Why does Undead=Evil

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

I have to disagree with you Danny. In the Manual of the Planes, rules are laid out for creating planes that are evil by their very nature. You can create a plane that has never harbored life, that no living thing has ever known existed, and yet is evil, in and of itself. Unholy magic items can be created, that have never been used before. They aren't evil because of what's been done with them, or because of what they were made of (necessarily). They are simply evil.

It's true that mindless animals cannot commit evil acts and, being a part of the natural order, are therefore Neutral. But even though skeletons are mindless creatures and therefore cannot commit evil acts, their creation itself is a thing of evil, and thus they, like Demons and Devils, are inherently evil.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Boiled down and parsed..

I think I have figured out where the issue is here.

Its a question of whether Evil is a relativistic/subjective aspect of moral choice or actually exists as 'pure' Evil.

DnD assumes 'pure' Evil exists. The rules support this assumption. There are acts and things that are Evil. Most of these are contrary to the conventional 'Hero' archtype that the PC is supposedly trying to be.


But.. I actually had something new to add to the discussion (besides me getting sniped at by Raven for my CP2020 username BTW, thanks for the catch on those spells.. I usually run a low magic game and have never actually used them in play! )

Fire is not Evil because it is a tool that can be used for both Good and Evil. It can kill, hurt, and destroy. It can provide warmth, comfort, and be used to cook food.
Negative Energy cannot be used for Good. All it can do is kill, hurt, and destroy.
And before you say that you can use Undead for good by protecting a village..let me avoid that tangent, that is using the Undead.. not the Negative Energy. The position to defend is if the element itself is either Good or Evil.

Therefore, as DnD's Evil is an actual force, and Negative Energy is imbued with this actual force, any use of it taints the user and the product of the use. This means any Undead created with the available spells is automatically tainted with Evil.
===========

Danny: I think your argument is stemming from your belief of Good and Evil in the Real World (tm). While that would be an interesting discussion over things like the misconstrued 'omnibenevolent' deal , one that would surely get a couple feathers ruffled, this thread is on why DnD's Undead are considered to be Evil. Having read the entire thread I have seen many of the same arguments from both sides and very little consession on either. It seems that the discussion has wandered off-track, with one side still arguing the "Why of the DnD RAW" and the other side arguing "It shouldn't work like that".

Tuzenbach: "Isn't it destruction that's evil, not creation?" A common theme is storytelling is about 'Man' attempting to take over the job of 'God' by creating Life. Read Frankenstien and other similar Golum stories. In the black and white world of DnD, this concept is included as part of the archtypical story. Hence creation the of Undead is a blasphemous and Evil act.

 

[Sejs]

Therefore, as DnD's Evil is an actual force, and Negative Energy is imbued with this actual force, any use of it taints the user and the product of the use.

The difficulty I have there is that there are a number of spells that use negative energy that are not evil. Inflict Wounds, Harm and Enervation, for instance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Tainted with what? Dyed with what? Something...a substance has infiltrated it...ergo...evil is a substance. Existing of it's own.

Of course you can go the choice route and become evil..and radiate the "substance"...gather the "substance" to you, etc.

See in my campaign I have it both ways. You can become evil by choice or by getting tainted with it...OR like a helm of opposite alignment.

Hopefully if you are pure of heart you can choose to fight off the taint...or infection if you will and cure yourself...see evil is like a disease.

very interesting campaign....

 

[Scion]

evil is a substance

Negative energy is not this substance. Negative energy isnt even evil (so it doesnt contain said substance).

Useing negative energy to kill is no different than useing fire to kill. The acts may be evil, but the power used to do it is not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: Objects being evil & principle of contagion.

Contagion is all over the D&D magic system. That is how spells like Object Read and the aformentioned communicating with the dead spells work- you are magically sensing things that have happened to or around the object being magically read.

Re: Evil Planes- I'll grant you Ravenloft, but that plane is often described as having a will, and thus, in some sense, an intellect. I don't own the MoP, so I'll have to defer on that.

Raven- I do realize that many cultures ascribed motives to natural forces. This principle of animism, though, presupposes that these things are, in some sense, alive and intelligent. If it is alive and intelligent, then it has the capacity to make moral decisions, and thus the capacity to do evil or good. Ergo-this dosn't damage my argument in the least.

As for:

(But wait, you'll say, if evil can damage you, and fire can damage you, then either evil isn't evil or fire is evil.....Syllogisms of the Monty Python "She's a Witch" School of Logic.)

No. Anything can damage you, be it good, evil, or even non-aligned, in the right circumstances. The point of the fire/negative energy comparison is to illustrate that the capacity to do damage to someone is not a sufficient cause to call something evil. And there have been several people who have used a similar rationale along the path of this thread. However, by that logic, the entire arsenal of damaging spells and even weapons could be considered evil. But since they are obviously tools, we know this is not the case.

Also, as some have pointed out, there are negative energy spells that are not evil. If the mere use of negative energy isn't evil 100% of the time, then negative energy cannot be pure evil. Otherwise, by that interal logic, you could use pure evil to do good and pure good to do evil.

So, if negative energy isn't evil because it does damage, and it obviously isn't considered evil to use it for some spells and it is for others, and it is possible to have dealings with the dead without it being evil...there has to be another rationale behind making undead evil. What is left is the "Undead = Evil" as a simple game design tool, and even THAT has been shown not to be universal within WOTC's own products.

I mean, they may say that the Eberron Deathless are not undead because undeath is a mockery of life, but the Deathless aren't, but it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. Description aside, the Deathless are good-aligned undead!
====

Primitive Screwhead, I'm arguing from RW religious theory, mythology, legends, and fiction, just like everyone else. After all, those are the sources for the game in the first place.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed by author.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry, but the text in speak with dead is extremely clear in this case; you are speaking with the soul's imprint left in the body.

Exactly- you aren't talking to the soul itself, but its imprint. That's contagion.

The duck crack was basically a dig on the writers of the Eberron setting. Telling me that something that has almost all the same characteristics (appearance, immunities, and so forth) as undead, except that it is good and thus not undead is really kind of silly. "Because I said so." is insufficient justification for such an assertion.

To wit, you are attempting to make a syllogism that says:

Forces are not either good or evil,
Negative energy is a force,
Therefore, negative energy is not good or evil.

No, I am countering the syllogism:

Things that damage you are evil,
Negative energy damages you.
Therefore, negative energy is evil.

By bringing up the counterexample of fire. Fire can damage you, but it isn't evil.

You are also correct that there "are negative energy spells that are not evil. If the mere use of negative energy isn't evil 100% of the time, then negative energy cannot be pure evil." It has been pointed out, as well, that later resources (ex: Book of Vile Darkness) suggest that these spells should, in fact, be considered evil.

However, if negative energy was pure evil, then presumably the negative material plane would have an alignment descriptor. Also, the BoVD is not part of the SRD.

Then again, the "positive energy" undead are not part of the SRD, either. Within the core rules, undead are evil.

And:

The Manual of Planes specifically allows one to build planes that are intelligent, as well as planes that are evil, and planes which are not intelligent, but are evil. However, as pointed out previously ad infinitum ad nauseum, within the MoP, the negative material plane does not have an alignment descriptor.

The MoP has no more force than the BoVD or any other expansion.

Thus we are caught in a logic whipsaw. This entire thread has been devoted to discussing why "Undead = Evil."

"Because creation of undead involves negative energy, it must be evil" has been disproven. (Negative energy has no alignment.)

"Because it damages you, negative energy must be evil, and thus undead which tap into negative energy" has been disproven. (There are things that damage you that have no alignment, like fire.)

"Because you're messing with the dead" has been disproven. (There are ways to mess with the dead that are not evil, like Speak with Dead or Resurrection or even Soul Bind.) Side note- why isn't Soul Bind evil? If you're Binding a good person, you are wrenching a soul away from his faith's version of Paradise to return them to the imperfect mortal world. Most people would object to being wrenched away from paradise to be imprisoned in a gem.

"Because negative energy is the opposite of positive energy, and thus undead which tap into negative energy" has been disproven. (Neither energy has an alignment.)

"Because spells with negative energy are used in the creation of undead" has been disproven. (There are negative energy spells that are not evil.)

Which leaves, by my understanding, "Because they said so," with no real logic behind it.