Why is Animate Dead [Evil]?

[Voadam]

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.

Descriptors are mechanical. The [Evil] descriptor is different from an action that is considered morally evil in the D&D alignment system. [Evil] means it detects as evil in the detect evil spell, good clerics can not cast [Evil] spells, and Evil domain casters get +1 caster level. These are all mechanics and evil could be substituted with another word and work just as well.

Protection from Evil is a [Good] spell but an evil summoner will use it to protect himself when he summons demons or devils.

Casting [Evil] spells detects as evil, but there is no core rules reason to say casting and [Evil] spell is an evil action.

Reasons can be created by the individual DM for his campaign why casting an [Evil] spell is an evil action, but that would be creating individual house rules.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

Are you re-animating the dead to be nice to them and let them frolick about doing fun things or whatever they wish?

Probably not.

In most cultures messing with the dead in any fashion is considered to be not very nice. We tell them to rest in peace and then to disturb that rest , esp to get the dead to do what YOU wish them to do, is generally considered rather rude.

I'd imagine that's where the evil argument is coming from.

Even if you were getting the dead to fight against a villian , you're still disturbing them from their peace.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Thought I'd bring Ravenloft into the mix - specifically, VR's guide to the Walking Dead. (Good book - you go buy now!)

Bringing someone back from the dead at all is bad juju in Ravenloft - creating undead moreso.

But also attached to that is the idea that you're not just building a construct here. You're re-animating a life force - one with a degree of sentient awareness - and then forcing it to absolute obediance of your will. You're creating a "person", so to speak, with the intent that they obey only you and have no will of their own.

That would qualify as evil, yes?

 

[Darklone]

Hmm... as long as someone is undead, his soul can't hop around in paradise neither can he be raised.

That's not nice.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Plus if it was not evil you also have some social issues to deal with, such as who has rights to sell the body and use it, could the body be used to pay off debt? Could your family sell it to provide a services?

In a fantasy game a zombie could replace dock workers or perform simple task. Gives new meaning to the term scab.

 

[Anthron]

How is using mindless undead as "slaves" any different they enslaving vast numbers of a species for consumption, or for there byproducts? The vast majority of humans are cutting into the dead flesh of slave species on a daily basis.

Many people base there argument on how many cultures deem it taboo to deal with the dead, but that is typically human dead. There are entire industries involved with dealing with dead of other animals on our own world, how evil is it to be a taxidermist? Or if a person were to have the head of a dear or elk on there wall? Though I would never have one my self I would not conceder the person necessarily evil, not when I had a Hamburger for lunch.

I can see how making undead from a sentient creature would be veiwed as vile but how is using the bones of a cow to create a skeleton any different then using its skin to make leather armor?

 

[Aaron L]

I see nothing wrong with, say, the animated skeletons of the honored dead, cleaned, polished, and in gleaming armor, guarding a holy place or a graveyard. Or using the bodies of the dead to preserve the lives of the living by defending against monster attack.


Creating undead skeletons and zombies is no more evil than animating a chair with the Animate Objects spell. It is an arbitrary designation that has been removed in my campaign.

 

[Voadam]

Hmm... as long as someone is undead, his soul can't hop around in paradise neither can he be raised.

That's not nice.

You die your soul goes to Elysium or wherever, years later someone animates the bones to be a skeleton, does this rip you out of Elysium? What if you have been reincarnated into a new body?

animating dead is different than turning someone undead you only turn their body undead in animating..

Evil power animates the skeleton, not its original soul bound back into the bones, under core rules.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Descriptors are mechanical. The [Evil] descriptor is different from an action that is considered morally evil in the D&D alignment system. [Evil] means it detects as evil in the detect evil spell, good clerics can not cast [Evil] spells, and Evil domain casters get +1 caster level. These are all mechanics and evil could be substituted with another word and work just as well.

Last I checked, detect evil worked on people and could tell their moral character. If [evil] spells show up on the same chart then the rules don't support the division you're trying to make.

Protection from Evil is a [Good] spell but an evil summoner will use it to protect himself when he summons demons or devils.

And protecting one's family is generally considered to be a good act but it's a typical of the image of the mob boss who is an evil man. We generally consider being kind to animals a good quality and yet the fact that Hitler was, by all reports, a great animal lover is not thought to change the fact that he was an evil man.

Any campaign that deals in characters rather than cartoons will need to come to terms with the fact that evil people do good things all the time without ceasing to be evil and yet good people cannot do many evil things without ceasing to be good.

 

[Coik]

Well, first things first, this has been a good conversation and I'd be happy to continue it over email.

Cool. coik@yahoo.com

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.

Aye, that I can agree to. D&D attempts to posit an absolute moralistic universe, but stops short of any real definition or explanation. The result is, as you mention, vague defintions of good and evil that can be applied to just about anyone equally.

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).

Again, nothing I disagree with. I'll freely admit that, should some sort of definition be applied to D&D metaphysics instead of just having the quasi-generic system we have now, my position loses quite a bit of strength.

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. [/B]

I admit that my example was simplistic, but I believed it served to illustrate the point that you and I seem to agree on: alignment lacks clear definition, and this is a Bad Thing (tm) when the magic system attempts to divide things ethically and morally. And it really is a bit odd for D&D, which at times seems proud of its ability to micromange everything (I'm fond of referencing the list of English language adjectives and the game mechanics that go along with them in the DMG at this point ).

Of course, if they had included a strong definition for alignment, these arguments would probably be about a million times worse. Heh.

Originally posted by Savage Wombat
Thought I'd bring Ravenloft into the mix - specifically, VR's guide to the Walking Dead. (Good book - you go buy now!)

Bringing someone back from the dead at all is bad juju in Ravenloft - creating undead moreso.

But also attached to that is the idea that you're not just building a construct here. You're re-animating a life force - one with a degree of sentient awareness - and then forcing it to absolute obediance of your will. You're creating a "person", so to speak, with the intent that they obey only you and have no will of their own.

That would qualify as evil, yes?

I admit I haven't been keeping up with the new Ravenloft books...mostly due to lack of funds. However, the difference between Generic D&D(tm) and Ravenloft is that in the latter there are intelligent...eh...forces is the best word, really, setting rules of morality. The Dark Powers have absolute control over the demiplane, and if they want to say digging up Aunt Gertie, filling her with negative energy, and putting her to work down at the docks is evil...well, that's within their rights. No such force exists in Generic D&D(tm). (One could probably claim the gods, but they have no clear mandate to rule the multiverse the way the Dark Powers have over Ravenloft)