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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Metallian" data-source="post: 1769374" data-attributes="member: 1063">Regarding Scion and Talon5:Talon5: Yes, D&D has absolute morality that has nothing to do with cultural relativism. A given society may believe that aristocrats should be able to kill commoners on a whim because the aristocrats' possession of wealth and status "proves" that they are "better." However, in a default D&D world, they would still be Evil if they killed a commoner on a whim...because such an act would violate the way Good is defined in the rules:However, I think what Scion is saying is that, unless you can prove that animating a corpse somehow inherently violates that definition of Good above, people's feelings about it (that it's creepy and wrong or that it's considered "normal") are simply a product of their culture and have no moral weight. That does not mean that Scion thinks culturally-sanctioned murder and rape are okay, because they clearly violate the definition of Good above in a way that Animating Dead does not.Even the personal preferences of a god do not dictate Good and Evil. Good and Evil are absolutes to which even the gods must adhere. So we can't just say "Well, the gods don't like and that's all we need to prove that it's evil."Bear in mind that D&D characters live in a world where the metaphysics of life and death are observable, and can be dealt with in reliable, repeatable ways. So if you make a statement like "using corpses as if they were mere objects is Evil because it disrespects them," and claim that it is more morally correct than the statement "using corpses to help the community is Good because it allows the departed to stay with the community and continue helping their loved ones," you should be able to back it up with objective facts that prove that animating corpses causes some kind of harm to innocents."Absolute morality" does not mean that you always get to say "just because," though sometimes you can. By my reading of the Alignment section, the key point is whether or not you cause innocents to suffer (Evil), allow innocents to suffer through laziness/apathy/inaction/fear (Neutral), or whether you make personal sacrifices to prevent innocents from suffering (Good). The statement that "causing the suffering of innocents is bad" is an arbitrary starting assumption. Therefore, it's perfectly vaild to say that harming innocents is Evil "just because."However, to say that any given act is Evil still requires one to show that it does, in fact, cause innocents to suffer. Given the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, any moral judgement that is not based on the suffering of innocents is an arbitrary cultural construct.In this case, it is not clear from the books that animating a Skeleton causes an innocent to suffer. However, the rules (which reflect the natural laws of a D&D universe...which are observable and real to the characters living there) say that it is Evil, so it cannot be a mere cultural construct. That's why we have this big huge thread trying to connect the dots between the definitions of Good and Evil and the statements that creating mindless undead is Evil.Regarding Raven Crowking:I like your explanation a heck of a lot, because it attempts to derive a credible link between the creation of undead and suffering. It's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for to explain why Undead are Evil in a way that would make sense to a D&D character that could observe the mechanics of life and death in a way that we cannot in real life.However, I'd like to know your answers to the following questions:- If the sticking point is that it prevents Raise Dead and Reincarnation, why is it not Inherently Evil to burn or disintegrate a corpse?- A man dies of old age. He cannot be Raised, Reincarnated, Resurrected, or Truly Resurrected by any means. Why, then, is it a problem if you animate his corpse and thereby prevent him from being Raised or Reincarnated? After all, they couldn't be Raised or Reincarnated anyway.- What if a person consents (with full knowledge of what undeath is all about) to be made undead before they are alive? Why is this different from being an organ donor? - How do Ghosts fit into all this? They cannot be created against their will, but just kind of "happen." They can be of any alignment, but even Good ghosts are full of negative energy. - Why is channeling positive energy to turn or destroy a Good ghost considered a Good act?- Does any form of undeath (including the types that preserve the memories and personality of the living being) affect the person's actual soul from going into the afterlife? Does a person's soul chill out in paradise or burn in hell while their "imprint" runs around on Negative Energy fuel? Is a person's soul morally responsible for what it's "remnants" do as a Shadow or Wight or Vampire Spawn?- If the "imprint" has sentience and "value," why is it okay for it to be left behind in a rotting corpse to begin with?                                          The Metallian</blockquote>

Verification