Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 1769204" data-attributes="member: 3424">Much like some undead creature itself, this thread just keeps going (so, is it Evil <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)?For what it's worth it seems to me that there are two different questions being discussed (no names mentioned):1. Given that the act of creating undead creatures is evil (or all undead creatures are evil), what explanation can be given for this?2. Is the act of creating undead creatures (or, are all undead creatures) always evil?The answer to the first question supposes that it is a fact that the act of creating undead creatures or all undead creatures are evil, and merely supplies an explanation that is as logical as possible. There is an inherent conflict because the second question challenges the validity of the first.As to the argument on absolute vs relative morality, in the core D&D world good and evil are absolutes and some acts are inherently good and evil regardless of social acceptability. In some societies, personal advancement by murdering your superior may be acceptable or even encouraged, but it doesn't make the act any less evil. That said, there are social norms which are neither good nor evil, e.g. the acceptability of eating chicken or ham.Thus, in core D&D, mindless undead are evil, animate dead is an [Evil] spell and possibly an evil act, regardless of how socially acceptable it is and whether or not it should be the case.</blockquote>

Verification