Why does Undead=Evil

[FreeTheSlaves]

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).

That assumes that magic is within the scope of the god's and/or nature's laws.

The default gods of Greyhawk look anything but omnipotent, more like the Greek gods in that they have massive power but are ruled by their somewhat blinkered viewpoints. (I'd go so far to say that without their divine magics their number of followers would be few indeed, but I digress.) Wizards otoh are not beholden to gods or nature as they seem to tap the magic at it's source. Whether this is inside the scope of nature or going beyond is anyones guess but the recurring theme of mad, evil wizards seems to point to going beyond nature. Of course this is highly speculative.

Anyhoo

If however it is taken that the creator gods were good, then it would be ok to say that [Evil] spells go against nature because it is not granted to their followers.

And again, if the creator 'god' is in fact the force of nature, again Druids can't cast such spells so is ok to say it goes against nature. Their 'balance' schtick kicks in at this point because they're gonna be opposed to [Good] spells to boot.

Neutral & Evil creator gods, loosen and reverse this premise. Ravenloft is a good example of [Good] spells annoying the powers that be.

All the above is built on the assumption that the creator force defines what is the scope of nature.

 

[Scion]

That assumes that magic is within the scope of the god's and/or nature's laws.

Sure, magic is outside of nature if nature is defined in a very narrow fashion. However, one cannot break the laws of nature. If a way is found to do something then doing it merely uses a different law and the first law was not actually completely understood.

Magic and nature can be defined as seperate things, but at the core they are exactly the same thing, just looked at in a different manner. (The moving of the stars seems magical if one does not understand what is happening, and magic itself can seem unnatural since it may behave in ways unseen before, but they are still the same thing, everything that happens is part of the natural universe)

 

[Bronn]

If my Paladin commited an evil act under a Dominate spell and DM asked me to attone I would leave the game and never return.
Why the hell should I attone for failling a Will save? It's mostly luck damn it.
I have principles I do not break, one is accountability for one's actions.
I am not accountable because I did not control my body to do it.
The population might try to lynch him though and force him into exile.

I am not a religious guy so trying to convince me with religion will never work.

I find relativism simpler because it makes sense.
And I have already said that if you were raised in a society that used preserved zombies to help them you would not find it odd.
Applying the same rules to completly different situations will give good results in some cases and really stupid ones in other. It's unavoidable.
If you like D&D's simplistic approach then use it. What do I care.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another hit-and-run (still dealing with Ivan refugees; not much free time):

Osiris was problematic for 2 reasons:

1) He is undead, but good. However, as a unique being, he can qualify for a certain amount of rules breaking attributes because he is evil.

2) He CREATES undead. This is far more problematic since he is Lawful Good. If the mere act of creating undead is inherently evil, he couldn't do this.

Thus, even excepting the flimsy BoED/Eberron rationale of Deathless as not undead, you have a LG diety creating undead without having alignment consequences.

Possible solution- as someone pointed out earlier in this thread (apologies to the person who had the original idea), perhaps it is as simple as there being non-evil versions of these spells, long lost to most of the world.

 

[Talon5]

Don't try to justify an evil act by saying its good intentioned

If a Paladin is Dominate Person-ed and attacks an orphanage and kills everyone in it- that is an evil act and he must atone for it.

When you creat undead you use part of the subjects soul to host their dead body; Jake is killed and raised as a zombie by a nercomancer, part of Jake's soul is now part of the zombie. So Jake goes into an orphanage and kills everyone inside at the command of his master. Jake needs an atonement spell because his LG god thinks he commited an evil act.

Taking someone's free will away is evil. Taking away their ability to do what they want to do is evil. How is it that someone can justify that stripping away a person's peaceful after life is not evil?

Raising undead will always be an evil act in my campaigns. Whether you raise up a bugbear or a Paladin of Heironous- necromancers that do so are evil, plane and simple.

 

[Scion]

When you creat undead you use part of the subjects soul to host their dead body

No part of the soul is used or damaged.

Taking someone's free will away is evil.

Skeletons and zombies are mindless, there is no free will involved. Just like the chair that was animated has no free will involved.

How is it that someone can justify that stripping away a person's peaceful after life is not evil?

No part of the soule is used or damaged.

There is no stripping away of any afterlife.

 

[Sejs]

No part of the soul is used or damaged.

Then why can you not Resurrect or True Resurrect someone whose body has been reanimated as undead, and is currently active?

As for damaged - you can Raise Dead someone who has died, but you cannot Raise Dead someone who has died, been brought back as undead, and then subsequently destroyed. Why is that? In order to bring them back to life you need to use a spell that is able to reconstruct the whole person but requires only a small constituent piece (or in the case of True Res, nothing) to do so. Again, why is that?

 

[Bronn]

What scion said.

A Paladin under a Dominate spell that destoys an orphanage is not evil because it did not do it! The caster decided on the action and he should be accountable for it because it was "HIS" decision.
Would you like being judged for the actions of others? I sure wouldn't.

A tool is not evil, it does what you tell it to do.
Otherwise swords and guns are evil because they are made to kill people.
Trust me, you don't want to get into that argument.

 

[Scion]

What scion said.

Actually, I have no problem with the paladin needing to atone for what he was forced to do. His case may be a bit of a special one though, but even for most anyone I would expect them to feel some massive amount of guilt for evil being done by their own hands (whether or not they were in control of said hands at the time. Know why we have the nobel prize? Guess who invented dynamite and then felt very bad about it later, his own version of atonement).

So, for the paladin at least, I would expect him to need to atone. It doesnt matter if he wasnt in control at the time, to him it was evil being done by him.

But, he has a very strict code to go by, so it makes even more sense in his case.

 

[Sejs]

Paladins get unduly screwed on alignment issues, we all know this. It ranks up there with the earth being round and water being wet as far as common knowledge amongst gamers goes.