Why does Undead=Evil

[driver8]

Most books I have read and people I have talked to believe that raising undead is an evil act, and I cant figure out why. Is it becouse of some belief that the body is sacred and must not be defiled? Or are they just simple minded people who say "If its nasty and evil looking it must be evil." The same logic some people use when they go "Look. He's dressed in black. He must be evil." I've never got why raising undead was such a big deal. Its no different the animating an object to attack someone. I think that most peole dont have an IQ large enough to understand the shades of gray between good and evil, their minds just work on very simple logic. What do you guys think.

I think it depends on what setting you play. Doesnt Eberron have the Aerenal elves who revere death and have Lawful non evil liches?

Anyway, I have always thought the undead were considered evil because the fact they are up and about instead of well buried or in some state of repose. Default DnD takes this from alot of cultures beliefs in this-the idea that the dead should be honored,venerated , and/or allowed to rest.

Since the undead are usually brought out by evil doers to do thoer well evil work, undead are evil becasue they are an abomination against the norm. They are evil, but its not their fault. To paraphrase, "Theyre not evil theyre just drawn that way."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The norm does not make an action less evil, it lets evil be accepted by the whole. Good people stand against evil when it raises its nasty head. I see evil in that you would be willing to allow evil to exsist as a norm. I am fighting that (what you would call an acceptable norm) "norm" because I find it offensive to those that would charish the good.

Like the quote says- "evil is what good men refuse to do- no matter what," I refuse to allow Undead walking/floating/crawling/swimming to be called acceptable as good no matter the course

I agree with the first statement absolutely. RW example- slavery. No form of slavery stands up to an honest moral appraisal.

However, Re:Undead- there are too many examples in mythology, legend, pop culture and the game itself that are exceptions to the U = E equation to ignore.

The task then becomes to discern why these exceptions exist.

As for undead always detecting evil, I cannot help but admit that if you read the spell as written, that is true.

Its also true that according to the MM (a core book), Ghosts (and Greater Mummies from Dieties & Demigods) can be of any alignment, and that Mummies of the MM are only "Usually" evil (something BTW that seems to have been largely ignored).

Thus, either Detect Evil is a flawed spell (it gives false positives), a spell with a flawed description (its detecting something other than or in additon to evil), or that there is just something about being a Ghost or Mummy or any kind of undead that makes you detect as evil even though you may not actually be evil.

I have to say, that last formulation sounds odd to me in a vesion of D&D in which almost any sentient race can be used as an NPC/PC Paladin.

And Scion has done a good job of recounting various refutations of claims of the origin of evil in the undead state:

Negative energy itself is not evil.
The use of negative energy is not evil (although there are evil people who use it, but that isnt terribly important, there are good people who use it as well and there are lots of tools that evil people use that are also not evil)
Nonintelligent undead should not have a neutral evil alignment, they cannot make the decissions necissary to have an alignment.
There is no mention of a soul being used or abused in any way, shape, or form for either animating the dead or useing negative energy attacks (so far, there may be some spell out there that mentions it, but the base rules for such does not say anything like that)
Using undead for ones own purpose is the same as useing any other tool, and less 'evil' than useing beasts of burden. The animals can feel pain, wants, desires.. the undead in question do not, cannot, and likely never will. Just like an animated object.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I still can't call it absolute though.
But that is semantic which is a waste of time.

Agreed, it is getting outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Incenjucar]

Except, in D&D, the use of negative energy is not treated like radiation or fire. Because killing something by negative energy -- or even animating it with negative energy later -- prevents raise dead, speak with dead, and the like, and nothing else does, negative energy clearly has some unique traits in the way it interacts with the soul/body connection.

*bzzzt* A skeleton or zombie does not hold the soul of its former owner. The issue is that their body is occupied and not set up for habitation by a normal life form. It's basically like an irradiated Soul Jar effect.

In another way, though, the radiation analogy is near perfect: When you encounter radiation, there is a possibility of damage that will never go away. Ask two out of three players if they prefer to encounter fire or level-drainers, and they'll tell you: In core D&D, burns heal without complications. Very different from the Real World [tm].

I'm sure you'll agree that scary doesn't exactly mean automatically evil.

The part I quoted up there ("good and evil are objective states, not just opinions") actually comes from the SRD:

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
​

Lovely WotC vague language. The debate is as to whether or not acknowledging something actually means it's true.

Personally, I just go with 'internal intent', which WotC does about half the time (I'm sure everyone can agree that WotC is mixing messages like mad when it comes to alignment issues), which is, essentially, objective. It's just that the DM has to force their players not to BS them about the -real- reason a character does things.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

I quoted the above both for context, and because the part about animals would seem to support the view that some capacity for moral choice must exist to be good or evil....for being from the Prime Material, anyway. Fiendish rats are still evil.

It's the ability to intend the state of others for reasons beyond survival, basically. But considering undead are essentially vermin-brained constructs... they're as alignment-deserving as the average heart worm.

Sure, fire can be fearsome. I did not claim that it was not. Rather, I questioned your depiction of negative energy. When I ask what flavor text you are referring to, specifically, stating "The info on negative energy in the books" simply isn't helpful. If your argument relies upon text, you should be willing to cite what text you're using. That way, others can fairly evaluate your argument and draw conclusions therefrom.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't hire a cab so I can get my books. Ask someone here who has their books in less than a 45 minute drive's span to look it up. It's in the DMG, I think, in 3.5.

If your bunny quote had been in the rulebook, btw, you might have had a point. Had that been the case, I would certainly not trust the way WotC used adjectives! However, level-draining is described as "fearsome" not "tiring."

Tiring would suggest it slowed you down. The descriptions are that it weakens you. Fearsome is essentially meaningless except to say "it is not confidence-inducing".

As for ennervation, you may be correct that suppressing the life force merely "weighs down" the victim. When I read it, it sounds painful. Others may have different opinions on this. The SRD certainly doesn't say.

Again, vague language, but considering what it does, it makes sense. You'd think an obscenely painful form of attack would have side-effects. Even fire doesn't do that (which actually makes sense, since fire would outright kill your nerves).

Really?

Out of curiosity, did WotC participate in those discussions?

Just as much as they are doing here. What's your point? Are you a WotC employee now?

I noted that because, on the WotC boards, we have a NegEn/Undead !=Evil thread pop up at least once a month. And in the more lasting threads, I actually had my books handy. What is revelation to some here is old news to the WotC board members. Ya'll are behind the times.

Were there any official answers to these questions?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Feel free to ask customer service.

 

[PhoenixDarkDirk]

Unless one is playing in a certain campaign setting (there is one where 'evil' has won and the heros are basically just guys trying to survive, I forget the name) then likely evil is not the most common alignment, or 'norm' as you put it. Even then though, I would think that more people would be neutral than evil, as it is just easier for them to be so.

I believe you mean Midnight, published by Fantasy Flight Games.

 

[RonYon]

Peoples of the book...

This whole debate reminds me of situtions in RL where a group of discontents struggle to change the teachings of their group.
Never mind that the basis of their professed belief involves a top down dictation of "revealed trueth", and not a trueth built democraticly or consensously.
So they stuggle on, and eventually they either A)Manage to get the changes they wanted, or B) Leave the orginzation to start a new one that teaches the "real trueth".
In the event of B), no big deal, unless the new orginization takes to many resources with it.
In the event of A), there will almost certainly be a schism caused, resulting in the conservative elements leaving the organiztion to preseve the purity of the "one true trueth".
So, what does this mean?
Undead are evil.That is the revealed trueth dictated from the top of this here organization.Reasons dont matter, the man has had his say.
Those who dont like it can either lump it, plead thier case until the man gives in, or play with varient rules<gasp!>.
If wotc does hear the cries of the necromancer inthe wilderness,takes pity on his plight and makes the undead nuetral, then we can expect the true belivers to either ; lump it,like it(cause wotcs word is and should be law),plaed their case for a roll back to the good old days, or play with varient rules<gasp!>.
No one is likly to quit playing D20 behind this, they will just be left feeling either gratified or dissatisfied ....
No real corpes or souls will be missused.
No one will be saved .

 

[Incenjucar]

Ghosts.

 

[RonYon]

Now onto pratical matters...

My necromancer is ...ethical. Not good or evil, ethical. He does what he does for reasons of his own, and bends to the conventions of society often but only so much.
He generally only animates the corpes of the non sentient. This is out of respect for the sesibilities of the living, practical fear of being mistaken for a grave robber, and uncertianties about the nature of the soul.What he does know is that any culture or being willing to geld a horse, pig or bull so as to make it more useful to its owner, has little to say about how he might treat that animals "soul".Real physical pain and loss vs. theoretical metaphysical torture? Come on now.
Still there are those who will allow a man to drug himself to death, just so long as he has a presciption, damnit!
To keep them happy, my necroman casts a false aura on the taxidermied corpes before he animates them. Now they turn up as a nuetral animated object , and this cuts down on drive by turnings as well.
At latter levels he will animate his own cloned bodies, as well as bodies made with the stone to flesh spell.These will be preseved with oil of timelessness to keep them fresh.
3.5 has eliminated the two ways I knew to make ghosts,but there are still grave spawn,and the crypt thing, and perhaps a undead familier.
If he is a cleric he will take the eberion domain of shadow, just so he can create lesser plannar allies with shadow conjeration, and release them after swearing(geas) them to good conduct.Evil outsiders will be brand new, and thus without sin.They will be offered atonement/ geas, disolution back into shadow, or death.
Finally The Dead Letter Offices will be opened, run by shadow spawned folk,who in adition to their own travling capabilities, will also employ
taxidermied skeleton horses as long endurance mounts.Skeletons can run all day and night.
Now by the book, My necromancer is evil.
Also by the book, a "LG" fighter who kills all goblinoids as a race, is A ok.
Yeah, the "races of evil" thingdisturbes me more than making bone dance.
But By the book racism it a ok with good peaple! After all , goblins are are evil.

 

[Keoki]

Read the Books

It's very different than animating an object. Most real-world religions do consider the body sacred, a gift from the Creator (whoever that might be). For the majority of people in the world, religions define what is good and what is evil. For pure D&D terms, you can check out the Book of Vile Darkness. It doesn't take even simple logic, just a bit of education.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Also by the book, a "LG" fighter who kills all goblinoids as a race, is A ok.

No he is not LG if his reason to kill is based on race alone. 'Usually' evil will include the occasional neutral and there are degrees of evil anyway.

He is almost certain to harm innocents due to bigotry. By the RaW he is, or will be, LN to LE.