Why is creating undead Evil?

[RedMage125]

Referring back to somebody's comments about "true names," I think I understand where they were coming from better, now. Or, maybe I've come up with a different take based on their notion. Either way, thought I'd share the thought:

"Billy the Halfling" and "Billy the Zombie" are still both "Billy the creature," Billy's just changed type (from humanoid to undead) and gotten a template. Now, the soul isn't there for Billy the Zombie - at least, not nearly enough of it to matter for most purposes - but Billy the Zombie is still Billy, and Billy is not dead: he's undead. Raise dead et al only work to bring the dead back to life. To turn the dead into a creature. Billy the Zombie is already a creature; hence, he can't be brought back from "dead" to "creature."

That...is a fascinate treatise, Segev. It fits very nicely into RAW, as well. At least as far as adding understanding to RAW without invalidating any of them.

Sure, but again, that's not RAW. You certainly could rule things in a way that there is a single objective soul that is in one place at a time and has consistent interactions for all the various spells. But the rules clearly don't (or don't clearly) work that way now.

"Don't clearly" is more correct here. While JusticeZero's ruling is not RAW, it simply adds an additional restriction to what the RAW say. As I said before, there is circumstantial evidence that links the soul of the person to be raised with the undead creature, by virtue of the person being unable to be raised.

But enough rules appear to use that assumption that it is simply extending the principle shown by the best known interactions to all interactions.
Also, I don't actually care about a strict RAW so much as a coherent setting.

However we are having a RAW discussion. The thrust of the thread is to explore the reasoning behind the RAW facts that assert that it is evil to create undead. Your houserule, while explaining things nicely as far as your game, has no bearing on the RAW.

That's not to denigrate your houserule, however. I find it creative, intriguing, and it makes some of the interactions of magic make more sense. Please do not be offended. I appreciate that you shared it. Just know that it's more of a "huh, that's an interesting variant" than it is "that is a solid contribution to the primary discussion".