Why does Undead=Evil

[Voadam]

draugr are from Norse folklore, not mythology, they never show up in any of the god stories. They are dead men who were not cremated who rise up and were really tough to kill. I've read some stories with them but I can't remember if they were original folkore or just modern writings in the genre.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author.

 

[Sejs]

Sorry, missed out on this earlier, but just want to pop in on an earlier point:

Hmm negative energy is inimical to all (natural) life, snuffing it out and causing the loss of lifespan, health and soul through contact with it. As far as abstract force/energy can be evil, this very well fits the descriptor for "evil" as in "very detriminal". Unless of course one considers the extinguishing of (all) life something worthwhile and "good"

Positive energy is the opposite, rejuvenating, healing and boosting the natural processes of life. Contact with it is not harmful per se. It has little if any detriminal side-effects.

Negative energy and positive energy are both neutral, natural, harmonious things - just ask any druid. Negative energy is inimical to all natural life, but that's perfectly okay because life is supposed to end at some point. That's how it works. The old dies and is cleared away for the new to take its place. Positive energy isn't any more 'good' just because it prolongs or promotes life. It can prolong the life of a villian or a disease carrier just as easily as that of an innocent - the energy doesn't care. It's just happy to make more life... detremental or not. Cancer? Gee, thanks positive energy.

As for contact with positive energy being not harmful? Try saying that while standing unprotected on the positive energy plane - get this: it kills you just as quickly as its counterpart. Tetsuo from Akira style, even. Not pleasant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author

 

[Celtic_Bear]

Good and Nuetrally Aligned Undead

There are nuetrally and goodly aligned undead, at least in the Realms. I can only think of Baelenorns (Goodly and Nuetrally aligned Elven Liches) right off the top of my head, but I am sure there are more.

Namaste,

cb

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author

 

[Scion]

However, the general association as the rules are written is that negative energy = evil and positive energy = good.

Any place other than with clerics? Because as is that does not associate it in a useful way.

It is just that good gods tend to like quick ways to further certain causes and evil gods tend to like quick ways to further other causes.

If they had instead used 'fire' and 'cold' then would people assume that one was 'good' while the other 'evil'?

Just because the gods in d&d were made pretty simplistic and always pick the easy way out (whether or not it really fits their porfolio or not) does not mean that positive material = good and negative material = bad. Just that it is easier to heal with one (generally considered a beneficial thing) and easier to harm with the other (generally considered a bad thing).

Just because something can be beneficial does not make it good, just because something is harmful does not make it evil.

So, are there other trends which imply this as well? (note, cure/inflict spells are not aligned)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Any place other than with clerics? Because as is that does not associate it in a useful way.

So, are there other trends which imply this as well? (note, cure/inflict spells are not aligned)

Yes, there are. The entire definition of alignments pretty much supports this:
Saving people and helping each other = Good
Killing people = Evil

Positive Energy = rejuvination and healing
Negative Energy = entropy and death

And yes, as well, common taboos of our time and the past lead to the assumption that death is bad. Yes, there are also cultures that don't think death is evil. D&D is NOT based on those cultures.

The alignment descriptor does not indicate the morality of an action in D&D.

Don't have it with my at this time, but the BoVD says in it that all spells with [evil] descriptors are, in fact, evil acts. It then suggests adding evil descriptors to a couple more spells than already have them in order to fit its definition of what evil spells should be.

Also, YES the core rules are contradictory on this subject, mostly because they were written by a couple different authors, each of which had varying opinions on this topic.

Animate dead doesn't say anything about binding souls to bodies. That is mostly due to the writers wanting to remove as much "setting" material as possible from the PHB to avoid telling anyone what is and isn't true setting wise, letting each person make up their own reasons. Also, due to lack of space in the PHB and trying to use as much of it as possible for purely rules information.

It's pretty much said (especially with recent discussions on Eberron) that elementals, being all neutral and being basic building blocks of the universe are morally ambiguous and therefore not evil to bind. Although, in my games, due to this discussion creating Flesh Golems will likely be slightly evil in my game, purely by using dead flesh in such a way.

I, personally, LIKE the fantasy standard of "messing with the dead is bad". Frankenstein tells us that those who play god with the dead are evil, even if they are trying to do good. It's this theme that pervades fantasy literature and fits the "feel" of the game. It is perfectly reasonable to say "From my point of view, it's just a bunch of dead flesh, no different from a chair or some rocks." But that is not what D&D is trying to simulate, and if true would make a lot of typical fantasy plots make no sense at all. A lot of the principles most of the current D&D campaign settings are based on would have to be changed if that was the truth in them. There would likely be Undead everywhere as every mage would have them following him carrying his stuff, cities would be built by them. After all, no reason not to, right?

In response to the original poster: YES, killing your horse and animating it is a LOT more convenient. That's kind of the point. The standard good vs evil arguement in standard fantasy stories is that evil is normally easier, which is why those who want to good need strength of heart to avoid using the evil method. It ruins some good story telling and the reason why good triumphs over evil.

The moral of the story always is: Evil never SEEMS evil. It just IS. And it is easy and convenient and possibly powerful. There never seems to be a good reason NOT to do something evil, other than the fact that you know it is evil. Which makes the ones that are able to resist its lure more heroic, because you know that if you were in their shoes, you aren't sure you could have made the same decision.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[Scion]

Yes, there are. The entire definition of alignments pretty much supports this:

This is not true unless you also consider fire evil.

Positive and negative energies are merely tools. Tools can be used for Good or Evil.

Good gods still kill, but when they do it there is good involved. Evil gods still save, but when they save there is evil involved.

Like I asked before, is there anywhere else in the core that actually supports your statement? The cleric example doesnt really, becuase it is simply useing the force that helps do whatever they like easiest. It wouldnt make any sense to pick the one that is harder to do what you want with (like picking a sword over a gun when trying to kill someone at range, it just doesnt make any sense). However, just because something does something a bit better does not make it Good/Evil. A gun is not evil because it can kill. It can be Good when used to kill an animal (neutral) to feel a starving person and save them. It can be evil when used to murder.

Just a tool.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Creating Undead = Evil in DnD Generic Setting

Interesting, if very long and prone to sidetracking, thread.

Heres my opinion. In the baseline, generic edition of DnD, as represented in the RAW, creating undead is an Evil act. An act contrary to nature itself. The Undead may be tainted by this evil, usually the mindless ones, while more intelligent and willful undead may be able to choose to not be swayed by thier means of creation.
Is that to say that all undead must be evil? No. It means that if you use the core rules to create an undead, Evil is involved and can affect the target and caster of the spell.
Perhaps there once were "Create Enduring Protector, Good" spells that infuse a willing target with the Undead type. Perhaps those spells still exist.
In the RAW, the only ones PC's have access to are the Evil kind.
So what is this 'Descriptor' all about anyway? What does it do?

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

The RAW leaves it up to the GM. Can a 'Good' Mage cast Raise Dead to help defend the village from sure slaughter? Sure. Will he become 'Evil' by doing that? Hard to say. Perhaps its the first step down the slippery slope of convienance. Perhaps his intentions are good, but a contingent of skeletons escape unnoticed into the bowels of the earth, only to return 10 years later and slaughter the now defenseless villagers.
Are the undead that defend the village 'Evil'? At a base level, yes. Perhaps they can rise above that. Perhaps not. How can I say this?

Bless Water, Transmutation, Good: This transmutation imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with positive energy, turning it into holy water.

Holy water deals damage to Undead and Evil outsiders. Why? Because its a Good weapon that deals damage to Evil beings.

IMHO, this shows that Positive=Good since it also affects Outsiders who have no connection to the Negative Energy. I think the SRD did not add the Good descriptor to the Positive Plane in order to be as generic as possible.

///Philosphy alert/// Why are these spells [Evil]?

Revivification against One’s Will: A soul cannot be returned to life if it does not wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the character attempting to revive it and may refuse to return on that basis.

Raise Dead, Ressurection, and Reincarnation leave the 'free will' of the soul. Create Undead oppresses this free will and makes any future Raise, Ressurection, or Reincarnation impossible.
Is this evil?

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.
Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.

Evil cares not for the 'free will' of others. They only care about thier convienance and desires. It matters not that the soul of thier newly created Undead has been irrevokably barred from returning to life.
I think these spells are Evil because of the removal of 'free will'. I think a Palidon would consider the use of these spells as something to stop, regardless of good intentions.
Good versions of these spells would allow the soul to chose thier future, which would never be unlife as a 'mindless' undead. This would put the Good spells at a higher level, again.. being Evil would be much easier and convienant for the caster.

So.. unless some other method of creating undead is found, the available method of creation imbues them with Evil. It is possible for intelligent Undead to make thier own choices and shake of this taint. It is also possible for an alternate method of creating undead that does not imbue an alignment, or even imbues Good. End result is that most Undead will be Evil by default of thier creation.

Final note. D20 DnD is a generic, black and white fantasy world. Undead are unnatural creatures that the Hero's strive to defeat. The real world arguments and situational morals do not exist as written. You are welcome to play alternate versions in your own campaign. I myself delve often into the grey moral issues as there lay the issues that can truely challange a 'Hero'.

After all, being law abiding means stopping at the stop sign at 2 in the morning when you can see that no-one is coming for 5 miles in any direction.