Why does Undead=Evil

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Except it *is* true already - that undead == evil - your opinions notwithstanding. The question is, "Why?"

Animals are definately aware of what is happening around them.

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

An animal may decide to *not* do what you want it to do, hence the presence of the Handle Animal skill - the ability to convince an animal to do what you want. Note that it functions similarly to a Diplomacy for the Stupid.

Undead - especially non-intelligent undead - do not have such a luxury.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Again?

"Why, in DnD RAW, are Undead = Evil"?

Because, in DnD Raw, the only way to create them is Evil and makes them that way.

Unless we all can crawl into the designer's minds and have a great mind-meld communal discovery, that is the best we are left with.

Perhaps it has to do with the game balance of being able to Smite them.
Perhaps it has to do with an unwritten Evil taint to negative energy.
Perhaps it has to do with certain designer's watching the Night of the Living Dead too much.

My best interpretation is that there is an Evil taint to negative energy. Some applications provide a strong enough link to alter the targets/casters alignment. Some do not.
Creating undead, with the current spells available, usually causes irrepairable harm to the soul of the corpse. This act is Evil. Whether this act can affect the casters alignment is up to the DM.

Back off tangent:
'Mindless' undead are creatures with alignments. What alignment fits thier actions? (SRD extracts)
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil characters simply have no compassion for others.
Neutral characters have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others

Of the three, which makes sense? Evil.

But, you say, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil."
A> Speak with dead: 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."
Is this an action based on a morals (alignment)? If so, then a Corpse, due to having once been alive, can have an alignment other than nuetral based on its moral action.

B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.

So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.
Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.

Hmm, perhaps thats how they came up with this

 

[Scion]

Except it *is* true already - that undead == evil - your opinions notwithstanding. The question is, "Why?"

One cannot assume it is true to prove the point. Hence, assuming it is not true and attempting to prove or disprove its validity to be true.

An animal may decide to *not* do what you want it to do, hence the presence of the Handle Animal skill - the ability to convince an animal to do what you want. Note that it functions similarly to a Diplomacy for the Stupid.

At which point they are forced to do what is wanted of them. The very fact that they can choose one way or another, and then be forced to do it no matter what they decide, proves the point about slavery.

Undead - especially non-intelligent undead - do not have such a luxury.

They have no 'ability' to do so. They are simply nonintelligent. It is not that the luxury is taken away, they do not have the ability to do so on any level in the first place.

 

[Voadam]

Using your interpretation, I assume that I could then arm the rat skeletons with tiny swords, and they would be able to weild them?


RC

Nope, you could give them commands though such as guard this area, just as if they were a human skeleton. It is your command, not their previous knowledge that I understand as being the important component. Or are animated wild animals uncommandable? How about creatures that speak a different language?

 

[Aesmael]

In the sense of a single, cohesive, identifiable body, like the sun, and from which all subsequent evil generates? Or more in a sense of an identifiable phenomenon, like beta radiation, which may be generated from dissimilar sources even though the evil produced is identical?

That just struck me as the second [best/funniest/most interesting/awesomest] thing I've read today. Mind if I yoink it?

Should probably try to contribute something to the topic now that I've responded. The digression seems easier, so: I do not like the idea of a character (the poor, tormented hypothetical paladin) being held responsible for actions their body commits just because they failed a will save. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that their deity (or other power source) would withdraw its favour from them once it realises evil is being done by their body, even though it understands they are being coerced - it is only sensible to limit their capabilities to do harm even if it is not their fault. Atonement is then their way of saying "Hey, I'm back in control here." If the paladin dies before they can atone there should be no problem getting to their eternal rest because the power in question has understood all along that they are still paladin-worthy in themself. If that makes sense.

Thanks for the digression, it has allowed me to solve (to my satisfaction, at least) something that has been bothering me.

Otherwise I continue to follow this thread with great interest, especially with Raven Crowking's question about awareness. Although my first impulse is to disagree with your conclusions so far in this thread, I feel now that it is on the verge of something ... great.

 

[Voadam]

That is an excellent interpretation of the evil descriptor. Logically, under this interpretation, all undead would have the [Evil] descriptor regardless of their actual alignment. I certainly agree that this would work better than making mindless undead have evil alignment, and I hope it makes it into 4.0.

The problems that I see insofar as it answering the question related to the current SRD are twofold:

(1) Undead are powered by negative energy, which in the SRD is not evil.

(2) Undead in the SRD do not have a universal [Evil] descriptor.

Again, I think you've done a better job here than WotC, and I hope WotC is paying attention to this thread!


RC

Thank you, I gave it a lot of thought when I saw that all undead detect as evil regardless of alignment. Plus the whole protection from good is an Evil spell thing. My good eldritch knight wanted that spell when he was forced to fight some angels and demon summoning evil casters regularly want the Good portection from evil spell.

As for your two points I think it is still possible to harmonize those elements as presented in the SRD.

1 Undead are created more than just negative energy, there is an actual element of supernatural evil involved. Therefore other uses of just straight negative energy (cause wounds spells) do not tap this supernatural evil the same way undead and undead creating spells do.

2 Alignment subtypes are generally for outsiders only, even paladins only have an aura of goodness special quality not a good descriptor. Another reason would be that demons are made up of elemental Evil and Chaos while undead are a mix of elemental Evil and either a neutral body or a non elementally Evil spirit. This mix would explain why they always detect as evil but not as strongly as evil outsiders and why they don't have the Evil descriptor even though their creation spells do.

However in my campaign as well they have the Evil descriptor to better go with the supernatural evil of their creation spells.

 

[Aesmael]

B> Oft noted are the Good undead. They can only exist if Undead can act on its morals. Hence, mindless undead will naturally fall into the category of Evil.

So, either you must declare all undead to be Nuetral, or allow some udead to be Good while most will be Evil.
Doing the latter, casting a spell that will probably create an Evil being would be Evil itself.

Hmm, perhaps thats how they came up with this

And change all constructs without intelligence scores to evil too?

 

[Bronn]

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.

I disagree, D&D uses relativism in some cases which is part of the problem.
It's ok to kill evil creatures even though killing is considered evil.
Taking alignment into account breaks the absolutism of D&D morality.

You cannot relate the morale decision in absolutism to any factor.
If killing is evil then it's always evil, no matter the consequences.
Which is not the case of undead because there are some good ones.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.
For absolutism to work you would need a rule for every possible situation.
WotC could make even more money with the D&D Code of law.

 

[Talon5]

Okay Scion you have made a few good points- and I still believe that including neutral into the mix you can't see where the line between good and evil is- but thats.... no, I won't go there.

In a society where the undead walk, where that is the norm- as you brought forth, this might not be seen as evil. Neither might say an adult having sex with an infant, I mean if thats the norm then that would not be seen as evil- right? That would be seen as norm instead, and thus not evil. That is the line I refer to that you can not see, that you are avoiding in your rantings.

If demon's and devils are the norm then what they do can't be seen as evil, by what you have said. I beg to differ- evil is what good men won't do- no matter the price, no matter the cost.

I understand that you think I am missing your point regarding neutrality of the world, that there is only good and evil. I myself am not very good, and in fact might well be seen as evil on the scales of D&D alignment, my point is that I know where I stand because I can see the line, I know when and where to cross that line, what I will and won't do.

With regards to my critters- the way I treat them can be seen as odd. My dog understood better then thirty words of english. Two cats- both understand more then a dozen words of english. I understand them better then I think most people understand their animals, but then that might be because of how much time I have spent with them in the past four years. They are not "kept" or "enslaved" they are my friends.

Now considering that this thread has gone completely off it's rails and you are partially to blame for that I would suggest that someone re-post so that it can be started again without all this side line B stuff.

BTW- never argue with an idiot, you lose even when you win and I will admit that you beat me hands down in this little debate.

 

[Voadam]

Nope, you could give them commands though such as guard this area, just as if they were a human skeleton. It is your command, not their previous knowledge that I understand as being the important component. Or are animated wild animals uncommandable? How about creatures that speak a different language?

I thought I should back this up.

Here is the spell description:

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.
The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.)
Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit)
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.
Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.
Material Component: You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells.

When I animate a dead wolverine or whatever and give it commands I expect it's animated corpse to follow those commands regardless of the knowledge it had when alive.

This is based off the phrase "that follow your spoken commands." without any qualifier.


I interpret this as the way the magic works, the commands of the creator are the important part, not the underlying individual base creature used.