Why does Undead=Evil

[Geoff Watson]

That has to be a sophism.

Exceptions can only prove that rules are not absolute.

The old meaning of 'prove' was more like 'test'. Ie: you test the rule by looking for exceptions.
Or, the exception that proves the rule to be incorrect.

Geoff.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Personally I can't fathom how, in the D&D universe, good or even neutral undead can exist.

I know that a driving reason that the game designers put them in was to create interesting encounters but they seem to be either ignorant to the premise that exists regarding undead or actively working to undermine it.

Ghosts & Revenants need a different creature type, [Undead] doesn't do them justice and creates a sense of inconsistency. I like this idea of [Deathless], that is something that is driven by an overriding sense of goodness to remain on the Prime. The default druid would be equally as abhorred to learn of such an unnatural existence, balance and all that.

Mind you I believe that the whole undead set-up needs to be reworked from the ground up. I cannot differentiate between wraiths, spectres and ghosts when it comes to describing them. I haven't got Monte's AU but has he not got rules for 2 types of [Undead]: corporeal & uncorporeal? Such a rule set could then have modulated powers based on the [Undead]s intelligence (int)& self awareness (wis & cha). (Liches would be the pinnacle of [Undead] corporeal power.)

 

[Bronn]

The old meaning of 'prove' was more like 'test'. Ie: you test the rule by looking for exceptions.
Or, the exception that proves the rule to be incorrect.

Which in no way disproves that what he said was false logic.
A rule cannot be proven good by showing it not working in some cases.
Prove to me that the rules always work or accept that they are imperfect.

If you're under a Dominate spell and commit an evil act, is it an evil act?
Failling a Will save doesn't sound evil to me, sorry.
Not taking into account the situation leads to silly situations.
If your comfortable with that then use it, I can't because it lacks logic.

Undead are evil because that allows the player to kill them without question is not a valid reasonning for me. It is relativist since the alignment of the target matters in this situation. Which shows the flaw of D&D's morality right there. It simply can't be pure absolutism. They might has well explain a system that works instead of one that doesn't.

Send the damn Sacred Cows to the killing floor, they are way overdue.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ha! A relativist morality system would bog D&D with endless debate without hope of relief. Things are complex enough with an absolute alignment system, why would we want to enter the twilight zone?

 

[Li Shenron]

I apologise that I don't have time to read all the other posts, and so I may not add much to what is already said.

It's kind of obvious that the choice of making necromancy evil-oriented has reasons in the original authors' culture, which is anyway shared by almost all the people in the world IMHO: if necromancy existed in real life, how many would actually not think it's a bad thing to go against god's or nature's laws? (Keep in mind that resurrection is not the same as animation of the dead) Not impossible to conceive a world where this is different, but eventually it's easier to write a setting this way.

There is one thing specifically I cannot think of as non-evil. As soon as the DM/author decides that undead are evil creatures by default, someone who creates undead is someone who turns people into evil creatures, and frankly I can hardly imagine anything more evil than this...

 

[Scion]

to go against god's or nature's laws?

If it can be done then, by definition, it must be in accordance with god's or nature's laws. Since one cannot step outside of them (even magic is simply natures laws for magic, merely a different course but not outside of nature).

 

[Voadam]

from the SRD

[DESCRIPTOR]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
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.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

 

[Voadam]

If you say that using evil spells makes you evil, then using good spells makes you good.

So the evil conjurer who constantly summons angels to attack orphans will eventually end up with a mechanical alignment of good.

 

[Voadam]

Actually, since the imprint can react, and can react based upon the caster's alignment, the imprint can certainly be said to be aware of what is currently happening to it, even if it is not capable of later remembering (or learning from) what happens.

RC

The imprint reacts based upon pure alignment interaction, not based on awareness of the person interviewing it, not based upon its past history of interacting with the person.

"The corpse, however, cannot learn new information."

New information includes such things as an awareness of the person questioning it or what is currently happening to it.

The limits of what can be provided are "it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive." An awareness of the current situation is not knowledge it had when alive.

Having awareness of the current situation seems inconsistent with only having the knowledge it had when alive.

From that line of the spell it seems pretty clear that "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive." is purely a reaction, not a conscious choice.

 

[dcollins]

If you're under a Dominate spell and commit an evil act, is it an evil act?

Actually, yes -- look at the atonement spell. Even if a creature "committed the evil act unwillingly or under some form of compulsion", you still need the atonement spell to properly remove the burden of those evil deeds.

If you say that using evil spells makes you evil, then using good spells makes you good.

Absolutely not. Evil in fantasy is a slippery-slope arrangement: easy to slide down, very hard to climb back up.