Why does Undead=Evil

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or letting the dead kill their killers as a means of execution...perfect revenge!

Or letting the dead defend their living descendants in a siege...a defense force that requires no foodstores, and is immune to many seige tactics, like spreading contagion. They could even be used to spread contagion among the besiegers.

Of course, in each of the above case, it could only be a non-evil act if the dead agreed to be reanimated.

 

[Alloran]

Kind of like 'in the event of __________ happening, do you heroes agree to be reanimated for the good and protection of the city' type thing?

~Alloran

 

[MerakSpielman]

I think, in D&D, it's not so much that animating dead, specifically, is evil, it is that drawing upon negative energy is evil, and animating dead necessitates drawing upon negative energy.

Why is drawing upon negative energy a bad thing to do? The books don't explain this.

(I don't, by the way, think the rules support the "the body is animated by its soul" arguement)

Frankly, I always thought it would be fun to have an idyllic, pristine society, where all labor and work that doesn't require human intelligence was carried out by a horde of skelitons. They could serve as defensive troops, or weed the garden. They can go into the sewers and kill vermin for eternity, reducing the disease rate, or they could be used as tireless construction workers, or they could plow the fields and harvest the produce.

Meanwhile, all the people of the city live easy lives, waited on hand and foot by the loyal, tireless undead.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Exactly, Alloran.

In a sense, you could argue that Arthur lying "sleeping" in Avalon, ready to rise again if Britain should ever need him is just that kind of pact.

Ditto the mummy who guards his god/king. Which reminds me...I never liked the rule that mummies were evil- they are, after all, guarding temples or deceased rulers from tomb raiding non-believers.

Similarly, witness the Undead Druids in Terry Brooks' Shanarra books. These undead druids inhabit the Hadeshorn, and use the knowledge they had in life and the perceptive powers attributed to the dead (by people like Dante) to inform the living.

The Sons of Kyuss in Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar books are not only defenders of the city, but also the occasional instrument of divine justice.

And then there's the undead guy in the cellar of Glen Cook's Garret books... He's not evil...he's just amoral.

And as for the other, the court ordered reanimation, it would be as simple as: "I sentence the killer to die at the hands of his victims. Priest! Raise the Revenants!"

As for MerakSpielman's idea, I participated in a discussion about just such a place. We decided that Zombies make ideal farmers (of crops, not livestock) since they don't actually feed on the living (they just follow orders) and they fertilize the soil as they work...

Although, skeletons would have to be used for the harvesting. No one wants to eat corn that smells of zombie.

Sewer patrol is one we hadn't considered, though. Good idea! (I'm stealing that, BTW.)

Most undead, however, would be too stupid to do complex tasks like construction. Each one would need an individual foreman to tell it what task to do at that moment.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It may be worth killing 1000 innocents to save the scientist who is within reach of finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, it may be equally worth sacrificing an innocent so that 1000 other innocents escape to spread word to the world of the genocide in Sudan.

No. It's never worth it.

 

[Malin Genie]

I had always thought (as a player, not a character) that it was negative energy animating the body (in the case of mindless, animate undead,) and that the soul of the dead creature was not involved in the process at all. The inability to raise a body once animated stemmed not from any 'damage to the soul' but from the fact that a once-animated body was an unsuitable receptacle for a soul (just like a too-badly-damaged body.)

I am playing a True Neutral character in a game who occasionally animates foes' bodies, and argues that animating corpses is no different to animating other non-sentient objects. It makes for some interesting party discussions - and of course if she's wrong she could unknowingly be slipping towards Neutral Evil...

 

[Zweischneid]

One need look no further back in history than the Nazis- there are documented reports of young Germans whose choice was kill X people or else. Those that chose not to slaughter Jews (or Gypsies, or homosexuals, or whomever the designated victims were to be that day) were killed, right alongside the people they refused to kill.

Since we started discussing Evil in the context of raising Undead, we are (I guess) talking about Evil in the D&D Game (or in the Fantasy Fiction that inspired the Game) where Good and Evil (and morality in general) are tangible forces that can be defined, embraced or opposed, etc.., etc.. .

If you include discussion of Terrorists, Serial Killers or the Genocide in Germany or the Sudan, it would stand to argue if Good or Evil exist in the real world in the literal sense that they do in fantasy games or fiction.

I'll leave my opinion on this out of it, as much as it itches me to comment on some of the examples mentioned above. If you want to discuss Good & Evil in the Real World, start a new threat. In this thread it is just derailing the topic at hand.

It may be worth killing 1000 innocents to save the scientist who is within reach of finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, it may be equally worth sacrificing an innocent so that 1000 other innocents escape to spread word to the world of the genocide in Sudan.

If some action like the one mentioned above is "worth it", or not has nothing to do with the question on if it's evil or not.

As most fantasy fictions are morality tales as often as not, I would argue that the prospect of greater gain is almost always the lure of Evil, while the righteous path seems ever the one without more tangible gain, less tangible risks, the one with far less chances of sucess in general.

As mentioned with the Raise Undead example above. The fact that you'd consider corpses (or slaves, or whatever) to fight your fights for you is just as good an indication for your evil disposition, as is the act of raising dead itself.

The good guys wouldn't resort to dishonorable tactics (raising dead, taking hostages, attacking without challenge, etc..) just to improve their chances of success, or if they do, they know that their acts are not good.. likely evil.

Thats why an "the end justify the means"-attitude is (in classical fantasy fiction & games, which the standard D&D builds on) the mark of evil.

Your milage in real life may differ...

 

[Majere]

God: "Dear paladin there is an artifact of ancient evil which is unbreakable even by me. I need some people to guard it are you willing ?"
Paladin: "Anything you say boss"
God: "Great just one catch, need you to guard it for eternity, mind if I turn you into a ghost so you can stick about until the end of time"
Paladin: "It would be an honor sire"
God: "Ok so I just touch you here, cast this.. drop in the onyx and ... Tada"
Paladin: "Erm sire ?"
God: "Ooooh sorry, didnt see the Evil descriptor on that one.. your not a paladin anymore are you? Well, you no use now.. go haunt the naughty children so they say their prayers or something..."

Now... Call me a cynic but ...

Majere

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I think this post hits the nail on the head.

D&D uses a default metaphysics where there exists an objective Good and Evil, and some magic happens to be Evil. If have a different or more open-minded metaphysics, some of these descriptors seem arbitrary. If you want to campaign in a morally gray or amoral universe, it is not a failing of the RAW that you need to houserule some things.

My personal opinion is that it is believed that the necromantic magic binds a piece of the spirit or soul of the owner into the corpse to animate the corpse. The corpse is too intimately tied to the soul for it to be any other way. If you are familiar with "real life" (historical or modern) holistic magical theory, this a natural and obvious line of thought. (Whether it is true and correct depends on your metaphysics.)

 

[Zweischneid]

God: "Dear paladin there is an artifact of ancient evil which is unbreakable even by me. I need some people to guard it are you willing ?"
Paladin: "Anything you say boss"
God: "Great just one catch, need you to guard it for eternity, mind if I turn you into a ghost so you can stick about until the end of time"
Paladin: "It would be an honor sire"
God: "Ok so I just touch you here, cast this.. drop in the onyx and ... Tada"
Paladin: "Erm sire ?"
God: "Ooooh sorry, didnt see the Evil descriptor on that one.. your not a paladin anymore are you? Well, you no use now.. go haunt the naughty children so they say their prayers or something..."

Now... Call me a cynic but ...

Majere

In the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal, the King is considered a direct representation of the Hindu God Vishnu and likely the only Monarch left on Earth worshipped as a God.

On June 1st, 2001, the heir to the throne, crown prince Dipendra, a rather instable fellow with a fondness for Drugs and Guns went on a killing spree, killing the reigning King Birenda along with most of the royal family before turning the weapon upon himself.

When King Birenda was found dead the details of the massacre still unclear, but his son and heir Prince Dipendra merely comatose, Prince Dipendra was declared King on June 2nd.

Now King Dipendra died on June 3rd though, he never regained conciousness. But because of his 24 hour reign he was considered a god by his people, and a god could never be charged with the hideous crimes Prince Dipendra apparently commited.

In consequence, they had a very high ranking Bhraman Priest take on the guilt of former King Dipendra upon his own soul, demolishing all his upcoming incarnations by the sins laid upon his shoulders.

The priest indulged in the meat of cows (the most holy animal of hinduism) and alcohol, sex and a score of other drugs and vices forbidden to religious hindus and especially Bhramans.
He put on the clothes and personal belongings of the former Crown Prince to bind the bad Karma to himself and left Nepal and India behind.. exiled for life, never to return.

By this, the stain on Prince/King Dipendras Soul was cleansed. His troubled Soul granted a more pleasant next Incarnation while the Priest by Hindu lore, will be thrown into the deepest Hells, and will never again in all eternity have a chance on a decent Incarnation in the future.

The people of Nepal considered the Priests sacrifice to be something very, very honorable, but his acts to be something most profoundly evil. The very fact that they were evil made his actions honorable in the first place.. if you want.

Same things could be said for your Paladin above. By turning undead, he does something very courageous and honorable.. but, by a set of believes that divide the world into good and evil, he also commits an act of evil.

These things are not mutually exclusive.