Why does Undead=Evil

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ok, can we keep the real world beliefs out of the thread please?

This is all about undead being evil in the default D&D setting. The morality of alignment is absolute, there is no doubt or argument there.

If we want to change D&D's alignment paradigm to relativism & consider the logical consequences, that would best be suited to another thread.

 

[Voadam]

Absolutely.

The spell description reads, in part: "If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive." (emphasis mine)

The SRD also states: "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

If the corpse gains a saving throw as if it were alive, and if it were alive one aspect of that saving throw would be the ability to voluntarily forgo that saving throw, then the corpse can voluntarily forgo the saving throw.

A lawful good corpse, having recently been murdered, and being questioned by a neutral evil member of the City Constabulry, might well forgo the save in order to let the proper authorities know the identity of her killer. Of course, if the NE constable happens to have other reasons to question the body, then it's too late to make a saving throw once the first question is asked.

Same as any other spell.





If the soul imprint is simply a repository of information, why do you see it as being allowed a saving throw?

If allowed a saving throw, why as though it were alive? In other words, what is the relationship between the living person's Will save and the corpse's Will save if the corpse doesn't retain a copy of the person's Will?

Why do you see the spell as being language dependent?

As a note to the second question, animate dead is not language dependent and allows no save. Yet animate dead clearly draws upon the knowledge resident in the body to allow it to understand the tasks it is given.


RC

A couple points here.

The spell does not say the imprint knows the alignment, it only says it gets a spell if the alignment is different. A LG imprint does not know whether the questioner is NG or CE.

I see it as language dependant as language is the interface for the spell to provide information with something that only has knowledge known by the creature in life.

Why a saving throw? And why if there is an alignment based difference? Because alignments have mechanical interactions with spells, particularly divine ones. I have no problem conceptualizing a divine spell not working as well when targeting something of another alignment.

And as to your point that animate dead "clearly relies upon the knowledge resident in the body to allow it to understand the tasks it is given." The corpse does not need to speak your language or even understand any language, you can animate rats or fish if you wanted and command them with language, because that is the interface the spell uses.

 

[Voadam]

May I suggest that this is exactly the crux, and perhaps the only real point of discussion here? Of course, the question is not, do zombies have free will, but are zombies aware of what is happening to them?

If, as you suggest, zombies are simply tools, then they, like a gun, are not aware of what is happening to them. They are simply animated inanimate objects. This seems to be the point Scion is trying to make re: the animate objects spell. Parse the rules this way, and the [Evil] descriptor on animate dead is simply foolish.

If the zombies are aware of what is happening to them, however, as I claimed by my examination of speak with dead and animate dead, then they are very different from simple tools. Parse the rules this way, and the [Evil] descriptor makes sense.

I doubt it is too much to ask for a nod of agreement here....?

Now, is there any way that we can determine if zombies are self-aware? Because, if we can answer that question, then we might have a better idea of what the rules are saying, and, having that, whether they make sense or not.


RC

Allow me to throw out an alternative view of the Evil descriptor.

Evil is a supernatural force in addition to being a moral judgment.

Certain spells tap into dark supernatural forces that are classified as [Evil] and some creatures are composed on an elemental level by supernatural Evil power and therefor have the Evil subtype. Evil alignment is different, orcs are evil but not subtype [Evil] because they are just bad and mean and do not tap supernatural elemental Evil power.

All undead are powered by this elemental Evil and so any spell that creates them will have the [Evil] descriptor and cause undead to detect as moderatlely powerful evil just short of comparable power [Evil] outsiders under the detect evil spell even if they are a good baelnorn or the good undead god Osiris.

Therefore casting a spell that taps into supernatural evil to create undead, even if not a morally evil act will have the [Evil] descriptor and show up as evil under detect evil.

Note that using a neutral spell such as dominate person for a horribly evil purpose will not detect as an evil act or impose the [Evil] descriptor.

And again, animating a corpse with animate object, still forces the dead remains to serve you but does not involve an [Evil] descriptor, it simply is not tapping supernatural Evil power.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

On track with the Zombies

"Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic.
Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple."

They have Int-, wis10, cha1 and Neutral Evil alignment.
_____________________________________________________________
(Taken from the SRD and edited for brevity)
INTELLIGENCE (INT)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills.

WISDOM (WIS)
Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.

CHARISMA (CHA)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Every creature has a Charisma score.
__________________________________________________________

Every creature has to have wis & cha, int seems optional & the zombie description takes this into account.

At first it would appear that cha & wis are the defining abilities that determine alignment, but animals are non-aligned (defaulting to neutral) so that theory is put to rest.

Hmmm, I need to think on this.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Scion]

You seem to be arguing from an assumption that "if it isn't in the rules, then it cannot be."

I, on the other hand, choose to examine the rules, then see what seems likely based upon comparing what is implied in one portion of the rules to what is present in other parts of the rules.

I am actually going off of the question posted rather than assuming it is true already.

You are assuming that it is already correct and trying to draw parallels where they just do not exist. Trying to stretch out meanings and place them in other areas where they simply do not fit (especially the attempt to link speak with dead and animate dead, the parallels attempted there simply fall apart on too many levels to be helpful).

I hope you don't mind that I put my quote back into context there. I'm sure it wasn't your point to take it out of context.

Actually, I dont feel that I took it out of context at all.

You stated that you had some reasoning, which I had just gone through disproving yet again, and then after that you stated that Rule 0 is there for a reason.

But, if something is incorrect in the core then obviously it should be changed in the core. Hence, you telling me that it is ok I can just change it falls within the oberoni fallicy. It is not ok, it is simply an arbitrary decission. Nothing you have said disproves that. In fact, the majority of your arguements effectively say that it is true therefore it is true and then give some convoluted steps that dont match up or prove anything as a 'proof'. Not useful.

I very specifically pointed out that there are rational interpretations of the rules, and that there is no need to claim that the game designers were "arbitrary" simply because you do not like the decisions they made.

I have specifically broken down your arguement and pointed out the flaws that kill it.

Arbitrary decission to make it evil still stands.

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.

Once again, you do realize that neutral does exist? Lets go through a rundown of the alignments.

Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
True Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil

Looks like there is neutral all over the alignment system. In fact, 5 out of the 9 have neutral as part of them. Only 3 have good, only 3 have evil, only 3 have lawful, only 3 have chaotic. Looks like the neutrals have it.

Also once again, just because something isnt good does not make it evil. Just because something isnt evil does not make it good.

You must treat your animals poorly.

Where are the rolling eyes when they are most needed.

It isnt about treating them poorly. Slaves can be treated very well indeed, but that does not change the fact that they are slaves.

Since animals have an intelligence, and animated dead/objects do not, it sounds 'more' evil to subjugate the animals than it does the others. After all, the others simply dont care, they have zero feelings, whereas the animals might wish to simply roam free. Now who is evil?

Quite simply, it is easier to do evil with negative energy than it is to do good.

Meaningless. I could say the opposite and be just as 'correct' (as in, not at all). After all, negative energy can make it much easier to subdue rather than kill. That has to be a good thing.

Sure, it does harm, but then so does everything else effectively.

It simply does what you have it do. Most everything can be used for evil and most everything can be used for good.

If the zombies are aware of what is happening to them, however, as I claimed by my examination of speak with dead and animate dead, then they are very different from simple tools. Parse the rules this way, and the [Evil] descriptor makes sense.

Animals are definately aware of what is happening around them.

Having animals (beasts of burden/pets/whatever) is evil by this definition.