Why does Undead=Evil

[Ridley's Cohort]

The cause of complaint in both cases is that the body belongs to the person and its invasion is a very personal affair.

The create undead spells are evil in that they disrespect the dead persons remains and cause great distress to relatives (and the living in general).

The 3ed definition of evil includes disrespecting other beings, so there is that angle. I mean, the animating spellcaster is always doing it for personal profit without regard to victims, relatives or the living beings sense of decency.

Not disagreeing, but there is a much more fundamental reason. The most basic concept of magical theory is that most everything in the universe possesses powerful occult (hidden) connections. That is why magic works at all.

For example, why does the Lightning Bolt spell as written in the PHB require a bit of fur and an amber, crystal, or glass rod as material components? Because gaining control of a small spark aids the wizard in manipulating a large electrical discharge through the hidden connections between similar things.

Why does the witch doctor make a doll in the likeness of the intended vitctim and adorn the doll with bits of the intended victim's real hair, nails, and clothing? Because the visual likeness, the bits and pieces worn and from the body, all maintain a connection with the intended victim that can be manipulated by a knowledgeable magical practioner. The witch doctor can sicken the subject, even at a great distance, through these connections.

What has this to do with animating zombies? The body maintains a connection with the soul. Disturbing the body causes distress to the soul. Desecrating the body harms the soul. It is an inevitable side effect of the holistic magical connections, whether intended or not.

The RAW is simply attempting to be consistent with common magical and moral traditions. One is perfectly free to say things do not work that way in one's personal campaign. But then it is the particular DM's job, not the RAW's, to work out the details.

 

[Scion]

Positive and negative energy are not aligned. So what is the problem with useing one or the other as a power source to make something move?

The raw states that the spell is evil, but it does not say why. There is nothing in the srd that says anything about the soul, merely that you have to target a dead body. The material focus is a gem so going with the 'needing a spark from item XX to help focus the power' we can say that the gem itself is providing the evil necissary, or is working as a conduit for the energy needed (which is not evil), or any number of things. It just isnt said.

Why is it evil? who knows. Taboo shouldnt come into play on the good/evil axis, something being taboo does not necissarily make it evil. Many taboo's have come about because of safety concerns that have grown on the communities conscious. Effectively they are incredibly strong bonds of something that should not be done by being told not to do it, which would make them fall under the law/chaos spectrum. Of course in the real world it is very hard to see the difference between good/lawful and evil/chaotic, as there are many forces which try to say good = lawful = good and evil = chaotic = evil.

Also, disrespecting someone isnt Evil. It may not be Good, but that does not make it Evil. If someone does a bad job on, say, a craft and you tell them so this could be looked at as disrespect, especially if it was said by an understudy. This does not make the understudy evil.

An evil person can be disrespectful, but being disrespectful does not make you evil. (in a general sense of course)


Without the evil tag the spell would pretty much be right along the same lines of animate objects. With it there is a much lesser scope of use. It probably should not have the evil tag however, not without there actually being something evil involved. There are good undead after all, even if they sometimes come with a different name.

Negative energy =! Evil

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, the animating spellcaster is always doing it for personal profit without regard to victims, relatives or the living beings sense of decency.

So, even in the example of the animator asking for volunteers to be reanimated as undead warriors in the "eternal" defense of their homeland or city...

Or King Arthur lying in wait in Avalon?

Or the Paladin's actions at the behest of his diety?

The person who clings to life as a ghost to protect his beloved?

Sorry, that just doesn't equate.

The RAW is simply attempting to be consistent with common magical and moral traditions.

This is an extremely narrow view of magic.

There is more than one set of magical traditions out there, and this is just one of them.
Many cultures have tales of undead ancestors aiding the living. Similarly, many cultures teach that summoning or contacting the dead requires no special part of their soul or body, just the right ritual, or perhaps a personal connection.

To return to the warriors of Valhalla, I think it is a very real possibility that they are undead.

1) The Norse gods-Aesir and Vanir- were not immortal, just long lived. The source of their "immortality" was an outside one- the golden apples of Idunn. Without those, they wither and die just like their worshippers. There were few golden apples, just enough to go around.

2) The Norse gods had no real control over returning beings from the dead to life. Their only attempt- the resurrection of Baldur- failed.

3) There were, in contrast, many warriors in the halls of Valhalla, and there is no legend I have read that says that they were given to eat of Idunn's golden apples of immortality. And yet they drank, ate, and slaughtered each other for fun and practice on a daily basis to be ready for the battle of Ragnarok.

Where is the evil? Where is the selfishness?

 

[dcollins]

To return to the warriors of Valhalla, I think it is a very real possibility that they are undead.

They are not undead in D&D (any version). See Manual of the Planes: Petitioner template -- they are simply Outsiders, not Undead.

The difference is basically the same as that between an angel and a zombie.

 

[Talon5]

GURPs campaign of mine

Villians arrived on the world from another dimension and began raising dead to steal the souls of the living. With their souls missing and placed in large "glass" balls the body of the victim would seek others to steal the souls of hand the cycle would get bigger and bigger.

In the end the glass balls were to be collected up and use to power spells. The necromacers that did this did not consider that they were robbing millions of people of an after life after they arranged to kill the people.

Think about your after life- if you believe in it, what would you want to do- be fuel for a spell for some power mad man or would you rather live out eternity with your loved ones?

 

[Ibram]

Many of the examples given above (such as King Arthur and Vahalla) are not examples of Undeath but rather Immortality, a very important distinction. An undead creature is a hunk of rotting meat torn from the grave and made to serve the living through magic (which strikes me as being a bit evil).

However alot of that comes down to how you view magic and necromancy... since in the end they are nothing more then litterary devices used to tell a story.

For me: I prefer necromancy as an evil act, tearing through the barrier dividing the world of the living from the afterlife and caging a free soul in eternal torment. So evil that even with the best intentions it carries the taint of evil.

oh and why bother rasing a bunch of chump goblins when you can just call a Balor?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dcollins, you're absolutely correct in how D&D treats them, but official game treatment is a significant departure from how they are treated in the source legends.

If you read the source legends, you'll realize that in possessing the power to be killed over and over again, only to rise up the following day for another day of revelry and slaying, the warriors of Valhalla have a power that NO Asgardian or Vanir has to offer, and one that closely resembles the undead. Remember- Norse gods were not immortal- they merely extended their lives immeasurably by means of a limited supply of Idunn's golden apples, and those apples did not allow for a divine being to come back from the dead- otherwise Baldur would have arisen the next day from his lethal wound and had a great laugh with Loki about how cunning he was to discover that a mistletoe arrow would slay him. On the contrary, Baldur was slain and remained dead.

Nor is it recorded that the warriors of Valhalla were accorded boon of participating in the consumption of Idunn's apples. In fact, given the rarity of Idunn's apples, it is unlikely that they would have been granted that gift- in order for them to recieve it, at least one of their gods would have had to die.

I think that the official game treatment was done in order to shoehorn the warriors of Valhalla into D&D's designers' preconception of undead = evil.

Nor does the undead = evil equation allow for many of the other examples I've cited from our world's legends.

That attention to the source legends has allowed me to use non-evil undead in many adventures, and I shall continue to do so.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is an extremely narrow view of magic.

There is more than one set of magical traditions out there, and this is just one of them.
Many cultures have tales of undead ancestors aiding the living. Similarly, many cultures teach that summoning or contacting the dead requires no special part of their soul or body, just the right ritual, or perhaps a personal connection.

To return to the warriors of Valhalla, I think it is a very real possibility that they are undead.

Before you suggest someone else's view is narrow, it would be nice if you had half a clue what undeath is as usually described in legend, myth, and D&D. All your examples are variants of afterlife or kinds or immortality. They are either the natural state of spirits after death or boons given to the worthy, not a state forced on the unwilling.

 

[Scion]

Even if every legend and myth said that undead were evil (which I do not believe to be the case, especially in other cultures) d&d does not always follow those very closely. Sometimes it even diverges greatly.

So, if the animate dead does nothing with the soul (the spell does not seem to mention souls at all) and negative energy is not evil (it isnt) then why is it evil?

Taboo? sure. But that does not mean evil. That tends to be unlawful more than evil.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ridley, I have an excellent grasp of what I'm discussing. I have read the Edda, the Kalevala, Beowulf, and other texts describing the legends of northern Europe and Asia. I have collections of European folklore, both the familiar Western European, and also Eastern European legends of the slavs, Russians and others. I have also own and have read things like tranlations of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, various Egyptian scrolls, Greek legends, etc. I'm familiar with the concept of the Bardo, the "veil of Maya", maat, ka & ba, etc.

While there is no mention of undeath as such (as depicted in D&D) anywhere in the sources of teutonic legends , many of the aspects of certain beings who have died and yet continue to act conform to D&D undeath as a template or model. In Norse mythology, the warriors of Valhalla are UNIQUE in their ability to die and rise again. The Asgardians cannot do that, the Vanir cannot do that, Jotuns cannot do that, the subjects of Hel (deceased spirits NOT in Valhalla) cannot do that. For every other being in teutonic legend, dead is dead. Their state is unlike any other dead or living creatures.

Nor is a ghostly parent/lover guardian a "natural state" of a spirit. The natural state of a spirit is repose in its culture's version of the afterlife, not messing around with those still trapped on the mortal coil. Thus, someone who hangs around after death in order to do things on the mortal plane is undead, even in D&D. Read the creature descriptions of revenants, ghosts, haunts, banshees and others- they are undead with unfinished business. Yes, I realize that they are all statted out as evil, but my point (and presumbably the thread's OP) is that does not neccessarily jibe with these creatures' origins. Why is it that a revenant who is trying to kill his killer is neccessarily evil? Why is the ghost of a loving parent who is guarding his children neccessarily evil?

Because people in the legends, afraid of their undead countenances, believe they are evil, and that fear and preconception has been injected into the game.

Was J.O. Barr's The Crow the story of an evil person? No, despite the fact that the Crow meets most of the other requirements to be called a revenant in D&D.

How about Patrick Swayze in Ghost? Or how about the spirits of those unjustly slain in the Tower of London and other locations-evil? Probably not evil, despite being classic ghosts, spirits or haunts in game terms.

In classic fantasy liturature, Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss from the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser books are also NOT evil- they are the undead defenders of Lankhmar, and among their ranks are past rulers, warriors and wizards who loved the city. They are not immortals- they are clearly described as the walking dead- and yet they are a force- if not for good- then for divine justice and peace in the city of Lankhmar.

As I have stated numerous times before- the D&D system does not distinguish between involuntary undeath and voluntary undeath. The necromancer who defiles a graveyard to raise an army to take a city is, in game terms, no more or less evil than the priest who asks for volunteers to defend their beloved city as skeletal warriors for eternity.

Similarly, a priest of Osiris (a good greater diety) might find it the greatest honor to be preserved in his god's temple or his Pharoah's pyramid as a (D&D Greater) mummy to keep the temple from being defiled by unbelievers and tomb raiders. Even a valued guard might volunteer for such eternal service. Yet, by definition within D&D, each will be considered evil, despite volunteering for this duty in the service of a good god.

This does not make sense!