What if Undead start acting Good?

[Sylthia]

Many of the sentient undead like Vampires and Liches are listed as "Any Evil" in the monster manual, but what happens if they start being a force for Good? Maybe there's some hero who needs the extra power to defeat some evil and is willing to sacrifice his humanity to do so. That may not "Good", but seems at worst Neutral.

[dascarletm]

I think, by their nature, they will radiate an evil aura and be considered evil for purposes of spells and effects. Vampires still need to drink the blood of sentiments to stay alive (unless there is something to circumvent this), so...

[Sylthia]

I think, by their nature, they will radiate an evil aura and be considered evil for purposes of spells and effects. Vampires still need to drink the blood of sentiments to stay alive (unless there is something to circumvent this), so...

Could Vampires have a willing "Blood donor"?

[dascarletm]

Could Vampires have a willing "Blood donor"?

I don't see why not... I think this would fall into, "ask the DM," territory.

[Sylthia]

I don't see why not... I think this would fall into, "ask the DM," territory.

True, although before Twilight came along, (I'm not getting into a discussion about that) I could see a character RP a vampire trying to hold onto the vestiges of his humanity.

[Hunter Noventa]

I guess it depends on the DM, but intelligent undead have a cpacity to perform good acts, just as any other intelligent creature. (Save maybe demons, but again that depends on your DM).

There's nothing stopping say, a vampire rescuing someone from a mugger without expectation of reward, other than that vampire's own ethics.

But yes, the 'Evil' part of undead comes from the negative energies animating them. It's sort of a limitation of the alignment system in that, that Evil is an inherent part of their physical being, and their morals cannot change it like they can for mortals.

[hamishspence]

Libris Mortis does discuss PC undead, and say that there are exceptions to the general alignment guidelines.

Lawful or good ghouls/ghasts are "extremely rare" but those transformed via bite, are more likely to change alignment than those who rose due to "savouring the taste of humanoid flesh" in life.

Mohrgs lean strongly toward chaos and evil even when they're not actually CE. Good aligned ones are "virtually unknown".

Mummies are "of all the undead monster races presented here, perhaps the most likely to follow the path of good"

Vampire Spawn have an "innate selfishness that makes a good alignment difficult to uphold"

Wights: "Good aligned ones are exceedingly rare, and even neutral wights are rare"

Note that in Libris Mortis- vampires need both blood and "energy" (gotten via their energy drain ability) to stay mentally and physically functional.

[Talakeal]

I guess it depends on the DM, but intelligent undead have a cpacity to perform good acts, just as any other intelligent creature. (Save maybe demons, but again that depends on your DM).

There's nothing stopping say, a vampire rescuing someone from a mugger without expectation of reward, other than that vampire's own ethics.

But yes, the 'Evil' part of undead comes from the negative energies animating them. It's sort of a limitation of the alignment system in that, that Evil is an inherent part of their physical being, and their morals cannot change it like they can for mortals.

Except that "negative energy" is not ever listed as always evil. Most spells that directly channel negative energy (energy drain for example) are not (evil), outsiders native to the negative energy plane are neutral, and the plane itself does not have the "evil dominant" trait".

D&D alignment is messed up, especially in regards to necromancy and the undead.

[Cheiromancer]

In Kobold Quarterly #19 there is a 'white necromancer'. One of the class features is that animated dead are non-evil; if mindless they are neutral, and if intelligent they match the alignment of the white necromancer (i.e. any non-evil). It is for 3.PF, and is by Marc Radle.

I've never played one, or seen it played, but the idea of non-evil wraiths, ghouls, wights and so on is definitely out there.

[Just to Browse]

BoED adds the Deathless subtype, which is good undead. It makes me sad that such a thing needs to exist (why can't they just be an undead subtype? Wargl), but a sufficiently "good" vampire can be converted to Deathless from Undead and remain mechanically functional.

[BWR]

True, although before Twilight came along, (I'm not getting into a discussion about that) I could see a character RP a vampire trying to hold onto the vestiges of his humanity.

You aren't the only one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade)

Since vampires are traditionally evil monsters, and D&D is a game based on tradition and tropes, I have no problem, with them being evil. Some settings, like Ravenloft, they literally cannot help themselves. I suggest digging up a copy of "Van Richten's Guide to Vampires", which has an excellent discussion about vampire mentality and morality.

[Slipperychicken]

A Good aligned undead is still staining the world with its anti-life negative energy, and it may well be imprisoning a soul or preventing one from entering the afterlife. Since it's sentient, this makes the morality of destroying it kind of messy.

In movie logic, good undead are good and it's wrong to kill them because they're people. Even if their existence causes all manner of off-screen suffering (which doesn't count toward movie morality), a thing that looks like a human is most definitely human and therefore has all the same rights.

[Sylthia]

A Good aligned undead is still staining the world with its anti-life negative energy, and it may well be imprisoning a soul or preventing one from entering the afterlife. Since it's sentient, this makes the morality of destroying it kind of messy.

In movie logic, good undead are good and it's wrong to kill them because they're people. Even if their existence causes all manner of off-screen suffering (which doesn't count toward movie morality), a thing that looks like a human is most definitely human and therefore has all the same rights.

That could definitely be a gray area, but fun to RP. I like to have somewhat complicated characters.

[Coidzor]

You may find the treatment of the morality of necromancy and negative energy in the Tome of Necromancy (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) of interest.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Undead aren't evil because negative energy is evil. Negative energy destroys life because that is its nature. Undead are so often evil because that negative energy has been corrupted to create a mockery of life. You won't create an undead simply by slaying a foe with inflict critical wounds. It takes specific magic to create an undead or another undead. When you do, your not bringing that person back to life, your creating a twisted mockery and in some cases nothing of the original person is left.

The hard part about staying good as a Vampire is. How long can you feed off your own kind before you stop seeing them as people and start seeing them as cattle. So even if you avoid the initial alignment change how long can last before your perspective changes.

[Kuulvheysoon]

BoED adds the Deathless subtype, which is good undead. It makes me sad that such a thing needs to exist (why can't they just be an undead subtype? Wargl), but a sufficiently "good" vampire can be converted to Deathless from Undead and remain mechanically functional.

Where is this? I am very intrigued... or is this merely DM fiat?


You may find the treatment of the morality of necromancy and negative energy in the Tome of Necromancy (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) of interest.

I use it, and it's wonderful.

[graymachine]

Where is this? I am very intrigued... or is this merely DM fiat?



I use it, and it's wonderful.

I think that is DM Fiat, or possibly confusion. Deathless are positive energy undead, so I don't really see any way of changing from Undead to Deathless, short of a Wish/Miracle spell.

[ArqArturo]

BoED adds the Deathless subtype, which is good undead. It makes me sad that such a thing needs to exist (why can't they just be an undead subtype? Wargl), but a sufficiently "good" vampire can be converted to Deathless from Undead and remain mechanically functional.

In the Forgotten Realms, elves have liches with good alignment, that protect their family line and lore. I don't recall the name, but they have very different abilities than common liches.

[Kuulvheysoon]

In the Forgotten Realms, elves have liches with good alignment, that protect their family line and lore. I don't recall the name, but they have very different abilities than common liches.

Baelnorn are elves who've chosen that path.

[ArcturusV]

Well, for the OP, usually the line of "Doing evil things for the sake of good, is still evil". If the setting has becoming a Vampire, or a Lich, etc, as an irredeemably evil act, why you do it doesn't really matter as far as the grand DnD Cosmos are concerned. Though it's not really a hard and fast rule, and depends more on setting particular views than actual rules. Though in general becoming an undead for power is in that evil category, Faustian Selling your Soul sort of thing.

On a Roleplaying note, I'd avoid trying to have "Good" aligned Undead of the standard Vampires, Mummies, Ghouls, etc, variety. Not because it doesn't make sense, or you'd ping both Good and Evil, etc. But mostly I'd warn players in my game about that because I can see it devolving really easily in to bad emo/goth "Woe is me" style characters. Those get pretty old fast. Lots of fragging of teammates because unless your group is into that, no one wants to deal with that guy.

[angry_bear]

Every time I've had a player want to be a good aligned Undead, it's because they want the power up rather than any real RP. So in those cases, I've always enforced the alignment restrictions in the description of what they're playing as.

As far as an evil character doing good goes; it's typically irrelevant in my opinion. The Blood War is all about demons and devils killing each other on a daily basis; but that doesn't make either side good. It makes two separate, but still entirely evil groups fighting each other for control. So when Count Leechenstein the Vampire goes after the Bigger Badder Evil Guy than him, it's still about personal gain. Even if that gain is just making sure that the world doesn't end by someone else's hand.

[Valwyn]

Monsters of Faerun (90) has the Archlich and the Baelnorn, which are casters who became liches for some noble cause. Guarding a location, advicing their families, preserving knowledge, etc. They still use negative energy, they're just not Evil.

[ArqArturo]

Every time I've had a player want to be a good aligned Undead, it's because they want the power up rather than any real RP. So in those cases, I've always enforced the alignment restrictions in the description of what they're playing as.

As far as an evil character doing good goes; it's typically irrelevant in my opinion. The Blood War is all about demons and devils killing each other on a daily basis; but that doesn't make either side good. It makes two separate, but still entirely evil groups fighting each other for control. So when Count Leechenstein the Vampire goes after the Bigger Badder Evil Guy than him, it's still about personal gain. Even if that gain is just making sure that the world doesn't end by someone else's hand.

Well, there is the case of a me, who played a paladin, that had his life drained by a succubus. He returned as a ghoul but honestly, I liked that character, and did everything I could (whole quest and all) to turn my 'weird-but-kinda-good-ghoul' into a Risen Martyr (prestige class of Book of Exalted deeds). All considering, the class gives little in the way of benefits for a Paladin (Save the Charisma, and a few other goodies), so I can see a few players trying not to overpower themselves with undeath. But yes, many do.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, leaving aside the undead bit for a moment, evil creatures are allowed to do some good stuff. Evil can do whatever it damn pleases, for whatever reason. That's how it rolls.

If an evil creature wants to become good, it needs to consistently, relentlessly be good, and I mean 24 karat good. Redemption is a darn hard row to hoe, and it doesn't come easily to those used to the "no rules" ways of evil. Backsliding is common, and while one can always start over, many give up.

Now add in the mockery of life/evil existence thing that undead are flavored as in D&D. You need to be one damn Saint Vampire to get by only doing Good deeds, and even then you are probably only neutral, since your existence is premised on an evil act. When a character is just a couple bad judgement calls/failed Will saves from devouring other mortals and spawning more evil creatures, then every day that character is around is a serious liability to go from Saint Vampire to Drac Junior.

On the other hand, some can make a decent argument for a world/setting/interpretation where being undead/making undead isn't strictly evil. I have mixed feelings on such interpretations (hey, I'm a druid, after all). At best, undead feel like an amoral, unliving instrument waiting to be exploited. If all the casters have some kind of gentleman's agreement not to lead the undead in some kind of zombie apocalypse/revolt against all those no-fun living mortals, well, I guess that's a convenient agreement. It only takes one person to screw that up, though.

Oh, right. As unliving beings that are questionable existences, as far as the standard judgement of souls on the matter of their actions while alive, undead fall outside the normal pattern. Thus, the evil they do might not be accountable (and perhaps neither is any good they do) by the standard method. A god/fiend/power could take some interest, but that is probably the exception. Actions that are unaccountable are generally evil, as no rules means no morality, and no morality (a.k.a. equivalency, or good=evil), is evil.

[LOTRfan]

I always hated the whole "Deathless are just good Undead" thing. I much prefer to consider both types two separate but similar classes of being, both of which capable of having good or evil members. Whereas the Undead have physically died and have risen as a result of a negative-energy animus, Deathless are beings who have unnaturally prolonged their lives with positive energy to the point that they cannot quite be considered "mortal" anymore.

Undead tend to be evil because the vast majority of them (vampires, wights, ghouls, etc.) are soulless, instead having an evil intelligence that takes some of the original person's personality traits control the body. And then you have some undead that have souls, but are only capable of being spawned from evil people (Mohrgs, Liches, etc.). The rest of the ensouled undead can be of whatever alignment they want.

Deathless always have the alignment they had in life, because their souls are still locked inside of a body that should have died long ago but wasn't allowed to.

EDIT: Again, this is just how I interpret it.

[angry_bear]

Well, there is the case of a me, who played a paladin, that had his life drained by a succubus. He returned as a ghoul but honestly, I liked that character, and did everything I could (whole quest and all) to turn my 'weird-but-kinda-good-ghoul' into a Risen Martyr (prestige class of Book of Exalted deeds). All considering, the class gives little in the way of benefits for a Paladin (Save the Charisma, and a few other goodies), so I can see a few players trying not to overpower themselves with undeath. But yes, many do.

That's actually a pretty cool character concept, kudos. The thing is though, you took an in game incident, and made something out of it... For that kind of situation I'd be cool with you playing a good aligned Undead. I'd make your life a living hell, tempting you at every turn, making you roll will saves to fight the urge to feast on the flesh of the living, but I'd still be really impressed with that character in one of my campaigns.

Typically in my games the occasional player wants to start as Undead is the main thing... So if they do that, or if they make the conscious effort to become a Lich or a Vampire, then I'm going to enforce the alignment aspect. And if they become a vampire, I'm probably going to enforce them being a thrall to their maker for a while as well. lol

[Just to Browse]

I think that is DM Fiat, or possibly confusion. Deathless are positive energy undead, so I don't really see any way of changing from Undead to Deathless, short of a Wish/Miracle spell.

Yeah, I meant DM fiat.

[Sylthia]

Well, for the OP, usually the line of "Doing evil things for the sake of good, is still evil". If the setting has becoming a Vampire, or a Lich, etc, as an irredeemably evil act, why you do it doesn't really matter as far as the grand DnD Cosmos are concerned. Though it's not really a hard and fast rule, and depends more on setting particular views than actual rules. Though in general becoming an undead for power is in that evil category, Faustian Selling your Soul sort of thing.

Deals with Devils and like would be suspect, and the book says that becoming a lich is an evil act, but gives no real reason other than the common Necromancy=Evil thing. Becoming a Vampire often isn't voluntary. (I'm actually wondering just how Evil Durkon will be once he regains sentience.)

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. But the OP seemed to be suggesting a "good" guy went and sought out becoming a Vampire in order to gain power and do Good deeds. Least it's how it looked like to me. And in general the game doesn't really suggest Good and Evil can balance out. You can't go "Well... I sold my soul for power... but I donated a set of Hydra Steak Dinners to some orphans so I'm comfortably neutral".

Durkon I don't think it'll have too much impact. It was against his will. Though might still require Atonement.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Except that "negative energy" is not ever listed as always evil. Most spells that directly channel negative energy (energy drain for example) are not (evil), outsiders native to the negative energy plane are neutral, and the plane itself does not have the "evil dominant" trait".

D&D alignment is messed up, especially in regards to necromancy and the undead.
D&D alignment isn't messed up until you try to shoehorn really wierd corner cases without making a judgement call.

As far as the alignment system is concerned the creation of undead is an evil act but otherwise there's -no- concrete relationship between necromancy, negative energy, and evil.

Intelligent undead can be whatever alignment they choose, as can -any- sentient creature. They do often have a more difficult time of it because of their nature what with often feeding on the living either out of absolute necessity or inescapable, torturous need. They can, however, try to arrange a willing "victim" to sate these cravings without committing an evil act (specifically; unwarranted attack).

BoED adds the Deathless subtype, which is good undead. It makes me sad that such a thing needs to exist (why can't they just be an undead subtype? Wargl), but a sufficiently "good" vampire can be converted to Deathless from Undead and remain mechanically functional.

As others have mentioned, no. Deathless share some traits with undead, being animate bodies or disembodied souls, but they are all powered by positive energy and none of them have a need or desire to feed on the living in any way.

The correlation between undead and evil is an easy one to understand, IMO.

One of the tenets of good is respect for life and its preservation in the face of anything but natural predator-prey relations. Undead trample all over this.

They're entirely removed from nature, voiding the predator-prey exception. They're quite often made forcefully by other undead disrespecting the hell out of a victim's life by ending it violently. Their feeding is absolutely unnecessary. Even in the case of diet dependent undead, they will -never- deanimate from lack of feeding.

They are, on the whole, an utter affront to the respect for life that is a core tenet of good.

There's also the matter of them bleeding negative energy into the world. This has no immediately concrete game effects but it -does- have long-term effects in the same manner as the lingering effects of evil (see BoVD chapter two, under lingering effects of evil).

It's a simple matter of "the enemy of my enemy." Negative energy is the enemy of life and, thus, an indirect enemy of good. Being an enemy of good makes negative energy a defacto ally of evil, regardless of the fact that it's not, in itself, evil.

[Coidzor]

There's also the matter of them bleeding negative energy into the world. This has no immediately concrete game effects but it -does- have long-term effects in the same manner as the lingering effects of evil (see BoVD chapter two, under lingering effects of evil).

It's a simple matter of "the enemy of my enemy." Negative energy is the enemy of life and, thus, an indirect enemy of good. Being an enemy of good makes negative energy a defacto ally of evil, regardless of the fact that it's not, in itself, evil.

Was that ever actually made canon?

On the other hand, without the negative energy plane, you wouldn't have the prime material plane or life.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Was that ever actually made canon?

On the other hand, without the negative energy plane, you wouldn't have the prime material plane or life.

One of the items on BoVD's list of things that cause a lingering evil is long-term presence of multiple undead. Specifically, it only takes a couple dozen in an area to start causing long-term effects of the lowest category and even one lich is enough, given time, to bring on the effects of the second category.

Disclaimer: the following is speculatory and not actually in the rules.

The thing about the negative energy plane being necessary is probably true. I always imagined it as the yang to the positive plane's yin. Without the negative plane death wouldn't be a thing and life would grow in abundance until there was no room left.

My understanding is that the inner planes interaction with the material is what makes the material what it is. A creature's body is made of earth and water, its breath is air, and its spirit is fire. Positive energy is responsible for birth and growth, while negative is responsible for aging and death. Remove any of the six and the system doesn't work right.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

My understanding is that the inner planes interaction with the material is what makes the material what it is. A creature's body is made of earth and water, its breath is air, and its spirit is fire. Positive energy is responsible for birth and growth, while negative is responsible for aging and death. Remove any of the six and the system doesn't work right.

In my opinion this is probably the best starting point. From there, you can conclude that undead are an abnormal, twisted creation fueled by negative energy which has no place in the natural order of things.

And undeath isn't much different from what happens when you get an excess of any other element. Too much positive energy leads to dire animals, plant-monsters, and uncurable diseases. Too much fire leads to barren ash-covered land that can't support life. Too much water will create frozen lands that will kill any life that hasn't been severely adapted to it, and the few animals that remain will prey on each other until there's nothing left. Too much earth causes the ground to crystallize, making it impossible to support plant life. Too much air creates a blasted, glassy landscape that smells like ozone where you probably don't want to wear metal gear when it's cloudy.

Now, that leads to this question: If a character permanently becomes a fire elemental or fire-subtype dragon disciple or something in that vein, would that change his alignment? Well, it's likely that he would be driven by fire's destructive nature, which could definitely push him to the chaotic end of the alignment spectrum. Undeath shouldn't be much different, it's likely that a PC could retain his alignment with enough effort (though for undead that feed on the living, this is really really hard to justify without going insane).

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, but "Fire=Destructive" is a specific cultural value (I wouldn't even say it's a majority value, it's more common in cultures coming from jungles and heavy forests, it seems). There's also lots of cultures that see Fire as vital part of renewal. Or Fire as the bringer of life, not the ender of life. Or heck, Greek Myths where Fire symbolizes all knowledge and human culture being brought to mortals.

So it doesn't really make sense that Fire=Evil, or any particular alignment enough to warrant changing alignment.

Negative energy though is different. It doesn't really have a slant like that. It's pure destructive energy in DnD. Unless you yourself are similarly cursed/blessed as a being of pure destructive energy (like an undead).

[graymachine]

To back up Kelb Panthera's earlier point, sentient creatures can be of any alignment.


Alignment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.

Emphasis mine.

If you read the Monster Manual entry of Alignment, it will even discuss when it lists "Always Evil" that there are exceptions to the 'always' qualifier. As someone else pointed out, Libris Mortis goes through several undead and describes the likelihood and effects of an alignment change with them. The Tome of Necromancy (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_(3.5e_Sourcebook)), as also already mentioned, walks through determining if your campaign world has undead as inherently evil or morally gray, as it can be played both ways.

In the end, the DM can change anything if they think it will make a better story. My group normally tried to follow such restrictions, but I was allowed to ignore the alignment requirement of the Ur-Priest PrC and be Good due to my character's story/motivation, for example. Ask your DM; can't hurt anything to make a good argument for an exception to a rule.

Finally:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

[Phelix-Mu]

One of the items on BoVD's list of things that cause a lingering evil is long-term presence of multiple undead. Specifically, it only takes a couple dozen in an area to start causing long-term effects of the lowest category and even one lich is enough, given time, to bring on the effects of the second category.

Disclaimer: the following is speculatory and not actually in the rules.

The thing about the negative energy plane being necessary is probably true. I always imagined it as the yang to the positive plane's yin. Without the negative plane death wouldn't be a thing and life would grow in abundance until there was no room left.

My understanding is that the inner planes interaction with the material is what makes the material what it is. A creature's body is made of earth and water, its breath is air, and its spirit is fire. Positive energy is responsible for birth and growth, while negative is responsible for aging and death. Remove any of the six and the system doesn't work right.

My favorite druid character isn't actually totally opposed to undead, since in my setting they do crop up naturally from time to time. The problems start with them grouping together or spawning small armies of themselves, and then it's just like invasive species control. Gotta prune the bushes so they don't take over and muck up the ecosystem.

Sentient undead can be more troublesome, especially if they rage against normal lifeforms and generally cause trouble. But my druid is fairly tolerant, and humanoids are often just as problematic as the odd ghost wandering around.

[Cheiromancer]

Has anyone mentioned necropolitans yet? Of all the undead, they seem to be the ones that are most likely to be taken by PC's, and seem to be the least likely to be tempted into evil. They don't spawn or drain or eat people. They are thus the most likely to start acting good.

[Phelix-Mu]

Has anyone mentioned necropolitans yet? Of all the undead, they seem to be the ones that are most likely to be taken by PC's, and seem to be the least likely to be tempted into evil. They don't spawn or drain or eat people. They are thus the most likely to start acting good.

Yeah. What does happen to a character's soul if they go necropolitan?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah. What does happen to a character's soul if they go necropolitan?

What happens to any corporeal undead's soul? RAW doesn't say. At least for incorporeal undead it's stated that they -are- the former creature's soul.

[Coidzor]

Yeah. What does happen to a character's soul if they go necropolitan?

Well, the idea is that you stay the same person, you're just undead, IIRC. So I imagine that either the soul leaves the body, enters the cross or whatever they're being crucified on(possibly via thinaun?) and is then channeled back into it almost immediately (hence the migration part of crucimigration) or the soul just stays in the body, rather than leaving and being trapped in a box or passing through the Astral Sea or what have you.

[Larkas]

Hmmm... A little aside on negative energy and druids. I think they would consider it an inherent part of nature, just like any other element. However, they strive for balance. Too much fire and nature will be destroyed. The same would happen with water, air, earth, and even positive energy. "Natural" negative energy is death, "unnatural" negative energy is undeath. Naturally-occurring undead could be tolerated, just as with elementals, but aside from that, it stands to reason that druids would go out of their way to destroy any other undead, as they are as much a blight for nature as a flash-fire - at least for ecosystems that don't have those as part of their life cycle*.

This doesn't mean that undead are unbalancing on the morality axis, merely that they are unbalancing from a natural point of view. But it's something to think about.

* Come to think of it, can you come up with an ecosystem that has a sudden surge of undeath as part of its lifecycle?

[Raimun]

What's with the people always wanting to have goody-two-shoes undead? Do you even know where that kind of thinking leads? That's right. Twilight.

Undead are Evil. End of the story... after purging them with fire.

[Larkas]

What's with the people always wanting to have goody-two-shoes undead? Besides, do you even know where that kind of thinking leads? That's right. Twilight.

Undead are Evil. End of the story... after purging them with fire.

Of course. Cause we all like one-dimensional characters and cackling villains. Besides, that sparkling vampire is far from a beacon of all that is Nice and Good. Edward is a creepy manipulative controlling overprotective stalker.

If anything, we're looking at Castlevania's Alucard here, not that fairypire.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What's with the people always wanting to have goody-two-shoes undead? Do you even know where that kind of thinking leads? That's right. Twilight.

Undead are Evil. End of the story... after purging them with fire.

Can you back up that statement with any kind of logic though?

Also, don't even get me started on the Twilight "vampires." Suffice it to say that the author of the books is on record as having known litteraly nothing but the fact they have an inescapable craving to suck blood when she designed her "vampires." She has told the press in no uncertain terms that she was pulling things out of her ass as far as "how vampires work" goes.

There -can- be quite a bit of interesting character development centered around the idea of a unliving creature either remembering or rediscovering their humanity (mechanically maintaining or moving toward a good alignment) but it has to be handled very well to avoid the character coming off as whiny, emo punk.

Good tragedy, particularly in the realm of the struggle between nature and morality, is beyond the skill of, I dare say, most players.

[Phelix-Mu]

* Come to think of it, can you come up with an ecosystem that has a sudden surge of undeath as part of its lifecycle?

Certainly. In my world, magical energies of various kinds operate as part of the natural world. From time to time, things cause accumulations of negative energy (just like there are Wild Magic Zones and Dead Magic Zones, there are areas where a certain type of magic is temporarily or permanently enhanced). In an area of negative energy accumulation, corpses of creatures may reanimate.

Likewise, certain undead come about as a "natural" consequence of the existence of other lifeforms. The various haunts, ghosts, the spirits of slain fey, they can all come about after various kinds of horrific events, tragedies, and such. They can be tolerated, as you say, up to a point, as the actions of any single undead are relatively minor compared to the constant creative and destructive cycles of the planet. To me, this is just an extension of the way that various other types of hostile lifeforms can come about from unusual events (warwalkers, for instance, but there are even more mundane examples).

Obviously, sentient undead that are free to pursue their ambitions, or undead with the create spawn ability, can quickly ping on a druid's radar. One lone wraith isn't a big deal. After the wraith visits the thorp of Trymsdale, however, it has a bunch of new friends, and is a problem. Some druids might opt to proactively hunt the types of undead that tend to spread or be engaged in large-scale mayhem. But if there is some lonely ghost that lives in yonder ruins and occasionally whacks some idiot adventurer, well, that's not a huge priority.

Anyway, it's just my take. Some druids, particularly NG ones, might decide to hunt undead. Since many druids have lots of leeway about how to enforce their mandate to protect the natural world, they don't all agree on this point. I was mainly talking about a specific druid that I have who is essentially the druid charged with protecting an entire subcontinent on my world (imagine being the Druid of Australia, something like that).

[Kane0]

Many of the sentient undead like Vampires and Liches are listed as "Any Evil" in the monster manual, but what happens if they start being a force for Good? Maybe there's some hero who needs the extra power to defeat some evil and is willing to sacrifice his humanity to do so. That may not "Good", but seems at worst Neutral.

Any sentient undead can potentially be good. They aren't outsiders that are locked into an alignment or mindless like zombies or constructs that cannot have a personality/alignment. The only reason undead don't have more good or neutral aligned individuals than they do by default is because negative energy is the opposite of the more prevalent positive energy. It's harmful for one to come into contact with the other and negative energy has the unfortunate side effect of causing warping, cursing, etc when used, especially on something that was once powered by its opposite- positive energy (such as in undead).

There is no real reason that an intelligent undead cannot be good or neutral, it's just that being powered by negative energy makes them lean towards evil more often than not, leading to the stereotype and sometimes assumption that all undead are evil, often by default.

The most classic example i can think of is Drizz't. Drow are supposed to be evil by default and all that.

Edit: Obligatory TVTropes link, My Species Doth Protest Too Much (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MySpeciesDothProtestTooMuch).

[ArcturusV]

Then again Drizzt, since he was mentioned, is usually a good example of why breaking the "standard" often ends up being bad. Leads to lots of bad characters who spend far too much time brooding about the world that won't accept them, etc. Especially if you take it some extremes like trying to make a Devil Chaotic Good, etc., at least if you haven't accounted for things like that being normal and part of daily life. Unusual perhaps, but normal... like seeing a deer in the city isn't something that happens everyday but it's not unheard of by a long shot either.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Another thing to consider is as an undead there are a lot of things in life you simply can't enjoy. Can a Wight feel the warmth of a the sun? or the cool breeze on his face? You don't eat at least not any traditional food. Undead are immune to morale effects



Then again Drizzt, since he was mentioned, is usually a good example of why breaking the "standard" often ends up being bad. Leads to lots of bad characters who spend far too much time brooding about the world that won't accept them, etc.

I once went in completely different direction with that kind of character. I was playing a half-drow(but still 100% Elf) who was quite cheerful and upbeat. Troubled childhood? No he had quite loving and supportive parents in addition to many siblings. If someone gave him grief over his drow heritage he told them to kiss his elven arse.

For him brooding about the world that wouldn't accept him was just letting the *******s win. But that methodology might not work to well with an undead which may be incapable of enjoying the simple pleasures in life such as music, good food or a warm summer day.


Also, don't even get me started on the Twilight "vampires."
Twilight would make a lot more sense and be more interesting if you replaced every mention of the word vampires with fairies.

[Cheiromancer]

Twilight would make a lot more sense and be more interesting if you replaced every mention of the word vampires with fairies.

Blood-drinking fairies. I like it! :smallbiggrin:

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Blood-drinking fairies. I like it! :smallbiggrin:

We can refluff stirges for that. Maybe give them a little cold iron damage reduction just to make them even more annoying to low-level characters.

Though I think it would be pretty hard to sell a romance between a human girl and a sparkly oversized mosquito.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Though I think it would be pretty hard to sell a romance between a human girl and a sparkly oversized mosquito.And yet Twilight was hugely successful at it.

[Psyren]

Yeah. What does happen to a character's soul if they go necropolitan?

For all intelligent undead (including Necropolitans) the soul is within the body. For most of these undead it is trapped there, a helpless observer to the malevolent force that is piloting their animated corpse - this is why the undead creature must be destroyed before the dead individual can be raised.

For nonintelligent undead, the soul can be somewhere else - for example, you can Soul Bind a dead body and then turn their corpse into a shambling zombie, or animate the corpse of a dead warrior who has long ago passed on to the afterlife. There are some cases where this distinction matters, but not many.

[Phelix-Mu]

For all intelligent undead (including Necropolitans) the soul is within the body. For most of these undead it is trapped there, a helpless observer to the malevolent force that is piloting their animated corpse - this is why the undead creature must be destroyed before the dead individual can be raised.

So how does the choice to become undead reflect on the person's soul? If the decision to be a necropolitan is the last accountable action, then that seems to be a weird kind of limbo for that soul (i.e., the soul of the person is now trapped in the body...is it connected to the mind and choices in the same way as a living person?). On the other hand, if the soul is still accountable for actions taken while undead, this should extend to the souls of all who consciously choose to become undead, regardless of method (crucimigration, asking a vampire to turn you, lichification).

Hmmm. Is avoidance of death an evil act? It certainly can be motivated by fear of final judgement. Using undeath to avoid dying or live forever seems to be an evil act, though there is nothing preventing the necropolitan or whatever from taking steps to pursue redemption.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's nothing evil about trying to avoid death. Both 10th level cloud anchorites and elans of all classes were normal humans at one point and will live forever unless killed. Becoming a lich, necropolitan or vampire is evil because it's deliberately creating a new undead creature in the world, not because it makes you "live" forever after.

[TuggyNE]

There's nothing evil about trying to avoid death. Both 10th level cloud anchorites and elans of all classes were normal humans at one point and will live forever unless killed. Becoming a lich, necropolitan or vampire is evil because it's deliberately creating a new undead creature in the world, not because it makes you "live" forever after.

It is, however, arguably a Chaotic act, given that LN Maruts may hunt you for it.

[Psyren]

Necropolitan has no effect on your alignment. And if "avoidance of death" were truly chaotic, all healing spells would have the chaos descriptor.

[Slipperychicken]

There's nothing evil about trying to avoid death.

It does get evil when you do it by raping the natural cycle and polluting the world with necrotic taint.

[Psyren]

I don't see anything particularly sacred about "the natural cycle." Disease, poison and drought are part of nature, and the inevitables don't get all up in arms when people cure that stuff.

Lichdom specifically is bad simply because you're required by RAW to do something bad to get it, but that doesn't mean every single means of achieving immortality is bad.

[hamishspence]

I don't see anything particularly sacred about "the natural cycle." Disease, poison and drought are part of nature, and the inevitables don't get all up in arms when people cure that stuff.

According to Sandstorm- there is an inevitable that "gets all up in arms" when people cure deserts- its job is to make sure the world has them.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't see anything particularly sacred about "the natural cycle." Disease, poison and drought are part of nature, and the inevitables don't get all up in arms when people cure that stuff.


Curing diseases and eating well doesn't make you linger around forever though; you still die when your time is up. Undeath transforms a person into a shambling mockery of life, which doesn't return to dust until someone dispels the negative energy by either clobbering it out, or canceling it with positive energy.



Negative Energy is energy. Energy isn't evil, its energy. What it is antithetical to positive energy. Big 'fricken deal. If someone decides to become a necropolitan, what crimes against nature have the committed? Absolutely none, because in D&D negative energy is a part of nature. There's an infinite amount of it too, just like there's an infinite amount of positive energy.


It isn't evil in itself, but it's antithetical to life. Bringing too much of it into the Material plane is bad because it has the potential to corrupt and destroy all life; doing so willy-nilly is gross disrespect for life and therefore pushes one toward evil.

Think about it like this. Fire isn't in itself evil, but if you end up burning down buildings and forests, whether through malice or casual disregard for the consequences of playing with it, that pushes one down the path of evil. In terms of negative energy, creating undead is like throwing a torch or flame-arrow into the woods. One isn't going to burn it all down, but making a habit of it isn't going to end well, either.

[Coidzor]

Curing diseases and eating well doesn't make you linger around forever though; you still die when your time is up. Undeath transforms a person into a shambling mockery of life, which doesn't return to dust until someone dispels the negative energy by either clobbering it out, or canceling it with positive energy.

Well, if they were a person before they became undead, they're generally not shambling. Now if they were a corpse before they became undead, sure, but making an animated object out of a corpse isn't evil even though it's just as much a mockery of life.

[hamishspence]

Maybe the animate object spell is positive energy-based? This positive energy plane monster:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ravid.htm

leaks it - and objects spontaneously animate.

[Thrudd]

The normal and balanced amount of negative energy in the world is reflected by aging and dying, entropy in general. The normal amount of positive energy is responsible for conceiving and growing. The natural emotions of love and fear, positive and negative respecitvely. This is why druids are always neutral (used to be only true neutral, no good or evil or lawful or chaotic). Their magic and their job comes from maintaining the balance of the material world, which must not have too much positive or negative energy. They are sustained by being in perfect balance in all material elements, not by drawing power from another plane or energy source. A spreading region of heavenly radiance that heals everyone who touches it and leaves people enlightened and immune to injury would be just as much a threat to the natural order of the material world as would be a negative zone where the dead rise and all plant life whithers. Normally we don't write campaigns about that sort of thing (a spreading zone of goodness and light), because it isn't really threatening in the immiediate sense. Even if it means the destruction of material existence as we know it, a lot of people wouldn't mind it. Rising and out of control evil and negative energy are the type of threat that is more obvious and adventures tend to address.
By my cosmology, the very existence of undead corresponds to an unnatural imbalance in energy. A corruption that consumes a lifeform until it is an embodiment of persistent death and entropy; hence the feeding on flesh, or consuming souls, draining life-energy, and a persistent aura of fear etc. that is the halmark of undead creatures. A person who willingly became that, even with good intentions of gaining power and immortality for the sake of others, would inevitably be twisted into "evil". It is like taking the One Ring and trying to use it for good. The Ring itself is evil, anything you try to do with it will turn to ruin, whatever your intentions.
Of course, campaign worlds may vary. Some people are fine with a blatant black and white world, where it all boils down to a supernatural "good" force combating an "evil" force, and they don't give it any more thought than that. It is obvious in this case that death/negative is evil and life/positive is good, and we are on the side of good (or evil, if the players like to be contrary). Others prefer a world with no inherent morality defined for the characters. There is no supernatural basis for good and evil, they are defined only by people's choices relative to eachother and their environment, and supernatural elements are completely neutral, it is all in how they are used. I like a little bit of a mix of the two. I don't want a morally preachy or simplistic game, but I don't really enjoy running or playing in amoral/evil campaigns either, where everyone is plotting against eachother. There is a definite overall "good" to be acheived, but the players should have some moral quandries and difficult decisions to make throughout. So my world has deities and supernatural forces that, for all intents and purposes, are good and evil, since some appear to defend life and others seek to destroy the natural order. If we were to really delve into the workings of the cosmos and see it all from a detached and enlightened viewpoint, it could be argued that both are necessary and natural parts of a functioning system, there is really no such thing as "alignment", only perception and variances which are necessary for the appearance of forms and ultimately material existence, all existence is predicated on the fluctuating and interaction of these forces. Maybe the Grand Master of Flowers (you old school folks know what I'm talking about) could have this discussion with the players when they seek him out on his secluded mountain top wanting to know the secrets of the universe. But rarely is a D&D game about becoming enlightened, it is about adventuring and fighting. So from the players' and characters' perspective, there is good and evil, and in general I want them to be more on the "good" side, which is defending their society or their world in general from forces that would break it. Perhaps is cosmological terms it is futile to resist change, and a world full of negative energy will inevitably swing back to the positive...but unless they are at epic/god level themselves, I don't think the characters would be ready or willing to accept that...

..all that said, I don't think it should be completely out of the question for someone who is turned undead against their will and retains their soul/sentience to be able to recover their humanity by some supernatural means, or even for one who willingly chose undeath to change their mind and be redeemed somehow. It can be a compelling story, though one I think has been overplayed (by me at least) in the World of Darkness games. Which is where I would go if I wanted that kind of story. D&D just isn't the place for it, IMO. Outside of a beloved character seeking to rid his/herself of a curse (vampirism or lycanthropy most likely) through a quest, I tend to stay away from traditionally evil creatures being playable. I did have a character contract lycanthropy once, in 1st/2nd ed, and we played it through and was quite a good campaign...but that was also in the days when White Wolf was the big craze, and I can't say that our WOD games didn't bleed through into my D&D. My taste has changed quite a bit in the intervening 18+ years (and no longer a depressed and hormonal teenager feeling outcast).