Why is creating undead Evil?

[RedMage125]

Spoiler

Show

Question: Animate Legion and Animate Undead Legion are - unlike the most Undead-creating magic - time-limited too.
But despite it - they're still [Evil]
Why?
OK, I may justify Animate Legion because "undead created will attack the nearest living creatures"
But it's not the case for Animate Undead Legion; moreover - RAW says Undead which leaves the spell's radius are instantly destroyed
And, despite it all - Animate Undead Legion is still [Evil]
So, once again, - why?

Because Animated Objects aren't "corrupt mockeries of life"? You cut that out of my post when you quoted to respond.

Even if it's the case - it may be more restriction of the Resurrection spell itself than anything else
After all, Bringing Back the Dead doesn't says anything about Undead, and just asks for body and soul to be available (and, in case of soul, - willing)

And yet Raise Dead cannot bring someone back who has been turned into an undead creature, EVEN IF that creature has been destroyed.

The point is that undeath being inflicted on the corpse interferes with any attempt to bring someone fully back to life.

And it's Evil because Book of Vile Darkness said so!
Disprove me!
(InB4 appealing to [Evil] descriptors on the spells - those all are specific cases)

*sigh*
I said the BoVD was consistent with what was in the 3.0 PHB. Which it is. BoVD clarifies that ANY creation of undead is Evil. The PHB did not give us that. But nothing in what the BoVD says contradicts the way the RAW in the PHB work. To the contrary, now it makes sense why all the undead-creating spells in the PHB are [Evil].

And which of those spells are used to create Undead?
I. e. - while 3.X Player's Handbook had many spells with [Evil] descriptor, only three of them were directly used in creation of Undead
Your point there is technical correction without any actual contradiction

Thought you'd like a little taste of pedantry.

Something which nobody disproved so far: Detect Undead still barely useful in a most games, and Good Undead still pings on Detect Evil

A vampire disguising itself at a royal ball while wearing a Ring of Mind Shielding will not register on Detect Evil, but will still ping on Detect Undead.

Wow, that took NO EFFORT at all. The point remains that any time you need to determine whether or not something is undead you would use the latter. Hell, plenty of NPCs at the aforementioned ball might be Evil. But since alignment is not an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation, Detect Evil would be useless there. If you are trying to find the vampire, however, Detect Undead would serve your purposes better.

Ah!
I see what you mean
But, unfortunately, it's a circular argument: BoVD is OK - because it's "consistent" with PH (hint - it isn't), and PH is OK - because of text in BoVD

No, PHB is okay because it's RAW. Yes, the PHB doesn't explicitly tell us that all undead creation is evil, but all those spells have the Evil tag. BoVD just clarifies why.

Stop trying to pretend my point is anything other than that to further whatever your narrative is.

Please, tell me:

1. Do those Magical Beast ping on the Detect Magic?
2. Would they turn into mere Animals in a Dead Magic zone?

If not - then the word "Magical" is just a word, and shouldn't be taken literally

I'd have to go back a BUNCH of quotes, but I'm pretty sure what I said (because I've said it before) was that the magicks that animate them are Evil. I use that word for a reason. It is just a word. Magical Beasts don't turn into normal animals in a Dead Magic Zone. SPELLS don't work in a DMZ, and magic items are rendered nonmagical.
And Magical Beasts don't ping on Detect Magic, because they're not animated by magic. A Golem would, however (as a magic item, since Craft Construct is an Item Creation feat).

You clearly understand what I'm saying. You're being obtuse on purpose.

Sorry!
Actually, I was confused by the "native" word: "Outsider" and "native" are going together like a bolt and nut (for example, Rakshasa)
Most of your points are, actually, valid there
Still, exceptions (besides Intellect Devourer):

• Construct - Kani Doll (Dragonlance)
• Elemental - Taint Elementals (Heroes of Horror; there are no Elemental Plane of Taint)
• Ooze - Deathreap Ooze (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; no indications of being extraplanar)
• and Undead - Plague Blight, all Necrocarnum Zombies

Gonna dismiss the setting-specific ones. ESPECIALLY the one from Ravenloft, as it is a demiplane literally ruled over by Dark and Evil Powers.
I don't know what books those undead came from, but the Taint Elemental might be #2 as far as exceptions.

Pretty please, don't put words in my mouth
You point was: "Creation of Undead is Evil every single time, no exceptions, no ifs or buts!.."
As a proof, you used one (very) specific example of Fireball spell usage

No, YOU are putting words in MY mouth.
Fireball was specifically brought up to counter your point about "Negative Energy is not evil". THe whole point of the fireball example was to show that neutral energies can be used to Evil.
FULL STOP. Anything other than that on this vein of conversation is you making things up.

So, can animation of mindless Undead be Evil?
Probably.
(After all, even Cure Wounds spells could be used for Evil)
But every single case?..

What's baffling to me is that you will accept other precepts and "givens" of a fantasy setting.
Gargantuan and Colossal dragons that can still fly? Sure.
Spells that warp reality? Okay.
Normal, nonmagical beings that live for centuries? Totally Fine.
Demons, Angels, and other beings tied to Cosmic Forces of Good and Evil? A-okay.
But that in the same setting, the idea that forcibly animating a corpse into a corrupt mockery of life (in a manner that has some -unspecified- connection to the soul of the person whose body is uses as evidenced by the effect undeath has on Resurrection) is an absolutely Evil act? Nope. That is too much to accept.

Seriously...why is that difficult? It's a construct of FANTASY. And Making Undead being an Evil act resonates with common tropes of fantasy.

Please, tell me: do you really think turning living breathing creature into undead monster is, somehow, less evil than to make a mindless undead from their remains (which - by the RAW! -wouldn't affect their soul)?

Also, you said: "All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources)."
When I gave you not one, but several spells which are lacking [Evil] descriptor, you quickly switched it to "Spells which target a corpse, and turn it into an undead creature as the sole function of the spell"
Sorry, but it doesn't helps: Raise Skeleton, Raise Skeleton Mage, and Revive are all turn corpses into Undead, but lacking [Evil] descriptor

I am not familiar with Seed of Undeath or Blood Oath. But you also mentioned Energy Drain, which ONLY creates a wight if it kills someone. Which WOULD then be an evil act. But not every casting of Energy Drain results in an Undead creature, ergo, it's not an "always Evil" act, because inflicting negative levels (but NOT killing with them) isn't an Evil act. I assumed the other 2 spells were similar.

And where do Raise Skeletal Mage and the others come from? I've never even heard of them. Are they 1st party and non-setting specific?

My point there was: creation of mindless Undead from creature's remains don't prevent you from successfully using Reanimation spell on it (no "... and then destroyed ..." clause)
Which mean - soul is free to return
Which mean - presumption the Skeleton or Zombie somehow "entraps" the creature's soul is incorrect

Reanimation targets a CORPSE. You cannot cast it on an undead creature. That is a CREATURE.

So, the "Target" line of the spell actually says you are WRONG.

And...ONCE AGAIN, since you seems to have missed it all the times I have said it since the beginning:
THE EVIDENCE THAT EVEN MINDLESS UNDEAD HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO THE SOUL OF THE PERSON USED IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
I've said that from the get-go. There's also things from non-canon sources (such as the Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas in Dragon Magazine) that specify that Animate Dead traps the soul, but that isn't canon. Acting like you're "proving" something with poking holes in it is not making a point against me. It's just being extremely pedantic. I've only EVER said that it's circumstantial evidence.

No need to duplicate True Resurrection:

If they've just fallen, how are they undead creatures, again? Where does it specify that what you're claiming is specifically possible? Care to support that?

In the Midnight Campaign Setting, Resurrection is limited for evil NPC

But even in any other setting, Raise Dead is how much later than Animate Dead?..

Thus - red herring

I have no familiarity with that setting, and was not talking about that setting. So your attempt to bring it up as if it has any bearing on this discussion is a Straw Man.

I mean, seriously? You ACTUALLY think it was a cogent argument to say "well, in this OTHER setting where the RAW of D&D are altered significantly, your point is a red herring, therefore I will be dismissive of it as it applies to RAW D&D as well". That sounds like a rational train of thought to you?

I mean - to don't spread rules from your table to the rest of us
RAW isn't clear, and your statement "But it is..." don't, actually, make it any clearer
Referring to "everybody"/"nobody" is a blatant fallacy, thus - please, don't use it.

Literally NO ONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD is confused by the limitations on Raise Dead, Resurrection, or True Resurrection vis a vis undead creatures made from the corpse of the intended resurrection.

To imply that there IS confusion (which I would assume includes a reading deficiency), as if that somehow makes my point less true is absurd. Is there a logical fallacy for "Appeal to Idiocy"? Because it sounds like you've been saying "well, what if someone doesn't understand what those words in the spell means? The RAW are not crystal-clear to those people".

To which I say: Anyone who cannot read and comprehend the text is not the intended audience for this argument. And I thus do not care about them.