Why is Animate Dead [Evil]?

[Mark]

No souvenirs.

Good one, Vax!

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

One really has to wonder about the personal morality of a player who would argue that animating dead bodies isn't an evil act.

Let's not and say we didn't.

Casting aspersions on someone's moral character because they are trying to look at a GAME from a new angle is a whole laundry list of bad and will only lead down the road to bruised egos, hurt feelings and mod-lockdown.

 

[Horoku]

Originally posted by Hand of Evil --

Soap box please - Define evil in your games, list those things that are your (DM) view of evil. this builds your would myth and prevents "Why is..."

Basically, the way I handle that is with this system: On a sheet of paper for each PC, I have the following written across the top: Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. A lawful good character starts with Law and Good both at 100, and everything else at 50. A Lawful Neutral character starts with Law at 100 and everything else at 50. A Neutral character starts with everything at 50. And so on. Whenever a character commits an act that would not normally occur in their alignment, I add a point to that act's category and remove one from the opposite category. I.e., a character commits a chaotic act= chaos+1, law-1. A "morality value" cannot go higher than 100. It can be raised up to 100, or dropped to zero, by the character's actions. If at any given time a character's alignment begins to shift (something outside his alignment approaches 100 while something in his alignment approaches... not 100), I warn the player that their character is feeling confused and unsatisfied with his moral code.
As for good and evil, based on the alignment descriptions in the sourcebooks (circa Second Edition because I'm just that weird), I deduce that an evil act is any action that is performed for a purely selfish purpose, preferably at the cost of others' welfare. A good act is anything that helps others selflessly, or at least without screwing somebody else in the process. And of course it's all up to the DM, as these are very noncorporeal concepts.

So, going with my previous Dustmen example, I'd have to say that what they are doing is not necessarily good or evil, but rather lawful, being that they only do it to those who sign a contract in exchange for payment.
Other expamples could mean all sorts of things, though. Raising an army of the dead against their will for the purpose of ravaging the countryside is definitely evil, and perhaps also chaotic because these people most likely did nothing to you.

--------------------------------------------
Edit: Fixed the quote

 

[Coik]

Let's not and say we didn't.

Casting aspersions on someone's moral character because they are trying to look at a GAME from a new angle is a whole laundry list of bad and will only lead down the road to bruised egos, hurt feelings and mod-lockdown.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally don't mind if Vaxalon implies that about me. He wouldn't be the first to call me (or imply that I am) an amoral deviant, and probably won't be the last, either.

Originally posted by Kajamba Lion
I walked right into that one, didn't I?

Yes. Yes, you did.

Originally posted by Elder-Basilisk
Only the nature of naturalistic causality as we understand it in our world through the perspective of modern science. If you take a step back from the modern perspective and accept the realities of the D&D universe, there's no reason why the wizard wiggling his fingers, incanting certain words, and throwing a small ball of sulphur and bat guano could not be either the immediate or proximate cause of a fireball exploding.

You have a point there. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, too...

All right, let's take a step back. How are we defining "natural?" Natural as we would understand it, or natural as in the game world's reality? (And, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume we're talking about a quote unquote "standard" game here, since it's within reason that in some campaign worlds magic would still be considered unnatural)

Of course, it you want to take the anti-gods stance outlined above, you're left with only two choices: either believe in a kind of platonic disembodied "good" as the arbitrator of morality (as stance which is just as easy to mock and not much easier to defend) or say all morality is a fiction to begin with and settle down into comfortable existential nihilism. But if you take the latter option, then there's no point in discussing why, how, or on what basis animating dead could be evil so one might as well leave the discussion as champion that position.

Hmmm...well, if I had a dollar for every time someone *has* called me a nihilist...

Anyway, I think you're ignoring secular humanism as a valid basis for morality. To contiune Horoku's use of Planescape's factions, this sort of stance is common among the Athar, so it is possible for it to develop within the context of the game. Under such a system of thought, animating a corpse wouldn't be an evil act, since it does nothing to violate any human's (or elf's, dwarf's, whatever's) rights since, by defintion, a corpse isn't human. At best, it's an ex-human (cue Python fans), a mere cast off shell...whatever gave it its "humaness" is long gone, off ogling the valkryies in Odin's mead hall, dissolved into Oblivion, or whatever.

Right. The non-"prude" gods like Hextor, Nerull, and Erythnul are just happy to let everyone go about their lives as they see fit.

My previous examples of the prude gods should not be considered all-inclusive. I just listed two of the worst offenders. At least Hextor, for example, doesn't try to pull the "I'm meddling in your life for your own good" thing...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

All right, let's take a step back. How are we defining "natural?" Natural as we would understand it, or natural as in the game world's reality? (And, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume we're talking about a quote unquote "standard" game here, since it's within reason that in some campaign worlds magic would still be considered unnatural)

Discussing standard game worlds, I don't think there can be any question of discussing what's natural in our world. We're not playing the game in our world. We're playing in the game world's reality and any discussion of what's natural in the gameworld needs to come to terms with that.

Still, it's not an open and shut case for magic being natural. It depends heavily upon the model of magic--whether it is technological or spiritualistic (for lack of a better word). Upon consideration, the default D&D model seems to be a mixture of the two with the technological model predominant but the spiritualistic model entering for aligned] spells.

Hmmm...well, if I had a dollar for every time someone *has* called me a nihilist...

And here I thought I was leaving you an out with the Platonic option (which IMO is probably the most coherent option for morality in a polytheistic universe).

Anyway, I think you're ignoring secular humanism as a valid basis for morality.

Not really--since it cannot support an objective view of moral reality. As far as I understand it, a secular humanist basis for morality makes morality into another name for convention--the relevant phrase as seen below is "under such a system of thought, XYZ wouldn't be an evil act" but presumably under another system of thought it might be and both are correct (with reference to themselves) and neither are correct with reference to any outside objective reality.

At that point, to advocate any vision of morality--to say that the apparent justice of Cormyr is superior to the apparent cruelty of Thay or Zhentil Keep--is simply ethnocentrism. (Of course, there's not anything necessarily wrong with ethnocentrism either--which is why "secular humanist" philosophers like Richard Rorty advocate ethnocentrism (at least for nice liberal people)).

Such a "moral" system has difficulty distinguishing between compulsion and persuasion in other groups and can have no method for spreading other than compulsion (since there is no external ground upon which it can claim to be "better" for someone who doesn't already believe in it) and no method for resolving disputes with other subcultures other than force (direct or implied). In short, it is a recipe for tyranny of the worst kind (pretty much exactly what you denounce as the motive of the "prudish Greyhawk gods"*) whether or not it's original proponents are well intentioned (as I believe its leading lights such as Rorty to be).

Of course, any Cormyrian believer in the secular humanist based morality who would refuse to participate in such tyranny and avoid ethnocentrism would be acting in violation of his or her own moral beliefs. If they did not oppose the Zhentil Keeps and Thays of the world, they would be being complicit in the coercion, slavery, and cruelty of those systems. So, refusing to participate in the tyranny of good intentions would be complicity in the tyranny of bad intentions. Thus, a secular humanist based morality could not even fulfill the most basic function of morality--that of being a guide to action and praise or blameworthiness (for as we have seen, all truly significant actions would be wrong and blameworthy).

*I use the word tyranny here because I believe--as I suspect you also do--that to enforce a code of belief or action upon other people would be tyranny. . . unless (and this is the important exception that separates our view of the Greyhawk Gods) that view is actually right and [Good].

To contiune Horoku's use of Planescape's factions, this sort of stance is common among the Athar, so it is possible for it to develop within the context of the game. Under such a system of thought, animating a corpse wouldn't be an evil act, since it does nothing to violate any human's (or elf's, dwarf's, whatever's) rights since, by defintion, a corpse isn't human. At best, it's an ex-human (cue Python fans), a mere cast off shell...whatever gave it its "humaness" is long gone, off ogling the valkryies in Odin's mead hall, dissolved into Oblivion, or whatever.

It's quite possible to imagine that, under such a system, people might think that humans (or whatevers) don't really have any inalienable rights so it doesn't matter whether or not the corpse is a shell and consequently animating dead is not an evil act. (Of course, not much else would be either).

 

[Coik]

Discussing standard game worlds, I don't think there can be any question of discussing what's natural in our world. We're not playing the game in our world. We're playing in the game world's reality and any discussion of what's natural in the gameworld needs to come to terms with that.

Ehh...I disagree, if for no other reason than the game does make the distinction between "animals" and "beasts." Though I hear that's going bye-bye come next month.

And here I thought I was leaving you an out with the Platonic option (which IMO is probably the most coherent option for morality in a polytheistic universe).

I should clarify...I'm not saying that I *am* a nilihist, just that I get called one quite a bit...mostly, it seems, because a lot of people seem to equate cynicism with it.

Not really--since it cannot support an objective view of moral reality. As far as I understand it, a secular humanist basis for morality makes morality into another name for convention--the relevant phrase as seen below is "under such a system of thought, XYZ wouldn't be an evil act" but presumably under another system of thought it might be and both are correct (with reference to themselves) and neither are correct with reference to any outside objective reality.

No, no, no...I'm not talking about relativism. Perhaps "secular humanism" wasn't the best thing to call it...it's entirely possible that I misused the term, since most of my philosophical background is in epistemology and politcal theory, not ethics. What I was getting at was a moralistc model based on concern for (demi)human welfare in the currant world. Ya'know, the kinda stuff that Locke was talking about (which Jefferson later borrowed/stole for his most famous work). It's not really convention to say "stabbing people is wrong" (asrising out of peoples' desire to not be murdered) because it can be demonstrably proven that such an act directly harms that person.

But I think I see what you're saying...it's insanely difficult to say "There is no aboslute, objective moral code" (as D&D presumes with its alignment system) and not fall into relativism.

Back to the subject at hand, then, let's simplfy this a little by dropping any rejection of the D&D moral absolutism and look at this from within it. Since that's what the argument seems to be boiling down to, it seems like an unnecessary tangent to go off on alternative models... (which I'm pretty guilty of, I'll admit) [Though, E-B, just let me know if you want contiune this discussion]

Going by page 88 of the Player's Handbook, D&D defines evil as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Very succinct. Animate Dead, I feel, doesn't fit any of these criteria.

First of all, hurting. Obviously, since the body in question is dead, its nerves have shut down, so there is no physical pain. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that the soul that once inhabited the body is bound to it in any way, or is even aware of what is happening to its corpse. If that were the case, I don't think it'd be something they'd neglect to mention in the spell description, particularly given the rules about "willingness to return from the dead" in 3e.

Secondly, opression. Again, there is nothing to suggest any opression of the soul is occuring. The body, on the other hand, is a thing. I doubt that even Dennis the Peasent from Monty Python's Holy Grail could come up with a way you could opress a thing.

And obviously, nothing is being killed by the animate dead spell.

So it would seem that, despite being labeled an Evil spell, animate dead fails D&D's acid test for evil.

 

[ph34r]

Like duh, it's so like in the book that animating undead is like....EVIL!

 

[LGodamus]

I think the evil descriptor is there for divine casters..so you know whether or not Pelor wants to give you a whoopin if you ask him to grant it to you...

 

[DWARF]

Dissecting bodies (or even just touching them) is still a touchy issue. It takes an emotionally strong and stable individual to actually go around touching, cutting open and feeling around dead bodies. While most of us get disgusted by the sight of a corpse, your typical forensic examiner can actually eat a healthy lunch

And those individuals who do take on professions that deal with death are generally considered pariahs at some level. I mean, you can hardly kill a conversation more quickly then by opening up and saying "I'm a forensic examiner" unless the people you're conversing with are either in a similar profession, or have some fascination with the field.

Oh good, so I'm going to be a pariah for playing DnD, and then for dealing with dead bodies....

Thanks man...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

No, no, no...I'm not talking about relativism. Perhaps "secular humanism" wasn't the best thing to call it...it's entirely possible that I misused the term, since most of my philosophical background is in epistemology and politcal theory, not ethics. What I was getting at was a moralistc model based on concern for (demi)human welfare in the currant world. Ya'know, the kinda stuff that Locke was talking about (which Jefferson later borrowed/stole for his most famous work). It's not really convention to say "stabbing people is wrong" (asrising out of peoples' desire to not be murdered) because it can be demonstrably proven that such an act directly harms that person.

But I think I see what you're saying...it's insanely difficult to say "There is no aboslute, objective moral code" (as D&D presumes with its alignment system) and not fall into relativism.

Well, first things first, this has been a good conversation and I'd be happy to continue it over email. (One of the things I've loved about ENWorld it's a place where one can sometimes have philosophical discussions without them being moderated out of existence or degenerating into flamewars). It sounds to me like what you're looking for is a brand of ethical objectivism that is neither absolutist nor relativistic. (And I agree, it's rather difficult to come up with such a system although it may be possible if you posit a shared human nature.

Back to the subject at hand, then, let's simplfy this a little by dropping any rejection of the D&D moral absolutism and look at this from within it. Since that's what the argument seems to be boiling down to, it seems like an unnecessary tangent to go off on alternative models... (which I'm pretty guilty of, I'll admit) [Though, E-B, just let me know if you want contiune this discussion]

Going by page 88 of the Player's Handbook, D&D defines evil as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Very succinct. Animate Dead, I feel, doesn't fit any of these criteria.

First of all, hurting. Obviously, since the body in question is dead, its nerves have shut down, so there is no physical pain. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that the soul that once inhabited the body is bound to it in any way, or is even aware of what is happening to its corpse. If that were the case, I don't think it'd be something they'd neglect to mention in the spell description, particularly given the rules about "willingness to return from the dead" in 3e.

Secondly, opression. Again, there is nothing to suggest any opression of the soul is occuring. The body, on the other hand, is a thing. I doubt that even Dennis the Peasent from Monty Python's Holy Grail could come up with a way you could opress a thing.

And obviously, nothing is being killed by the animate dead spell.

So it would seem that, despite being labeled an Evil spell, animate dead fails D&D's acid test for evil.

I would say rather that the example of Animate Dead demonstrates that D&D's description of its presumed ethical system is somewhat confused (or at least open to misinterpretation--your above "acid test for evil" could label paladins as evil (since their main business is often killing evil creatures and people) if it were taken as a comprehensive statement about the nature of evil) and that the handbooks don't adequately communicate the underlying metaphysics of D&D's magic system.

The assertion that Animate Dead is [evil] can be rescued if one presumes either a metaphysical system in which the casting of Animate Dead somehow damages or binds the soul (one possible explanation for why a person whose body has been animated cannot be Raised but must be Resurrected). It would also potentially be rescued by a model of magic which is not entirely technological but required the invocation (and consequent strengthening or increased influence) ol evil powers. It can also be rescued by expanding and slightly revising the D&D ethical system to incorporate an assumption of a "natural" order that is violated by [evil] acts. (And I think that some expansion/revision of the D&D ethical system is necessary for its in game application no matter what).

If one interprets the alignment descriptions as giving the whole story about the D&D ethic, then some expansions of that system will contradict other ethical assertions (such as the [good] or [evil] descriptors) of the rulebooks. Those expansions are not the only ways to understand the D&D alignment system, however, nor are they the way that allows the most consistency to the ethical assertions of the rulebooks.