Why is creating undead Evil?

[hamishspence]

Perhaps the soul contains volition? Hence why mindless undead and undead spawn are either without motivation (unless commanded) or are utter slaves to their creators: they lack their souls. Though this doesn't work very well for undead that ARE the soul. Wraiths creating and controlling more wraiths, and shadows creating and controlling more shadows.

Well, for shadows, perhaps, it's not such a problem if the shadow IS the body, not the soul, and being drained of all strength leaves only a shadow of the being that was thus drained.

Wraiths, according to Complete Divine, aren't just the soul - the soul is trapped, and a malign intelligence is in charge. The undead creature cannot access the memories of the deceased in the case of wraiths at least.

Presumably , an Emancipated Spawn Wraith who has gotten the Rediscovery capstone, has had their soul "defeat the malign intelligence" and take charge.

[Lord Raziere]

It is false for the fallout example: in the early fallouts there was options in order specifically to reduce the number of killed raiders so it means that people are supposed to care about the raiders.

But it isn't, because your talking about a different Fallout than me. So your not actually arguing against my point, whether the later games match some fanon ideal of How The Franchise Was Meant To Be resembling the earlier games, is immaterial to this discussion. and its not about whether the game gives you the option, its about whether the player TAKES the option.

The point is that a lot of media doesn't care, because its shown that players are quite willing to not care about lives without any of the weird things DnD does to try and make them not care. there are a lot of games where you just kill enemies by the dozen and a lot of them are things like samurai warriors or shooters. sure the enemies are human but you kill them anyways. if people felt bad about killing them, they'd stop. clearly they don't, because games like those keep being made, and DnD is clearly making a morality to try and emulate such slaughter when clearly they don't need to. a couple counter examples don't really disprove this, because they're the exception that proves the rule. Sure an earlier Fallout had that concern, but it didn't grow less popular or anything when it stopped having that concern.

and guess what? most fantasy videogame rpgs are based on Dnd! most fantasy rpgs don't have alignment! they get along fine without devolving into grey vs grey morality or ruining the escapism. they do all the same things of going into dungeons, killing for exp, looting and whatnot, without needing some complex system of divine reassurance. like most of the time, gods or other planes aren't even a factor or a consideration, and even if they do have those things, its mostly demons coming to kill you anyways. DnD is manufacturing problems where they don't exist, people will kill things like murderhobos without its overthinking system to try and make sure you do, the default assumption is already that you kill them, DnD by having these alignments and explanations and are implying that there is space to discuss whether or not they should when clearly your not meant to think about it, because the more something is focused on the more thought its expended on it thus the more people think about it. all this could've been solved by not focusing LESS on morality.

like "fantasy hero who goes around killing evil things for exp and loot" isn't something that requires explanation or justification, its pretty much the vanilla assumption everyone has, and it requires explanation to make sure there are options OTHER than that: The Outer Worlds trailer has a memorable moment where the player shoots one of two people arguing with each other and another character in response goes "y'know you could NOT shot either of them right? but you do you" implying that its a special thing to take note of about this game in contrast to what the player assumes they're able to choose. games where you care about the lives of your enemies are exceptions to the rule.

[RedMage125]

Fair enough, I remembered something about Paladins facing each other and morality being grayer than usual on Eberron, but my memory of it was blurry.
Consider that part of my argument fully retracted.

You remembered mostly correctly. Paladins could (and did) face each other in battle during the Last War. But that didn't make them valid targets for Smite Evil. Two paladins of the same faith could have even faced each other (remember, most Khorvarians follow the Sovereign Host or the Silver Flame), because that battle was about their national loyalty, not their faith.

I'm all for the identity argument here, and simply keeping creating undead Evil as a form of slavery, permanent bodily mutilation, and/or a way to permanently make someone Evil (if you're creating sentient Undead, their default alignment is Evil), all of it done to an unwilling victim.
I'll grant that some do undergo the transformation willingly, or at least offer their bodies for such a thing, but the fact they cannot change their state after the fact and must remain in service for the rest of their existence with no input of their own still makes it slavery.

I was using the soul corruption argument in case someone found the identity part unconvincing, since the fact the creature cannot be brought back to life until it is dead again is undeniable. The reason why is questionable here.

Your theory works fine as a theory, it's just not RAW. That's all I was saying.

Then again, if we're just discussing Raw, creating undead is evil because Create Undead is an Evil spell :P

Backwards. BoVD says that creating undead BY ANY MEANS is an Evil act. The only thing that Create Undead and Animate Dead do is create undead. Ergo, the only thing the spell accomplishes is one of those "always evil" acts. That is why the spell has the [Evil] subtype.

There ARE, of course, exceptions - undead creation that isn't inherently Evil. I'll just name the Baelnorn here, but there are others. Baelnorns go under the procedure willingly and must be non-Evil to do it.

Baelnorns may be required to be non-evil to go through the process, but their type is still Undead. Creating them is therefore still an Evil act. That's likely why only extremely Good elves were ever chosen for the process. Because it had to be worth it. Worth the risk of corruption. Worth creating an unliving abomination. For the "Greater Good" that would be accomplished by its existence.

Of course, there's a possibility that baelnorns and archliches (both 3.0 and not 3.5) were an early prototype for what would eventually be Deathless. But that's hypothesis about RAI, and not RAW.

Worth noting that a flesh golem is also almost never going to be just ONE corpse. The ur-archetype is the movie version of Frankenstein's Monster, which is an amalgam of many corpses stitched together to form a complete body.

Right, but 2 things here:
1) The point that was brought up, was your buddy dies, you cut off a hand to return to town for resurrection. Then a mad wizard uses the rest of the corpse as most of the body of a flesh golem. Resurrection still works and makes a new body, even though the old body is now part of another creature.

And, less significant, but still noteworthy: 2) Creating a Flesh Golem requires at least ONE evil act. Animate Dead is one of the spells used in its creation (check your Monster Manual if you don't believe me).

As food for additional thought, one thing I thought was really cool from 2e (which is where I first saw it; no clue if it predates 2e) was the notion that the vampire and the crimson death mist were related by the latter being the former's soul. I've played around with a notion that vampire spawn can become true vampires by merging with their crimson death mists.

In the identity thing, I'd actually go with the identity and mind sticking with the vampire (spawn), while the crimson death mist is the soul.

I remember 2e Crimson Mists being what happens when a vampire is forced into gaseous form, but can't return to their coffin (because it is stopped from reaching it, or coffin has been destroyed/consecrated). One of us is remembering incorrectly. I am willing to admit it may be me, I don't have my 2e books on hand.

Perhaps the soul contains volition? Hence why mindless undead and undead spawn are either without motivation (unless commanded) or are utter slaves to their creators: they lack their souls. Though this doesn't work very well for undead that ARE the soul. Wraiths creating and controlling more wraiths, and shadows creating and controlling more shadows.

Well, for shadows, perhaps, it's not such a problem if the shadow IS the body, not the soul, and being drained of all strength leaves only a shadow of the being that was thus drained.

I'm rambling a bit, here, but hopefully this is at least somewhat of use for further discussion on the subject.

As I recall, the corpse is left behind when a shadow is made. The dead person's actual shadow becomes animate and is the undead creature. That also works for the (rare) occasions when shadows are created spontaneously, which, as I recall, is someone dies after being weakened. THere was aREALLY GREAT Dragon Magazine article on this back in the day. All the ways undead can come about. A hanged murderer becoming a mohrg, for example. The shadow one was a blackguard who was hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement before the heroes killed him. They left the room, not noticing that the shadow remained "standing" when the blackguard fell. And then the shadow stalked after them.

*a whole bunch of anti-alignment rrhetoric*

in short, creating undead is evil because of this weird DnD attitude of being broken up about the things you kill if they don't have the right visual indicator flagging them as guiltless when the true guilt is self-created.

Or, you know, giving voice to classic tropes of fantasy that resonate with most people. Tangible Evil, a force that does horrible things. And undead are not only creepy (by virtue of being representative of classic Jungian Archetypes of fear that resonate throughout the Collective Unconscious), but are also seen as a deep anathema to most Real Life societies, especially ones who respectfully bury and maintain the dead.

You know...as an alternative to "undead are only evil to make you feel better about killing them". There are more reasons. Just because you don't like alignment, doesn't mean every example of alignment mechanics is some kind of "dumbed down" reasoning or way to play.

the only reason the undead exist is to fulfill an enemy role in a combat game, when that role can be really be fulfilled by any mook without much trouble, as a lot of media demonstrate and the only reason it doesn't is because DnD is weird and builds a strange overwrought system of morality to do what other games accomplish without it; it thinks too much on why when good proper mooks aren't about why they are mooks, they just exist and attack then die. thinking on the why of a mook exists is already thinking too much. what matters is they do exist, they are attacking you and they're not going to stop attacking you.

You could fill those bolded words with literally anything (orcs, goblins, kobolds, dire rats). Which tells me that it's not a very convincing point about undead or why they (and their creation) is Evil in D&D.

I really feel like you've just taken this as an opportunity to rant about why you don't like alignment or alignment mechanics. And while I DO love a good alignment debate, Lord Raziere (and would not mind another one with you), I do not feel this is constructive to the topic at hand. We're discussing WHY creating undead is evil in 3.x. This, first of all, requires acknowledgement and acceptance of certain foundations as a baseline for discussion. One of those cornerstones is that "Creation of the Undead" IS Evil, and that means we're accepting and acknowledging a certain amount of alignment mechanics.

Your posts are more about why you find alignment as a whole to be "less useful/constructive/enjoyable/compelling".

I am not trying to be offensive. I would love a good alignment debate, if you would like to make a new thread. But your talking points aren't really on topic, because you want to challenge the foundational assumptions of the topic we are discussing, rather than addressing the topic itself.

and guess what? most fantasy videogame rpgs are based on Dnd! most fantasy rpgs don't have alignment! they get along fine without devolving into grey vs grey morality or ruining the escapism. they do all the same things of going into dungeons, killing for exp, looting and whatnot, without needing some complex system of divine reassurance. like most of the time, gods or other planes aren't even a factor or a consideration, and even if they do have those things, its mostly demons coming to kill you anyways. DnD is manufacturing problems where they don't exist, people will kill things like murderhobos without its overthinking system to try and make sure you do, the default assumption is already that you kill them, DnD by having these alignments and explanations and are implying that there is space to discuss whether or not they should when clearly your not meant to think about it, because the more something is focused on the more thought its expended on it thus the more people think about it. all this could've been solved by not focusing LESS on morality.

Quoting this only to highlight my point. We are discussing WHY creating undead is evil. You have come and basically said "all alignment is unnecessary". That is not constructive to the discussion.

I would love to engage such a topic. If you make such a thread, PM me with the link so I don't miss it (I'm not on the forums every day).

[Xgya]

Backwards. BoVD says that creating undead BY ANY MEANS is an Evil act. The only thing that Create Undead and Animate Dead do is create undead. Ergo, the only thing the spell accomplishes is one of those "always evil" acts. That is why the spell has the [Evil] subtype.

Baelnorns may be required to be non-evil to go through the process, but their type is still Undead. Creating them is therefore still an Evil act. That's likely why only extremely Good elves were ever chosen for the process. Because it had to be worth it. Worth the risk of corruption. Worth creating an unliving abomination. For the "Greater Good" that would be accomplished by its existence.

Of course, there's a possibility that baelnorns and archliches (both 3.0 and not 3.5) were an early prototype for what would eventually be Deathless. But that's hypothesis about RAI, and not RAW.

Interesting insight.
I didn't remember that part of the BoVD. Had to go back and read some. For sure, the rules are clear on those.
Makes you wonder what the 'intent' argument about alignments thinks about (un)natural phenomena being clearly identified as Evil (such as undead spontaneously animating)

Committing an evil act for the Greater Good. Yup, totally fits the bill here, Baelnorns would certainly fit under that scope, especially since a very tiny portion of them DO become corrupt.

Now, about skeletons not having a soul, what then would prevent their resurrection? Identity is the only thing we have left. If luck is on our side, a poor person animated as undead still gets their afterlife. The remains, thinking or not, that get animated are no longer the same.

I want to give an interesting hypothesis about what prevents the resurrection.
An undead creature keeps its original True Name. The name by which the very Universe refers to it applies, and each personal True Name being unique, there cannot be two creatures using the same.

It would mean dying and going to the the afterlife grants someone a True Name specific to their new status as a roaming soul or petitioner.

Undead cannot be Unnamed, so we cannot know whether it would affect the body's original inhabitant. I'm pretty sure a caster somewhere in a future game might want to test the hypothesis by temporarily removing an undead creature's immunity to fort-save allowing effects.

There isn't a Truenaming counter to Unname. Only a Ritual of Renaming followed by a perfectly standard Resurrection spell. As far as we know, Truenaming cannot directly bring the dead back to life, which furthers my idea of the separation at death yet kept identity.

[noob]

Interesting insight.
I didn't remember that part of the BoVD. Had to go back and read some. For sure, the rules are clear on those.
Makes you wonder what the 'intent' argument about alignments thinks about (un)natural phenomena being clearly identified as Evil (such as undead spontaneously animating)

Committing an evil act for the Greater Good. Yup, totally fits the bill here, Baelnorns would certainly fit under that scope, especially since a very tiny portion of them DO become corrupt.

Now, about skeletons not having a soul, what then would prevent their resurrection? Identity is the only thing we have left. If luck is on our side, a poor person animated as undead still gets their afterlife. The remains, thinking or not, that get animated are no longer the same.

I want to give an interesting hypothesis about what prevents the resurrection.
An undead creature keeps its original True Name. The name by which the very Universe refers to it applies, and each personal True Name being unique, there cannot be two creatures using the same.

It would mean dying and going to the the afterlife grants someone a True Name specific to their new status as a roaming soul or petitioner.

Undead cannot be Unnamed, so we cannot know whether it would affect the body's original inhabitant. I'm pretty sure a caster somewhere in a future game might want to test the hypothesis by temporarily removing an undead creature's immunity to fort-save allowing effects.

There isn't a Truenaming counter to Unname. Only a Ritual of Renaming followed by a perfectly standard Resurrection spell. As far as we know, Truenaming cannot directly bring the dead back to life, which furthers my idea of the separation at death yet kept identity.

There is a petitioner template which is applied to the creature.
So when you die you leave a corpse and gain the petitioner template and your corpse can be reanimated and get another template then there is two of the same creature but with different templates.
Seems just fine to me.

[ShurikVch]

You can't have a RAW discussion when one person thinks "what the RAW says is in error and what I say is correct". That line of discussion is going nowhere.

I wonder: what gave you impression it ever was a RAW discussion?
After all, RAW never answering to any "Why?.." question, but just giving us statements which we're supposed to take for granted...

The RAW as they exist are coherent. Animating undead is an evil act.

It's an Evil act only since the October 2002 - i. e. release of Book of Vile Darkness
Before it, only casting certain spells was Evil, but even independent Neutral mindless Undead still pinged on Detect Evil since the very start of 3E
And yes, Detect Undead also existed from the very start of 3E - despite being mostly redundant because of RAW for Detect Evil
Looks like a clear failure of game-design: (unnecessary) too broad scope of one detection spell leaves other detection spell (of the same level) mostly unused...

Evil magic is a part of their physical makeup.

Which "Evil magic"?
Also - quote?

As evil is part of their physiology

Undead have no physiology

the rules regarding creatures to whom evil is inherent to their nature supersedes the rules regarding mindless beings being incapable of having an alignment.

Animate Dead is [evil], but Flesh Golem - isn't
Create Crawling Claw is [evil], but Crawling Claw itself is "Always neutral"
Were-Doom is [Evil, Chaos], but resulting lycanthropes are have only 50% chance of being Evil
Try again!

Thus mindless undead still radiate evil, and are subject to damage from holy spells and Smite Evil.

That's incorrect: 3.5 Skeletons, Zombies, and some other mindless Undead are subject for Smite Evil just - and only - because they have Evil alignment
On the other hand, those Undead which are Neutral are immune to effect of Smite Evil
Undead of Good alignment also unharmed by Holy Smite etc.

That's is consistent and coherent. Not a "failure of game design".

See my comments above

Except the opening of that paragraph "in some extraordinary settings", thus implying that everything that follows is a deviation from "ordinary" setting rules.

And now you will need to explain:

1. What is "ordinary setting"?
2. Which settings aren't "ordinary"?

But anyway, still, it's a red herring from you - you asked: "Is that in the section for ALTERNATE setting options?"
My answer is: "No. Nowhere in that section we seen such words as 'alternate', 'variant', or any other which may indicate what you asked."

And yet if you are killed, your hand chopped of to be used for Resurrection, and let's say the rest of your body is turned into a zombie before your friends get that Resurrection. That zombie is placed somewhere that is cannot be located with divination, or summoned, or located physically (say, a lead lined coffin with dimensional-anchor and nondetection permanently cast on it, dropped into the ocean), then no mortal magic in the game can bring you back to life. Resurrection will not make a new body from the hand, True Resurrection will not make you a new body.

Again, there is SOME connection. That is all I am saying. That is RAW.

Firstly, please, quote this RAW
I seriously doubt it says exactly what you're saying

Secondly, some more spells:

• Grim Revenge (Book of Vile Darkness): hand of a living humanoid tears itself away from the arm, and becomes a Wight. So, if the hand would be Turned and escape somewhere where it couldn't be found - does it mean the victim, in case of premature death, wouldn't be legit for raising/resurrection/reincarnation?
• Vile Rebellion (Dragon #300): arms, legs, and torso of the victim detaching - bloodlessly and painlessly - leaving only the head, and become Zombies. The head is still alive - and magic even allow it to live without eating, drinking, and breathing - but slowly quickly goes insane. So, the soul is still in the head, right? Presuming whoever care for the head would decide to just kill it, and then - zap it with Resurrection; would victim come to life, or not?

*I know most people are familiar with deathless from Eberron. But Eberron deathless aren't actually different if you read all the 3.5e sourcebooks. Arenal (and specifically Shae Mordai) exists on a permanent Manifest Zone to Irian, the Eternal Dawn. The Deathless of Arenal require this constant, renewing stream of positive energy. That is the only reason they can last as long as they do. Deathless that accompany ambassadors to Sharn must return to this Manifest Zone frequently.

From where is it?
I quickly checked Eberron Campaign Setting, Faiths of Eberron, Magic of Eberron, Player's Guide to Eberron, Races of Eberron, and even Book of Exalted Deeds for good measure - but don't seen it anywhere
Moreover, Ascendant Councilors are, apparently, radiating Positive Energy non-stop - shouldn't it sustain them indefinitely?

The whole "Turning undead is a good act" (and Rebuking Undead, an evil act) idea, seems to be a 3e-ism though.

And even 3E was inconsistent with it:

1. HOW CAN I BE AN LN CLERIC OF WEE JAS WHEN MY CHANNELING MAKES ME EVIL?!
2. Artaaglith demons (Ghostwalk) are have access to Turn Undead (yes, not Rebuke - Turn Undead; and yes, 3.5 update didn't changed it too). Apparently, they're committed countless "good acts" during their infinitely long servitude to Orcus...

I have the best poll of all, the designers themselves. Eberron still exists in 5e. Clearly it's popular and your quotes like your argument mean nothing.

I'm honestly disappointed there: when you said

Your opinion of Deathless notwithstanding, they aren't just in BoED, they were successful enough to become a core component of WotC's Eberron setting, so I think it's safe to say you're in the minority in considering them "stupid."

I hoped to learn a new piece of D&D history.
After all, RAW for Shifters was published whole 3 months ahead of Eberron itself - maybe, there really were some polls at WotC boards?..
But, unfortunately, I got nothing.

Looks like designers gave no thought about possible popularity of the new race, and you words were just a bold-faced bluff (which you don't even made any effort to defend when I questioned it)

To saying "Eberron still exists in 5e" is to put a cart before the horse.
Can you see it: "Let's put those 'positive undead' from BoED in our new setting - then it would be still popular two editions later!"

I have the best poll of all, the designers themselves.

Seriously?
You mean - the same designers who gave us Savage Species, Serpent Kingdoms, and the whole 4E?
Color me unimpressed!

Besides it, Eberron has one more "problematic" type - namely, the "Living construct" subtype
That very thing is oxymoron: which is "living" - isn't Construct; which is Construct - isn't "living"

[hamishspence]

And even 3E was inconsistent with it:
[LIST=1][*]HOW CAN I BE AN LN CLERIC OF WEE JAS WHEN MY CHANNELING MAKES ME EVIL?!

Use of Rebuke Undead might be technically an Evil act, but it may be a very minor one, allowing for the "neutral character who successfully balances evil deeds with good intentions" idea described in Heroes of Horror.

Detect Undead also existed from the very start of 3E - despite being mostly redundant because of RAW for Detect Evil
Looks like a clear failure of game-design: (unnecessary) too broad scope of one detection spell leaves other detection spell (of the same level) mostly unused...

Cases where you might want to cast Detect Undead instead of Detect Evil - in a world where Evil is extremely common, but Undead are less so. Where Undead can be "safely attacked" but Evil can't (because being Evil is not enough of a justification in itself).

[Psyren]

Looks like designers gave no thought about possible popularity of the new race,

Shifters and Deathless existed before Eberron, and the designers consciously chose to include them there. Saying "no thought" went into that decision is just wrong.

[Troacctid]

I don't see how detect undead could possibly be considered redundant with detect evil, since detect evil doesn't tell you if a creature is undead. Can you imagine if you invented a metal detector that also detects plastic, sugar, and hair, and you were all like, "This is strictly better than a metal detector because it detects more things!" No, not if you specifically want to detect metal it isn't.

[RedMage125]

Interesting insight.
I didn't remember that part of the BoVD. Had to go back and read some. For sure, the rules are clear on those.
Makes you wonder what the 'intent' argument about alignments thinks about (un)natural phenomena being clearly identified as Evil (such as undead spontaneously animating)

Evil is just as much of a force that shapes the cosmos -including the Prime Material Plane- as the other alignments, or the elements. The Material Plane is still affected by and contains elements, of all those forces.

I wonder: what gave you impression it ever was a RAW discussion?
After all, RAW never answering to any "Why?.." question, but just giving us statements which we're supposed to take for granted...

Kind of pedantic, but if you insist...
We are discussing the WHY of a RAW point. Therefore, to discuss it, we are excepting certain foundations as "given true" for the discussion. Those foundations being...RAW.

We're discussing why those RAW things are what they are. You coming in and saying "I disagree with the very premise of the rules you are discussing the 'why' of instead of contributing meaningfully to the topic. I'm right and the RAW are wrong."...is not productive.

So...I'm going to engage you on this, ONCE. Take the rest of your "I know better than the RAW" to a new thread.

Spoiler: blocked for space

Show

It's an Evil act only since the October 2002 - i. e. release of Book of Vile Darkness
Before it, only casting certain spells was Evil, but even independent Neutral mindless Undead still pinged on Detect Evil since the very start of 3E.

Almost as if the BoVD was consistent with pre-existing design...

And yes, Detect Undead also existed from the very start of 3E - despite being mostly redundant because of RAW for Detect Evil
Looks like a clear failure of game-design: (unnecessary) too broad scope of one detection spell leaves other detection spell (of the same level) mostly unused...

Troacctid shut you down nicely on this point. I refer you to her.

Which "Evil magic"?
Also - quote?

...are you being intentionally obtuse to be argumentative?
Creation of Undead is an Evil act. Period. Whether created by spell or not, Negative Energy (thus, magic) used in an evil manner is what makes them more than a regular corpse.

Undead have no physiology


Animate Dead is [evil], but Flesh Golem - isn't
Create Crawling Claw is [evil], but Crawling Claw itself is "Always neutral"
Were-Doom is [Evil, Chaos], but resulting lycanthropes are have only 50% chance of being Evil

Golems are animated by elemental spirits. Elementals do not have "souls", their spirits and bodies are one. They are also Neutral. Ergo, Golems are Neutral. But Animate Dead is part of the spell suite used to make a flesh golem so making on involves at least one evil act, unlike a Clay Golem, for example.

And what I referred to was the rules in the PHB and MM about how some creatures have evil inherent in their makeup (like demons). A demon who becomes Lawful Good is still an outsider with [Chaos] and [Evil] subtypes, and thus still radiates under Detect spells for Chaos and Evil, and would actually be hurt by all 4 variants of Holy Smite/Unholy Blight/etc. That's in the Core Books.

So Evil can exist in a creature irrespective of it's own personal alignment (which stems from outlooks, beliefs an actions). This is a fact of RAW.

So what I am saying is this: Even though normally something mindless is incapable of having agency enough to be anything other than Neutral, Skeletons and Zombies being Evil is due to them adhering to a different rule (regarding Evil existing independent of a creature's actual alignment), over the default rule for mindless creatures.
Or, in shorthand, "the rules regarding creatures to whom evil is inherent to their nature supersedes the rules regarding mindless beings being incapable of having an alignment."

It's still consistency and coherency within the rules. And Specific Overrides General.

Here's a breakdown for you, with citations:

FACTS/Conclusions/(Citation):
All creation of undead is an Evil act (as per the BoVD).
Casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act (as per the PHB).
All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources).
Conclusion: These rules are all internally consistent. The only thing that Animate Dead does is create undead. All that spell can accomplish is, by the RAW, an Evil act. Ergo, casting the spell will always be an Evil act, and thus the spell has the Evil descriptor, despite not touching on Lower Planes, like [Evil] spells of the Conjuration school.
Creatures incapable of moral action are Neutral rather than Good or Evil(PHB).
Good and Evil are objective forces that shape the cosmos(PHB). This means that Evil can exist outside of living things, as it is an objective force.
For certain types of creatures, Evil is inherent part of their physiology(PHB, MM1, BoVD). So some creatures are Evil, without individuality or moral agency even entering the picture.
When a fiend becomes non-evil (like the often-vaunted LG succubus paladin), it retains the [Evil] descriptor, and will still respond to spells that detect/affect evil beings, like Holy Smite(MM1). The Evil in the fibers of their being goes beyond the moral agency of their action and intent.
Undead -even mindless ones- are animated by Evil magicks(PHB, BoVD).
Zombies and Skeletons have an Evil alignment in the RAW(MM1).
Conclusion: These rules are also internally consistent. Since the magicks that animate zombies are Evil, they fall into the purview of "innately evil" regarding alignment. Even without moral agency present, there is Evil energy inside them. They don't have the [Evil] subtype, because that subtype is only applied to non-Prime-native creatures.

Try again!

I was right to begin with, your refusal to understand my points does not mean I'm wrong.

That's incorrect: 3.5 Skeletons, Zombies, and some other mindless Undead are subject for Smite Evil just - and only - because they have Evil alignment
On the other hand, those Undead which are Neutral are immune to effect of Smite Evil
Undead of Good alignment also unharmed by Holy Smite etc.

See my comments above

Sentient undead able to have an alignment work like other sentient creatures with alignments. This is consistent and coherent with other rules regarding aligned creatures. The Evil in an evil warlord is the same energy in an unholy sword or an archdevil (by virtue of all being the same energy detected in Detect Evil). This same energy is that cosmic force of alignment discussed in Chapter 6 of the PHB. A Chaotic Good person has a measurable quantity of Chaos and Good energies in their body. So a Good aligned undead also has Good in it. And Neutral is a balance of those energies, rather than a distinct force itself.

Mindless undead -by virtue of being mindless- have only the alignment energies of the magicks used to animate them. Because...remember...they don't have the agency to have a different alignment.

So...STILL consistent and STILL coherent.

And now you will need to explain:

1. What is "ordinary setting"?
2. Which settings aren't "ordinary"?

How about "one that follows the default rules and assumptions of the Core Books without deviation"?
For the second question "any setting that doesn't".

Firstly, please, quote this RAW
I seriously doubt it says exactly what you're saying

Look at the RAW for Resurrection, True Resurrection, etc. It's there. Pay attention to the fact that BOTH of those spells say "As Raise Dead, except", and note EXACTLY what those exceptions are.

If the body has become a zombie, that hand you chopped off won't be able to be used for Resurrection. And True Res can ONLY make a whole new body if the first was destroyed, explicitly.

From where is it?
I quickly checked Eberron Campaign Setting, Faiths of Eberron, Magic of Eberron, Player's Guide to Eberron, Races of Eberron, and even Book of Exalted Deeds for good measure - but don't seen it anywhere

You didn't check them thoroughly enough. ECS mentions it, and Faiths might, I don't recall specifically.

I don't see how detect undead could possibly be considered redundant with detect evil, since detect evil doesn't tell you if a creature is undead. Can you imagine if you invented a metal detector that also detects plastic, sugar, and hair, and you were all like, "This is strictly better than a metal detector because it detects more things!" No, not if you specifically want to detect metal it isn't.

Nicely put!

[nijineko]

The real reason Create Undead is Evil is because Gygax said it was so in Greyhawk, and no designer since has decided to contradict him on it, and the spell transmigrated to the rest of the game over time. D&D was originally a Medieval fantasy game, thus incorporated a rough Earth-based Medieval-style black and white morality viewpoint by Gygax's decree which became the default.

Is the belief systems held back then any less valid than the belief systems we hold today? It's certainly not popular these days at the least. But that's WHY Create Undead is Evil.

So I guess the next question is SHOULD it be evil?

[Xgya]

Secondly, some more spells:

• Grim Revenge (Book of Vile Darkness): hand of a living humanoid tears itself away from the arm, and becomes a Wight. So, if the hand would be Turned and escape somewhere where it couldn't be found - does it mean the victim, in case of premature death, wouldn't be legit for raising/resurrection/reincarnation?
• Vile Rebellion (Dragon #300): arms, legs, and torso of the victim detaching - bloodlessly and painlessly - leaving only the head, and become Zombies. The head is still alive - and magic even allow it to live without eating, drinking, and breathing - but slowly quickly goes insane. So, the soul is still in the head, right? Presuming whoever care for the head would decide to just kill it, and then - zap it with Resurrection; would victim come to life, or not?

I guess that depends on how liberal your interpretation of 'turned into an undead creature' is.

By virtue of the identity argument from earlier, Resurrection would work. Your hand is not 'you'.
Neither are your other members, for that matter.
As soon as that body part became a separate entity, it's no longer part of 'you'.
Nobody can target you with a touch-range spell because they can reach your severed hand, animated or not.

[Psyren]

So I guess the next question is SHOULD it be evil?

Well, you can see in this thread one of the most common results would be - stripped of any ethical or moral implications, necromancy at its most basic is a form of magic that grants access to low-cost and thus mass-producible perpetual motion machines, which results in a post-industrial society that eliminates scarcity pretty quickly. (Perhaps the machines are gooey or smell bad, but still.) While there are multiple folks (including in this thread) who would like to explore this implication, it's easy to see why the authors behind default D&D settings wouldn't - among other drawbacks, post-scarcity settings are not particularly relatable (since we don't have any in our world) and not necessarily conducive to the standard reasons for adventuring (as it removes motives like attaining treasure or removes a common reason for various political or geographical conflicts.)

Because of this, authors usually need (or at least want) a reason for established power structures and even the common layperson to, at best, distrust necromancers on sight, and at worse to persecute them, incarcerate them, or run them out of town. More importantly, this treatment will apply to both NPCs and PCs like, so it will discourage PCs from using such magic too, or at the very least discourage them from flaunting it. As with most other "this is always an evil act" labels in D&D, the ultimate goal is to discourage the PCs from using a certain behavior, or at the very least tip the GM off that this is an activity they should be scrutinizing very closely at their table, while still leaving it as an option for nontraditional campaigns or for dramatic moments in traditional ones like desperation or intraparty conflict.

[ShurikVch]

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

Almost as if the BoVD was consistent with pre-existing design...

In case if you're don't noticed it, I'm questioning there PH rather than BoVD
To justify PH RAW with text from BoVD is to put cart before the horse

...are you being intentionally obtuse to be argumentative?
Creation of Undead is an Evil act. Period. Whether created by spell or not, Negative Energy (thus, magic) used in an evil manner is what makes them more than a regular corpse.

Undead aren't radiating Evil magic (or, for that matter, any magic)
Nor are they de-animated in a Dead Magic/AMF etc.
Not all Undead are even created by usage of magic(/psionics/supernatural abilities/whatever)
Thus, "Evil magic is a part of their physical makeup" is incorrect

Golems are animated by elemental spirits. Elementals do not have "souls", their spirits and bodies are one. They are also Neutral. Ergo, Golems are Neutral. But Animate Dead is part of the spell suite used to make a flesh golem so making on involves at least one evil act, unlike a Clay Golem, for example.

Then why Lycanthropes produced by Were-Doom are Evil only in 50% cases?
(And why Serpentflesh Golem is Evil despite being mindless?)

And what I referred to was the rules in the PHB and MM about how some creatures have evil inherent in their makeup (like demons). A demon who becomes Lawful Good is still an outsider with [Chaos] and [Evil] subtypes, and thus still radiates under Detect spells for Chaos and Evil, and would actually be hurt by all 4 variants of Holy Smite/Unholy Blight/etc. That's in the Core Books.

So Evil can exist in a creature irrespective of it's own personal alignment (which stems from outlooks, beliefs an actions). This is a fact of RAW.

So what I am saying is this: Even though normally something mindless is incapable of having agency enough to be anything other than Neutral, Skeletons and Zombies being Evil is due to them adhering to a different rule (regarding Evil existing independent of a creature's actual alignment), over the default rule for mindless creatures.
Or, in shorthand, "the rules regarding creatures to whom evil is inherent to their nature supersedes the rules regarding mindless beings being incapable of having an alignment."

It's still consistency and coherency within the rules. And Specific Overrides General.

Don't get me wrong: I'm kinda OK with existence of Evil subtype
But the thing is: most of mindless Undead don't have neither the Evil subtype, nor other reason to be Evil (since Negative Energy is not Evil)

Here's a breakdown for you, with citations:

FACTS/Conclusions/(Citation):
All creation of undead is an Evil act (as per the BoVD).

And yet - Shadow Asp (Fiend Folio) is "Alignment: Always neutral", despite its venom transforms victims into Shadows
Fiend Folio was released later than Book of Vile Darkness
And - no, Shadow Asp isn't Animal, it have Int 4

Or how about the Rancid Beetle Swarm, which transforms its victims into Rancid Beetle Zombies, but still "Alignment: Always neutral"?

All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources).

Not all: Blood Oath, Seed of Undeath, and Energy Drain are not [Evil]

Sentient undead able to have an alignment work like other sentient creatures with alignments.
...
Mindless undead -by virtue of being mindless- have only the alignment energies of the magicks used to animate them. Because...remember...they don't have the agency to have a different alignment.

So...STILL consistent and STILL coherent.

Unfortunately, there are still some mindless Undead who're Neutral
They're not vulnerable to Smite Evil, and Holy Smite inflicts on them only a half of the damage and don't blinds them

How about "one that follows the default rules and assumptions of the Core Books without deviation"?
For the second question "any setting that doesn't".

So, the "ordinary setting" is the World of Greyhawk?
And "extraordinary" is the all other?
Kinda narrow
What if the game is not in the Greyhawk?

Look at the RAW for Resurrection, True Resurrection, etc. It's there. Pay attention to the fact that BOTH of those spells say "As Raise Dead, except", and note EXACTLY what those exceptions are.

If the body has become a zombie, that hand you chopped off won't be able to be used for Resurrection. And True Res can ONLY make a whole new body if the first was destroyed, explicitly.

Well, firstly, Reanimation (Complete Arcane) get them back just fine

And secondly - RAW isn't crystal-clear there (or I wouldn't even question it)
The part about "can resurrect someone ... who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed" may refer to the trait of Undead type:

Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.

I mean: if Undead in question is a completely separate persona from a living creature it once was (or, maybe, one of those Undead who were never alive to begin with) - then you wouldn't get them back with resurrection or true resurrection - cast Revive Undead

Note: in case of the most obtuse reading of the RAW - "Undead must be destroyed - or no resurrection for you!" - Undead which wasn't destroyed, but safely de-animated, can't be resurrected at all: since not only wasn't it destroyed, but we can't even destroy it anymore - because it's not Undead now.
(Or would you suggest to animate it again, destroy, and only then - resurrect? )

You didn't check them thoroughly enough. ECS mentions it, and Faiths might, I don't recall specifically.

I re-checked it one more time
No, still can't find it
Or was it for 5E Eberron?

I don't see how detect undead could possibly be considered redundant with detect evil, since detect evil doesn't tell you if a creature is undead.

Who cares if it's Undead or not?
It pings on detect evil - thus, it's enemy.
Attack!

Cases where you might want to cast Detect Undead instead of Detect Evil - in a world where Evil is extremely common, but Undead are less so. Where Undead can be "safely attacked" but Evil can't (because being Evil is not enough of a justification in itself).

Yes.
Also, may be useful in case of overwhelming Evil aura, when usage of Detect Evil would cause imminent knockout
The problem is: how rarely such situations occurs

Also, problem of "magical restrictions": prepared casters are limited in their daily spells (at least, at lower levels); spontaneous casters are limited in "spells known"; why would they waste their limited resource on Detect Undead, when Paladin have at-will Detect Evil?

[Quertus]

BoVD says that creating undead BY ANY MEANS is an Evil act. The only thing that Create Undead and Animate Dead do is create undead. Ergo, the only thing the spell accomplishes is one of those "always evil" acts. That is why the spell has the [Evil] subtype.

Right, but 2 things here:
1) The point that was brought up, was your buddy dies, you cut off a hand to return to town for resurrection. Then a mad wizard uses the rest of the corpse as most of the body of a flesh golem. Resurrection still works and makes a new body, even though the old body is now part of another creature.

And, less significant, but still noteworthy: 2) Creating a Flesh Golem requires at least ONE evil act. Animate Dead is one of the spells used in its creation (check your Monster Manual if you don't believe me).

You've kinda contradicted yourself here: Animate Dead does not just create undead - it also creates Flesh Golems. And opens my front door.

So... why does it get the [evil] tag again?

among other drawbacks, post-scarcity settings are not particularly relatable (since we don't have any in our world) and not necessarily conducive to the standard reasons for adventuring (as it removes motives like attaining treasure or removes a common reason for various political or geographical conflicts.)

Even with infinite food, I might still want to collect, say, D&D minis. No number of undead will change the scarcity of gold (I guess enough might technically be able to pull a Superman and just create diamonds, or certainly harvest them from one of the infinite supplies, such as on the Elemental Plane of Earth).

Point being, I don't think undead-powered post-scarcity settings would make everything post-scarcity - if nothing else, space and fresh air might become more scarce.

[awa]

Well, you can see in this thread one of the most common results would be - stripped of any ethical or moral implications, necromancy at its most basic is a form of magic that grants access to low-cost and thus mass-producible perpetual motion machines, which results in a post-industrial society that eliminates scarcity pretty quickly. (Perhaps the machines are gooey or smell bad, but still.) While there are multiple folks (including in this thread) who would like to explore this implication, it's easy to see why the authors behind default D&D settings wouldn't - among other drawbacks, post-scarcity settings are not particularly relatable (since we don't have any in our world) and not necessarily conducive to the standard reasons for adventuring (as it removes motives like attaining treasure or removes a common reason for various political or geographical conflicts.)

Personally I’ve always been a bit iffy on zombie perpetual motion devices, if you wanted to as a creator it would be really easy to shut down. Just because there are no rules in the game for wear and tear on zombies in the game mechanics does not necessarily mean anything about the game world. There are no rules for non-magical rust or wear and tear on tools but typically they do exist in the setting. While maybe your zombie can stand motionless and be a guard for decades allowing them to maintain their primary campaign function it would not be unreasonable to ask where in the rules does it say a zombie can’t take micro injuries or suffer wear and tear and thus the first step to shutting down the zombie industrial revolution.

Second there mindless very few tasks have completely no intelligence involved, even things that seem mindless like carrying stuff require a small amount of discretion. Have you every helped a friend move? You need to communicate to do it effectively. When you carry large things you need to work together, even when carrying by yourself you need to coordinate with your fellows. A zombie moving company could easy run into situations where they are getting caught in jams at doors, pushing each other down steps, and either getting stuck and not being smart enough to turn the furniture or damage it trying to force it through. Moving is an incredible simplistic task and I can still think of multiple ways a mindless creature could mess it up. Thus the second step to shutting down the zombie industrial revolution.

Finally people mention the zombies smell bad but they are forgetting rotten flesh does not just smell mad it is bad, if rotting corpses are handling your food sickness is going to be common. Rotting human flesh carries lots of diseases that affect humans.

Now if undead industrial revolution is your goal a lot of these can be hand waved away. 1) The negative energy that animates undead slowly heals them. 2) Their like computers you all you need is sufficiently advanced instructions. 3) Negative energy kills the micro-organisms so they are not disease vectors. So as a setting designer you could easily tip the scales either way in this regard.

[Segev]

You use skeletons for anything you need to be sanitary.

[Psyren]

You've kinda contradicted yourself here: Animate Dead does not just create undead - it also creates Flesh Golems.

Yes, and Flesh Golems remind you that making them requires casting an evil spell, even if the resulting creature is Neutral-with-a-chance-to-randomly-murder-innocents.

Even with infinite food, I might still want to collect, say, D&D minis. No number of undead will change the scarcity of gold (I guess enough might technically be able to pull a Superman and just create diamonds, or certainly harvest them from one of the infinite supplies, such as on the Elemental Plane of Earth).

Point being, I don't think undead-powered post-scarcity settings would make everything post-scarcity - if nothing else, space and fresh air might become more scarce.

It doesn't matter if things like "D&D miniatures" are still scarce - it still fundamentally alters the setting and typical adventuring motivations away from what the designers intended. The question being asked was why they might want to discourage that, and that's a key point; "Quest for the Funko Pops" might still be appealing to you, and you have the freedom to do that at your table, but it's not something they wanted in their default books.

Personally I’ve always been a bit iffy on zombie perpetual motion devices, if you wanted to as a creator it would be really easy to shut down.

Spoiler

Show

Just because there are no rules in the game for wear and tear on zombies in the game mechanics does not necessarily mean anything about the game world. There are no rules for non-magical rust or wear and tear on tools but typically they do exist in the setting. While maybe your zombie can stand motionless and be a guard for decades allowing them to maintain their primary campaign function it would not be unreasonable to ask where in the rules does it say a zombie can’t take micro injuries or suffer wear and tear and thus the first step to shutting down the zombie industrial revolution.

Second there mindless very few tasks have completely no intelligence involved, even things that seem mindless like carrying stuff require a small amount of discretion. Have you every helped a friend move? You need to communicate to do it effectively. When you carry large things you need to work together, even when carrying by yourself you need to coordinate with your fellows. A zombie moving company could easy run into situations where they are getting caught in jams at doors, pushing each other down steps, and either getting stuck and not being smart enough to turn the furniture or damage it trying to force it through. Moving is an incredible simplistic task and I can still think of multiple ways a mindless creature could mess it up. Thus the second step to shutting down the zombie industrial revolution.

Finally people mention the zombies smell bad but they are forgetting rotten flesh does not just smell mad it is bad, if rotting corpses are handling your food sickness is going to be common. Rotting human flesh carries lots of diseases that affect humans.

Now if undead industrial revolution is your goal a lot of these can be hand waved away. 1) The negative energy that animates undead slowly heals them. 2) Their like computers you all you need is sufficiently advanced instructions. 3) Negative energy kills the micro-organisms so they are not disease vectors. So as a setting designer you could easily tip the scales either way in this regard.

All of these are fine restrictions to implement on such a scheme, but they're either not RAW or just not meaningful obstacles at all. Once a zombie or skeleton has been animated, there are no rules for their corporeal forms crumbling or weakening - their stats stay static. Similarly, when you order a zombie to carry a vase through a door, it just does - there is no % chance of it banging its shins on the jamb and shattering its payload hither and yon. And a setting that makes use of undead labor is probably not going to be above things like Purify Food traps (or simply using "clean" undead) to eliminate any pathogenic concerns.

So rather than try and implement all these niggling drawbacks to mass undead labor, anticipating what players will do to eliminate these drawbacks, and then implementing counters to those mitigations - the designers took the more sensible approach of going "we're not saying players can't ever cast such spells, but only evil characters make a habit of doing it." They then backed into a justification for that later. For the purposes of designing a game, that's completely fine - they knew that the tables that really want to grapple with necroeconomics can do so, while the vast majority will have both players and DMs going "nah, as heroes, let's solve {problem} another way."

[awa]

Your correct it’s not raw and thus a dm or setting designer could easily rule it another way.

But there are no rules tools breaking or rusting but that typical happens in setting.

There are no rules for tripping over your own feet or having something slip through your fingers but that still happens in setting.
It’s true there is not a percent chance to smash that vase but if they were human workmen and it happened would you be upset with the dm and declare that because there are rules for losing your grip on a vase it literally could never happen? And if it can happen to a human who thinks for themselves and reacts intelligently why couldn’t it happen to a being that is mindless.
Just because something works on a small scale short duration tactical situation (what D&d was designed for) does not mean it can be endlessly expanded in scope and duration.

I own an rpg that has rules for cars in it, if we follow them purely based on raw, cars are perpetual motion devices that produce endless energy, never needing fuel or repairs. But if a player tried to use them like that , say stick them on a treadmill in a powerplant I could easily shut them down with those concerns.

I reiterate it’s not raw but if the dm wants to prevent a zombie/Skeleton from being a perpetual motion device telling them its motion is not perpetual is pretty hard to work around.

An undead creature is mindless but raw does not do a very good job of telling us what that means, you could make it easy and simple commands can produce complex reactions, you could make it hard and require extremely precise commands to achieve desired aims. Limiting how many commands they hold in their head could also be used to prevent some types of abuse.
A lot of that can be reduced by keeping a constant eye on the undead but that limits their usefulness, whether you can delegate or not is uncertain by raw. Zombies understand commands spoken by the caster but I don't think raw says what languages they know don’t necessarily understand anyone else so even an order to obey a proxies commands might fail.

It’s not raw, and I don’t have a problem with It’s evil being used to stop the use of the undead post scarcity situation. I am merely pointing out that an additional method exists to make undead useful at their assumed purpose killing people in a tomb but not useful at reorganizing society; because remember we only need to make a zombie less efficient than a commoner to shut down the industrial revolution.

[Snails]

The real reason Create Undead is Evil is because Gygax said it was so in Greyhawk, and no designer since has decided to contradict him on it, and the spell transmigrated to the rest of the game over time. D&D was originally a Medieval fantasy game, thus incorporated a rough Earth-based Medieval-style black and white morality viewpoint by Gygax's decree which became the default.

Is the belief systems held back then any less valid than the belief systems we hold today? It's certainly not popular these days at the least. But that's WHY Create Undead is Evil.

So I guess the next question is SHOULD it be evil?

Exactly. Gygax was trying to emulate the feel of certain medieval mythology, certain modern mythology about the medieval period, and certain Hollywood movies. Presumably, he did this for a combination of (1) he liked those stories, and (2) he wanted his players to feel as much recognition as practical.

Gary could have chosen otherwise. But it would have confused his players if, say, the party met a "vampire" that did not suck blood and enjoyed getting sprinkled by Holy Water. Likewise, he chose morality systems that were easy enough on the players to grasp and have fun with, not because they were "right".

I am perfectly open to the idea of someone's campaign having different moral metaphysics that opens up the possibilities for undead, among other things. But the WHY this was done is pretty straightforward. It was certainly not a mistake. It was a choice that made perfect sense, when other choices could make sense, too.

[RedMage125]

Spoiler

Show

In case if you're don't noticed it, I'm questioning there PH rather than BoVD
To justify PH RAW with text from BoVD is to put cart before the horse

ACTUALLY, you claimed that it was only evil since the BoVD.

Which is wrong, Animate Dead had the Evil tag in 3.0 PHB. My point was that the BoVD was consistent with the PHB. Which is a point you don't like, so you pretend it isn't a thing.

Undead aren't radiating Evil magic (or, for that matter, any magic)
Nor are they de-animated in a Dead Magic/AMF etc.
Not all Undead are even created by usage of magic(/psionics/supernatural abilities/whatever)
Thus, "Evil magic is a part of their physical makeup" is incorrect

Negative Energy causing a corpse to up an move is a magical phenomena. Your attempts to argue that are unconvincing. Try again.

Don't get me wrong: I'm kinda OK with existence of Evil subtype
But the thing is: most of mindless Undead don't have neither the Evil subtype, nor other reason to be Evil (since Negative Energy is not Evil)

You're being obtuse on purpose because your ACTUAL point is "I don't like alignment and think my dislike is grounded in fact because my opinions are so vital and universal that they hold the same weight as fact. My way is actually BETTER than those that play with alignment." If you would just recognize that, and learn to distinguish between FACTS and OPINIONS/PREFERENCES, one might be able to have a productive discussion.

[Evil] subtype on creature type only ever applies to non-native outsiders.

Negative Energy BY ITSELF is not evil (neither are inflict spells, energy drain, etc).
Fireball isn't evil, either. Blowing up an occupied orphanage with one is Evil.
Negative Energy is used in the objectively Evil act of creating undead.
This was actually covered earlier in the thread, but again, refer to what I said about your ACTUAL point.

Not all: Blood Oath, Seed of Undeath, and Energy Drain are not [Evil]

Intentionally obtuse, again. Spells which target a corpse, and turn it into an undead creature as the sole function of the spell all have the [Evil] tag.

Is that specific enough for your pedantry?

Well, firstly, Reanimation (Complete Arcane) get them back just fine

This is intentional misdirection and dishonesty on your part.

Reanimation is a Conjuration (healing) spell which explicitly specifies that it is restoring a creature into a state of "half life". It also explicitly says that Raise Dead can be used on the target once Reanimation ends.

It also would not work in the example you responded to, which was your buddy dies, you take a hand back to town, and some necromancer animates the handless corpse into a zombie before you get [True] Resurrection cast.

So, on every level, this was a dishonest jab, and you deliberately wasted my time. Do it again, and I will report you for trolling.

And secondly - RAW isn't crystal-clear there (or I wouldn't even question it)
The part about "can resurrect someone ... who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed" may refer to the trait of Undead type:

No. The limitation on those spells are quite clear, and no one else is confused.

I re-checked it one more time
No, still can't find it
Or was it for 5E Eberron?

It has been a long time. It actually might have been from one of KB's Dragonshard articles.

You've kinda contradicted yourself here: Animate Dead does not just create undead - it also creates Flesh Golems. And opens my front door.

So... why does it get the [evil] tag again?

No contradiction.

You don't actually CAST a spell when you're making a magic item. Craft Construct is an item creation feat, is it not? Animate Dead is one of the spells used in making the vessel.

You use skeletons for anything you need to be sanitary.

Are skeletons sanitary?

[Pinkie Pyro]

Might be a bit late to the party, but have you seen undead TO? It's a cheap, effective labor force that never requires to stop or be payed, making and using undead is horrible for local economies, which in turn causes a rise in unemployment, therefore crime, and just spirals out of control from there.

Therefore it's not the *act* of making undead, but the fact that there's nothing they can do that is good, therefore creating them can only introduce more evil into the world.

[awa]

If we operate under the assumption that undead are a free perpetual motion system that is not evil, free labor can have some short term problems to be sure, but economies change. The new job is not slowly dying on a mill wheel or mining lead its baby sitting a skeleton while it takes the job that was not merely backbreaking and miserable but was literally killing you. Individuals in the short term certainly don't like mechanization (the most obvious parallel) but the majority of people benefit in the long term.

[Psyren]

No contradiction.

You don't actually CAST a spell when you're making a magic item. Craft Construct is an item creation feat, is it not? Animate Dead is one of the spells used in making the vessel.

I don't know if every construct works this way, but Flesh Golem does specifically state you cast the spell in its Construction entry (MM pg. 136).

If we operate under the assumption that undead are a free perpetual motion system that is not evil, free labor can have some short term problems to be sure, but economies change. The new job is not slowly dying on a mill wheel or mining lead its baby sitting a skeleton while it takes the job that was not merely backbreaking and miserable but was literally killing you. Individuals in the short term certainly don't like mechanization (the most obvious parallel) but the majority of people benefit in the long term.

I'm not at all saying automation is bad; I'm saying it changes the genre of the game to something that the authors didn't intend D&D to be. Exploring that CAN be interesting (for some tables), but leaving it as not just a possible but even a likely outcome in the books with no narrative mitigation whatsoever wouldn't have worked, because it's just not something most tables should need to worry about.

[awa]

I'm not at all saying automation is bad; I'm saying it changes the genre of the game to something that the authors didn't intend D&D to be. Exploring that CAN be interesting (for some tables), but leaving it as not just a possible but even a likely outcome in the books with no narrative mitigation whatsoever wouldn't have worked, because it's just not something most tables should need to worry about.

That one was not directed towards you it was directed towards the post from Pinkie Pyro

Are skeletons sanitary?

I imagine they are at least compared to a zombie dripping rotting flesh on your crops.

[Segev]

Are skeletons sanitary?

Unlike zombies, where literally-rotting flesh is a part of the creature, there's no reason a skeleton couldn't be kept sanitary at least as well as a living humanoid. They're just bone; bone can be washed.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The D&D book Libris Mortis explains that a flesh golem isn’t evil because it’s animated by and elemental spirit which is neutral. But a zombie or a skeleton is animated by and evil spirit.
So both are mindless yet one is animated by evil the other is not.

Furthermore some harm must be done to the original owner. If you die and become and undead any undead even a simple skeleton. True resurrection can’t bring you back until that undead is destroyed despite the fact the body is irrelevant to the spell functioning.

[nijineko]

I disagree with the perpetual motion engine... magic (mana, whatever it is) is also a limited resource! This is explicitly included in D&D due to the fact that the Age of Magic ends at some future date giving way to an Age of Technology wherein the fantasy races that survive (due to not needing magic to live) form a new society, hence the reason why Boccob is so bent on preserving magic at all costs, regardless of the consequences. It might last for a long time (unless, of course, attempts to do so would hasten the demise of magic as I postulated).

All having mass numbers of undead around would do is to possibly hasten the inevitable end of magic, and also threaten the living every time they get out of control or are manipulated by the selfish, evil, insane, or greedy (etc, etc.).

[Segev]

I disagree with the perpetual motion engine... magic (mana, whatever it is) is also a limited resource! This is explicitly included in D&D due to the fact that the Age of Magic ends at some future date giving way to an Age of Technology wherein the fantasy races that survive (due to not needing magic to live) form a new society, hence the reason why Boccob is so bent on preserving magic at all costs, regardless of the consequences. It might last for a long time (unless, of course, attempts to do so would hasten the demise of magic as I postulated).

All having mass numbers of undead around would do is to possibly hasten the inevitable end of magic, and also threaten the living every time they get out of control or are manipulated by the selfish, evil, insane, or greedy (etc, etc.).

Where is this future lore written up for D&D?

[Gnaeus]

Finally people mention the zombies smell bad but they are forgetting rotten flesh does not just smell mad it is bad, if rotting corpses are handling your food sickness is going to be common. Rotting human flesh carries lots of diseases that affect humans.

Now if undead industrial revolution is your goal a lot of these can be hand waved away. 1) The negative energy that animates undead slowly heals them. 2) Their like computers you all you need is sufficiently advanced instructions. 3) Negative energy kills the micro-organisms so they are not disease vectors. So as a setting designer you could easily tip the scales either way in this regard.

Dead bodies carry a lot less disease than we think. It’s something of a risk if they were killed by a communicable disease. But there is little or no evidence that bodies which died by trauma (in earthquakes or other natural disasters for example) are a significant disease vector. Certainly significantly less than their living, breathing, coughing, flea infested counterparts.