Why does Undead=Evil

[Zweischneid]

As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.

Well, by all fantasy fiction I've ever read, with this attitude, your evil or at the very least straying a far, far way from the righteous path.

Except of course, if the one person you sacrifice is yourself.

Heroics are done when people (i.e. thereafter often known as heroes) stand up for people, values, etc.. after it has gone beyond the logical or beneficial.

When it comes to protect a valuable asset, the King will set his soldiers. When there are only a few ragged farmers noone cares about, they'll need heroes.

When the King says he will kill or torture someone (albeit with a heavy heart) to save his kindom, the good guy will always look for a different way (or put his own life in the line for the poor chaps sake.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

Well you may be luckier then me for I have met a many people who use the "evil if it looks evil" theory. And its these poeople I am insulting. I am not saying anything bad to anyone here. I dont think anyone here used that logic so I'm not instulting any of you. I am insulting that large number of people who I know that are always like "Dude, he has black robes in face paint. I dont care what your detect alinment says, he is evil."

 

[Caliban]

As for lettling the ends justify the means, I want to bring up a classic question, would you kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people? My answer is yes. Where is the logic in letting 1,000 people die to save 1. The needs the many far outweigh the needs of the few. So I do belive that the ends does justify the means.

And of course, you are the best person to determine what the needs of the many are, and are fully qualified to determine who you should kill.

Heck, why stop at one? If the needs of the many outweigh the few, then it's Ok to kill 499 people to save 500, right?

What constitutes "saving" them anyway? Is it prolonging their life? Is it making their life "better" somehow?

What if someone tells you that you are part of that 499 that need to die to make things better for the remaining 500? You wouldn't have a problem with that, right?

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

As far as killing 1 to save 1,000 we are assuming there is no other solution. If a villian says, "Slay this one peasent or I kill 1,000 including him" There are always alternate ways. I could find a way to trick or destroy the villian without the loss of any innocents and thats Is what I would try to do.

But, and this is a big but, when the quesion of killing one to save 1,000 is asked it is assumed that there is not other option. Its like a what if. And in that situation I would sacrifice the one, even if it was me.

 

[Zweischneid]

Well you may be luckier then me for I have met a many people who use the "evil if it looks evil" theory. And its these poeople I am insulting. I am not saying anything bad to anyone here. I dont think anyone here used that logic so I'm not instulting any of you. I am insulting that large number of people who I know that are always like "Dude, he has black robes in face paint. I dont care what your detect alinment says, he is evil."

Well, not to insult you, but maybe it is you who is thinking a bit too simple with only the most irredeemable, crackling, sadistic lunatic as qualifying for "evil".

Evil always starts with good intentions.

So raising undead with the intention to do something good does not make it less evil.. it merely shows that you've taken the first step down the road.

Similar to your sacrificing one for a thousand example. You start with 1, next maybe 10, then maybe for a not quite so urgent cause, than a 100, than maybe on a suspicion rather than a proven fact, etc, etc..

The only way out of this dilemma (and the one any good guy in a book or movie will take) is to offer up yourself.

People, even fictional villains are not born evil (or if they are, they are rather boring and unbelievable villains). It's their deeds that make em so, and raising the dead is surely one of them.

Btw, check Pet Cemetery for raising dead with good intentions. Lovely writing on this subject...

[edit]
and btw.. we didn't start with the 1 for a 1000 sacrifice.
We started with killing and/or raising people/living beings because of convenience (i.e. if my horse needs rest and food, it sucks) or cowardice (i.e. help you better your combat odds, because your afraid to fight without zombies to hide behind).

See what I mean about sliding the scale?

 

[Caliban]

As far as killing 1 to save 1,000 we are assuming there is no other solution. If a villian says, "Slay this one peasent or I kill 1,000 including him" There are always alternate ways. I could find a way to trick or destroy the villian without the loss of any innocents and thats Is what I would try to do.

But, and this is a big but, when the quesion of killing one to save 1,000 is asked it is assumed that there is not other option. Its like a what if. And in that situation I would sacrifice the one, even if it was me.

And that's why it's not a valid question. In the real world (and in most games) there are always other factors involved.

What if a group of heavily armed and armored men came to your village and said that they were taking 10 people away, for the good of the village. You are selected as one of those 10 people. Are they evil? Are they good? Are they neither?

You say the end justifies the means. Is this true in all cases? Say I want the last cookie in the jar, but you are about to take it. So it's alright for me to knock you out and take the last cookie, since you were about to stop me from having it.

 

[Moff_Tarkin]

You ingnorant fools. Of course you cant understant my true plan. Cant you see that what I am doing its whats best for the world. I will create a society without war, without crime. Of course many will have to lose their lives to build such a utopia but sacrifices must be made.

Ok, see I understant the concept of the evil villian who, in his own sick and twisted mind, believes that he is doing whats right. I do believe that most real life terrorists fit into this category.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just a note: A Paladin who kills one innocent to save a thousands loses his Paladin status as killing an innocent is an evil act. Sacrificing your Paladinhood on the surface might look noble, but your soul is now tainted and evil has won an even larger victory most probably.

EDIT: I know you arn't a paladin, just exemplifying that this is an evil act. It doesn't become non-evil when a normal guy off the stree does it.

 

[Zweischneid]

Just a note: A Paladin who kills one innocent to save a thousands loses his Paladin status as killing an innocent is an evil act. Sacrificing your Paladinhood on the surface might look noble, but your soul is now tainted and evil has won an even larger victory most probably.

EDIT: I know you arn't a paladin, just exemplifying that this is an evil act. It doesn't become non-evil when a normal guy off the stree does it.

Well, than they call it the choosing between two kinds of evil.

It's still evil though and quite unfair if you present it like that in a D&D game.

On the other hand, evil guys like to be unfair... so if you want to get rid of the Paladin in your group, thats a way to go

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just as a note, I wouldn't do that to a paladin.

Heck, I wouldn't do it to anyone. I always run a third option. It might hurt the PCs, but in the end it'll save the day, assuming they are capable of doing it. PCs should always have the chance to win, no matter how slim, and be heroic doing it. At least, that's my philosophy.

A character in my games who raises horses because they can would really turn some heads! And lots of dropped jaws. I think I might try it, in fact just to see what they do!