Why does Undead=Evil

[Incenjucar]

1) While we all make assumptions one way or another, unless something has very recently changed, there has NEVER been a statement that Alignment spell descriptors are actually aligned acts to cast. Right now, casting an [Evil] spell does not, officially, make you more evil any more than a [Fire] spell makes you more 'fire'. Technically, anything stating that spell X is an aligned act is house ruling, which proves nothing.

2) The closest thing to 'negative energy is evil' that is ever shown in the books is that 'bringing negative energy in to the world' is an evil act (sorta like flooding the world with radiation). However, temporary uses of it have never been labled as always evil acts. While non-core, there's even a good-aligned FR NPC with Enervation.

2b) Negative Energy is actually more useful in being merciful than fire is. Fire does not, generally, weaken a foe so that they can be easily captured. It just roasts them to a crisp, period. Let me see, what allows mercy better... Magic Missiles, or Strength Drain..

2c) I've heard people argue that Negative Energy attacks 'attack the soul' and thus are horrifically painful. The ACTUAL flavor text, however, makes it sound about the same as if you come down from a serious sugar rush. You feel weak as hell, but you're not exactly spasming in pain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Read themselves appear to be nuetral according to the MM, but the CREATION of Undead is clearly marked as evil, by the RAW.

Except that at least one LG being can create undead.

 

[Sejs]

You must treat your animals poorly.

Ahem. None of that now. Even if we disagree, we can all be civil about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Geoff Watson]

Except that at least one LG being can create undead.

LG arcane spellcasters can learn and cast Evil spells. It's not recommended, but they can.

As for Osiris, well that is campaign specific. D&D never claimed to be a universal RPG.

Geoff.

 

[Li Shenron]

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).

I wouldn't say "by definition". There's a large number of scientists for example who participate in bioethical committees around the world to discuss about the existence of a limit to what medicine should do even if it can be done.

It's not a very serious argument of mine, but it should be obvious that to be able to blow up the planet with a nuclear explosion doesn't make it a legitimate idea...

 

[Incenjucar]

The SRD is not very useful here: "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 books are no more useful.

Barring a better quote on the meaning of the [Evil] spell descriptor (3.5 Player's Handbook, anyone?) I have to cede this to Incenjucar.

You have my respect for that willingness.

Within core D&D, negative energy is not evil, simply because, if it were, the negative material plane would presumably have an alignment trait, which it does not. However, the use of negative energy (evil clerics), and especially the dependence upon negative energy (undead) creates a strong link between the use of negative energy and committing evil acts. Quite simply, it is easier to do evil with negative energy than it is to do good. When an effect relies upon negative energy, a good character is wise to view it carefully before employing it.

The only thing that makes negative energy (in SOME uses, not most) dangerous is that if you go too far, it can have a negative effect (wights and such). Again, like radiation. Great weapon, just try not to make mutants.

After all, in D&D, "good and evil are objective states, not just opinions," and it is possible to do evil regardless of one's personal opinion of morality.

That isn't core, unless they did something whacky to the SRD. They are 'concrete', not 'set in stone'. There's a difference.

From the SRD: "A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain.

A character subject to enough magic missiles is also instantly slain. Or fire. Or stampeding poodles. Or a gold dragon paladin tripping and falling on them.

Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight."

Powerful weapons should never be in the hands of fools.

Not necessarily more merciful, depending upon the effect.

More in how you use it.

Guilty.

What flavor text are you refering to, specifically?

The info on negative energy in the books.

"Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat" doesn't sound like coming down from a sugar rush.

"Some bunnies possess a fearsome habit of nibbling on a farmer's carrots."

Being weakened will make you quite fearful, I'm sure. But that goes with EVERY form of damage, neh? Is fire not fearsome?

"You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes" sounds rather painful.

Suppression sounds more like 'weighs down' to me. Where does it say 'hurts'?

Ray of enfeeblement and ray of exhaustion might sound like coming down from a sugar rush, but they are not specified as negative energy in the SRD. Are they in the 3.5 PH?

Don't think so. They're just necromancy.

In any event, nice to read an opposing post that actually makes some answer to the issues. Looking forward to your reply.

RC

Granted.

And, while I realize many here despise it, the WotC boards have some strong discussions on this issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Bronn]

Yes, by definition.

I agree, I did not mention who's action though. The action was made by the caster. He is to blame since he commited the action with a tool.

A close friend of relitive dies, would you mind them walking about doing things, serving tea or wandering the streets looking for something moist to eat. I would not want that of my loved ones, but I guess we're from different sides of the street- Understand what evil is when I see it.

If you were raised in a society were it is normal you would think differently.
Perception dictates what we believe is right and wrong but our perception of things is based on our knowledge and how we were raised.
Seperating the two is simply illogical.
If you were born in a place where Animate Dead was used to help in the community and you entered a community where they do not, you would find it weird. It's logical, you were raised to believe it's normal.
The problem here seems to be that you cannot seem to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and try to imagine what they would think.
You seem to believe you are right.

Guns, chair, knivies, desks, computers, shaving kits, dice, masking tape, swords, shoe laces, sharpened credit cards, all of it is not evil until it is used in an evil way. Raising the dead to use as an army of slaves (one or a billion of them) is evil, if you can't see that- emm, well, umm, ya, okay never mind I guess you can't.

Free the guns, no more gun slavery!!
Zombies have no more free will then guns. They are both tools.
Tools can be used for anything the user desires be it good, evil or neutral.

What is it then? A dark shade of gray? (good = white and evil = black)

You have watched too many bad Hollywood movies.
I've never in all my life meet someone I could claim was all black or all white, everything is in shades of grey. In D&D it's called neutrality.

Well Scion- wow, its amazing to see someone that can't see the line between good and evil- nope its all neutral. Good luck with that view. The only thing you have convenced me of is that you'll make a good defense lawyer one day.

That line is traced by each of us based on our knowledge and upbringing.
Everything is neutral until you apply your perception to it. There is no morality without perception because you cannot base your opinion on nothing. Morality is just an opinion based on our knowledge.