PDA

View Full Version : The Ethics of Undeath: The Undead and Alignment



Falconer
2010-01-21, 07:30 PM
The Ethics of Undeath: Thoughts on the Undead and Alignment

Go, forth, my undying minions! Save the children!

The necromancy school has always been a source of confusion for players and DMs alike. Why is raising a zombie evil? Couldn't you use undead to create a labor-free society? Isn't that good? Can liches become good? If negative energy is a natural force, what's so bad about it? Even the folks at Wizards have never seemed to be able to come to a decision. One second using negative energy is no different than magic missile or fireball, the next it's a sin against creation itself.

And if they won't provide answers, we'll make our own.

So now for the rules: for the purposes of this thread, we're (mostly) going to be going by the book. That is, RAW. Zombies, vampires, liches, and indeed most undead are of the Evil alignment. Creating undead, unless is says otherwise in the books, is an Evil act. The primary purpose of this thread is to think of reasons why the Undead are universally evil (or at least nearly so) rather than say "it's stupid, just ignore it."

And, rather unfortunately, I do not own and have not read Libris Mortis: The Book of Un-Latin. So my primary source is going to be the SRD.

I hope you enjoy reading as much as I did writing. And now, to business:

The Zombie Horse Goes Before the Necromancy Cart

The nature of Undeath, like the nature of death itself, varies greatly from setting to setting, depending on cosmology. Some setting have only the Prime Material, others have maybe one or two other planes, but most have the whole gamut of them, and perhaps even more than that. And as the laws of the Multiverse tend to be pretty helpful when figuring out that pesky "morality", we'll figure out the exact nature of the Negative Energy Plane, before moving onto necromancy and individual types of undead and such. Unfortunately, we can't much rely on the SRD on this one. Wizards constantly contradicts itself, and you'll get different answers depending on who's talking. Therefore, we'll consider both options:

First, the Negative Energy Plane as an Eeeevil force, as has been suggested. This requires it to be sapient; by the rules, creatures with an intellect of 2 or less have no understanding of morality or ethics and cannot be labeled anything but Neutral, with certain exceptions. Again, for simplicity's sake, we'll assume that the NE Plane is not one of those exceptions. It's Evil, and it's capable of seeing and acknowledging that it's evil. As it is the Plane of Elemental Destruction, that means you have a plane-sized, arguably deific entity that really, really wants to kill everything in existence. A Devourer. Of course, for whatever reason, it can't directly just collide with the Prime Material and start annihilating continents (or maybe it can. Can you say Epic-Level Encounter?). And so it must take a more…subtle route. It must act through agents and ignorant dupes, so that it might devour the Prime Material and other planes from the inside, bit by bit. In areas where the wall between planes is weak, Negative Energy can bleed through and manifest as "naturally occurring" undead. In the end, every zombie animated, every Inflict Wounds spell cast, every vampire or wight that spawns is merely a piece in a far greater, more sinister game. Free-willed undead? That's what they think. A lich may laugh at the idea of having a master, but far down in the depths of his negative-energy powered subconscious, it's the Devourer that's thinking his thoughts for him. Every plan he makes, every kingdom he destroys is merely part of The Plane's aeon-spanning plan. And someday, legions of the unliving shall perform a blasphemous ritual, which will finally break down the barrier between the planes.

And the Devourer shall feed.
Omigosh, that was fun to write.
Next, we can suppose that the Negative Energy Plane is merely a cosmic necessity: everything begins, and everything ends. Not nearly as theatrical, but still worth considering. The Positive Energy Plane is the source of creation energy-that is, the energy that causes things to start being. It doesn't require a spellcaster to have an effect on the Prime Material. It's effects are felt merely because it exists. It is what allows for any sort of creation: a child being conceived, a castle being built, a kingdom being founded. The Negative Energy Plane, as its equal and opposite, is the source of all destruction energy. While the Positive Energy plane is what allows things to begin, the Negative Energy Plane is what causes them to end. Death, destruction, etc. Either one missing would cause utter stasis. Even moving would be impossible-for you to move, you have to end your previous position, and start a new one. Thinking wouldn't happen either. Nothing would. Literally, Nothing would happen. Existence wouldn't end, because you'd need the Negative Energy Plane for that. But it couldn't continue, either, because that needs the Positive Energy Plane. So you have, in a very literal sense, Nothing.

While I hope the first possibility makes the whole "Undead=EEEEVIL" thing self-explanatory, the second, while I hope its interesting, begs the question: how does that make the undead Evil?
-----------------------------------------
To be continued, of course. I'm just starting out with the Undead as a sort of cosmic evil before moving on to the particulars. Feel free to give criticism, thoughts, etc.

elonin
2010-01-21, 07:47 PM
I'll have to disagree with your basic premise. AFAIK neither of the positive or negative planes have alignment descriptors. Undead being evil is secondary just like many necromancy spells. I wish that the game were more cohesive but that isn't so. Sorry if I missed your point.

Falconer
2010-01-21, 07:50 PM
I'll have to disagree with your basic premise. AFAIK neither of the positive or negative planes have alignment descriptors. Undead being evil is secondary just like many necromancy spells. I wish that the game were more cohesive but that isn't so. Sorry if I missed your point.

I'm not so much saying "this is how it has to be because the RULES SAY SO!" so much as "fine, the rules are inconsistent. Let's see if we can think of ways to make them work." It's more a though experiment than a way I'd actually play D&D, though I suppose I should have clarified that.:smallredface::

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 07:54 PM
I'd say that your Devourer idea makes for an interesting campaign arc, but I'd prefer the second option, generally due to my love of Yin-Yang powers. My custom fantasy world is pretty much built around the concept.

olentu
2010-01-21, 07:56 PM
I'm not so much saying "this is how it has to be because the RULES SAY SO!" so much as "fine, the rules are inconsistent. Let's see if we can think of ways to make them work." It's more a though experiment than a way I'd actually play D&D, though I suppose I should have clarified that.:smallredface::

Well the lack of alignment descriptors on the planes would make assigning any alignment tendency to either energy somewhat inconsistent.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 07:58 PM
Negative energy is the source of all Necromancy. Necromancy is evil. Being killed by the Negative Energy Plane turns you into a Wraith. Wraiths are evil. Negative energy is the source of inflict spells. Inflict spells are Necromantic. Necromancy is evil.

Negative energy may not be evil, but pretty much everything you can do with it is.

Falconer
2010-01-21, 08:02 PM
Well the lack of alignment descriptors on the planes would make assigning any alignment tendency to either energy somewhat inconsistent.

That's exactly why it's merely one possibility that's being considered. If you'll kindly look at the bottom, there's more to come. The NE Plane being evil answers the whole premise right away, and there's not much point in continuing. But since I'm going to continue, I'm going to write with the assumption the NE Plane isn't evil, however interesting it would be if it were. But again, I suppose I should have clarified that in the beginning. Mea culpa.

Sergeantbrother
2010-01-21, 08:04 PM
I like the Devourer idea a lot, I like that it ties in cosmology with the nature of magic.

I have had similar thoughts about why Necromancy is evil. One of my thoughts was why Necromancy even works in the first place. Why can Necromancy animate a dead corpse, but it can't animate a statue? Both are non-living material being animated by magic, what makes the corpse special regarding Necromancy?

Well, my theory is that Necromancy is largely based around not only dead flesh and destruction about also spirits and the soul. This is why Necromancy can steal someone's soul, drain their life force, or allow you to speak to the dead. That being the case, I think its appropriate to say (in my own D&D world, I know its not canon) that animating a zombie or other undead creature traps the soul of the dead person in that body and uses the power of that soul as the animating energy force. For unintelligent undead, the spirit is in such a fog of pain and confusion that it essentially can't think in any meaningful way aside from obeying the orders which magically compel it.

If this is the case, and animating any a zombie or skeleton brings the spirit into the rotting corpse to suffer horrible agonies as its trapped in that body and denied an afterlife, then any act which animates a body is an act of extreme evil.

Jacob Orlove
2010-01-21, 08:04 PM
Have you read the Tome of Necromancy (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248)? The first section deals with the morality of Negative Energy.

Gensh
2010-01-21, 08:08 PM
...neither of the positive or negative planes have alignment descriptors...

While true, fiends of all alignments are apparently powered by positive energy, just like us squishies. That would make the Devourer-concept NEP some sort of cosmic evil, something beyond ordinary morality, a beast that simply desires to consume, as opposed to the fiends who want to rule.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 08:08 PM
Well a problem with the idea of the "necromancy involves trapping the soul," at least with unintelligent undead, doesn't really work when you consider that I'm pretty sure that you can resurrect a person whose body has been reanimated as a zombie, and the zombie will remain functional.

My idea is that a corpse works for reanimation because it USED to house a soul. Therefore, the faux-soul created by negative energy to reanimate this body and operate it can enter the body, where it couldn't for a golem, which never had a soul to begin with.

This is why Necromentals also work; though they're not organic, they had souls and as such the gap where the soul used to be can be used to house a negative energy faux-soul.

Falconer
2010-01-21, 08:10 PM
Have you read the Tome of Necromancy (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248)? The first section deals with the morality of Negative Energy.

Not until just now. The difference is in premise: I'm saying that the MM version of undead can work, it just takes some work justifying it. And so, I'm looking at different ways of doing so.

olentu
2010-01-21, 08:10 PM
That's exactly why it's merely one possibility that's being considered. If you'll kindly look at the bottom, there's more to come. The NE Plane being evil answers the whole premise right away, and there's not much point in continuing. But since I'm going to continue, I'm going to write with the assumption the NE Plane isn't evil, however interesting it would be if it were. But again, I suppose I should have clarified that in the beginning. Mea culpa.

I am saying that the neutral evil plane does not in my opinion reasonably answer the premise as one ends up with a plane with an evil alignment that is not evil aligned.

CDR_Doom
2010-01-21, 08:18 PM
While the Positive Energy plane is what allows things to begin, the Negative Energy Plane is what causes them to end.

If this is so, then using Negative Energy to create strikes me as a use other than it's cosmically intended purpose. Maybe that's where the evil comes in; subverting the cosmic order to create abominations seems like it might be an affront to the good-aligned deities.

Justin B.
2010-01-21, 08:44 PM
I love the idea of Negative Energy as the ultimate force of destruction, that wants to undo all things. That might be ganked.

However, also consider that the Undead are generally assumed to want to feed on the flesh of the living, so my thoughts are this:

1. Undead can only be created from the deceased. This is a disrespectful use of their material form that you have infused with a false semebelence of life for your own purposes.

2. Due to the nature of magic, this disrespect for the dignity of life for your own personal gain plants a seed of evil within the undead, whether you intentionally did so or not.

3. This evil, like most evil, can be used for good, but is not preferable to other, less evil ways of achieving ends. Hiring a band of plucky, low level adventurers to save the orphans doesn't cause any creatures mortal shell to be disrespected, and the effect is the same.

But, to be fair, evil is still a relative term. This requires that you revere the housing of the soul, or the body.

Sentient Undead applies the same concept, but easier, since most of them have a choice whether or not to become undead, and most choose to do so for the power. The magic is tainted by your choice, therefore so is the body and thought that comes of it, making all sentient undead evil.

elonin
2010-01-21, 08:51 PM
While true, fiends of all alignments are apparently powered by positive energy, just like us squishies. That would make the Devourer-concept NEP some sort of cosmic evil, something beyond ordinary morality, a beast that simply desires to consume, as opposed to the fiends who want to rule.


I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Us squishies as you called us, fiends, etc come in all different outlooks being powered by positive energy. That undead are powered by negative energy is a coincidence. I know that the OP was asking for core but there are setting/core undead that are powered by positive energy. There are also necromancy spells that do not have the evil descriptor. BTW maybe the question should be about alignment in general, because I could certainly use a good descriptor spell for evil purpose and evil descriptor spells for "good" purpose.

That being said I do like the idea of an evil negative plane and good positive plane.

olentu
2010-01-21, 08:59 PM
Sentient Undead applies the same concept, but easier, since most of them have a choice whether or not to become undead, and most choose to do so for the power. The magic is tainted by your choice, therefore so is the body and thought that comes of it, making all sentient undead evil.

Actually I believe several sentient undead are just created when things happen rather then being a choice. Such as, not counting the spells, specters, vampires, wights, and wraiths.


Also there are the, not counting the exceptions inherent in an always alignment, non evil sentient undead being mummies and ghosts.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 09:01 PM
BTW maybe the question should be about alignment in general, because I could certainly use a good descriptor spell for evil purpose and evil descriptor spells for "good" purpose.

This is exactly why alignment being used as a metaphysical force of nature is silly. I usually solve it by saying that the so-called "good" and "evil" energies exist, but their labels are given by mortals. (For example, Gruumsh is the enemy of Corellon Larethian. Since most campaigns take place in a world where most people like Corellon Larethian, s/he (can't remember) is considered "good." Conversely, Gruumsh is considered "evil." And so any energies drawn from Corellon Larethian are labeled "good," while any energies drawn from Gruumsh are labeled "evil."

They're considered evil by association, not because they're in-and-of-themselves evil.

Claudius Maximus
2010-01-21, 09:04 PM
Well a problem with the idea of the "necromancy involves trapping the soul," at least with unintelligent undead, doesn't really work when you consider that I'm pretty sure that you can resurrect a person whose body has been reanimated as a zombie, and the zombie will remain functional.

You actually can not bring someone back from the dead if their body has become an undead creature. Even True Resurrection requires that such a creature be destroyed before it can work. There may be some legitimacy to the claim that undead trap at least part of the original creature's soul.

Beelzebub1111
2010-01-21, 09:06 PM
Well you see, long ago there was a demilich named Acerak. An evil creature who sought to transfer his consciousness into every undead creature in the multiverse. He succeeded in doing so, yet his mind was spread so thin that only a shadow of his influence (his alignment) remained in the undead.

The Deej
2010-01-21, 09:11 PM
I've come up with a theory of life/unlife for a homebrew setting that's kinda like living beings have a 'life force' that consists of positive energy, which eventually runs out, then they die. The creation of undead involves the violation of dead bodies by fueling them with negative energy in a mirror of the positive energy that they used to have. Creation of incorporeal undead is simmilar, but with their souls/essence/whatever. It's like putting the batteries in a device backwards, after changing it slightly to work that way.

The reason why this would be evil is because it is an intentional violation of the natural order and a desecration of the body of the deceased. According to the PHB: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others". Violating a body and subverting it to your will kinda fits with with the 'hurting' and 'opressing' items. Constructs are different, because those are akin to building a machine, then animating it. Undead used to be people. Reanimating them is akin to disrespect for the sanctity of life (and death, sorta).

My 2cp.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-21, 09:16 PM
You actually can not bring someone back from the dead if their body has become an undead creature. Even True Resurrection requires that such a creature be destroyed before it can work. There may be some legitimacy to the claim that undead trap at least part of the original creature's soul.
Which, you know, would explain why the spells that create undead are [Evil] - you're ripping someone away from their eternal reward, imprisoning them in a prison of rotting flesh, and either having them sit and watch while their body does your bidding(in the case of controlled undead) or having them sit and watch as a malevolent entity does it's dirty work with their corpse (in the case of uncontrolled undead - I'm quite satisfied (happy isn't the right word...) with mindful undead being controlled by infernal/fiendish spirits drawn in for the purpose).

It would also explain why only some necromancy spells have the Evil descriptor - Waves of Exhaustion, while Necromancy, isn't evil - and others do (perhaps Deathwatch, while seemingly-innocuous, acts as a Summoning spell, bringing up an unclean spirit to do the dirty work of telling you who's likely to die first).

Of course, you'll also need to figure out why Summoning spells gain alignment descriptors - perhaps the Summon isn't forcibly removed, but somehow "paid" by the spell, strengthening that faction?

Now, granted, there are a handful of ways around the "no resurrection" restriction (Clone, and getting a Clone by way of Wish, specifically), but they're few and far between (and in the case of Clone, it could be argued that the clone ends up with it's own soul, and it's just the spell creating it that keeps it from waking while the original yet lives...).

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 09:22 PM
Admittedly no matter what I spit out during this discussion is going to be a weak arguement, since I personally don't believe necromancy is evil. Can you do evil stuff with it? Yes. But animating a corpse isn't evil. Making an intelligent undead without free will probably would be, though.

Even outside of DnD, when I make use of the undead in my own universe, the souls of the dead used for necromancy are completely insane and have no free will, since they're locked in their own mind in an unceasing nightmare. If a soul somehow got its sanity back, it wouldn't be useable as a power source for the undead. So it's not evil becasue a) the body isn't being used for anything, and offending people isn't evil, and b) the soul is so screwed up it won't even notice it's being used as a puppet. And if it ever does notice, that automatically cuts the strings.

So at least using that system, it literally becomes impossible for necromancy by itself to be evil. Now, the obtaination of the body and what you do with it afterwards are entirely different matters.

The biggest problem is that the entire system is locked in by WotC's arbitrary biases.

elonin
2010-01-21, 09:28 PM
Doesn't it follow that it's cause the body is still in use. Otherwise the then raised person would have memory of the time spent undead. Or at the least hold some personality traits of the fallen victim.

Lysander
2010-01-21, 09:31 PM
I do like the idea of a sentient plane, and undead as its agents. That'd be a great plot hook.

Here's my personal theory on why undeath is inherently evil.

Creating undead is evil because the undead are themselves evil. You're creating a creature that instinctively opposes life. Yeah, a necromancer can control them and use them for productive possibly even benevolent purposes. But it's basically the same as building an army of human-hating killbots and hoping their programming doesn't malfunction. It's also sort of, in a way, an ecological issue. Imagine a necromancer that runs a successful gold mine for several years with skeleton miners. Eventually the mine runs out of gold and necromancer leaves, or maybe he just dies of old age, and guess what's left behind. Uncontrolled skeletons that forever roam the land attacking travelers until they're destroyed.

The other side of it is that manipulating flesh and spiritual energy (if not the souls of specific people) that way is pretty ghastly. People assume that mindless undead are machines and don't deserve any sympathy. They're more like lobotomy patients trapped in hideous rotting forms. They may not think much but they see, they feel, they have enough of a sense of self to have 1 Charisma. It may be minimal personality, but there's something there, some spark that you have trapped and enslaved in eternal horror.

Now is the negative energy plane and negative energy itself evil? While I like your sentient version I think the standard DnD system is more an issue of yin & yang. Undead aren't something that was meant to exist. You're bringing an unnatural monster into being on a plane that was created for living creatures. Remember that death itself isn't evil - in DnD death is moving on to your deserved afterlife and progressing on a spiritual journey.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-21, 09:35 PM
1. Undead can only be created from the deceased. This is a disrespectful use of their material form that you have infused with a false semebelence of life for your own purposes.
While it isn't particularly praiseworthy. I wouldn't particularly lose my balls over it.

A more reasonable tack is to say that it causes emotional distress to loved ones. However, not every corpse has loved ones. Or if it does, the "good races" don't care. If your orcs and trolls are basically pure evil, making zombies out of them isn't necessarily going to get anybody's panties in a bunch.


2. Due to the nature of magic, this disrespect for the dignity of life for your own personal gain plants a seed of evil within the undead, whether you intentionally did so or not.
Okay. It's disrespectful and about personal gain.

So it's about as evil as capitalism sometimes is. Or about as evil as your average two-bit shyster. Hardly a grand cosmic evil.


3. This evil, like most evil, can be used for good, but is not preferable to other, less evil ways of achieving ends. Hiring a band of plucky, low level adventurers to save the orphans doesn't cause any creatures mortal shell to be disrespected, and the effect is the same.
You'd have a point if I didn't use orc skeletons or something.

In which case, the whole "the ends does not justifies the means" thing falls apart.


But, to be fair, evil is still a relative term. This requires that you revere the housing of the soul, or the body.
Meh. D&D only used to have "chaos" and "law" as alignments.


Sentient Undead applies the same concept, but easier, since most of them have a choice whether or not to become undead, and most choose to do so for the power. The magic is tainted by your choice, therefore so is the body and thought that comes of it, making all sentient undead evil.
The interesting thing is a game ran by DM I read about pretty much had a lich who didn't believe in an afterlife or gods. And this was a setting where the gods' existence is ambiguous.

From this lich's perspective, undeath is far preferable to oblivion. With undeath, he can at least study and think.

olentu
2010-01-21, 09:41 PM
Which, you know, would explain why the spells that create undead are [Evil] - you're ripping someone away from their eternal reward, imprisoning them in a prison of rotting flesh, and either having them sit and watch while their body does your bidding(in the case of controlled undead) or having them sit and watch as a malevolent entity does it's dirty work with their corpse (in the case of uncontrolled undead - I'm quite satisfied (happy isn't the right word...) with mindful undead being controlled by infernal/fiendish spirits drawn in for the purpose).

It would also explain why only some necromancy spells have the Evil descriptor - Waves of Exhaustion, while Necromancy, isn't evil - and others do (perhaps Deathwatch, while seemingly-innocuous, acts as a Summoning spell, bringing up an unclean spirit to do the dirty work of telling you who's likely to die first).

Of course, you'll also need to figure out why Summoning spells gain alignment descriptors - perhaps the Summon isn't forcibly removed, but somehow "paid" by the spell, strengthening that faction?

Now, granted, there are a handful of ways around the "no resurrection" restriction (Clone, and getting a Clone by way of Wish, specifically), but they're few and far between (and in the case of Clone, it could be argued that the clone ends up with it's own soul, and it's just the spell creating it that keeps it from waking while the original yet lives...).

Well a problem I see is that the spell would retain the evil descriptor even if animating a corpse for which a soul does not exist.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-21, 09:50 PM
Really, another reasonable why necromancy would be evil is because using the magic in the first place involves vile premeditated acts. These acts would include deliberately bargaining with cosmic forces of Evil (demons/devils), human blood sacrifice, drinking the life energy of innocents, possessing their bodies or creating monsters that exist to prey upon the living.

In D&D, creating zombie just requires the desecration of a corpse. Maybe. It's kind of vaguely sort of evil.

Bibliomancer
2010-01-21, 09:50 PM
Well a problem I see is that the spell would retain the evil descriptor even if animating a corpse for which a soul does not exist.

Such as?

In DnD there are few or no ways to destroy souls (soul binding merely traps it, and has the evil descriptor). Hypothetically, you can use the stone to flesh spell on normal stone to create a lump of soulless flesh, but since it has no structure it could not be converted into a normal undead (even if you cast this on a human-shaped statue).

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 09:52 PM
Such as?

In DnD there are few or no ways to destroy souls (soul binding merely traps it, and has the evil descriptor). Hypothetically, you can use the stone to flesh spell on normal stone to create a lump of soulless flesh, but since it has no structure it could not be converted into a normal undead (even if you cast this on a human-shaped statue).

Sphere of Anhialtion, Necrotic Termination, just to name two off the top of my head.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-21, 10:11 PM
Well a problem I see is that the spell would retain the evil descriptor even if animating a corpse for which a soul does not exist.
Exactly as they are written, the rules as they exist are not sufficiently consistent to make any "why" argument on alignment descriptors perfect.

The creation of undead trapping the soul of the deceased in a prison of rotting flesh? Covers most situations, and covers the descriptor quite nicely. While it is possible to get both the corpse and the "soul unavailable" state (kill someone, cut off a finger, resurrect them from the finger, and the original corpse remains), and exactly as written, that does not prevent you animating the body, such occurrences are remarkably rare unless deliberately manufactured.

Would you agree that the "trapped soul" explanation for the evil descriptor on undead-creation spells covers 95% or better of the RAW cases on death and returning from it?

olentu
2010-01-21, 10:14 PM
Such as?

In DnD there are few or no ways to destroy souls (soul binding merely traps it, and has the evil descriptor). Hypothetically, you can use the stone to flesh spell on normal stone to create a lump of soulless flesh, but since it has no structure it could not be converted into a normal undead (even if you cast this on a human-shaped statue).

Use it in crafting or as a spell component also work. Also casting stone to flesh on a statue is said to create a corpse as a specific example in the spell description.


Edit: The trapped soul version could reasonably cover many if not a majority of situations and perhaps that was what was being thought of when undead were being updated.

However it does not cover them all and therein lies the problem.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-21, 10:22 PM
Edit: The trapped soul version could reasonably cover many if not a majority of situations and perhaps that was what was being thought of when undead were being updated.

However it does not cover them all and therein lies the problem.
1) Is there a theory with a better fit?
2) Do you disagree with my statement of "Exactly as they are written, the rules as they exist are not sufficiently consistent to make any 'why' argument on alignment descriptors perfect."

olentu
2010-01-21, 10:27 PM
1) Is there a theory with a better fit?
2) Do you disagree with my statement of "Exactly as they are written, the rules as they exist are not sufficiently consistent to make any 'why' argument on alignment descriptors perfect."

1) The theory that alignment is arbitrary and so the spell arbitrarily has the descriptor due to the natural processes of creation, will of the overdiety, or some such.

2) It depends on what one means as perfect. The above theory does cover all cases but it somewhat of a let down as it is arbitrary and said fact may make it less then perfect for some.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-21, 10:30 PM
such occurrences are remarkably rare unless deliberately manufactured.

No more rare, I'd say, than the animation of a body that was never linked to a soul. I can see it happening in a non-contrived fashion.

Lamech
2010-01-21, 11:24 PM
I don't know why the alignment descriptors are in anyway linked to good or evil acts. I would assume that they are spells that just run on "evil", and that while bad for the environment, and bystanders, not necessarily an evil act.
On the undead specifically, my impression was that making zombies was bad for the same reason making plutonium golems is bad for; they are bad for living things. Zombies pump out undeath into the world which is bad thing.

I mean I hardly think that kidnapping and enslaving celestial monkeys is good.

Aquillion
2010-01-21, 11:34 PM
My understanding is that negative energy is actively harmful. And, similarly, a zombie raised by negative energy is actively harmful -- while mindless, if you leave it to its own devices with no controls on it, it will kill people.

This is not, though, incompatible with the view that negative energy is like radioactive materials -- dangerous, but just a tool. Remember that the Evil keyword on a spell doesn't mean your alignment instantly switches to evil when you cast it. If you cast it repeatedly, sure, you probably switch to evil, but that's like saying that someone who uses atomic bombs in every fight is probably evil -- it's a generalization, and maybe not always true, but it's close enough for a general rule.

For Clerics, gods don't grant spells that oppose their alignment, but that is a religious thing, not necessarily a universal-morality thing. The good gods demand a higher standard than simply throwing atomic bombs at everything with no regard for fallout -- or, at least, they're not going to hand out atomic bombs themselves.

Similarly, if you are Exalted, you're not allowed to compromise -- a wizard, even a good one, can say "all right, I have to use an atomic bomb this time, for the greater good." An Exalted character can't -- they're required to find a third option (and part of the premise of the restrictions on Exalted characters is that another option always exists.)

So the answer is, yes, negative energy is 'evil' in that it's always harmful, but you also have to be careful not to oversell what the evil keyword on spells means.

Zaydos
2010-01-21, 11:48 PM
In game how does a body that never had a soul arise? I think the Clone spell can do it, but any other ways?

I have to agree with Jack Smith that I think part of the intended reason creating an undead creature is normally evil is that as intended it traps the soul; or at least that's how I've read it since I started 3.X oh so many years ago (8?).

Libris Mortis says that undead create a little conduit to the negative energy plane which is destructive to all life and yeah the above plutonium reference sounds good there.

Conversely 2e's The Complete Necromancers' Handbook said animate dead was not intrinsically an evil act, only one a good aligned character would not normally perform. If you were not using it to kill/harm/pillage etc but only animating skeletons to carry loot or similar was merely gray or neutral aligned necromancy which could be cause for a powers check if used for evil (conversely white necromancy never caused one out of Ravenloft).

ApatheticDespot
2010-01-21, 11:58 PM
Trying to argue that negative energy being evil implies that undead must be evil is a mistake. If you can make the argument that negative energy is evil then you can just as easily make the argument that positive energy is good, and by the same reasoning that goes from negative energy to evil undead you can show just as strongly that positive energy powered creatures must be good. The problem is that, logically speaking, ~b -> ~(a -> b) v ~a, and so the fact that there are positive energy creatures which are evil demands that either positive energy is not good or that creatures powered by good energies need not be good. Since we arrived at the opposite conclusion by the same line of reasoning that's used to connect negative energy to evil undead, that line of reasoning is at best suspect. To even get the argument off the ground you need to show that there's some reason it can't be applied to positive energy, and I've never heard anyone suggest such a reason.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-22, 01:39 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no fixed canon in D&D. Or if there is, that canon ought not exist. What gets bandied about as canon is really just the accumulated detritus of D&D fandom.

You can spin negative energy as an impartial force of cosmic entropy (Ying energy) or you can spin it out to be the force of pure Evil.

Still, if you're going to take the latter approach, it can't hurt to establish more concrete reasons as to why raising zombies is Evil.

For example, you might say that raising zombies leaks negative energy into the world and makes it more likely that things like ghosts or renegade zombies will spontaneously appear. The last Necromancer-King in recorded history pretty much resulted in a countryside full of ravening undead around his fortress -- a condition that persisted for decades after his downfall.

Or maybe there's the Corruption that acts as your standard slippery-slope to those who meddle in the black arts. (But I really hate that trope since it pretty much means that you don't have to actually explain anybody's motivations. Somebody goes CRAZY and needs to be put down.)

Fayd
2010-01-22, 01:47 AM
For point 2, the first thing that popped into my head, and I apologized if I've been ninja'd, but...

Creating Undead is evil specifically because it is intentionally subverting and perverting the point of negative energy. Negative energy destroys, it ends. Creating undead is using negative energy to fulfill positive energy's role. This explanation has a very interesting corollary: destroying with positive energy should then also be considered an evil act.

Just my contribution, take it for what you will. I'm not a longtime player, so I'm not sure if I "get" the planes in their entirety quite yet (I'm still in the middle of my first campaign)

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-22, 01:50 AM
For point 2, the first thing that popped into my head, and I apologized if I've been ninja'd, but...

Creating Undead is evil specifically because it is intentionally subverting and perverting the point of negative energy. Negative energy destroys, it ends. Creating undead is using negative energy to fulfill positive energy's role. This explanation has a very interesting corollary: destroying with positive energy should then also be considered an evil act.

Just my contribution, take it for what you will. I'm not a longtime player, so I'm not sure if I "get" the planes in their entirety quite yet (I'm still in the middle of my first campaign)
Yeah. The hubris angle is not my favorite because I don't regard it as a valid argument for anything.

There have been stories written about sorcerer-scientist types (i.e. Dr. Frankenstein and Faust) or Promethean heroes who get screwed-over by cosmic forces because he actually cares about knowledge and invention.

It pretty much feeds into the stereotype of the skeptic and the scientist as an amoral overreacher.

Yet we exploit many kinds of natural forces for our own ends. (And yes, if it's the cosmic principle of entropy, it's pretty much a part of the natural universe. Relatively speaking.)

The fact of the matter is that extending your life by modern medicine and agriculture is artificial, and by a certain definition, unnatural.

Sergeantbrother
2010-01-22, 03:00 AM
I favor, as I mentioned earlier, the idea of the person's soul being bound within the body. The other suggestions - that it is somehow "unnatural" (what ever that means) to animate a corpse or that its desecrating the dead don't hold water with me. Those are essentially subjective socially constructed ideas about morality. Binding the soul within a rotting corpse to be your slave - well that is undeniably evil. And ultimately, we tend to want our Necromancy to be evil.

Of course, the soul binding theory isn't consistent with every single rule and mechanic of the system, but the inconsistencies are relatively rare and obscure - almost contrived even. Remember, we're coming up with RP fluff here, not a scientific theory. Our explanation for the evil of Necromancy doesn't have to match every single rule, if the idea is appealing then the rare cases where it doesn't fit can be easily house ruled away. For example, I could quite easily say that a true resurrection destroys a zombie that the person was animated into, that certainly isn't unbalanced. You could also say the the resurrected person has vague yet nightmarish memories of his existence as a zombie.

The idea of soul binding also gives some explanation as to how "unintelligent" undead act when not controlled. Perhaps the imprisonment is so painful that they go mad and try to destroy any life that they encounter, perhaps they are consumed with terrible cold and hunger that can only be sated by eating the flesh of the living. The more you think about the possibilities, the more evil and horrific animating the dead becomes.

hamishspence
2010-01-22, 06:01 AM
Libris Mortis and Complete Divine, suggest that even when the soul isn't bound, the process involves (even for zombies) summoning malignant spirits to inhabit the beings. Though they may be unintelligent but hateful, in the case of skeletons/zombies.

Hence, if you lose control of your zombie/skeleton (say, by creating too many) it will wander off in search of things to destroy- especially living beings.

Fayd
2010-01-22, 10:40 AM
Yeah. The hubris angle is not my favorite because I don't regard it as a valid argument for anything.

There have been stories written about sorcerer-scientist types (i.e. Dr. Frankenstein and Faust) or Promethean heroes who get screwed-over by cosmic forces because he actually cares about knowledge and invention.

It pretty much feeds into the stereotype of the skeptic and the scientist as an amoral overreacher.

Yet we exploit many kinds of natural forces for our own ends. (And yes, if it's the cosmic principle of entropy, it's pretty much a part of the natural universe. Relatively speaking.)

The fact of the matter is that extending your life by modern medicine and agriculture is artificial, and by a certain definition, unnatural.

I don't mean unnatural, exactly. I mean explicitly and directly opposite of the nature of the force. It isn't that the undead are unnatural in this world-view. They aren't. They are abominations to the very order of the universe, which is far worse than simply unnatural. They undermine reality as a whole, by forcing something to be what it is not, and what's more, forcing something to become it's own antithesis.

Shademan
2010-01-22, 11:30 AM
fluffwise i often have the energy planes be fueled by actions. every hug you give, every little act of kindness fuels the positive plane.
Every time you kick puppies, fart old people in the face (without consent) and burn anthills cus its funneh you fuel the negative plane.

Thus the energies are aligned 8D

deuxhero
2010-01-22, 11:33 AM
Personally I bring up 2 old arguments.

1.Enslaving a sapient elemental for a construct isn't evil, but taking raw energy to create a creature is :smallconfused:.
2.Alignment is a mess.

Lysander
2010-01-22, 11:38 AM
Libris Mortis and Complete Divine, suggest that even when the soul isn't bound, the process involves (even for zombies) summoning malignant spirits to inhabit the beings. Though they may be unintelligent but hateful, in the case of skeletons/zombies.

Hence, if you lose control of your zombie/skeleton (say, by creating too many) it will wander off in search of things to destroy- especially living beings.

Yeah, there's still something there even if it isn't the soul that originally inhabited that body. Something evil

It brings the old question, why is becoming a lich evil? Why can only evil casters do it? Here's the answer. It isn't that the process itself is evil, it's that liches are evil. An evil person becoming a lich is basically them deciding to abandon that bit of goodness living in them and become a being of pure evil.

Zaydos
2010-01-22, 11:51 AM
Personally I bring up 2 old arguments.

1.Enslaving a sapient elemental for a construct isn't evil, but taking raw energy to create a creature is :smallconfused:.
2.Alignment is a mess.

I don't get it either. I didn't even know that was the theory behind constructs till 3.X. Personally I blink a few times and decide that something is whack with the constructs are alright because they are elementals, or decide that you are simply using energy from the elemental planes as opposed to a sapient elemental.

Optimystik
2010-01-22, 11:58 AM
It brings the old question, why is becoming a lich evil? Why can only evil casters do it? Here's the answer. It isn't that the process itself is evil, it's that liches are evil. An evil person becoming a lich is basically them deciding to abandon that bit of goodness living in them and become a being of pure evil.

The trouble with liches - there are good ones (Archliches, Baelnorns.) How do we explain them?

erikun
2010-01-22, 11:59 AM
At least this is a slightly different take on the eternal Undead-Alignment discussion. It looks like you're trying to come up with a reason for all undead being evil. In that case, let me go ahead and throw in my thoughts on the two ideas from the first thread.

--

First, a plane doesn't need to be intelligent to be evil-aligned. Take a look at The Gray Wastes - the plane itself isn't some kind of intelligent entity. Rather, the plane is so full of evil creatures that evil energies are naturally stronger, while good energies are naturally weaker. Whether the plane evil because of the inhabitants or the inhabitants are evil because of the plane isn't defined, although it could work either way.

Evil Negative Energy Plane might make more sense than the Evil Gray Wastes, or at least be a slightly different take on planar evil. The Gray Wastes are inhabited by demons (well, Yugoloths) an so propogates evil by spawning more evil creatures to go out and evilize the world. Negative Energy, by contrast, isn't "interested" in affecting the world. It just is, and effects the world because it is an elemental part of it. Stuff affected by negative energy turns evil because negative energy itself is evil.

--

For the second option, assume that the Negative Energy Plane isn't evil, but it is the interaction between negative energy and living beings that turns them evil. Consider it like cynaide - the substance itself is like any other substance in the universe, it's just when it encounters a human body that causes problems. In this case, the Negative Energy Plane is dangerous and powerful, but not inheritly evil. On the other hand, applying negative energy to a person turns them evil, becuase negative energy + living body = corrupting and twisting them into something evil.

It's a bit like a magical gold coin that makes everyone who sees it desire it. The coin itself isn't evil, but the actions taken by those enchanted by it certainly can be. This makes the coin dangerous and cursed, but it doesn't automatically make it an evil magical item.

Jayabalard
2010-01-22, 12:00 PM
Well the lack of alignment descriptors on the planes would make assigning any alignment tendency to either energy somewhat inconsistent.Not really; spells that draw on the energy from those planes have a fairly strong tendency to be aligned either good or evil in exactly that way.

My take on it has generally been that it's the other way around: that good is derived from positive energy, and evil from negative energy.


The trouble with liches - there are good ones (Archliches, Baelnorns.) How do we explain them?Terrible writing, ie using the same word (liche) to mean something totally different.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-22, 12:02 PM
They undermine reality as a whole, by forcing something to be what it is not, and what's more, forcing something to become it's own antithesis.

Forcing something to become its own antithesis is sort of irrelevant, since the something in question lacks sentience.

But you propose that using negative energy in a creative manner undermines reality? Hm. It's sort of like the Devourer theory, as far as "undead creation will destroy the universe", but it doesn't make the Negative Energy Plane sentient or evil. Seems reasonable. Sort of arbitrary, but most solutions are.

Set
2010-01-22, 12:21 PM
Personally I bring up 2 old arguments.

1.Enslaving a sapient elemental for a construct isn't evil, but taking raw energy to create a creature is :smallconfused:.
2.Alignment is a mess.

True that.

If I dig up a dozen corpses, cut them into pieces and assemble a Flesh Golem out of them, conjure up an elemental being and enslave it to empower that Flesh Golem, which has a chance of going absolutely berserk and on murderous rampages *every time I use it,* that's fine and dandy and not at all evil.

If I animate the residents of the village graveyard to fight off attacking hobgoblins, and therefore save their descendents, using negative energy (which is not evil, not even *MILDLY* evil, according to the rules), and then send them back to their graves, that's an evil act, even though zombies are utterly mindless, incapable of malice and have *no* connection to the souls of the departed at all, that's [Evil] and runs the risk of changing one's alignment.

A Golem, left to it's own devices, is still an enslaved being, prone to going on murderous rampages. A Zombie, left to it's own devices, is animated by non-sentient, non-evil energy, and is incapable of doing *anything* without strict orders. It doesn't *want* to kill people, because it's not capable of *wanting* to do anything. It doesn't 'hate life,' because it's incapable of hate, or love, or fear, or any of that. In absence of orders, it will stand there until it falls apart, as, according to the rules, it must be ordered to take an action.

There are tons of *assumptions* made to 'prove' that animate dead is evil, such as the whole 'traps the soul' nonsense, but that's not ever been the case, in any edition of the game.

Animating a body *blocks* the soul from returning to the body, which is all filled up at the moment, but if a person is in the Seven Heavens, laughing it up with Pelor, casting Animate Dead on his corpse is not going to rip him out of Heaven, and make poor widdle greater god Pelor cry because he apparently can't stop mid-level spellcasters from tearing souls out of Heaven willy-nilly and leaving him powerless.

Given that many souls who go to the lower planes are *eaten,* Animate Dead would fail quite often, as the bodies would have no souls left to steal, if the bizarre assumption that Animate Dead steals souls from other planes had any truth to it. And can you imagine the devils, demons and daemons reactions if every time one of their cultists cast Animate Dead, it was *stealing souls* from their coffers? Yeah. That would happen exactly once, before Asmodeus would tear the offending spellcaster apart, returning those stolen souls to his possession, plus that of the spellcaster, for good measure.

I have no problem with a house-ruled game where the Negative plane is evil, and zombies and skeletons have an Int 3 and always evil alignment, going on life-destroying sprees when left to their own devices. And, consequently, the Positive Plane would be good, and casting Cure Wounds spells would be good, which would make evil clerics utterly incapable of casting Cure spells, as casting Positive Energy spells would be as bad for them as casting Negative Energy spells would be for good clerics. Perhaps they research their own Necromantic healing spells that steal life from others and allow them to re-distribute the stolen life-energy (similar to a World of Warcraft Shadow Priest). Perhaps Cure spells no longer use Positive Energy at all, but are Transmutation effects. Perhaps weaker Transmutation based healing spells exist, that only transform lethal damage into nonlethal damage, allowing the recipient to heal much faster, but never quite as well as if they'd received Positive Energy Healing.

But that's a whole lot of house rules I would have to add to the game, to make sense of a 'negative energy = evil' paradigm. It's easier for me to say that Zombies and Skeletons are mindless (which they are), incapable of malice (which they are), don't do anything they aren't ordered to do (which they don't) and are neutral (which they were in 3.0, and only got borked up and made inconsistent by someone who clearly didn't understand the game in 3.5 and was apparently uptight that a Paladin couldn't smite a Skeleton, when 10 seconds of further thought would have lit a light-bulb and inspired that designer to put a blurb into the Paladin description allowing it to explicitly smite non-evil undead *or* putting a sentence into the skeleton / zombie descriptions that they 'counted as evil' for purposes like that, just like a half-dragon 'counts as a dragon,' solving the actual perceived problem (of Paladins not being able to smite zombies) without making a bigger one (people confused and thinking that the negative energy plane turned sentient and evil between 3.0 and 3.5)).

Ignore the alignment descriptors for most spells, and we're pretty much done. It's not like they have a real game effect, other than to forbid Clerics from doing anything that might cause them to have an interesting roleplaying experience by tampering with forces that give them qualms and possibly inspiring a fall from grace / redemption storyline.

Wouldn't want that, roleplaying story nonsense. Must make rules to forbid it!

deuxhero
2010-01-22, 12:28 PM
Hey, if you are laughing it up with the god of parch, skin cancer and sunstroke with clerics that cast [evil] spells, you would WANT to see something go on a murderous rampage.

Aquillion
2010-01-22, 01:49 PM
Trying to argue that negative energy being evil implies that undead must be evil is a mistake. If you can make the argument that negative energy is evil then you can just as easily make the argument that positive energy is good, and by the same reasoning that goes from negative energy to evil undead you can show just as strongly that positive energy powered creatures must be good.
I think it does apply in that fashion to positive energy.

But what you have to remember is that it's just one factor. It doesn't decide their entire alignment. Using negative energy is a point against them (and using positive energy is a point in their favor), but that doesn't prevent good zombies or evil healers.

For instance, in a general sense, you would expect a doctor to be better than an assassin; that one bit of information about what they do would, generally, have vague implications for their alignment. But it doesn't decide their alignment; it's just one factor. You can have evil doctors and good assassins, it's just that, to the extent that their jobs have moral implications, those clearly go against them.

(Yes, yes, Assassins in D&D are always evil. That part is stupid. But you get the idea. Negative energy is generally harmful and positive energy is generally healing, so if you know the energy someone is using and nothing else, that does have some implications for their alignment. But it isn't the sole deciding factor.)

Sergeantbrother
2010-01-22, 02:13 PM
Well, I have a fundamental question here. Do we want Necromancy to be evil or don't we? I think tend to have this intuitive sense that it should be evil, but that could just be that we find death and corpses so unappealing. Very few of the spells are necessarily evil, even those with evil descriptors. So we have a problem, a contradiction in the game - a tendency for Necromancy to be evil but no real reason why.

So do we want to figure out or create a reason why Necromancy is always or almost always evil, or do we want to toss out the idea that its evil to animate zombies and have a setting where a Necromancer isn't any more evil than an Illusionist. Personally, I think that the feel and theme of a Necromancer tend sto be evil, which is why I would favor the trapped soul and/or evil plane idea.

Falconer
2010-01-22, 03:16 PM
The Necromancy school itself isn't evil, but it contains spells that most certainly are. Unless you're going with the devourer idea, channelling negative energy isn't any more evil than casting fireball. Best to think of the school of magic itself as a gun: not evil in and of itself, but its potential for evil is quite straightforward, because most of the spells are destructive. Hunting deer with a rifle? Not for everyone, but not evil. Shooting up innocent civilians? I'd say that's evil.

Ravens_cry
2010-01-22, 03:55 PM
Here's a question. Why is chaining an elemental to a body not evil, (golem creation) but creating a soulless automata is. And this is more then fluff, the possibility of the elemental going on rampage is actually part of the rules. Personally, power is power , in my view. It's what you do with it that matters. And by the RAW description of golem making, I consider that to be a far greater evil then simply making use of waste and debris.

Fayd
2010-01-22, 04:22 PM
Forcing something to become its own antithesis is sort of irrelevant, since the something in question lacks sentience.

But you propose that using negative energy in a creative manner undermines reality? Hm. It's sort of like the Devourer theory, as far as "undead creation will destroy the universe", but it doesn't make the Negative Energy Plane sentient or evil. Seems reasonable. Sort of arbitrary, but most solutions are.

I don't consider it irrelevant, as the something in question, while it lacks sentience, is a foundation of all reality. Undermining it and perverting it is the problem.

The interesting implication of my theory is that using positive energy to turn or destroy undead is in fact evil as well (destruction is against the nature of Positive energy) ...if a DM wanted to include my theory in their universe, they might have to reflavor Turning for good clerics from positive energy to divine energy. That said, cure spells are still positive energy, and thus, using them to damage undead is still evil.

Calenestel
2010-01-22, 04:26 PM
I agree with many others who have posted on this thread that it's strange that the making golems (the way they're described in THIS rpg) isn't evil.

But that doesn't make animating the dead not-evil (:thog:).
The necromancer must still use negative energy to create the undead/the undead is still the anti-thesis of life/whatever reason we ultimately settle on.
The BASIC of this thread is that animating the dead IS evil. For the sake of the argument on this thread this is FACT.

I for one, is still a bit curious about this. But I'm a bit too tired to be creative just now. :smallsigh:

So I'll stop rambling now.

Aure entuluva!
Calenestel

Zaydos
2010-01-22, 04:26 PM
I don't consider it irrelevant, as the something in question, while it lacks sentience, is a foundation of all reality. Undermining it and perverting it is the problem.

The interesting implication of my theory is that using positive energy to turn or destroy undead is in fact evil as well (destruction is against the nature of Positive energy) ...if a DM wanted to include my theory in their universe, they might have to reflavor Turning for good clerics from positive energy to divine energy. That said, cure spells are still positive energy, and thus, using them to damage undead is still evil.

Or possibly it disrupts the hold of the negative energy upon the body neutralizing the magic bonding it there allowing the natural order to return and it deals damage as a side effect of that.

Flarp
2010-01-22, 04:46 PM
Necromancy is evil for the same reason Cannibalism is evil.

Okay, not really.

But the point stands that if we assume Negative Energy is no less harmful than Positive Energy (which is just as deadly in large doses), then there is pretty much no justification for necromancy being evil. So why is it?

Power corrupts, right? Necromancy, while not the most powerful school rules-wise, is very powerful, especially compared to the more benign schools, like divination or abjuration.

Thus, it stands to reason that necromancers of great power are likely to go at least slightly cuckoo with the ability to summon an immortal army whenever they want. And, thinking about it, which necromancers are most likely to become well known? The powerful, and thus evil, ones.

Necromancy is evil because the overwhelming majority of people who use it frequently eventually become evil. There are many who do not, and I believe that it's Complete Arcane that specifically states that there are many Good and Neutral Necromancers, but they're just a lot less common than Evil ones.

Lichdom as Evil is also really weird, but I have an explanation for that as well.

Remember that thread about the Tippyverse and why it doesn't exist? It went something like this: only mortals giving birth actually possess the power to create souls from nothingness. Gods can't do this.

They can make Outsiders that look like mortals, but they can't make mortals on their own. A coalition of gods might be able to, which is why the mortal races exist, but not anymore. Because Petitioners are the main source of energy and new planar essence for gods to work with, they want as many mortals to be born, die, and have alignments other than True Neutral.

However, in the Tippyverse, everyone lives in perfection, so crime and self-sacrifice, actions that would give someone a solid alignment, are not needed. Thus, the gods wither away. Because of this possibility, the gods do everything in their power to avoid the Tippyverse. Maruts exist pretty much for this reason alone.

Lichdom is evil because you're denying death. You're violating the rule that Everyone Dies. If you're good, you're preventing the good gods from using your soul against evil, and if you're evil, you're evil already. If you're neutral, you're just breaking the laws of the universe, which neutral people tend to frown on.

megabyter5
2010-01-22, 04:56 PM
I look at the idea of necromancy as evil in a pretty clear way, I think. Basically, the natural cycle goes like this:

BEGIN life
IF life != true
THEN dead
ELSE repeat;
IF dead AND getRaised
THEN goToLife
ELSE ohWell;
END. I'm not an experienced coder, and that was just a satirical representation of life and death within the game. It will not compile in any language, nor will you be able to unlock the secret to immortality by commenting out any of the lines.

Existence has a strict terms of service agreement that says you can't apply any mods. Undeath is not covered in this, and therefore are crimes against the ToS of the Universe, so it's a good thing for necromancers that lawsuits aren't around in D&D (except in OotS, I guess). In fact, that's probably why we don't have necromancers in our world. They just keep getting their existence accounts cancelled, so we have no memory of them.

Ravens_cry
2010-01-22, 05:10 PM
Positive energy is just as antithetical to undead as negative enrgy is to 'normal' life, as matter is destructive to antimatter. I see no more inherent evil in a being of antimatter then in an undead. Some do have habits that make them evil, like the predations of ghouls and ghasts, but that is a separate issue.

Drakevarg
2010-01-22, 05:24 PM
Again, my view is that Necromancy is not evil in a metaphysical sense, but in a social sense. It's evil because if you're caught doing it, everyone will say you're evil.

Why? Well that part isn't that hard. People don't like it when you dig up grandpa and use him as cheap labor. And then you throw in the occasional omnicidal maniac who happens to use Necromancy, well, your subculture's reputation heads down the ****ter real fast. Dragons also get a bad rep thanks to the handful that think sheep are tasty.

The biggest issue is WotC's desire to make good and evil literal cosmic forces with arbitrary indicators that aren't sensibly evil by themselves. Muttering such things as "against the natural way of things" is silly when you consider two things:

-Reanimating corpses is unnatural, but stopping time and shooting lightning from your fingertips isn't?
-Given the crazy stuff magic lets you pull, the only way Necromancy could be "unnatural" is if it was something literally impossible, ala "divide by zero." But if that were a case, you'd never have Necromancy in the first place because it simply doesn't work. Like trying to stab the color blue in the face.

Necromancy is considered evil because lots of Necromancers are evil. (For some reason that isn't adequately explained in and of itself.) Not because the magical energies, or reanimation corpses, is evil by itself. Similarly, fire is not evil, nor is lighting a fire. Using that fire to set someone on fire is, however.

Remember kids, the fire isn't to blame. That's the arsonist.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-22, 09:09 PM
1) The theory that alignment is arbitrary and so the spell arbitrarily has the descriptor due to the natural processes of creation, will of the overdiety, or some such.

Simply moves the question a step, leaves a very bad taste in a great many people's mouths, and statements akin to "morality is arbitrary" tend to be villains' lines (or at least, lines used shortly before committing evil acts).



2) It depends on what one means as perfect. The above theory does cover all cases but it somewhat of a let down as it is arbitrary and said fact may make it less then perfect for some.
All it does is move things a step.

olentu
2010-01-22, 09:21 PM
Simply moves the question a step, leaves a very bad taste in a great many people's mouths, and statements akin to "morality is arbitrary" tend to be villains' lines (or at least, lines used shortly before committing evil acts).


All it does is move things a step.

Saying that it is because it traps souls leads to the question of why that is evil and so forth thus also only moving it to a new question. However one covers all situations while the other does not.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-22, 09:29 PM
Saying that it is because it traps souls leads to the question of why that is evil and so forth thus also only moving it to a new question. However one covers all situations while the other does not.
It doesn't cover all situations. Why does Animate Dead stop True Resurrection? True Resurrection doesn't need the corpse at all, just that the soul be free and willing to return, so it can't be that. If you're starting from the point that Animate Dead doesn't involve the soul of the deceased, you've got a problem. Just as a quick example - there's probably others.

Besides, while they do both move things... one moves it to something that amounts to "because person X said so", while the other moves it to "constant torture", "permanent imprisonment", or similar (depending on exact interpretation). They're different beasts.

olentu
2010-01-22, 09:40 PM
It doesn't cover all situations. Why does Animate Dead stop True Resurrection? True Resurrection doesn't need the corpse at all, just that the soul be free and willing to return, so it can't be that. If you're starting from the point that Animate Dead doesn't involve the soul of the deceased, you've got a problem. Just as a quick example - there's probably others.

Besides, while they do both move things... one moves it to something that amounts to "because person X said so", while the other moves it to "constant torture", "permanent imprisonment", or similar (depending on exact interpretation). They're different beasts.

That is not part of the question as to what an explanation for the evil descriptor on undead-creation spells would be. If you wish to pose a new question that is fine but it is a new question.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-22, 09:47 PM
That is not part of the question as to what an explanation for the evil descriptor on undead-creation spells would be. If you wish to pose a new question that is fine but it is a new question.
It is a question relating directly to the workings of the Animate Dead spell, and the question is a direct consequence of spells interacting with the why's of Animate Dead. And the why's are about the only places where you can reasonably expect to find explainations of alignment descriptors.

In what sense is it not highly relevant to the topic at hand?

Besides - you did say "covers all situations", did you not? That is a situation, is it not?

olentu
2010-01-22, 10:01 PM
It is a question relating directly to the workings of the Animate Dead spell, and the question is a direct consequence of spells interacting with the why's of Animate Dead. And the why's are about the only places where you can reasonably expect to find explainations of alignment descriptors.

In what sense is it not highly relevant to the topic at hand?

Besides - you did say "covers all situations", did you not? That is a situation, is it not?

Well I suppose it is just as much a situation as why a character with evasion can take no damage on a successful save. In that sense it does not answer all questions.

However if you wish for an answer to more then the question as to why said spells have the evil descriptor you are free to pose a new question. But until I understand that you are doing so I shall not try to formulate an answer as I would not want to waste my time answering questions that as of yet may not exist.

Jack_Simth
2010-01-22, 10:16 PM
Well I suppose it is just as much a situation as why a character with evasion can take no damage on a successful save. In that sense it does not answer all questions.

However if you wish for an answer to more then the question as to why said spells have the evil descriptor you are free to pose a new question. But until I understand that you are doing so I shall not try to formulate an answer as I would not want to waste my time answering questions that as of yet may not exist.
So you're completely ignoring the first half of the post then, effectively saying it's not relevant to the discussion at hand?

Hmm... the enjoyment of the debate has fled, for me. I will not be continuing; have a nice weekend.

olentu
2010-01-22, 10:26 PM
So you're completely ignoring the first half of the post then, effectively saying it's not relevant to the discussion at hand?

Hmm... the enjoyment of the debate has fled, for me. I will not be continuing; have a nice weekend.

What would I say. Perhaps that posing a different question that is not the original question is changing the subject. I suppose I may have not been clear enough in my earlier posts but that was what I meant.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-22, 11:30 PM
I don't mean unnatural, exactly. I mean explicitly and directly opposite of the nature of the force. It isn't that the undead are unnatural in this world-view. They aren't. They are abominations to the very order of the universe, which is far worse than simply unnatural. They undermine reality as a whole, by forcing something to be what it is not, and what's more, forcing something to become it's own antithesis.


I don't consider it irrelevant, as the something in question, while it lacks sentience, is a foundation of all reality. Undermining it and perverting it is the problem.

The interesting implication of my theory is that using positive energy to turn or destroy undead is in fact evil as well (destruction is against the nature of Positive energy) ...if a DM wanted to include my theory in their universe, they might have to reflavor Turning for good clerics from positive energy to divine energy. That said, cure spells are still positive energy, and thus, using them to damage undead is still evil.

So instead of being merely relatively unnatural, it violates the laws of reality. Huh? Does that even mean anything? I mean, by definition, nothing breaks the laws of reality. If it happens, it's a part of reality. It's fact.

Your "interesting implication" is something I call a contradiction. It implies that negative and positive energy are merely tools. You're still stuck with the problem of explaining why one tool is worse from a human perspective (or a sufficiently human perspective).

If necromancy is always a bad, then there must be material reasons for why it is bad. You can't just spout a bunch of vague metaphysical justifications.

You can have non-evil liches in a campaign. If you don't then explain why they're always evil.

4e does this by making all liches (and undead) the thralls of Orcus. Orcus has monopolized undeath. Orcus is not a nice guy. Hence, necromancy is usually pretty bad. More so if the rumors about him being able to take control of any undead in existence is actually true.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-01-23, 12:12 AM
Simply moves the question a step, leaves a very bad taste in a great many people's mouths, and statements akin to "morality is arbitrary" tend to be villains' lines (or at least, lines used shortly before committing evil acts).
Because that line is uttered by the stereotypes of the Hollywood nihilist.

olentu
2010-01-23, 01:55 AM
So instead of being merely relatively unnatural, it violates the laws of reality. Huh? Does that even mean anything? I mean, by definition, nothing breaks the laws of reality. If it happens, it's a part of reality. It's fact.

Your "interesting implication" is something I call a contradiction. It implies that negative and positive energy are merely tools. You're still stuck with the problem of explaining why one tool is worse from a human perspective (or a sufficiently human perspective).

If necromancy is always a bad, then there must be material reasons for why it is bad. You can't just spout a bunch of vague metaphysical justifications.

You can have non-evil liches in a campaign. If you don't then explain why they're always evil.

4e does this by making all liches (and undead) the thralls of Orcus. Orcus has monopolized undeath. Orcus is not a nice guy. Hence, necromancy is usually pretty bad. More so if the rumors about him being able to take control of any undead in existence is actually true.

In the same track I believe that the archlich epic destiny is not linked to orcus and can then be of any alignment.

Omegonthesane
2010-01-23, 08:10 AM
In the same track I believe that the archlich epic destiny is not linked to orcus and can then be of any alignment.

Indeed, (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20090410) though it explicitly says you had to work very hard to find a means of reanimation that was outside of Orcus' control.

This also leaves the possibility that you can't make truly mindless undead - it is possible to run a game such that either you bind the original person's soul or you tap Orcus' power and thus risk Orcus' influence.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-23, 08:30 AM
Why does animating undead evil? It wears down the fabric of reality. Why? It just does. You don't ask why you can cast lightning bolts. You don't ask why the good gods of Faerun tolerate the Wall of the Faithless. You don't ask why Dark Sun's arcane magic draws power from life. It just is that way.

Omegonthesane
2010-01-23, 11:34 AM
Why does animating undead evil? It wears down the fabric of reality. Why? It just does. You don't ask why you can cast lightning bolts. You don't ask why the good gods of Faerun tolerate the Wall of the Faithless. You don't ask why Dark Sun's arcane magic draws power from life. It just is that way.

So what you're saying is, you don't like any exploration whatsoever of the ethics of things. The fact is, you DO ask why you can cast lightning bolts (and get an in-universe explanation of the magic system), and you DO ask why the good gods tolerate the Wall of the Faithless (in fact, they did ask this in one book, where the god who watches over the Wall becomes a Good god and stops tolerating it).

As for your Dark Sun example, that does not support your point. In fact, that's exactly the kind of answer this thread is trying to make up. In Dark Sun, arcane magic is evil because it drains life around it and there exists no way around that. There is no such clear-cut explanation in the rules for undead.

To be honest, I would never run a campaign where mindless undead were evil and animating the dead was truly an evil act, as I like the idea of violating social constructs while still being a true hero. But if you're going to post in a thread about why undead are evil, don't tell people not to ask.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-23, 11:37 AM
So what you're saying is, you don't like any exploration whatsoever of the ethics of things.
Note the (too) subtle smiley label on my post. :smalltongue:

In any case, it's one possibility. This thread (or at least, my impression of the posts so far) is more helpful as a list of possible interpretations than a debate about what the True Solution is. IMO, the True Solution is amoral casting, but any reader or DM coming to use this thread can come to a conclusion himself.

Omegonthesane
2010-01-23, 12:04 PM
Note the (too) subtle smiley label on my post. :smalltongue:

In any case, it's one possibility. This thread (or at least, my impression of the posts so far) is more helpful as a list of possible interpretations than a debate about what the True Solution is. IMO, the True Solution is amoral casting, but any reader or DM coming to use this thread can come to a conclusion himself.
...Yeah, that was too subtle. Ooops.

As for me - I think the True Solution depends on who's running the game, and that animating the dead can only be evil if it directly causes suffering - which it might well, depending on who's running the game. Although I'd certainly be tempted to imply that all mindless undead are in fact controlled by some meta-entity which has them act as they do according to its Grand Plan.