have any of you killed a pc because

[The_Snark]

In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

You're not only desecrating both a persons body but also the persons spirit/ soul (and against that persons will). Youre also turning them into an evil monster that desires nothing more than murdering all living things around it. You're also enslaving the (now tortured) person to your will.

This is certainly a possible explanation for how animating the dead works - one that does a good job of justifying the [Evil] descriptor on those spells, at that - but I don't recall any 3.5 book stating that this is definitively how it is. Even Libris Mortis is pretty vague on the subject, as I recall.

[Rater202]

Libris Mortis said something about negative enrgy spirits being the animating force(and even specifically specified that Flesh Golems weren't undead specifically because the animating forceof a Flesh Gole, is an elemental spirit, despite the fact that they're otherwise reanimated corpses.)

It says absolutely nothing about zombies being reanimated by forcibly binding the soul to the corpse as a slave.

To my knowledge, the only undead creatures confirmed to even have souls are Liche's and their variations.

I'd look up more details, but my copy of LM is buried under something.

The "…wait, what?" was intended as a humorous comment born out of the sudden realization that the spell, astral projection, belonged to the necromancy school, as opposed to conjuration (like teleport) or transmutation (like etherealness). I had never noticed that till now (though, to be fair, I can't recall ever having the chance to use it).

That's also why it was the only spell not in an otherwise alphabetical order.

Projecting your soul from your body sounds like something the spell school that includes the "hide your soul in a jar" "trap somoene elses soul in a gemafter you kill them" and "do the same as the last spell, but also slowly destroy the soul"spells should have.

[Amphetryon]

We obviously havent met.



Indeed, but I was referring to necromancy in the context of 'creating undead'. Im aware that 3.5 and 5E have other spells that are also necromancy spells that are not evil (such as raise dead).

In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

You're not only desecrating both a persons body but also the persons spirit/ soul (and against that persons will). Youre also turning them into an evil monster that desires nothing more than murdering all living things around it. You're also enslaving the (now tortured) person to your will.

It's an evil act.

I have no issues with a necromancer who animates dead for good reasons (saving peoples lives, defending the kingdom for a demonic incursion etc). He is of course (objectively) evily aligned (as is any person who uses evil means for a good end).

Thats just my view though. I generally reject 'the ends justify the means' = 'good alignment'.

The thing is, that context - creating undead - is not the limit of necromancy, even in D&D. Pretending like it is in order to argue your point is simply ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. . . evidence which you've just acknowledged. That's a bad faith argument.

[Malifice]

The thing is, that context - creating undead - is not the limit of necromancy, even in D&D. Pretending like it is in order to argue your point is simply ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. . . evidence which you've just acknowledged. That's a bad faith argument.

Im not being misleading. Youre taking my post out of context (again) even after I explained that I used the term 'necromancy' in the context of the post I was referring to (necromancy = animating the dead). Im aware that there are plenty of necromancy spells that are not evil (raise dead for example).

Libris Mortis said something about negative enrgy spirits being the animating force(and even specifically specified that Flesh Golems weren't undead specifically because the animating forceof a Flesh Gole, is an elemental spirit, despite the fact that they're otherwise reanimated corpses.)

This is certainly a possible explanation for how animating the dead works - one that does a good job of justifying the [Evil] descriptor on those spells, at that - but I don't recall any 3.5 book stating that this is definitively how it is. Even Libris Mortis is pretty vague on the subject, as I recall.

There is a difference between casting animate objects on a corpse and animate dead on it. You can do either. The former creates a construct and the person stays dead. Aside from cultural prohibitions on defiling a persons corpse after death, no harm no foul. The latter spell creates an undead creature. The person whose corpse you cast it on is now no longer dead. They are trapped in a horrifying state of 'not alive but no longer dead' (as a NE monster bound to your will).

This is also the difference between a flesh golem and a zombie. The former is a corpse construct - youre not forcing a spirit of the body into a state of undeath, youre just using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. The spirit of the person that inhabited the bodies or body you used for the spell stays dead.

When you animate a corpse via animate dead, by logical extension the person is no longer dead. Theyre now undead. As a NE creature that seeks to kill everything around it nonetheless. And your slave.

[CantigThimble]

Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something, just like flesh golems have earth spirits. Negative energy spirits even make more sense in some ways. Zombies don't recognize their old loved ones, there's no indication of intelligence at all beyond an inclination to kill the living when not directly controlled. The fact that you're summoning something that will be evil in the world if you slip up makes this just as evil as summoning demons. You're endangering good creatures by doing it.

[Malifice]

Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something, just like flesh golems have earth spirits.

If I bind a different spirit into a persons corpse, the person stays dead (and I create a construct). Example in point the Flesh golem (or a corpse animated with animate objects). The person animated by the spirit stays dead.

If I instead use animate dead on a persons corpse, the person is now no longer dead. They are now undead.

The former just uses the persons corpse as a vessel for a new intelligence (either an AI you create with magic, or an elemental spirit you drag from somewhere else and place in the empty corpse). The person whos corpse you use stays dead. This is a very important distinction from animate dead. This spell actually makes the target no longer dead. It transforms them (the person) from a state of being dead to a state of being undead.

Raise dead works in a similar fashion, however it transforms the person from the state of death to the state of being alive (and is voluntary).

[Rater202]

The person whose corpse you cast it on is now no longer dead. They are trapped in a horrifying state of 'not alive but no longer dead' (as a NE monster bound to your will)

Ghouls, ghasts, Morghes, maybe.(though tose are hardly under your control as a result of the spell.)

Possibly Vampires.

Zombies and Skeletons? Probably not. The spell says absolutly nothing about souls, the fluff for Zombies and skeletons says nothing about souls, and they act exactly like mindless autonomatons-they do exactly what you order them to, and when freed from control do whatever it was they were ordered to do before they were freed.

If the actual person was in there, then when not under the control of a necromancer, they'd either act like the actual person or, you know, have some degree of free will at all. Or at least beg someone to kill them.

So please, provide your quote from one of the official game supplements that says that a zombie is animated by the forcefully bound soul of the original victim and not a negative enrgy spirit.

Malifice that's certainly one take on it but it could just as easily be summoned spirits from the negative energy plane or something.

Which is, has been stated, more or less what Libris Mortis says on the subject

First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
fl esh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can affl ict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

[Malifice]

Ghouls, ghasts, Morghes, maybe.(though tose are hardly under your control as a result of the spell.) Possibly Vampires.

Zombies and Skeletons? Probably not. The spell says absolutly nothing about souls, the fluff for Zombies and skeletons says nothing about souls, and they act exactly like mindless autonomatons-they do exactly what you order them to, and when freed from control do whatever it was they were ordered to do before they were freed.

Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

Golems are not undead, having never been alive in the first place.

And acting like you want them to doesnt affect the state of the person you cast it on. A dominated person is still alive, but also a slave to your will. The object (even a corpse) you cast animate objects on is not alive, dead or undead and is also a slave to your will. A dead person you cast animate dead is is also a slave to your will, but is also no longer dead.

Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).

If the actual person was in there, then when not under the control of a necromancer, they'd either act like the actual person or, you know, have some degree of free will at all. Or at least beg someone to kill them.

Or theyre trapped inside their own mind like a sleepwalker or helpless observer as they rip people to shreds and eat their brains. Like dominated creatures are.

Whatever the case, the one thing we know for certain is the target of animate dead isnt dead anymore.

[Marlowe]

While "Undead are animated by the souls of their former owners" seems to be a common delusion (along with "Paladins and Clerics have to be chaste" and "Warlocks must sell their souls to get their powers"), it's not only not backed up by the text but it is nonsense in practical terms.

Things don't go straight from being alive to being undead through necromancy. There is a period, often quite a long one, when the creature is DEAD dead. During that time, the spirit or soul of the creature goes to its respective afterlife plane. Some of the native inhabitants of these planes are proverbially rather zealous about getting all the souls they can coming to their particular neighbourhood.

IF Undead contain theit former souls THEN those souls must have been dragged out of the Heavens and Hells they were formerly residing. Out of the clutches of powerful Devils and Archons and whatever. And that would very quickly result in far more potent retribution being visited upon the practicing necromancer than a few priests and paladins giving him trouble.

It's far simpler to just go with what's in the book. That Undead are just robots powered by negative energy with the soul being a long-departed former owner.

[goto124]

thrown other PCs out the window [snip] Never killed one though.

How did they survive the fall - Feather Fall? The building was not more than two stories high?

I don't ban PvP until the players prove they can't handle conflict maturely.

To be honest, a number of people here do the reverse: they ban PvP (combat or otherwise) until they trust the players to be mature enough for it. Especially if they're playing co-op games.

In default DnD undead are not mere constructs. Theyre the actual spirits/ souls of people that are forced back into their rotting (or fully decomposed) body by magic, in what the game refers to as a 'horrifying state of undeath', and enslaved to the casters will as monstrous evil aligned creatures.

These sort of stuff seem to exist to make Necromancy evil, instead of using actual logical reasoning.

"If creating flesh golems is neutral, why is zombie-creation evil?"

"Because zombie-creation involves souls unwillingly forced into submission."

"But why does zombie-creation involve souls unwillingly forced into submission, when flesh golems achieve the same result with no evil required?"

There could be different types of zombie-creation: one type doesn't trap souls and is not evil, while another type does trap souls and is evil, but creates stronger zombies. Or something like that.

I don't get the deal with liches though. The best I can think of is that turning into a lich is like turning into a demon (which is literally made of Evil).

[Rater202]

Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

Golems are not undead, having never been alive in the first place.

And acting like you want them to doesnt affect the state of the person you cast it on. A dominated person is still alive, but also a slave to your will. The object (even a corpse) you cast animate objects on is not alive, dead or undead and is also a slave to your will. A dead person you cast animate dead is is also a slave to your will, but is also no longer dead.

Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).



Or theyre trapped inside their own mind like a sleepwalker or helpless observer as they rip people to shreds and eat their brains. Like dominated creatures are.

Whatever the case, the one thing we know for certain is the target of animate dead isnt dead anymore.

Okay, what I'm taking away from this is

1: You are way to hung up over the literal meaning of the word "undead." The literal meaning is "no longer dead." That includes something that supposed to be dead(say, a corpse) getting up and moving, but by the strict definition does not necessarily involve the soul of the person being involved at all. The strict definition of undead would also include a corpse reanimated by any means, including ones that arne't undead by the D&D definition, such as flesh golems or the "Corpse Animated Object" you keep mentioning.

since you are insistent that these are not undead, I will assume that we are using the D&D definition, not the strict definition.

2: You seem to be confused about what D&D Zombies are, since there are no mentions of them eating brains(beyond the one variant in Libris Mortis that is called out as such, implying that other zombies by default do not) All data implies that standard zombies and skeletons are mostly corpsy automatons.

3: You seem to be operating on the assumption that I do not know the differences between a zombie and a construct. I do, inf act, know this, and I posted the exact quote, from Libris Mortis, that explains it, reposting

First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
flesh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

Emphasis mine. The difference is "Undead involve negative energy in power source and/or damage" and "undead are powered by evil spirits."

Note that it says absolutely nothing about souls period, and "Evil Spirit=/=Soul of the person the body used to belong to."

So, when you provide us with the quote that says that undead are powered by enslaved souls, then your argument will have merit. Until then, the facts say that your argument is incorrect.

[Malifice]

Things don't go straight from being alive to being undead through necromancy. There is a period, often quite a long one, when the creature is DEAD dead.

Yeah. They live, then they die, then the necromancer makes them undead.

This is a different process altogether than what happens to a construct. It goes from non sentience (or being sentient elsewhere in the case of bound elemental spirits) to being sentient.

During that time, the spirit or soul of the creature goes to its respective afterlife plane. Some of the native inhabitants of these planes are proverbially rather zealous about getting all the souls they can coming to their particular neighbourhood.

IF Undead contain theit former souls THEN those souls must have been dragged out of the Heavens and Hells they were formerly residing. Out of the clutches of powerful Devils and Archons and whatever. And that would very quickly result in far more potent retribution being visited upon the practicing necromancer than a few priests and paladins giving him trouble.

Depends on if you view the 'soul' and the 'spirit' as the same thing. The words are often used interchangably, but not always. Undead are usually - but not always - described as 'spirits' (ghosts, wraiths, spectres etc). Many religions dont use a binary (soul/ body) divide and instead use a trinary divide (mind/ soul/ spirit).

That Undead are just robots powered by negative energy with the soul being a long-departed former owner.

Thats not what undead are though. Theyre not just robots. That would make them constructs. Theyre no longer dead people.

"But why does zombie-creation involve souls unwillingly forced into submission, when flesh golems achieve the same result with no evil required?"

Because when you make a flesh golem you arent making a dead person undead. You're (essentially) building a robot (out of meat), just like when you animate a sword using animate objects. When you create a construct nothing that was ever alive and then dead becomes now undead instead.

There could be different types of zombie-creation: one type doesn't trap souls and is not evil, while another type does trap souls and is evil, but creates stronger zombies. Or something like that.

There are methods of creating good undead. Balenorns and Deathless spring to mind. Neither of these undead are controlled by the creator (they voluntarily enter undeath) and becoming one is also voluntary (they arent forced into undeath).

Again, they seem to be the exception that proves the rule for mine.

I don't get the deal with liches though. The best I can think of is that turning into a lich is like turning into a demon (which is literally made of Evil).

A lich voluntarily traps its immortal soul into a vessel (its phylactery) in order to preserve its spirit and (decaying) body - both of which it keeps. It seeks to prolong its material existence and mind (while at the same time damning its immortal soul).

1: You are way to hung up over the literal meaning of the word "undead." The literal meaning is "no longer dead." That includes something that supposed to be dead(say, a corpse) getting up and moving, but by the strict definition does not necessarily involve the soul of the person being involved at all. The strict definition of undead would also include a corpse reanimated by any means, including ones that arne't undead by the D&D definition, such as flesh golems or the "Corpse Animated Object" you keep mentioning.

Nah man, youre missing it. You're arguing that someone who is undead can still be dead.

I wholly disagree with that argument on fundamental logical grounds. This isnt just a case of semantics.

They're one or the other - either dead OR undead (or neither, and thus still alive). You cant be dead and undead, or be alive and dead, or be alive and undead. Youre in one of the three states.

This is the distinction between a constuct like a flesh golem or a robot, and an undead like a zombie or a lich.

Look, we are way off topic to the OP. If you want your games to feature good natured necromancers spawning evil monstrosities then have at it. Im not going to stop you.

[Rater202]

Depends on if you view the 'soul' and the 'spirit' as the same thing. The words are often used interchangably, but not always. Undead are usually - but not always - described as 'spirits' (ghosts, wraiths, spectres etc). Many religions dont use a binary (soul/ body) divide and instead use a trinary divide (mind/ soul/ spirit).

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Soul/Spirit of the desceased is in no way ever mentioned in the "what is an undead" section of Libris Mortis and is only ever mentioned in relation to Lich. Lich's are the only undead creatures that are confirmed to have souls. Nothing is is confirmed to have a soul.

Thats not what undead are though. Theyre not just robots. That would make them constructs. Theyre no longer dead people.

Zombies and skeletons, unless awakened, literally have no consciousness whatso ever. They are autonomoatons that tireless preform taskes with no semblance of free will or thought. They are explcitly called out as mindless in the text. You are playing by definitions of undead other than that provided by the material. The definition of undead provided by the text is "corpse animated by an evil spirit and powered by negative enrgy."

Even by your definition, there's a big difference between "making the body not dead" and "making the person not dead."

The fisrt is only the body. The secod is the body and soul.

Nah man, youre missing it. You're arguing that someone who is undead can still be dead.

I wholly disagree with that argument on fundamental logical grounds. This isnt just a case of semantics.

They're one or the other - either dead OR undead (or neither, and thus still alive). You cant be dead and undead, or be alive and dead, or be alive and undead. Youre in one of the three states.

If the soul exists that the soul is seperate from the body.

The body can be not dead while the soul is dead, because they're not the same thing.

And yes, I perfectly get it.You are arguing that undead must be not dead, which preclude their souls being in the afterlife. I believe this statement is factually wrong and furthermore state that it seems to come from an overly strict definition of undead.

So, for the third time, I ask of you: Give us a quote. Provide us a quotation form an offical 3.5 D&D suplimaetnt that says that the soul/spirit/mind of the original donor is 100% always, without fail, trapped in the body of the otherwise mindless autonomaton zombie.

Otherwise, the quote I twice provided says that ythe soul is not involved.

Also: Flesh Golems require the Animate Dead spell to make.

[The_Snark]

Its contained by logical inference in simply being undead. The spell expressly makes someone no longer dead. It makes that person undead instead. You're missing this fundamental difference between a construct and an undead. Undead isnt just a convenient term. It means (literally) 'This person is no longer dead, but they are also not alive. They are in a horrifying state of being inbetween the two states'.

The problem is that no D&D book actually says this. Undead are typically portrayed as evil or at best sinister in the myths and fantasy stories that D&D draws on for inspiration; therefore, the D&D rules slap the [Evil] tag on spells which animate the dead, and list zombies as evil despite them lacking any ability to make choices. It doesn't explain why*, or go into detail.

You've constructed an explanation for why these things might be. I actually like your explanation! It's internally consistent, it offers a satisfying answer to the question of "why is undeath bad", and I wouldn't mind playing with it...

... but it is not RAW. Nor is it the literal dictionary definition, which reads something like "technically dead but still animate by supernatural means" (note lack of negative connotation). Some people, instead of looking at the alignment tags and figuring out a way to make sense of them, decide that they're arbitrary and/or nonsensical and should be downplayed or ignored completely (the point of view Marlowe is describing, essentially). Either of those approaches is fine, on its own; problems arise when players disagree about which one is true in their game. It's possible that JonU's difficulties stemmed from the priest's player assuming undeath works as you describe, or something vaguely similar, while JonU assumed it was more benign.

The point I'm trying to make is, the source material is vague about this. It's important to recognize that there's ambiguity, because then your group can settle on an interpretation that works for them instead of getting caught up in arguments about how it's meant to work.

*To my knowledge; if you know of a sourcebook that does I'd love to see it. Libris Mortis is the obvious place to look, but it never really addresses the question directly.

[Rater202]

According to Libris Mortis, the undead that can be created by spells(and presumably other artifical ones or other ones with no semblance to the original owner of the body) are animated by an evil spirit.

So, logically, the reason animate dead and it's relative have the evil tag is because the spell summons and binds an evil spirit to a corpse.

[SirNMN]

Some rare magic exists to make a person 'no longer dead, but now undead' and retain a Good alignment. Theyre expressly called out as such (and the exception that proves the rule).[/I]

where can I find these spells?

[Malifice]

And as I have repeatedly pointed out,the Soul/Spirit of the desceased is in no way ever mentioned in the "what is an undead" section of Libris Mortisand is only ever mentioned in relation to Lich. Lich's are the only undead creatures that are confirmed to have souls. Nothing is is confirmed to have a soul.

What? Ghosts, Spectres, Wraiths, Allips etc etc. You telling me that they're not spirits/ souls?

And Liches dont have souls. They're in their phylactery. The process of becoming a lich requires one to rip the soul out of the body, leaving just the mind (spirit) and body behind.

Zombies and skeletons, unless awakened, literally have no consciousness whatso ever. They are autonomoatons that tireless preform taskes with no semblance of free will or thought. They are explcitly called out as mindless in the text. You are playing by definitions of undead other than that provided by the material. The definition of undead provided by the text is "corpse animated by an evil spirit and powered by negative enrgy."

Being mindless and also being either a construct, alive or undead are not connected. Vermin are mindless, and theyre still alive. Being mindless has no bearing on a which state a creature is in; alive, dead or undead. There is some correllation between being alive and having a mind, but simply not having a mind is no indicator of a creatures state of life, death or undeath.

And yes, I perfectly get it.You are arguing that undead must be not dead, which preclude their souls being in the afterlife. I believe this statement is factually wrong and furthermore state that it seems to come from an overly strict definition of undead.

I actually think that souls and spirits are not the same thing. Souls are the immortal essence of a creature. The spirit is just the personality of the creature (which resonates on the ethereal). There is a crossover between the two though, and some writers have used the two words (soul and spirit) interchangably.

So, for the third time, I ask of you: Give us a quote.

And for the third time I tell you I dont have to. The state of an undead person no longer being dead is all I need to prove my point.

Also: Flesh Golems require the Animate Dead spell to make.

They do indeed. But the spell dosent create an undead creature. Frankensteins monster (a flesh golem) wasnt a singlular person brought back to life (or brought into undeath). It was its own independent entity, like an AI Dr Frankensten programed.

To my knowledge; if you know of a sourcebook that does I'd love to see it. Libris Mortis is the obvious place to look, but it never really addresses the question directly.

The clue is in the nature of the monster.

As a hint a zombie isnt simply a dead person with magical clockwork inside that make it move like a complex puppet. That would make it a construct.

It's a person that is no longer dead.

A dead thing that moves by magic (or by drawing a living spirit inside of it) is a construct. It doesnt suddenly become alive when so empowered, nor does it die when the spirit (or magic) that animates it is released. It's a robot.

An undead is a totally different kettle of fish. Its a living person that died, but is now no longer dead. It is still that same person, just no longer dead.

Undeath is a state a being can be in. It sits between death and life, sharing traits of both, but being neither. It is not the same thing as being a construct.

Example: Joe can only ever be in one of three states:

• Joe is alive, or
• Joe is dead, or
• Joe is undead.

If Joe is a zombie now, he is no longer dead. You cant be alive and undead, just like you cant be dead and undead.

[The_Snark]

Undeath is a state a being can be in. It sits between death and life, sharing traits of both, but being neither. It is not the same thing as being a construct.

Example: Joe can only ever be in one of three states:

• Joe is alive, or
• Joe is dead, or
• Joe is undead.

If Joe is a zombie now, he is no longer dead. You cant be alive and undead, just like you cant be dead and undead.

I don't disagree with this, but that wasn't what I was asking about; I was asking whether you had a source when you asserted that Animate Dead binds the victim's soul to the corpse and enslaves it to the caster's will. That is not evident from the spell description: the zombie is mindless, it's not obvious that a soul is involved at all. (The phrase "soulless mockery of life" comes to mind.)

At best, your theory is implied by the fact that you can't Resurrect said victim until the zombie is dead, even if you're using a spell that doesn't need a body; that's why I complimented your explanation on logical consistency.

[Marlowe]

Malifice, carrying your argument to its conclusion; the entire D&D afterlife is a fraud, because the "soul" or "spirit" isn't that goes to the afterlife isn't the "person".

The "person", you seem to think, is inseparable from the body.

Therefore, a valid way to release the "person" into the afterlife would be to animate the body as an undead and allow it to be destroyed in battle. If this is not done, the "person" presumably is left to molder inside the decaying shell. Maybe cremation would work too?

You have, in fact, "proved" that Necromancy is Good. And incidentally that burial is Evil.

If in fact, you have "proved" anything except that you can make lots of wild assertations and laugh off the idea of backing up any of them.

[Âmesang]

I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Actually that reminds me of once trying to make a "first vampire" that came about because an epic spellcaster was making a different attempt at immortality and… kind of goofed. "Basing it around the 'animate dead' seed seemed like a good idea at the time!" Just 'cause a wizard is intelligent doesn't mean he's wise.

Oh, hey, remember the old Transformers episode, Dark Awakening? Would Zombie Optimus Prime be classified as a construct or as the undead?

[Keltest]

I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Actually that reminds me of once trying to make a "first vampire" that came about because an epic spellcaster was making a different attempt at immortality and… kind of goofed. "Basing it around the 'animate dead' seed seemed like a good idea at the time!" Just 'cause a wizard is intelligent doesn't mean he's wise.

Oh, hey, remember the old Transformers episode, Dark Awakening? Would Zombie Optimus Prime be classified as a construct or as the undead?

I feel like vampirism would be more of a clerical thing than a wizardly thing. Wizards can become liches. Evil Clerics would seek their own version, which means going through their probably evil god.

[goto124]

I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going…

Doesn't really explain why they're evil. Is goodness (or Goo-ness, or Good energy, since Good and Evil are literal forced) a part of the body, and when the body dies so does the Good-ness?

Or Good energy cannot prolong someone's life, only (huge amounts of) Evil energy, and the Evil energy that extends their life is also what twists them into evil?

And Good energy cannot prolong someone's life because... well, Good energy can heal wounds and cure diseases, but not extend lifespans because... the gods said so? Or the gods figured that it messes with the delicate balance of life and death that exists in the world?

[The_Snark]

I'm kind of under the impression that the deal with liches is that they've magically extended themselves beyond their normal lifespan, so that even when their bodies "die" they keep going… kind of like Lenore, the Cute Little Dead Girl (and her cohort, Ragamuffin, the Vampire Scourge!).

Doesn't really explain why they're evil. Is goodness (or Goo-ness, or Good energy, since Good and Evil are literal forced) a part of the body, and when the body dies so does the Good-ness?

A lich is pulling the classic Koschei the Deathless trick: they've hidden their soul in an object (the phylactery), and their physical body is merely a puppet. You can destroy the body, but unless you get the soul they'll hang around in the phylactery, and eventually generate a new one... somehow.

It's not clear to me where the Evil in this process comes in, but the most obvious explanations (to me) are: 1) the act of transferring the soul and creating a phylactery requires you to do something horrible; or 2) something about the transfer or the new state of being warps the soul, turning you into a sociopath/giving you a taste for cruelty/making you evil-aligned in some manner.

[Âmesang]

I figure the "evil" aspect comes from not accepting when's one time is up; "bowing out gracefully," as it were. Makes me imagine quite a few liches and vampires must have marut inevitables chasing after them. *shrugs*

[Knaight]

This is also the difference between a flesh golem and a zombie. The former is a corpse construct - youre not forcing a spirit of the body into a state of undeath, youre just using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. The spirit of the person that inhabited the bodies or body you used for the spell stays dead.

Putting aside the quirks of your undead definition (which I'm not seeing backed up for any of the mindless undead, though it fits ghosts, vampires, liches, and a few other D&D creatures pretty well), the flesh golem here is being oversimplified. You're not using the meat and imbuing it with an AI. You're using the meat and then using it as a meat prison for an elemental of human intelligence, then nearly completely crushing their will and forcing them to follow you unless they are eventually lucky enough to break the control - even then, they're still stuck in said meat prison. I have a hard time seeing this as better.

[Rater202]

[QUOTE=Malifice;20190634]What? Ghosts, Spectres, Wraiths, Allips etc etc. You telling me that they're not spirits/ souls?[quote] They're not said to have/be souls. They could just be echos.

And Liches dont have souls. They're in their phylactery. The process of becoming a lich requires one to rip the soul out of the body, leaving just the mind (spirit) and body behind.

Okay, one, D&D doen'st treat the spirit, mind, and soul as seperate.

Two, Liche's have to have souls, otherwise there's nothing to put in the phylactery.

I actually think that souls and spirits are not the same thing.

Good for you, Dungeons and dragons does not.

And for the third time I tell you I dont have to. The state of an undead person no longer being dead is all I need to prove my point.

And I have twice provided an exact quote from the book that proves your point wrong. Until you have a quote from one of the books that supports your claim, the book, Libris Mortis, is the authority, and it says that you're wrong.

Provide the quote, because if you do not provide the quote, then Libris Mortis says that you're wrong

They do indeed. But the spell dosent create an undead creature. Frankensteins monster (a flesh golem) wasnt a singlular person brought back to life (or brought into undeath). It was its own independent entity, like an AI Dr Frankensten programed.

Frankenstein's monster was a living creature that, in the original novel, was not, in fact, stitched together from humnan flesh.

A zombie is a reanimated corpse. A flesh Golem is made of reanimated corpses. A zombie is mindless. A flesh Golem is mindless. A zombie requires a casting of the spell Animate Dead to create. A Flesh Golem requires the spell Animate Dead to create.

The diferance between the two is that one is an undead and one is a construct.

Why? Because a Zombie is a mindless automaton powered by negative enrgy and an evil spirit, and a flesh golem is an autonomaton powered by an elemental spirit. As is said in that quote, I provided, which I will now repeat for a third time

First, negative energy is
not a requisite power for any common construct, including
flesh golems. Negative energy does not energize constructs,
nor does negative energy play a part in the methods whereby
constructs can afflict foes. Second, constructs are not animated
by evil spirits, but rather by elemental spirits.

Libris Mortis is an official supplement. That explanation both defines what an undead is and explains the diferance between a zombie and a flesh golem.

A flesh golem isn't undead because it's not powered by negative enrgy and an evil spirit.

That's the canon. Which means that your explanation, undead magically rip the souls of the dead out of the afterlife to animate the corpse, is not the canon

So, for the last time, provide a quote that supports your claim, becuase otherwise your entire argument has no basis

[YossarianLives]

Malfifice you've ranted about this soul/spirit stuff in other threads. It's become very clear that the whole thing is contrived by you. That's not really a problem, but you're using it as canon in a forum discussion with people who may not share your perspective. It's inappropriate.

[Pyrous]

Spoiler: Relevant RAW, per SRD

Show

[...](Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)[...]

Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. [...]it has no Constitution or Intelligence score[...]

Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
[...]it has no Constitution or Intelligence score[...]

This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.

From the context that "sentient" is used, it must mean non-mindless. Therefore, Zombies and Skeletons don't have souls.

Animate Dead doesn't bind a soul, original or otherwise, to the corpse being animated.

RAW says zombies are created through dark and sinister magic and skeletons' masters are evil. That is the best explanation RAW gives for the Evil descriptor of Animate Dead, at least the best I could find*. That is the reason players argue about it being objectively evil: RAW only says it is evil, but doesn't say why.

*assuming spirit = soul; if not, evil spirit works just fine.

[Mx56]

It's not clear to me where the Evil in this process comes in, but the most obvious explanations (to me) are: 1) the act of transferring the soul and creating a phylactery requires you to do something horrible; or 2) something about the transfer or the new state of being warps the soul, turning you into a sociopath/giving you a taste for cruelty/making you evil-aligned in some manner.

The 3.5e Monster Manual says "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can only be undertaken by a willing character" (P168), which suggests that either:
a) The process involves some other unspeakably evil act, something unambiguously evil in an obvious fashion (e.g. human(oid) sacrifice or binding and torturing a Good outsider) or;
b) Putting your soul in a phylactery or just becoming undead is itself capital-E Evil because it just is.

(b) seems unsatisfying from a narrative point of view, but think there's room for both interpretations in the text.

FWIW, I always interpretted the fact that you can't use True Resurrection to bring back somebody who is undead without destroying them first as implying that the soul was in some way trapped by the process of becoming undead (thereby making creating any undead an evil act, though not necessarily beyond ends justifying the means type thinking), but don't think it's ever explicitly stated. For [Evil] spells in general, worth bearing in mind that Summon Monster can be [Evil] if you are summoning a fiend, even if you then, say, use the fiend to rescue a burning orphanage full of cute children who all own puppies and kittens, you could probably come up with some in universe reason why this should be the case (summoning an evil outsider has some outside chance of allowing evil spirits to enter the material plane or wevs), but otherwise it's a little odd.

[Rater202]

Spoiler: Relevant RAW, per SRD

Show

From the context that "sentient" is used, it must mean non-mindless. Therefore, Zombies and Skeletons don't have souls.

Animate Dead doesn't bind a soul, original or otherwise, to the corpse being animated.

RAW says zombies are created through dark and sinister magic and skeletons' masters are evil. That is the best explanation RAW gives for the Evil descriptor of Animate Dead, at least the best I could find*. That is the reason players argue about it being objectively evil: RAW only says it is evil, but doesn't say why.

*assuming spirit = soul; if not, evil spirit works just fine.

Okay, turns out I'm wrong about only Lich's being confirmed to have souls.

The 3.5e Monster Manual says "The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can only be undertaken by a willing character" (P168), which suggests that either:
a) The process involves some other unspeakably evil act, something unambiguously evil in an obvious fashion (e.g. human(oid) sacrifice or binding and torturing a Good outsider) or;
b) Putting your soul in a phylactery or just becoming undead is itself capital-E Evil because it just is.

(b) seems unsatisfying from a narrative point of view, but think there's room for both interpretations in the text.

FWIW, I always interpretted the fact that you can't use True Resurrection to bring back somebody who is undead without destroying them first as implying that the soul was in some way trapped by the process of becoming undead (thereby making creating any undead an evil act, though not necessarily beyond ends justifying the means type thinking), but don't think it's ever explicitly stated. For [Evil] spells in general, worth bearing in mind that Summon Monster can be [Evil] if you are summoning a fiend, even if you then, say, use the fiend to rescue a burning orphanage full of cute children who all own puppies and kittens, you could probably come up with some in universe reason why this should be the case (summoning an evil outsider has some outside chance of allowing evil spirits to enter the material plane or wevs), but otherwise it's a little odd.

The Balenorns, Arch Lichs, and the "Good Lich" from Libris Mortis are all good aligned variants of the Lich. So it is possible to be a good lich Presumably the most common method of becoming a lich involves some unspeakably evil act, while those variants do not?

4E states that Orcus has something to do with Lichs, so it's plausible that the ritual requires something evil. Or maybe the ritual only works if you're evil?