Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed by author.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why does Undead=Evil
- Thread starter Moff_Tarkin
- Start date
Lord Pendragon
First Post
Could you point me to even one undead powered by the positive material plane in 3.x? I'd be honestly very interested in checking this out, since AFAIK, such a creature does not exist.Scion said:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed by author.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed by author
Last edited:
Sejs
First Post
In 3.X, I can't say. In 2nd Ed, mummies were linked to the positive material plane if I remember correctly.
Anyway - negative energy: Is negative energy evil? No. It's not intelligent, so it cannot choose to be evil, it just exists. However its effects are commonly seen as evil by people who are capable of making moral judgements, and (and largely because) it is commonly used by people who can and do choose to be evil.
Why can you not Raise Dead someone who has been animated as undead? Why, if you have a part of the original body when the majority of the corpse is raised as undead, can you not Ressurect that person?Tuzenbach said:
Equate it glueing a broken vase back together again. If you do a good job, it can still hold water - ghosts, liches, vampires, etc are all undead that retain the person's former intelligence and abilities. If you do a sloppy job, it's still vaguely vase-shaped, but can't do its job any more - like undead that have an intelligence but can't remember who they were in life.Tuzenbach said:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Lord Pendragon said:
Deathless from BoED and Eberron. They are essentially undead powered by positive energy instead of negative energy. They are always good. Also, I have yet to see one that was mindless either. They are what you are looking for if you want a more "this person has been granted eternal life by their deity in order to protect this holy site" type creature. The description from the BoED on them is, I believe, better than the one in the Eberron book.
By the way, this is more evidence of the whole positive energy=good, negative energy=evil thing.
Scion said:
Actually, I think the problem is that you are starting with a concept and wondering why the rules don't support it. What you should be wondering is the other way around, what concept do the rules support?
By the RAW, undead are all evil, they are powered by negative energy. Casting an Animiate Dead spell is evil. Evil clerics cannot channel positive energy, good clerics cannot channel negative. Deathless are powered by positive energy and are always good. Holy water harms evil outsiders and is powered by positive energy. Positive energy turns evil undead, and heals the living. Poison is evil according to the BoED. The alignment section says that morals and alignment are NOT subjective (something doesn't stop being evil because you believe that it is just like something else).
My conclusion from this information is that some acts are evil BECAUSE they are evil. Whether it is the gods, some uber-god above the rest of them, some will of the universe itself, or Bob, the guy down the street, someone decided "these things are evil, these things are good." Now, you could wonder who the creature or beings are that created these rules and wonder about their motivations. Maybe that's what this thread is about...I'm not really sure at this point.
It is possible to say "Well, in my opinion, negative energy is not evil and therefore it should not be an evil act to channel it." Great! Then change Animate Dead to a non-evil spell in your game. However, if you want to know WHY it is evil in D&D in the RAW, then it is this simple:
D&D is based on certain cultural beliefs as to what is right or wrong. These beliefs are in the game because a lot of them are typical fantasy elements in books and stories. Unless I'm wrong and the necromancer walking around helping people with his army of helpful undead has become a common literary device. These cultural beliefs about what are right and wrong foster a certain setting and theme. A number of the D&D rules have these setting elements built into them. If you don't like these elements, that's fine, it's easy to remove them.
Basically, the reason seems to be that negative energy (or just the undead themselves) are evil for one reason or another. You have yet to prove that negative energy is JUST an energy like fire. Besides, if it is...why doesn't it burn people? Oh wait, that's because it's not fire. Why isn't it wet? Because it isn't water. Why isn't fire evil? Because it's not negative energy.
Majoru Oakheart
"Evil" or "Good" requires intelligent motive, a desire to act or not act in a harmful way, a weighing of options and morality.
For the sake of completeness, animals are not good or evil because they are acting entirely out of instinct to preserve themselves, making them neutral.
"Negative Energy" (like "positive energy," fire and water in previous posts) is not evil because it cannot act or refuse to act- it merely IS. It can be used or not used, which makes it a potential tool.
Once, people used the term "natural evil" to describe things like floods and earthquakes. This was in the context of the argument about how an omnibenevolent God (the God of the Abrahamic faiths) could allow bad things to happen to good people, how could such a God allow evil in His world. Simply put, if God is omnibenevolent, how could He allow a good person to die in a flood.
The eventual response on the point of things like floods and other natural disasters was that such things are not evil, they simply are a part of the way the world works, part of the divine plan, as it were.
"Evil" was thus relegated to the actions and inactions of beings capable of making moral decisions.
So, unless there is something that can ask "Should I do this?" there cannot be an attribution of Evil.
For the sake of completeness, animals are not good or evil because they are acting entirely out of instinct to preserve themselves, making them neutral.
"Negative Energy" (like "positive energy," fire and water in previous posts) is not evil because it cannot act or refuse to act- it merely IS. It can be used or not used, which makes it a potential tool.
Once, people used the term "natural evil" to describe things like floods and earthquakes. This was in the context of the argument about how an omnibenevolent God (the God of the Abrahamic faiths) could allow bad things to happen to good people, how could such a God allow evil in His world. Simply put, if God is omnibenevolent, how could He allow a good person to die in a flood.
The eventual response on the point of things like floods and other natural disasters was that such things are not evil, they simply are a part of the way the world works, part of the divine plan, as it were.
"Evil" was thus relegated to the actions and inactions of beings capable of making moral decisions.
So, unless there is something that can ask "Should I do this?" there cannot be an attribution of Evil.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Dannyalcatraz said:
Not in D&D. In D&D, an object can radiate evil. A place can radiate evil. The BoVD says that places where a lot of evil has happened should radiate evil afterwards. It is tangible and you can actually say "that thing is evil, let's not touch it."
That's why entire planes can be evil. Not because evil creatures live there. Rather it is the other way around, the creatures live there BECAUSE the place is evil.
Evil has just as much form and substance as water, magic, or hamburgers.
Plus, if you look at some of the examples from the BoED and BoVD as to what evil is, you will find that one CAN commit evil without knowing one is, if the person hasn't bothered to even try to figure out if the easiest path is the correct one. You were told that guy was a demon in disguise and you just killed him? Did you even detect evil on him? Did you even check to make sure the person who gave you the information wasn't lying? Try communing with your god to determine if that was the correct course? No? Well he wasn't a demon...and you, my friend are now evil.
Last edited:
This is basically the magical principle of contagion, usually as a result of the residue of evil magic (like a curse) being done. With contagion, the THING isn't evil in and of itself, but rather it has been exposed to so much evil that it has become tainted, as if it were dyed. This changes for things like artifacts and such that are able to have egos or may even contain bound demons or spirits.
Contagion again. The plane cannot act in an evil fashion, but it seems evil because it has contained evil. Thus, the plane IS evil because evil creatures live there.
The BoED/BoVD example you posted is still about a choice. The person who acted thus is evil if he killed someone without taking steps to acertain the veracity of the statement "This person is a demon;" he chose not to try to determine the truth of the statement before comitting a violent act based on the statement. He is not evil because he killed someone, but rather because he was lazy and uncaring about whether the person actually was demonic. This is a classic "sin of omission," or sloth in another form. As you posited, there were steps the person could have taken to figure out whether that person was a demon, but instead of expending a little effort, simply accepted the gossip as gospel. The value the killer placed on human life (besides his own) was so small that mere innuendo caused him to violate a basic cultural taboo against killing.
If that person had reason to believe that his killer was a demon, and had no way of ascertaining the truth, the question is much murkier. Was he in fear of imminent harm from his victim? No? Lean towards evil. Yes? Lean towards good.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Dannyalcatraz said:
I see this is where we disagree. I believe that evil can just be evil. Why is it that demons are evil? Because of their choices? They ARE evil. When they are born they are evil. They are embodiments of evil.
At least the way I read both the RAW and the lore behind the rules is that in D&D one doesn't say "This item harms those who are evil, let me touch you with it. It burns you! Well, I guess you made a couple of wrong decisions, let's try to fix that." It is more like "I'm sorry, you are evil! Good energy such as this item harms you because of it. Your mere flesh is infected with evil, and it IS evil until you can rid yourself of it. Where you go, you will leave a slight taint of evil. You generate it."
You could say that the person is not in fact evil, he just has evil taint upon him, or it could be the other way around, he is creating the evil taint.
Still, what rules or passages in the rule books would make you believe that items cannot be evil? Where does it say that evil requires will other than your opinion? What is it that gets on the walls of a room when evil has been performed there if not...EVIL as a substance. You detect something when you cast detect evil. It may not be physical, but it sounds like evil exists as an "object" of some sort to be able to infect planes and people and places. Which means it might be able to taint or radiate from negative energy or spells.
I just don't see any evidence other than opinions that objects cannot be evil.
