Why does Undead=Evil

[Scion]

Undead are evil. Reasons dont matter.

Apparently you missed the title of the thread.

Also, not all undead are evil. As was pointed out just after your post.

It's very different than animating an object.

In game terms, why? The spell has an evil descriptor, other than that there is no difference.

There are also real world religions who dont care at all about the body once the person is dead, so that cant be used as a basis.

The BoVD and the BoED have very serious issues at times, contradicting themselves, the core, and each other. So those arent much help either.

 

[Sejs]

Ghosts.

AAAAH! Where?!

 

[Scion]

AAAAH! Where?!

quick little buggers arent they?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Scion]

You cannot prove or disprove something simply by stating that you have done so. Until you actually address said arguments/reasoning, you have done nothing more that pat yourself on the back.

As I, and others, have quoted from the srd items that prove what I have said to a very high degree I think you should start stating useful things in your posts.

This last post of yours says nothing relevant to the topic at all except to imply that my reasoning was not addressing your point. But, since it directly contradicted your point useing the srd as a source then my assumption is that you are currently simply trying to ignore what I have said.

That is your perogative, freedom to think as you will of course, but it matters not at all here.

I will state it at least in part yet again. Your extrapolation from speak with dead to say that the soul imprint is tormented by animation has some very serious flaws. Of which we have that there is nothing about the soul mentioned in animate dead, the soul imprint is effectively made up soley (heh) for that spell and it is not able to remember anything put to it after death (ie it does not react), and the two spells in question work under completely different sets of conditions (part of which is that speak with dead is language dependant on what the deceased knew in life, animated dead has nothing remotely like that in need).

So, while they are both spells that are cast on a body, that is where they stop being similar. Conclusions being sought after for understanding of the evil descritpor simply do not come from the speak with dead spell. They are too dissimilar and have effectively nothing in common (even disintegrate may be cast on a dead body, but I doubt anyone will try to draw parallels from it, except that possibly it is yet another example of doing things to dead bodies not being evil)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Scion]

The soul imprint mentioned in speak with dead, perforce, must also exist when speak with dead is not being cast. By D&D definitions, the soul imprint has no INT score (i.e., it cannot learn), but it does have a Will save, and whether or not the Will save occurs is based upon the alignment of the questioner and the deceased. Speak with dead demonstrates, if nothing else, that dead bodies are not treated the same as other objects within the D&D 3.X game.

The spell lets you talk with a dead guy. Of 'course' it is not going to work on something that was never alive. However, that doesnt help show anything useful.

Sure, dead bodies and other objects are treated differently for certain things. One used to be alive whereas the other might not have been alive.

So, the former creature gets a save as though it was still alive. Great. A dead body has some properties that other objects might not have (might be able to talk with it, could possibly resurrect it, etc), but then other objects might have these things depending (a dead tree might be able to be resurrected, there arent any spells for that directly as the rules tend to be more humanoid centric) of course, if the tree had been awakened then a case could definately be made to allow it to be ressurected/reincarnated. Would actually be pretty nice.

Still, in the rules different things that are around tend to have different properties. Be they formerly alive, or cut out of the forest, or found in some sort of mine. Each object has its own special properties and able to be affected by various spells (like only crystalline objects are effected by certain types of spells).

Of course, if I had claimed that this is what has to be happening, you would be right. But, over and over, I claimed that this is one interpretion of what may be happening.

Of course I have shown that this cannot be the case useing simple rules from the core books and examples of what is going on.

Sure, you can interpret anything you like, you can say that the aoo rules let you interpret that fire does cold damage, but that doesnt really matter for general purposes.

Even just going through the basic example it is clear that completely seperate things are going on.

I even went back and restated a couple of them yet again. It is well beyond boring to repost it again at this point, feel free to reread.

You have also refused to clarify your position re: evil, and one is left to assume that you are using a morally relativistic stance.

This is a good start:
SRD:
ALIGNMENT
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
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.
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.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

An argument that boils down to "For any object or force X that is claimed to be evil, I can point out object or force Y, which is similar, but not evil," requires one to conclude either that (1) nothing is evil, or (2) the similarity between objects/forces X and Y does not, in and of itself, provide an argument that X is not evil.

In order to have an alignment, other than neutral as it can be used as a special case, there has to be thought and motivation. Choice has to be made.

As for your conclusions, 1) is obviously completely fallacious. Objects are obviously unaligned. The stick on the ground has no alignment, the fire in the hearth has no alignment, and similarly the pile of negative energy has no alignment. Each can be used for good, evil, or whatever, but that does not make them evil.

As for 2), once again, objects do not have an alignment. If one tries to state that something is evil because it does X then saying, 'well, this does X but it isnt evil' is a valid response. Especially if they have almost all of the same properties.

Of course, as far as 2) goes you are trying to say that because evil clerics use negative energy then it must be evil. So, you dont mind associating things that work for you (no matter how little sense it makes, might as well say that if an evil cleric picks up a stick to beat someone with suddenly that stick becomes evil) but not when they dont (all fire does is consume and destroy, all negative energy does is consume and destroy)


So, if these are the arguements that you say I 'missed' then I will have to disagree.

The difference between some objects and others is just how the game woks, some are effected differently by different spells. Of course it seems that one could use animate object on a corpse, odd that, wouldnt even have the evil descriptor.

The interpretation useing speak with dead to say that a soul is under torment falls on its face for multiple reasons stated before.

Anyway, have fun, I am sure you will figure it all out sometime.

 

[Scion]

Still, if the alignment descriptor means nothing as far as alignment goes then that means the 'only' good reason for it to be there is to prevent good clerics from casting it. Seems like it could easily be taken away.

It still leaves the question of why unintelligent undead have an alignment of evil. Without a choice being made they simply cannot have any alignment other than neutral into themselves.

So, they are not evil because of the spell (the descriptor means nothing)
They are not evil because of negative energy (it is not evil)
They are not evil from choice (they have no mind to make a choice with)
They are not evil because of some sort of soul binding (there is no soul bound, damage, exploited, or otherwise maligned. That would fall under making the spell of the evil descriptor however, which means nothing)

What does that leave?

 

[Hypersmurf]

They are not evil because of negative energy (it is not evil)

Some applications are.

Note that Defenders of the Faith states unambiguously "Channeling negative energy is an evil act". This seems to refer to 'channeling' in the sense of 'expending a turn attempt', since Inflict Light Wounds, for example, isn't defined as evil.

But it does make a connection between certain applications of negative energy, and evil. Given that all undead show up on a Detect Evil spell, regardless of alignment, it seems reasonable to infer that 'powering undead existence' is one such application.

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed