of culture, because otherwise everything is moot. N3crophila is wrong because we say its wrong; circular yes but that's the true reason. It stems from religious treatments of and instincts of self preservation, but still.

Anything in the world of DnD has a further restriction in terms of morality...gods of dnd are provable and do exist. They reward good and evil behavior, depending on their alignment. The gods say necromancy is evil, which is only reinforced by the proven existence of souls/reincarnation/afterlife. Taken in the context of THAT culture, necromancy is wrong. It goes against good aligned gods (who decide what good is after all)(debatable if god exists in RL), it controls souls which DO exist (debatable in RL), and it prevents reincarnation.

Not to mention the division between good and evil with clerics...clerics that cast cure spells dont raise (typically), they cast inflict spells...that sounds evil to me.

As far as liches go...theyre just evil. Turning oneself undead raises far too many issues, might as well just label it evil and dodge the discussion.

thats all from me
 

So why is the act of becoming a Lich evil by ressurecting someone isn't? Is it because the former is icky?

I think many D&D good ahs been associated with the sentiments of culture for far too long. Desecrating a corpse is not evil, it's unlawful. It doesn't in itself hurt anyone. Now desecrating a corpse for the sheer purpose of causing someone else emotional stress, THAT would be evil.

D&D alignment irritates me, though.
 

Fortunatly for me, the current DM is allowing evil characters so I dont have to worry about the morals of raising dead. As for my spelling and grammer mistakes, I usually have "Word" to correct me but I reset my computer and it is not installed. My spelling isnt that bad its just that I am typing fast and I am not bothering to read over for mistakes. If I go to fast and leave a letter out of a word, or add one in, its not going to matter. Your going to know what I am saying so there is no reason to go through the trouble of going through my post looking for the smallest of mistakes. Your brain will automaticaly fill in any gaps and correct any minor errors. In fact, if you read a sentence with errors fast enough you might not spot any of them for that very reason.
 

As far as liches go, one DM is running an epic level game in which I am a demilich. I convinced him to let me play a LN one. I am a sentient being and I have control over my life and my actions. I can choose to destroy evil and uphold good if I wanted to.
 

The whole thing about not being able to resurrect people who were turned undead was from 2nd edition, I think. My group looked it up the other day in 3.5 and couldn't find any mention of it, so it's probably just a mental holdover from then.

As for why it's evil... because it's in the rules. Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor. Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act.

D&D is black and white about quite a lot of morality. It's pretty easy for a DM to send people into the greys, but some things stand out on one end of the spectrum or another (though, oddly enough, there are very few flat-out "good" acts).

-The Souljourner
 

Moff_Tarkin said:
Your going to know what I am saying.... In fact, if you read a sentence with errors fast enough you might not spot any of them for that very reason.

You know what I spot immediately, no matter how fast I read something? Using "your" when you should be using you're.

Oh, and one thing to add to my last post... I actually kinda like the easy black and white of most of D&D. It makes the typical D&D adventures a heck of a lot more realistic. If you had to wonder about whether this skeleton was just defending his lair, finishing an adventure in D&D would be a horribly long and boring process.

-The Souljourner
 

You know who I could see raising the dead to fight for them? Clerics of St. Cuthbert. They're appropriately prone to smiting first and asking questions later. What better punishment for a bunch of pathetic godless bandits than, after having their heads opened with a cudgel, being animated and sent to go bring the fury of the gods to their former associates?

But then, I usually find followers of Cuthbert to be a little cracked to begin with.
 

Remove ads

Top