Undead always EVUL?

[Svata]

Well, to start with, making a certain category of beings always of certain alignment makes zero sense in just about any case. But it makes even less sense in case of mindless undead. They're sacks of meat and bones animated by magic - morality does not apply to it any more than it applies to constructs made of clay or iron.

Or, indeed, constructs made of selfsame flesh and/or bone.

[malonkey1]

So are the Inflict spells Evil?
What if your only goal is to live forever through lichdom/necropolitanism? You're not even taking up resources like food and water at that point. Are the living the only things that matter?

Well, for Lichdom, it requires an extremely vague, extremely evil act, so yes, lichdom is evil. I'm not aware of necropolitanism, though.

In BoED, there is the Crypt Warden and Sacred Guardian that are non evil.

Those, however, are not actually undead, but deathless. Deathless are dead creatures that have been revitalized by positive energy into a state that is similar on its surface to undeath, but "gooder".

[Madara]

Well, for Lichdom, it requires an extremely vague, extremely evil act, so yes, lichdom is evil. I'm not aware of necropolitanism, though.

It involves inflicting a large amount of pain and I believe crucifying a live individual. In this unique situation, you go from living -> undead, not living -> dead -> undead. If the subject is willing, it might be neutral at best, but the process is evil if they're not willing.

[Blackhawk748]

It involves inflicting a large amount of pain and I believe crucifying a live individual. In this unique situation, you go from living -> undead, not living -> dead -> undead. If the subject is willing, it might be neutral at best, but the process is evil if they're not willing.

THATS the unspeakably evil act? thats it??? Medieval governments did that all the time. Hell in DnD find an orc chief and do it to him, youll probably stay happily neutral.

[Deophaun]

A zombie, given orders, will attempt to carry out those orders to within the extent of its (very limited) ability. A zombie left to its own devices will attempt to kill every living thing it sees.

No, it won't. And even if it did, how would that explain skeletons, which are even more explicitly passive than Zombies?

A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple, such as “Kill anyone who enters this chamber.

[Morty]

Or, indeed, constructs made of selfsame flesh and/or bone.

That's true. The distinction between a flesh golem and a zombie boils down to "because the books say so", really.

It involves inflicting a large amount of pain and I believe crucifying a live individual. In this unique situation, you go from living -> undead, not living -> dead -> undead. If the subject is willing, it might be neutral at best, but the process is evil if they're not willing.

Source on that?

[Jack_Simth]

THATS the unspeakably evil act? thats it??? Medieval governments did that all the time. Hell in DnD find an orc chief and do it to him, youll probably stay happily neutral.

It looks like Madara was explaining the Necropolitan template (Libris Mortis), not the Lich template (Monster Manual).

[Blackhawk748]

It looks like Madara was explaining the Necropolitan template (Libris Mortis), not the Lich template (Monster Manual).

Ah, that makes so much more sense now, because im sure even Wotc could think of something better than that for "unspeakable evil"

Which reminds me, do the actually say anywhere what that act is?

[Phelix-Mu]

Things can be evil in D&D by virtue of things other than their personal choices. Thus, creatures incapable of self-determination or decision-making can still ping one way or another. In simple terms, the alignment of skeletons or zombies may matter little; they only do what they are told, and that is RAW. If you tell them to save orphans and put out houses on fire, they will do it. The evil comes from the inheritance of negative energy/anti-life, which affects zombies and skeletons little, but may affect other undead in more significant ways.

I don't particularly agree with this take on things, as life, to me, is a neutral force capable of leading to many alignment outcomes, and thus death should also be so. Undeath is arguably anathema to neutrality, and thus "unnatural" insofar and the natural world gravitates toward a balance between the alignments; there are few, if any, natural checks on the undead. Thus, beyond a minor amount of natural ghosts or hauntings, undead can quickly cause problems (especially those that spawn).

The mockery of life thing doesn't hold a lot of water with me. They may be a mockery, but life doesn't care; life exists side-by-side with death, which also makes a mockery of life (by snuffing it out with seeming random impunity), so I think life can probably suck up undeath snubbing its nose at life.

Another thing to consider is that undead don't contribute to any natural cycle in a meaningful way, but rather exist as a dead-end exit off the circular highway that winds its way around life and death. Undead can cause more death or save life, but they can only do the latter at the behest of others (as it is the unusual non-mindless undead that devotes itself to others). Even if they don't do either, the bodies of the dead are supposed to return to the earth, becoming the stuff that future life will draw on for sustenance. Instead, they are held in a timeless state of perpetual unmaking, unable to fill their "natural" role.

Still, to me this all still says "neutral" or "usually evil" at best.

Also, bear in mind that the MM IIRC sets out explicitly that "always X" actually just means "almost always X." The plot or player intervention can always allow for the rare exception to the rule, such as succubus paladins (hehe) or ghouls with a heart of gold. These should still constitute a minority, though, and even a "usually X" mindless creature will still have little consequence to its alignment, as it acts by instinct or programming/commands only.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes this is true, but why is "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!" their default mode? I mean if we are in Ravenloft i get it, but just about any other doesnt give a real reason why mindless undead try to kill freakin everything.

Personally ive played a Dread Necro that got into a serious argument with a golem crafter about the morality of necromancy. He won the argument when he brought up the fact that the golem crafter was enslaving sentient elementals to stick into large artificial bodies, im just charging a corpse with negative energy.

Because negative energy is evil.

If they weren't powered by negative energy, maybe.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Because negative energy is evil.

If they weren't powered by negative energy, maybe.

Since when is negative energy Evil?

[Divayth Fyr]

Because negative energy is evil.

If they weren't powered by negative energy, maybe.

So, why are Xeg-yis (basically sentient, tentacled balls of negative energy) "always neutral"?

[ryu]

So, why are Xeg-yis (basically sentient, tentacled balls of negative energy) "always neutral"?

Same for the entire bloody plane of negative energy.

[Phelix-Mu]

Since when is negative energy Evil?

This goes back to the "anathema to life/existence thing." But since they consider healing spells and other life-giving spells neutral, not [good], they are, yet again, staring into the face of their own inconsistency.

[Pan151]

Things can be evil in D&D by virtue of things other than their personal choices. Thus, creatures incapable of self-determination or decision-making can still ping one way or another. In simple terms, the alignment of skeletons or zombies may matter little; they only do what they are told, and that is RAW. If you tell them to save orphans and put out houses on fire, they will do it. The evil comes from the inheritance of negative energy/anti-life, which affects zombies and skeletons little, but may affect other undead in more significant ways.

The thing is, creatures that are inherently evil due to their very creation do not have an Evil alignment - they have the [Evil] subtype.

Alignment is the byproduct of a creature's concious choice (which, in the case of mindless constructs, mindless undead and other creatures who exist solely to serve their master and have no will or capability to make choices of their own, logically defaults to Lawful Neutral).

The [Evil] subtype, on the other hand, is not a result of choice, and is completely irrelevant to a creature's actual alignment. A fallen angel will always retain his [Good] subtype, while a Balor could go all the way to Exalted and would still retain the [Evil] subtype.

If undead skeletons and the like were [Evil], we would still be debating the whole legitimacy of Negative energy being evil, but at least that would be somewhat consistent. As it stands, the rules make the arguement that mindless undead are Evil not inherently, but by choice - which is the most silly part of the whole thing.

[squiggit]

The problem I've always had with the negative energy argument has always been that negative energy itself is neutral... and the spells that actually bring raw, uncontrolled negative energy into the world don't have an alignment type either.

It gets even fuzzier when you consider that it's only sometimes evil. Like if I animate a bunch of skeletons it's an evil act, but if I take those skeletons and use them to build a bone golem it's suddenly no longer a problem even though the bone golem is animated in a similar fashion?

I think the reason this was changed is that pure Neutrality made zombies and skeletons harder to detect compared to Intelligent, generally Evil Undead, which seemed unbalanced.

Under the rules of 3.0, the Detect Undead spell was very useful as a means of detecting non-Evil Undead. Under 3.5 rules, the Detect Undead spell is more useful as a means of detecting Intelligent Undead capable of making their Evil alignment undetectable.

Wouldn't detect evil automatically picking up any undead (which it does) make that a nonissue though?

[ryu]

The thing is, creatures that are inherently evil due to their very creation do not have an Evil alignment - they have the [Evil] subtype.

Alignment is the byproduct of a creature's concious choice (which, in the case of mindless constructs, mindless undead and other creatures who exist solely to serve their master and have no will or capability to make choices of their own, logically defaults to Lawful Neutral).

The [Evil] subtype, on the other hand, is not a result of choice, and is completely irrelevant to a creature's actual alignment. A fallen angel will always retain his [Good] subtype, while a Balor could go all the way to Exalted and would still retain the [Evil] subtype.

If undead skeletons and the like were [Evil], we would still be debating the whole legitimacy of Negative energy being evil, but at least that would be somewhat consistent. As it stands, the rules make the arguement that mindless undead are Evil not inherently, but by choice - which is the most silly part of the whole thing.

Now see, stuff like this is why I've directly made a point of rejecting their base fluff entirely and substituting something more internally consistent. Less nonsense in the part of the game where nonsense is least tolerable that way.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Now see, stuff like this is why I've directly made a point of rejecting their base fluff entirely and substituting something more internally consistent. Less nonsense in the part of the game where nonsense is least tolerable that way.

I think this is the best way to go about. If you think it is inconsistent for Undead to be always Evil, then make it so that, in whatever games you're in, there is a more consistent system.

[ryu]

I think this is the best way to go about. If you think it is inconsistent for Undead to be always Evil, then make it so that, in whatever games you're in, there is a more consistent system.

Among a frighteningly long list of other Necessary Setting Changes.

[Ravens_cry]

This goes back to the "anathema to life/existence thing." But since they consider healing spells and other life-giving spells neutral, not [good], they are, yet again, staring into the face of their own inconsistency.

Anathema to life, sure, just like antimatter is anathema to matter. Positive and negative energy are mutually incompatible élan vital. Evil and good have nothing to do with it.
Positive energy healing spells aren't good because healing can be evil, if, say, you are torturing someone for the lulz and want to prolong it as long as possible.

[ryu]

Anathema to life, sure, just like antimatter is anathema to matter. Positive and negative energy are mutually incompatible élan vital. Evil and good have nothing to do with it.
Positive energy healing spells aren't good because healing can be evil, if, say, you are torturing someone for the lulz and want to prolong it as long as possible.

Like that time the party cleric repeatedly used powerful healing spells to regenerate a cow as it was repeatedly butchered?

[Vogonjeltz]

Since when is negative energy Evil?

Good is compassion and respect for all living things.

Negative energy harms all living things.

Ipso facto, negative energy is evil.


*what is the citation for negative energy being neutral?

Incidentally, if you were able to prove it were neutral, the use of negative energy would technically be evil because it can only cause harm to living things.

[Divayth Fyr]

Negative energy harms all living things.

Fire tends to do that as well.

the use of negative energy would technically be evil because it can only cause harm to living things.

So, creating a bunch of skeletons to work in a place hostile to living creatures brings harm to living things?

[Ravens_cry]

Like that time the party cleric repeatedly used powerful healing spells to regenerate a cow as it was repeatedly butchered?

I would consider that to be pretty damn evil unless the cow was unconscious and unaware, though it may avert a greater evil, like the starvation of a group of people.

[Sliver]

Incidentally, if you were able to prove it were neutral, the use of negative energy would technically be evil because it can only cause harm to living things.

Tomb-tainted soul. Still living, healed by megative energy.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Good is compassion and respect for all living things.

Negative energy harms all living things.

Ipso facto, negative energy is evil.

By your first premise, no form of energy can be Good, because they all lack compassion and respect, since they are merely forms of energy. This makes positive energy Evil as well. In fact, just about anything is Evil, since there are many things that harm living beings or lack compassion for them. By your logic, the Sun is Evil.

*what is the citation for negative energy being neutral?

Incidentally, if you were able to prove it were neutral, the use of negative energy would technically be evil because it can only cause harm to living things.

Negative energy is neutral because its plane is not Evil-aligned or good-aligned. If it was inherently either of those, then it's plane would be aligned in that direction.

There are uses to negative energy besides harming living beings.

[Pan151]

Good is compassion and respect for all living things.

No. Good is compassion and respect for all living things.

Besides, negative energy is no more harmful to life than any other type of energy - including positive energy. There exist spells that heal living creatures with negative energy. There also exist spells that harm living creatures with positive energy (plus, go have a vacation in the positive energy plane, see how much you last before you get healed to death).

[Alex12]

Good is compassion and respect for all living things.

Negative energy harms all living things.

Ipso facto, negative energy is evil.

And yet Deathwatch, which is literally on the Healer's list (Healer being a class that literally isn't allowed to be evil) has the [Evil] tag. Despite the fact that its primary use is for triage.
And the Cure line and Inflict spells and similar spells (Heal, Harm, Restoration, Energy Drain, and suchlike) pretty much all lack alignment tags. Healing spells are even called out as being not always good.
Furthermore, Tomb-Tainted Soul is a thing. Not all living things are harmed by negative energy. And are you saying disintegrate spells are evil?

*what is the citation for negative energy being neutral?

Well, the Positive and Negative Energy Planes are both alignment-independent. As are a large number of spells that use those energies (again, Inflict)

Incidentally, if you were able to prove it were neutral, the use of negative energy would technically be evil because it can only cause harm to living things.

Using that logic, Fireball and Disintegrate are also evil. Frankly, Disintegrate is probably worse, because there's lots of things that heal from negative energy, and there's pretty much nothing that gets healed by getting hit by Disintegrate.

[No brains]

I'm curious about this parallel idea: Is [Evil] in D&D an integral element of the universe that is needed for balance, or is it the effect of imbalance itself? This may change from setting to setting, but if evil is necessary, then making undead that perform good acts is the most beneficial thing a person can do for the universe, as it allows them to monitor their own effects on the balance of the world

[Pan151]

I'm curious about this parallel idea: Is [Evil] in D&D an integral element of the universe that is needed for balance, or is it the effect of imbalance itself? This may change from setting to setting, but if evil is necessary, then making undead that perform good acts is the most beneficial thing a person can do for the universe, as it allows them to monitor their own effects on the balance of the world

The outer planes are, to the best of my knowledge, infinite, and as such they each hold an infinite number of outsiders with [Alignment] sybtypes.

Suffice to say, your actions have no effect whatsoever in the balance of things, regardless of whether that balance is necessary or not.