Why does Undead=Evil

[dcollins]

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.

I haven't read Lieber. However, these creatures did get written up for the Newhon mythos in the original AD&D Deities & Demigods, under "Gods of Lankhmar".

Quote: "These gods appear only when their city is threatened with grave danger. When the problem is solved, they cast about the city wreaking havoc as a reminder that they are not to be called on too often".

Listed Alignment: Neutral Evil.

Just because you defend a city doesn't make you Good. Evil cities need their protectors, too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep, that's how they got written up. And it is not in accord with the source material.

In the books, they were described as being dangerous when roused- they were more interested in their well-earned repose than anything else- and they would forceably go through any barrier, living, dead, or inanimate they percieved that might prevent them from achieving their goal, and even punishing minor malefactors along the way. Hence the neutral.

But the evil?

Defending the city, avenging the unavenged, punishing those who would defy the will of the gods?

Nope.

The person who wrote them up for the original Deities and Demigods may have interpreted that singlemindedness as being indescriminate, even though that is not how they are depicted in the source stories.

Oh yeah- they're incredibly scary looking.

The only way you get evil SoK's out of Lieber's source material is by applying the equation undead = evil to make them consistent with other undead.

The way they behave in the books is more like LN or TN than NE. No one harmed by them is an innocent, despite the fact that they are scary as anything and undead.

And while it isn't Tanelorn, Lankhmar is no more evil than Waterdeep or Greyhawk. It is, in all likelyhood, one of the major models of those cities. You can find good and evil, sinners and saints in Lankhmar, just as in any other major metropolitan area.

 

[Arkhandus]

Wow, I've been completely ignored again. As I was saying, negative energy corrupts even though it is not exactly evil itself. Also, I said that undead are not all evil, because some are animated in part by positive energy as well, but most undead are animated purely by negative energy. Undead-making spells (and indeed, the attacks of undead like wights and such) are evil because they force a soul to become bound to a corpse and defy the natural way of things as a result. Some undead-making spells and such don't have to be evil though because they can affect willing subjects, and can animate them with positive energy. Creatures residing in an afterlife, such as valkyries and such in Valhalla, or whatnot, are not undead just because they were once alive; they just live in a different state now, as outsiders usually. Osiris may have been made undead, but this doesn't mean Osiris became evil or that it was an evil act to make him undead; he could be animated by positive energy, and IIRC, Manual of the Planes has him as an outsider with the Undead Qualities salient divine ability, meaning he's a deity with some undead traits but not all of them. Mummies and such in D&D are only evil by default because that's how they are portrayed in D&D's standard campaign settings, rather than being portrayed as goodly or neutral undead pharoahs or priests. That doesn't mean that all mummies have to be evil; even the Monster Manual notes that creatures with an alignment entry of 'always' may still have some exceptions to that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Apologies, Arkhandus- don't want you to feel left out!

Personally, I didn't comment on your posts because you haven't taken an absolutist positon one way or the other. You correctly point out the (admittedly) rare good undead in official D&D product, and recognized the difference between willing and unwilling undead NPCs.

To clarify my own posts- I'm not saying that the warriors of Valhalla are undead, but that of all the beings in the norse mythology, they come closest to meeting that description. Personally, I don't know what to call them in particular, but aknowledge the fact that their post-death existence is a glaring oddity in the context of the teutonic mythos- they have attributes that not even their gods have.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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...

Why use undead when you can use people? People have a better grasp of tactics/magic/weapons & armour. Oh, they also pay taxes.

Why use undead when they can be commanded by an invading cleric with ease? Sounds like this cultist wants to undermine a cities defence & bolster the invaders.

Who in their right mind would volunteer to be killed and made a zombie? Idiot fanatics spring to mind and I doubt they number enough.

Why use undead when a similar cleric could compact outsiders. He could use the donations from those living tax payers as payment.

Frankly the said example is so contrived it is unbelievable.

 

[PhoenixDarkDirk]

Manual of the Planes has him as an outsider with the Undead Qualities salient divine ability, meaning he's a deity with some undead traits but not all of them.

I'm pretty sure you mean Deities and Demigods.

My position is that people who think that all undead are evil should take their logic a step further and call all the living good.

Also, I have no idea of what the RAW is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why use undead when you can use people? People have a better grasp of tactics/magic/weapons & armour. Oh, they also pay taxes.

That assumes that the undead created are non-sentient, but there are plenty of sentient undead forms. While they don't pay taxes, they generally also don't need to be fed or paid, and may not need to be housed.

Why use undead when they can be commanded by an invading cleric with ease? Sounds like this cultist wants to undermine a cities defence & bolster the invaders.

That assumes both that the clerics of the faith in question cannot control undead and also that the undead themselves are not sentient and incapable of resisting being controlled by their enemies.

Who in their right mind would volunteer to be killed and made a zombie? Idiot fanatics spring to mind and I doubt they number enough.

No one said zombie. There are more undead out there than zombies.

A wizard or priest who is about to die might consent to lichdom or mummification in defense of his city or god. A king who serves under the aegis of divine right may have no choice but to become an undead defender of his people (after his long rule and death, of course) because it is a condition his god places upon his being allowed to be king. A warrior may feel that his hatred of his enemies is so great that he would do anything to prevent them from taking his homeland. Either might become a skeletal warrior or perhaps the equivalent of a deathknight.

Over time, such defenders will accumulate- as long as there is no attack. In 200 years, a city could EASILY accumulate 20 of each of the above high level undead.

And remember, it might not be just one warrior at a time...Imagine this conversation at the end of a brutal battle (repeated many times):

"Faithful one, we have turned back the unbelievers one more time, but your life ebbs. You have earned eternal paradise. But I fear for your loved ones- the infidel are many and we are few-do you wish to delay your entry into paradise to fight one more battle?"

"Yes, I swear the filthy unbelievers must never take this city! Make it so!"

Of course, not all would so volunteer, nor could the priests "preserve" all of the potential defenders. But, on the other hand, even a fervent commoner might be willing to fight one more time to preserve his former way of life.

Besides, sometimes numbers aren't important. Some undead are so *ahem* ghastly... they are worth many times their number in standard warriors.

Why use undead when a similar cleric could compact outsiders. He could use the donations from those living tax payers as payment.

Outsiders may not be willing to serve. And why compel an unwilling outsider to fight to the death (or PM dissolution) when you have willing undead? Forcing someone to fight unto death or dissolution would seem to be a fairly reprehensible act.

And, while I'm not 100% sure of this, I believe you can get more HD in undead at any given caster level than you can in Outsiders.

But you asked quite pointedly "Why use Undead?"

Undead do not eat- so the most vulnerable part of any army-its supply line) is not as crucial. Your undead forces may still need ammo or weapon/armor repair, but they don't need food. (Except, possibly, brains- but they can get that themselves. )

Undead do not sleep or tire- so your watch and patrols can be simplified. Most kinds could be put on watch 24/7.

Undead, generally, can operate in total darkness and temperature or weather extremes, so your undead forces will not consume firewood or oil, don't need winter gear, water, etc.

Undead are not subject to many enchantments, charms, illusions, critical hits or gaseous attacks, which makes them more durable than many other troop types. Some undead are even resistent to certain kinds of damage...piercing, slashing, or even non-magical weapons may be useless against undead troops of sufficient power. They are immune to all but magical diseases or poisons, meaning your enemy cannot use mundane toxins or contagion as a weapon against them, and in fact, could be used to spread contagion or toxins among your enemies.

Also, realize that not all cultures regard the body with as much reverence as we Westerners. Some cultures believe that the body is just meat and bones once the animating force of the soul has departed. Since the spells don't say ANYTHING about souls being bound into non-sentient undead like zombies or skeletons, those cultures might not view raising an army of such undead as an evil act, since it would be a functional variant of "Animate Object." (Of course, even such a culture would more likely raise the deceased of their foes than using their own dead as fodder.)

Frankly the said example is so contrived it is unbelievable.

And yet it is an example that has been used in fiction-Fritz Lieber's Sons of Kyuss for example- and in real life- not everyone buried in a pyramid, tomb or temple in Pharonic Egypt was unwilling, some considered it an honor to serve after death. (Editorial note: I don't want to come across as a nutcase- I most emphatically don't believe there is any evidence of undead walking the Earth in the real world.)

 

[Mr Gone]

Mechanicaly, creating undead is an evil act because such spells in the PHB have the evil descriptor. Good aligned clerics are completely unable to cast such spells, and I would not think it unreasonble to prohibit Good aligned Arcane Spellcasters from doing so.

As for the body and what it means, the argument presented is flawed because it is a decidedly modern argument. In every culture on earth, without any notable exception, the body is viewed as a sacred thing, even after death. The notion of the body as being an empty shell that no longer serves a purpose is a modern one. In the settings of most D&D campaigns, all sentient beings have souls, and even when the souls depart, the body is considered sacred and is venerated in some sort of burial practice. An individual who did not view a body as a sacred thing, as a thing which would be defiled by infusing it with Negative Energy, and forcing them to perform labors while in a constant state of decay cant be defined as good aligned, period. Even in our own modern time, were an individual to invent a process that could animate the dead ala Herbet West to create a super workforce would be reviled as a monster.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mr Gone, from what I learned in my comparative religion classes, many of the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism and others) do not consider the body sacred. Rituals may be performed, but they are more to guide the spirit of the deceased than to venerate the body.

As I recall, there is even a branch of one such faith (Nepalese Buddhism?) in which the bodies of the deceased are left on the mountainside for vultures to pick clean.

(Anybody of the above faiths please correct me if I am wrong. No offense intended.)

Aside from that, I thought of 2 other possible kinds of events that create undead that may or may not be evil:

1) Undead created as a form of penance in their belief system: these creatures are being punished for past evils. If they are genuinely remorseful and wish do undo their evil or at least pay the price, one could hardly call them evil. Their sentence of undeath may even be shortened because of the genuineness of their desire to do penance. The unrepentant, in contrast, may NEVER be freed of this torment.

2) Undead created because of a curse: A good person cursed to undeath in the last act by the evil spellcaster he has struck down is probably not evil.

Also, I don't recall if anyone answered the question someone else implied earlier in this thread: why are the various spells and processes that create the undead evil while creating golems from human bodies (flesh, blood and bone golems have been printed in various D&D sources) not evil? Both require human body parts, and creating those golems is presumably no more voluntary than the process of creating the undead.

 

[Zweischneid]

In Norse mythology, the warriors of Valhalla are UNIQUE in their ability to die and rise again.

But they could do so only once, on the day of Ragnarök.
Like the christian armageddon or similar scenarios, I'll make exceptions for when your whole campaign world comes crashing down in big ole apocalypse.
Point is, they come back for battle and not for the unnatural extended long unlife of the undead, and even with that, I would find it tempting to classify ghostly norse ravagers as evil as they go if eyed throught the lense of classical D&D.

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?

I all Ghost Stories I've read, a parent/lover returning as a ghost tends to mean a bad thing. They refuse to give in the the natural rest of death and sooner or later make life a living hell for their spouse.
People like to go on with their lifes and new lovers, children like to break free of their parents and start their own life. Sooner or later this will bring them fact to face with their ghostly "protector".

As for ghost, banshee's, etc.. they are of course beings with unfinished business.. infact thats exactly what makes them evil. They cling to closely to mortal things, unable to "let go" and turn bitter over all they have lost but fear to pass on to an afterlife without earthly concerns.
As mentioned above, the reasons for being evil are many, but they are still evil.

Infact I very much prefer these kinds of evil as opposed to the "a necromancer who wants to rule the world raised them".
Evil born of pain and tragedy as a much more bitter tang aswell as bringing much more satisfaction to the game when your players put those tortured souls to rest.

Dracula also gained his undeath because of love after all.

On the other hand, I have never found the "necromancer want's to conquer the world" story in fantasy fiction as far as I know, nor have I used it in a campaign of mine so far.

Even if it does exist though.. to conquer the world is not necessarily an evil act. Conan conquered most of his world and he's considered the hero.

The act of raising undead as a means to an end is what would be evil. Doesn't matter if that end is to conquer the world, revenge your own death or protect your favorite toys in your tombs.

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.

So 3000 years of storytelling are wrong and you are right?
As many people told you here before.. your free to make up your own campaignworld as you choose. Many writers have chosen a different angle when writing about death and undeath as your own examples prove.

But you shouldn't blame D&D and most of it's players for telling fantasy stories the way the've been told since before time, and that simply means undead=evil 99% of the time and for very good reasons.

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.

Going on a wild killing spree? I'd argue he's very much evil, thank you. Very cool but also very evil.

Of course the universe of J.O. Barr's Comics doesn't divide the world into good and evil in the first place. Some very, very different assumptions the world is based on compared to D&D.

How about Patrick Swayze in Ghost?

Well here ya go with an interpretation of undead that differs a bit from the more common conception. There are also D&D Campaigns that try this.
Have you tried Ghostwalk or Hollowfaust?

Doesn't change the fact that the classic Ghost Story is about evil undead and that regular D&D tries to capture the classic feeling, not the exception to the rule.

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.

Again, noone's stopping you to build your setting on these parameters.

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.

That is, because by default, the act itself is evil and will turn on the culprit sooner or later. Fantasy fiction is full of people who want to raise dead for love, for revenge, for protection, etc.., etc..
As mentioned above, I have yet to come across a story where a necromancer wants to conquer the world with dead servants.

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.

Honor does not equate to being good. Besides, in most pulp fiction and adventure stories, mummies are infact very evil.
There are Games that do cater to a more noble image of old egyptan dead (did you try Mummy: the Resurrection?). But in the "classic" adventure story a mummy is a bandaged monstrosity thats after the life of the protagonists.

This does not make sense!

I hope so.