Why is creating undead Evil?

[Asmotherion]

And what if we using a Consecrate Spell or/and Purify Spell [metamagic] with it?
Any of them make a spell tangibly Good in mechanical sense
So, what it will be: +1(Evil)+1(Good)=Neutral? +1(Evil)+1(Good)+1(Good)=Good?

I suspect it does. After all, the animating spitit(?)/Energy would be Positive Energy. I still tend to believe it evens out towards neutral, since you still disrespect a dead body (+1 evil), only at least you don't infestate it with some "unclean energy", and an arguement could be given that it's just a weird way to actually respect the dead... So yeah, depending on the situation, it would be Good or at least neutral.

So, if we animate a Skeleton made of Positive Energy - would it be Neutral?

If I was DMing, I'd rule so, yeah. That said, it's one of those cases that things are rather unclear by RAW. Strictly, it's supposed to use the Skeleton Template, which has an alignment assosiated with it, yet you don't exactly use the same spell (aka meet the pre-reqs) so I suppose the spell would, by strict RAW fail - or apply a Homebrew template of a Good Aligned Undead, which is DM territory. I'd still rule for neutral... or even good aligned skeletons.

Well, firstly, what if we would use only Mindless Undead? (Or, at most, up to Int 2) No will - no slavery.
About the Crypt Thing - sentient Undead are famous for their one-track minds: thus, once created, Crypt Thing wouldn't want anything else but to guard and watch "over a religious treasure, tomb, or holy site." You know all those horror stories when ancient tombs or lost cities are guarded by the dead of people long forgotten? Crypt Thing is exactly like this - except it wouldn't resort to violence instantly (it's capable to conversation, and its main "battle tactics" is to teleport annoying invaders away)

Of what creature? You're still desacrating the bones of something that used to be Alive, and still go against the Druid Faith.

Again, the fact that a slave likes it's job, does not make the slaver a good person.

Please, enlighten me
The only way I'm aware of is to pump CL sky-high
For the records:
in the Kingdoms of Kalamar, kingdom of Brandobia was established 1044 years ago;
in the Forgotten Realms, Sarrukh Empires rose at -35000 DR
in the Eberron, Age of Giants started at –80000 YK
Thus, sufficient CL to resurrect somebody from those times are 105, 3500, and 8000 respectively. Up to the challenge?
(Don't forget: no consumptive field or hivemind - we're doing [Good] thing there)

Also, besides that - rare souls lingering in the afterlife for a truly long time: they're ascending as Outsiders, melding with their deities or the plane itself, got stuck in the Wall of Faithless, or reincarnated (yes, may be Reincarnated too - but, more likely, just reincarnated). In all of those cases, resurrection should be completely impossible:
ascended Outsider isn't dead - thus, neither need, nor can be resurrected;
melded soul isn't there to be "willing to return" - thus, resurrection request stays unanswered;
reincarnated creature isn't dead too - thus, neither need, nor can be resurrected;
and the hold of the Wall, after the some time, is stronger than any magic.

A simple example would be a Polymorph any object the remains into the corpse of the original of any age (a much younger version of the corpse, optimally; Divination Spells can provide you with the visual). Clone (the spell) that corpse.

You're comparing thigs which are incomparable!

Your Cousin killing your Best Friend is bad, because:
Your Best Friend is dead now;
You don't have the Best Friend anymore;
Your Cousin is a killer now.

But who, exactly, affected, if we animating Undead which was dead for a very long time?

No, I'm not. "Your Cousin is a killer now" is totally comparable to "You've disrespected the Dead now/Commited the taboo of infesting their body with Negative Energy".

But if the site looks unvisited for who-know-how-long, then why, exactly, it's bad?

The right question is "towards who is it bad?". It's bad towards the soul of the original creature that used to live in it's body, as you disrespect their memory and remains. It's also bad towards any Deity that's not fond of Undead and Negative Energy altogether (Basically, most Lawfull Good and Neutral Good Deities, as well as non-evil Death Domain ones). Finally, it's bad towards the natural Law (aka the Druid Faith) that says "Undead are unatural, and should not exist".

The whole point is, in most D&D settings, unlike the real world, Alignment and Deities are very factual, almost scientific things, not phylosophical concepts people idealise about. The afterlife is an established fact, and so is the fact of the sin of "defiling the corpse of a creature".

Actually, this line is vanishingly rare outside of "Inflict ..." line and aforementioned Chill Touch: we have it in the Channeled Lifetheft, Spectral Touch, Touch of Fatigue, Touch of the Graveborn... and it's it!

In any case, in a strict rules approach, a spell that has this exact wording falls into the "x is an evil act" category as per the Neutral Cleric.

My take is that it means more generally "Negative Energy Bad; Positive Energy Good". But I can see how one could Argue against it's Raw Definition. At this point, I just speculate RAI, or at least mentioning how I would, personally DM it, which is not a Factual Debate, rather than establishing my perspective for anyone who cares to read it.

By RAW, it's unconclusive to my knowlage.

Once again - why the Positive Energy is the "Good" one?

Wile I would say that Energons are probably meant to represent the concept of yin-yang, were in evil there is good and vice versa, again, I'm just speculating.

Energons are weird, man...

Overall, positive energy is, conceptually more assosiated with good, and negative with evil. That's all I can provide as an answear.

[Psyren]

Quertus asked how "official" those rules
So, let's see:

Considering the Libris Mortis - it says:

Thus - not even so much as "variant rules" rather than "possible variants of fluff"! Yes, it may have in-game implications, but even book itself admits it's all just unproved theories...

Text in the Book of Vile Darkness may be considered RAW - but only as a very very general RAW, which would be trumped by anything more specific (such as Baelnorns)

1) Gravity is a theory too and absent the LM theories, it's still evil, all you're left with is less justification for it. I'd rather have said justification.

2) I agree that Baelnorns would be fine, but that's just one type of undead, and they aren't made with animate dead. Furthermore, they existed before stuff like Deathless were invented - I believe that if Baelnorns were invented today they would simply use that crunch instead.

And what if we using a Consecrate Spell or/and Purify Spell [metamagic] with it?
Any of them make a spell tangibly Good in mechanical sense
So, what it will be: +1(Evil)+1(Good)=Neutral? +1(Evil)+1(Good)+1(Good)=Good?

There is no netting out - the spell would be both [Evil] and [Good]. But casting [Evil] spells makes you more evil, while casting [Good] spells does not make you more good, so your alignment would shift downwards if you made a habit of casting even a consecrated AD.

So, if we animate a Skeleton made of Positive Energy - would it be Neutral?

Nothing in either of those feats says it changes the alignment of the thing you make. Any undead you make with AD, CU or CGU are still evil.

[Ashtagon]

Fair enough, RoF describes kir-lanans as "soulless"., and even applies a game-mechanic effect to this (can't ever gain divine magic). And I suppose you can create mindless undead out of them. So I guess that means there's a way to make mindless undead that won't be evil.

And yes, outsiders and elementals don't by raw have souls either. However, they aren't suited as raw material for undead either (at least, not the kind for which a raw spell exists to make undead with), so they aren't really relevant.

And sure, if the soul has been utterly destroyed as you say happens to a death giant, I guess you can make mindless undead from the corpse without it being an evil act.

So sure, there's a couple of creatures that you could use as raw material for mindless undead without it being inherently evil on the "undead tortures the body's soul" explanation. Corner cases, like I said. Just because there's a hard to find way to make something not Evil, doesn't mean the Evil tag isn't justified. There are ways to make casting just about any spell a Good or Evil act, but that doesn't justify applying the tag to a spell without them. The tag indicates the most normal ways in which it would be cast 90%+ of the time.

Now, you note (correctly) that zombies and skeletons can be made out of many monsters, not just humaniform ones. But the zombie (and skeleton) templates strip away most of the features that make those interesting. A zombie gorgon lacks the breath weapon, for example. Making a statue of something interesting and then casting stone to flesh to make raw material suitable for create undead is not as exciting as it might first sound.

Ditto for the clone spell. Not to mention that the clone is costing you 2-8 months and 1000 gp a pop. Most characters can go from 1st to 20th level in less time than it takes to make a clone by that spell.

You call out the raiment undead specifically as an example of an undead you might want to create. Except... create undead doesn't by raw let you create that particular undead. Not even Libris Mortis seems to have any notes on how that one is created, beyond some loosely defined comments in chapter one about how evil places can spontaneously form undead.

[mashlagoo1982]

Sorry if this was already covered. Not willing to read 10 pages.

I was under the impression that creating undead was considered against the natural order of the world.

When an individual dies, their spirit passes on and their body is returned to the ground to continue/complete the cycle of life/death.

By creating undead, that cycle is disrupted and that disruption is what makes everything evil.

This is just a vague explanation I think I remember from somewhere... so take it with a grain of salt.

I think this idea originated from the Forgotten Realms setting.
If memory serves, there is a major god of death that is considered neutral.
This is because all the clerics, priests and such behave like undertakers.
They abhor anything that gives artificial life beyond the natural circle of life and death.

I probably just extrapolated from their behavior and alignment to indicate that anything against the natural cycle to be evil.

[ShurikVch]

I was under the impression that creating undead was considered against the natural order of the world.

Only some narrow-minded people see things that way
If Undead appears on its own - without any help from Necromancers or Evil Clerics, then how the heck it's "unnatural"?
In short:
Negative Energy is a standard part of any cosmology (and thus, Undead is natural);
For comparison: Far Realm is outside of cosmology (and thus, things from there aren't natural, but pseudonatural).

By creating undead, that cycle is disrupted and that disruption is what makes everything evil.

Then what's about the Incorporeal Undead - which "cycle" it's breaking?
Or, for that matter, non-Undead creatures which don't die: Constructs, many Outsiders, Elans, Incantifiers, Killorens... Don't they breaking something?..

I think this idea originated from the Forgotten Realms setting.
If memory serves, there is a major god of death that is considered neutral.
This is because all the clerics, priests and such behave like undertakers.
They abhor anything that gives artificial life beyond the natural circle of life and death.

I probably just extrapolated from their behavior and alignment to indicate that anything against the natural cycle to be evil.

Kelemvor?
He's from ascended mortals, rather young for a god, and previously had Good alignment.
All this determined him taking his duties overly serious...

Of what creature? You're still desacrating the bones of something that used to be Alive

Again, the fact that a slave likes it's job, does not make the slaver a good person.

How the heck you're playing bloodthirsty quasi-medieval settings while still being so squeamish? For which age group you're DMing?
Just one question: do you even aware of how household spirit supposed to be acquired?
(Can't say it there because of forum rules, but can PM)

and still go against the Druid Faith.

don't allow the "treehugger" cliche to blind you
"Druid Faith" is a lot of things - see the Urban Druid for example
Ashbound druids are thinking any magic is "unnatural" (except their own magic, obviously)
On the "darker" side of it:
Cult of the Ravenous Maw
Lossarwyn
Nightbringers
Plague Wind construct (Polyhedron #147)
Sacrificial Divination feat (Dragon #336)
Szorlog
Thrall of Zuggtmoy PrC (Dragon #337) Druids are mentioned as entry option (despite being technically of a wrong alignment)
Wicker Man construct (Fiend Folio)

A simple example would be a Polymorph any object the remains into the corpse of the original of any age (a much younger version of the corpse, optimally; Divination Spells can provide you with the visual). Clone (the spell) that corpse.

Polymorph (Any Object, I presuming?) doesn't work like that: old person polymorphed into a young person (or even into a longer-living/ageless creature) still dies from the old age of their original race
If Polymorph was so powerful, then you could just turn a dead body into a living body - and no need for a willing soul!..

No, I'm not. "Your Cousin is a killer now" is totally comparable to "You've disrespected the Dead now/Commited the taboo of infesting their body with Negative Energy".

Do you even heard of a "victimless crime" phenomenon?

No offense, but your "disrespecting the Dead" seriously reminding me about the human dissection prohibitions

Look there: this is a world with real immortal souls, afterlife, resurrection, and reincarnation.
At this point, dead body is just an "old car": would you care about your old car 30 years after you stopped driving it?
Sure not (unless you passed it to some acquaintance of you).
But a 30 years old car, at least, still may be driveable; but 30 years old dead body should be gone completely, leaving not even a dust behind (excluding deliberate preservation, or random chance)
Why dead person should care about their old body?
Preventing resurrection? Come on, they wasn't resurrected in 30 years, who said they would be ever?
But if the reason is: they don't wanted for their old body to become Undead - it's... actually a valid reason. Well, Burial Blessing is a 1st-level spell; why they don't get it cast on them?

The right question is "towards who is it bad?". It's bad towards the soul of the original creature that used to live in it's body, as you disrespect their memory and remains.

And why should we respect them - we're neither knew, nor met them; how should we know if they're deserving our respect?
Wait a minute...
Actually, it may be the way: if headstone says: "There lies <unreadable>, frequent brawler and drunkard, who died when beating his wife while was drunk, tripped, and broken his neck. Good riddance." - should we really respect such Dead? And, if not, could we use his brawling to our advantage? We're not animating him for his charming personality, after all...

It's also bad towards any Deity that's not fond of Undead

And what about those Deities that fond of Undead?
Why shouldn't we respect them?
With the work of Necromancer it may be more sensible...

and Negative Energy altogether

I just checked: not even Pelor "the Burning Hatred" have anything against Negative Energy

(Basically, most Lawfull Good and Neutral Good Deities, as well as non-evil Death Domain ones).

Cursory check showed near-nobody from Deities should care: there is Kelemvor in Forgotten Realms, then that forgotten death god from Quicksilver Hourglass... and it's, basically, it.
Anubis didn't approving Undead (except for the Mummies-guardians), but don't requred from the followers to hunt Undead or/and Necromancers.
Other Deities - like Bahamut or Pelor - may send their follower against "a cabal of foul necromancers"; but, unless we would be overly eager and reckless in our pursuit of the craft, no way they would distinct us among the other traveling Necromancers

1) Gravity is a theory too and absent the LM theories, it's still evil, all you're left with is less justification for it. I'd rather have said justification.

You can use them if you want, but try not to push it as "the one true way"...

2) I agree that Baelnorns would be fine, but that's just one type of undead, and they aren't made with animate dead. Furthermore, they existed before stuff like Deathless were invented - I believe that if Baelnorns were invented today they would simply use that crunch instead.

The very concept of "Deathless" is stupid - it was born in the "Book of Exalted Deerds" which was written with intention of "goodier than paladins".
Result was somewhat caricature, was ridiculed (BoEF), criticized (Sanctify the Wicked is the real Mindrape), but overall not that bad.
But Deathless was one of examples how they dropped it: "Negative Energy" is "Evil", and "Positive" - "Good"? Really?! Is the "minus" on their batteries have Evil alignment too?
The dumb thing is: there are already Good creatures who're powered by Positive Energy - they're called "living" (or, in case of non-living artificial creations, - Constructs)

There is no netting out - the spell would be both [Evil] and [Good]. But casting [Evil] spells makes you more evil, while casting [Good] spells does not make you more good, so your alignment would shift downwards if you made a habit of casting even a consecrated AD.

It was an answer to Asmotherion's conception: "Negative Energy spells are all really [Evil] - even when they're not [Evil]; those which are actually [Evil] are [Evil]+"
Thus, spell wouldn't really have the [Evil] descriptor, but would got [Good] from the feat(s)

Nothing in either of those feats says it changes the alignment of the thing you make. Any undead you make with AD, CU or CGU are still evil.

Actually, it was a half-joke:
Asmotherion said "Evilness" of Negative Energy in Boccob's Rolling Cloud is "balanced" and "negated" by dealing the equal amount of Positive Energy damage;
I suggested: a Skeleton composed of solid Positive Energy would be Neutral (Asmotherion, IIRR, agreed)

And yes, outsiders and elementals don't by raw have souls either. However, they aren't suited as raw material for undead either (at least, not the kind for which a raw spell exists to make undead with), so they aren't really relevant.

Outsiders are easy: even Libris Mortis have Glabrezu Skeleton and Vrock Zombie; since "has a skeletal system" - why not? Or did you forgot how Xykon turned few Devas into Zombies?
Elementals are trickier, but potentially - more useful, if we manage to apply Necromental template

Now, you note (correctly) that zombies and skeletons can be made out of many monsters, not just humaniform ones. But the zombie (and skeleton) templates strip away most of the features that make those interesting. A zombie gorgon lacks the breath weapon, for example. Making a statue of something interesting and then casting stone to flesh to make raw material suitable for create undead is not as exciting as it might first sound.

Generally, all what we expecting of Zombies - unless they're either Awakened, or Dragon Zombie - is a pile of HD and natural attacks
Ex-statues would work there just fine: there are no problem to equip would-be Zombie with various ways of attack (claws, fangs, pincers, tentacles, etc) and locomotion (wings, fins, etc) - as long as sculptor is skilled enough

You call out the raiment undead specifically as an example of an undead you might want to create. Except... create undead doesn't by raw let you create that particular undead. Not even Libris Mortis seems to have any notes on how that one is created, beyond some loosely defined comments in chapter one about how evil places can spontaneously form undead.

And that is why I said "... if we find a way to mass-produce it for cheap"

[NigelWalmsley]

And yes, outsiders and elementals don't by raw have souls either. However, they aren't suited as raw material for undead either (at least, not the kind for which a raw spell exists to make undead with), so they aren't really relevant.

Elementals I'll grant you, but I see no reason you couldn't make a Skeleton out of a Trumpet Archon or Babau. I suppose you could rule that they don't have skeletal systems, but that seems pretty suspect to me, as there's nothing in their descriptions to suggest that. And it's not even really a corner case, because making skeletons out of outsiders is a really good deal, since their HD/CR ratio is quite favorable.

[Kalkra]

Elementals I'll grant you, but I see no reason you couldn't make a Skeleton out of a Trumpet Archon or Babau. I suppose you could rule that they don't have skeletal systems, but that seems pretty suspect to me, as there's nothing in their descriptions to suggest that. And it's not even really a corner case, because making skeletons out of outsiders is a really good deal, since their HD/CR ratio is quite favorable.

Necromentals are a thing, described in Libre Mortis pg. 113, although AFAIK it doesn't mention how they're made.

[NigelWalmsley]

Necromentals are a thing, described in Libre Mortis pg. 113, although AFAIK it doesn't mention how they're made.

I had assumed we were talking about specifically zombies and skeletons. Though I suppose that even in that context there are some more exotic elementals where you could make the case that it should work, like the Immoth from the MM2.

[hamishspence]

The very concept of "Deathless" is stupid - it was born in the "Book of Exalted Deerds" which was written with intention of "goodier than paladins".

BoED might have put a name to "positive energy undead" but the concept predates it considerably. Mummies were originally positive energy undead, before 3.0 dropped the concept.

The dumb thing is: there are already Good creatures who're powered by Positive Energy - they're called "living" (or, in case of non-living artificial creations, - Constructs)

Animated Objects are powered by positive energy - but most other constructs aren't - they're powered in various other ways. Most commonly, "elemental spirits" (at least with Golems).

[mashlagoo1982]

Only some narrow-minded people see things that way
If Undead appears on its own - without any help from Necromancers or Evil Clerics, then how the heck it's "unnatural"?
In short:
Negative Energy is a standard part of any cosmology (and thus, Undead is natural);
For comparison: Far Realm is outside of cosmology (and thus, things from there aren't natural, but pseudonatural).


Then what's about the Incorporeal Undead - which "cycle" it's breaking?
Or, for that matter, non-Undead creatures which don't die: Constructs, many Outsiders, Elans, Incantifiers, Killorens... Don't they breaking something?..


Kelemvor?
He's from ascended mortals, rather young for a god, and previously had Good alignment.
All this determined him taking his duties overly serious...

It was only a theory based off information presented in the books.
No need to throw accusations around like "narrow-minded".

OP wanted a reason to possibly suggested why the spell was evil.
I happen to remember there was a deity whom had death in their portfolio and was neutral instead of evil.
And you are correct, I was thinking of Kelemvor.
I don't think the age of the deity is really important because I am trying to determine the intent of the developer based on the characteristics of this in-game entity.

This deity is lawful neutral instead of something evil.
A big difference for this character (maybe not why they are neutral) is that they hate undead.
The undead are hated because they are unnatural.
I admit, through shaky logic, it could deduced that Unnatural (via method that breaks the natural cycle) = Evil.
I would not expect this to apply to things outside the natural cycle or pseudonatural.
That is only what the characteristics of this deity suggest to me when compared to some other evil deities.

I would think Incorporeal wouldn't be breaking any cycle because that is the spirit.
The spirit is part of the afterlife.

I don't know about all your other examples (and I don't care to look them up), but the ones I do know would probably be considered outside the natural world. So they wouldn't be breaking any natural cycle either.

If undead such as the type that can be created via these evil spells could occur naturally, how would they occur in a natural manner that is not the result of some evil act?

I never mentioned negative energy as that to me has nothing to do with the spell being evil.

[Psyren]

The very concept of "Deathless" is stupid - it was born in the "Book of Exalted Deerds" which was written with intention of "goodier than paladins".
Result was somewhat caricature, was ridiculed (BoEF), criticized (Sanctify the Wicked is the real Mindrape), but overall not that bad.
But Deathless was one of examples how they dropped it: "Negative Energy" is "Evil", and "Positive" - "Good"? Really?! Is the "minus" on their batteries have Evil alignment too?
The dumb thing is: there are already Good creatures who're powered by Positive Energy - they're called "living" (or, in case of non-living artificial creations, - Constructs)

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." Personally I think they solve a lot of the complaints that have come up elsewhere in this thread - they fit well with the sorts of "guardian undead" like Baelnorns and old-school Mummies that are created solely to protect very limited locations, where their "undeath" is less fast track to immortality or cheap labor than it is ultimate sacrifice.

It was an answer to Asmotherion's conception: "Negative Energy spells are all really [Evil] - even when they're not [Evil]; those which are actually [Evil] are [Evil]+"
Thus, spell wouldn't really have the [Evil] descriptor, but would got [Good] from the feat(s)
...
Actually, it was a half-joke:
Asmotherion said "Evilness" of Negative Energy in Boccob's Rolling Cloud is "balanced" and "negated" by dealing the equal amount of Positive Energy damage;
I suggested: a Skeleton composed of solid Positive Energy would be Neutral (Asmotherion, IIRR, agreed)

Sorry, it's not always easy to spot jokes through text.
I'm not here to talk about Rolling Cloud etc. though, the thread is about Animate Dead, which is [Evil].

[Xervous]

Aren’t the deathless running on limited internal reserves of go-juice? I vaguely remember an adventure hook suggesting as much in City of Stormreach but wasn’t sure if that was some of the common Eberron thought provoking tangents or solid canon.

With such a contrast they are remarkably different from the eternally performing dancing skeleton. This raises a thought. What of the undead that need to sustain themselves vs those that just dance forever?

[NigelWalmsley]

The Deathless are totally stupid. It doesn't resolve any substantive criticism of undead, it just changes what energy they're powered by, and the energy itself isn't aligned (see: Negative Energy Plane, Xeg-Yi).

[hamishspence]

IMO undead (even nonevil ones) are powered by a mixture of negative energy and unholy energy (or profane energy, or whatever you like to call it. The evil stuff).

That's why a neutral undead will "ping on Detect Evil" but a neutral Entropic Creature from Planar Handbook, won't.

Same principle applies to Deathless. They're not just positive energy powered - they're positive and holy energy powered.

So a somehow Neutral Deathless (maybe a slightly corrupt member of Eberron's Undying Court) will still "ping on Detect Good" - but a Neutral Outsider of Positive Energy (like the Ravid from MM) - won't.

[AnimeTheCat]

EDIT:
Also, the first theory, the one about an evil spirit powering the undead, is a non-starter because then the undead would be vulnerable to Banishment and Protection from Evil

Query about this; does banishment or protection from good/evil/chaos/law function against a golem? If no, then why would the case be different for undead, which are powered by an evil spirit rather than an elemental spirit?

I'm pretty persistently AFB - can *anyone* give me a simple, binary answer to my question: were the reasons given in Libris Mortis intended as RAW (like the grappling rules, or "Fireball is a 3rd level Sorcerer/Wizard spell"), clearly meant to apply to all 3e unless the GM is house ruling, or was it given as *optional* content (like milestone XP or gestalt) or campaign-specific content (like Kryn has 3 moons, or what cities / NPCs / gods are present in any given world), that *isn't* expected to be "true for all 3e content unless otherwise noted".

Whether or not I "like" the explanation comes second to the nature of whether all worlds are on the backs of giant turtles, or whether that's one *possible* explanation for how celestial objects move.

Page 5 of the book says the follow in the literal first paragraph of the chapter:

This chapter presents the truth about undead -- their origins, habits, physiology, and worldview.

Compare that to the unearthed arcana chapter 6 "Campaigns", which reads:

This final chapter of the book includes a miscellany of variant rules and subsystems that affect the way a campaign works.

or in the middle of the second paragraph in PHBII's chapter 2, you have:

These are not intended as an exhaustive catalog, and you are not required to adopt any of them.

So, if you're comparing non-core sources to non-core sources, Libris Mortis says "this is the truth" while others say "these are optional". If you're talking about primary sources, Animate Dead has the [evil] tag and anything with the [evil] tag is evil. That is your binary answer on "why is creating undead evil". The spells that do so have the [evil] flag. casting spells with the [evil] flag are evil actions.

Rules from the Libris Mortis are all definite variant rules (borderline published houserules, Unearthed Arcana-style)
Text from the page 8 of Book of Vile Darkness looks more like a quick rule-of-thumb than hard-and-fast RAW

I disagree, see above.

If you animating a Skeleton, then its "nature" is to follow your command;

Incorrect, it's nature is to seek out and consume without concern for any repercussions or implications for their action. Created undead are animated under your control. Being under your control does not mean their nature is "do as you command" it's that your command precludes their nature. What would happen if you created too many undead and lost control of some other ones? They would default to consuming with reckless abandon. That is their nature.

At least for me, that's not a problem. My problem is that I am having trouble figuring out a satisfactory evil thing to say happens as part of casting the spell. I certainly acknowledge it would be a house rule, but I want it to be, mechanically, relatively transparent, while still being satisfactorily evil.

Ok, here's the mechanical transparency though. You've been given it. I don't know if it's a lack of understanding what I'm saying (which would be my fault for not explaining well enough), but I'll try again. I prefer to use the "negative energy as a draining source" theory as it actually has the room for there to be "good" undead that might possibly be powered by positive energy (thus answering a question that appears later in my response here).

The whole theory exists on the premise that negative energy is purely consumptive. While this on it's own is not an evil existence, the effects it has and how it is used are widely considered to be negative. Things like killing of innocents (evil act), Lack of compassion for other and killing whenever convenient (basic description of evil from the PHB), or in the case of ghouls and their ilk you have the spawning of more undead (which the creation of undead is an evil act). This may seem to prove that mindless undead, such as skeletons and zombies, should be neutral because they don't have any morality, thus should be neutral like animals. The problem with that position is that being undead goes beyond what one does, and in to what one IS. The theory of negative energy as a draining force posits that there is an inherent connection between the negative energy plane and whatever plane the undead exist on (most commonly the material plane). Thus, since negative energy is a purely consumptive force, undead are acting in a capacity that is actively destroying the material plane while simultaneously powering the negative energy plane. It is the concept of wonton consumption that drives the rationale for all entities of this nature to be evil. Regardless of the actions of these entities, or those who control them, they are nothing but a portal of consumption that is actively destroying all things, without concern for potential outcomes. Because this theory posits that a corpse or object are linked to the negative energy plane, and thus are powered by that consumptive connection, it even explicitly indicates that there may be room for the opposite to be true, namely an intrinsic connection to the positive energy plane that delivers energies rather than consumes them, but as it stands that is speculative and does not exist in any known magical treatise.

It's measurable, definable, and has outcomes that can be directly illustrated mechanically in-game. It doesn't rely on the creation of any sort of concept like "evil mini-spirits" (though the concept exists already for golems), preferring to rely on the natural properties of the energies already at work in the world.

Quertus asked how "official" those rules
So, let's see:

Considering the Libris Mortis - it says:

It also says what I quoted above.

Also, Libris Mortis have such funny Undead as Raiment
It's not a flesh, blood, bones, or even soul (being Mindless preclude it), but just a clothes.
Now, would you really say necromancing somebody's clothes really hurts the owner's soul in the afterlife?
Sure, Raiment isn't much in usefulness sense, but if we find a way to mass-produce it for cheap...

The theory I described above very neatly explains why even it's existence would be evil, even though it lacks all of the things you are considering prerequisites.

And what if we using a Consecrate Spell or/and Purify Spell [metamagic] with it?
Any of them make a spell tangibly Good in mechanical sense
So, what it will be: +1(Evil)+1(Good)=Neutral? +1(Evil)+1(Good)+1(Good)=Good?

If we were taking a purely mathematical approach (which doesn't have any mechanical support, but I'll roll with it), you would have to look at the act of creating an undead as well as casting an evil spell, so you're already at a -2 on the scale (evil acts adding -1, good adding +1). So, consecrate spell and purify spell both do the same thing, add the [good] descriptor to the spell. Adding the [good] descriptor twice doesn't make it a [good][good] spell, it's just a [good] spell. So a consecrated, purified, animate dead is at a -1 on the scale, and is thus evil.

So, if we animate a Skeleton made of Positive Energy - would it be Neutral?

Well, under the concept I noted above, there is the idea that a skeleton animated by way of an inherent connection to the positive energy plane might even be considered "good", if the nature of positive energy necessarily begets itself to general "good" actions/outcomes, such as self-sacrifice, betterment of others, and general growth/betterment of other beings. However, as I also noted above, this has yet to be officially discovered or researched (thus why it doesn't exist in the game).

[Psyren]

*snip*

All correct.

I'll also point out that Protection from Evil does work vs. the vast majority of undead, whereas it doesn't against (most) golems.

As for banishment - it's irrelevant because undead (the ones that aren't [extraplanar] anyway) are not from another plane. Per LM it's likely they have some kind of ongoing connection there, but banishment can't remove that.

[Quertus]

As for banishment - it's irrelevant because undead (the ones that aren't [extraplanar] anyway) are not from another plane. Per LM it's likely they have some kind of ongoing connection there, but banishment can't remove that.

As I read it, it was a response to the theory that Undead have an evil extraplanar possessing spirit. It's not the Undead you're trying to Banish, it's the possessing spirit.

So, in your opinion, under that theory, should Banishment have any effect?

Page 5 of the book says the follow in the literal first paragraph of the chapter:

It also says what I quoted above.

So, Libris Mortis very explicitly states that the rules for why Animate Dead is [evil] is... that there are no rules, just theories? Good to know that we can stop looking, as Libris Mortis clearly defines that the entirety of RAW does not have an answer to the question. /thread?

[ShurikVch]

"Doylist" reason:

A necromancer PC that reaches 9th level becomes a potential threat to game balance once he or she gains the ability to cast animate dead. Scary enough in the hands of NPCs, this spell can be a monumental inconvenience to the DM in the hands of a crafty player character. On the way out to a dungeon outside a village, for instance, a necromancer PC might raid the local cemetery for a few nights, raising a few "kamikaze" hirelings. The other PCs in the group, if they are smart, will wait patiently while the necromancer completes these preparations.
Afterward, half of the adventure will be reduced to the necromancer sending minions into the dungeon. "Zombie, open that door! Zombie, open that chest! Zombie, walk into that room! Zombie, walk across that checkered and suspicious floor!" Though this scenario can be somewhat morbidly amusing for an evening or two, over an entire series of adventures, it can completely ruin a campaign's carefully cultivated atmosphere of danger, mystery, and suspense. The animated zombies can also put the party thief out of business because of their unfailing ability to detect and harmlessly disarm traps. So what if a zombie takes a ballista bolt in its chest while opening a treasure-filled coffer? The industrious necromancer PC will have plenty of zombies on hand to thwart the array of traps in a dungeon.

This is from The Complete Book of Necromancers (TSR, 1995)

It was only a theory based off information presented in the books.
No need to throw accusations around like "narrow-minded".

Accusation was aimed strictly to the inhabitants of the game world - such as Valenar Elves
If real people parroting such opinions (not as a quote, and not while describing a homebrew) - than the blame isn't on them, but on the authors who failed to present coherent image of a setting

OP wanted a reason to possibly suggested why the spell was evil.
I happen to remember there was a deity whom had death in their portfolio and was neutral instead of evil.

Big deal!
Sehaine Moonbow have Death in her portfolio while being Chaotic good.

And you are correct, I was thinking of Kelemvor.
I don't think the age of the deity is really important because I am trying to determine the intent of the developer based on the characteristics of this in-game entity.

Newly-appointed people often want to prove themselves
For example: at the start, Kelemvor also get rid of the Wall of Faithless...

The undead are hated because they are unnatural.

No: they're hated because they're often disgusting, scary, murderous, spreading, and relatively hard to put down

If undead such as the type that can be created via these evil spells could occur naturally, how would they occur in a natural manner that is not the result of some evil act?

It would be safe to said none of "natural" Undead are died happy: unfinished business, unfulfilled duties, unrealized ambitions, anger, hatred, helplessness...
Even if the death wasn't a result of some Evil act - at the very least, it occurred at a sad tragic circumstances
Certain kinds of Undead may naturally happen outside of Material Plane
Hardened villains could came back as Mohrgs or Wights

BoED might have put a name to "positive energy undead" but the concept predates it considerably. Mummies were originally positive energy undead, before 3.0 dropped the concept.

While it, indeed, was this way in the past -

1. Since 3E got rid of it - why bring it back in so awkward manner?
2. Those Mummies still were Lawful Evil - far cry from the Deathless ("It's like Undead, but GOOD!") and one more point against the PE=GOOD, NE=EVIL

Animated Objects are powered by positive energy - but most other constructs aren't - they're powered in various other ways. Most commonly, "elemental spirits" (at least with Golems).

1. You still can restore damaged Golem by Heal (Magic Immunity aside), but not by throwing earth or pouring acid on it
2. With what exactly, you think, powered those "elemental spirits"?

IMO undead (even nonevil ones) are powered by a mixture of negative energy and unholy energy (or profane energy, or whatever you like to call it. The evil stuff).

That's why a neutral undead will "ping on Detect Evil" but a neutral Entropic Creature from Planar Handbook, won't.

Miltiades the Undead Paladin was created by Tyr - the lawful good greater god of law and justice in the Faerûnian pantheon. Are you implying the Lord of Justice used some sort of... "unholy energy" to animate him?
Kithin, Kuliak, and Valkauna are using Ghosts as their Heralds
Humbaba (Dragon #334):

Humbabas are 20-foot-tall undead giants constructed out of dozens of smaller bodies and set to guard the border between the lands of the living and the lands of the dead, such as the River Styx. They are composite creatures controlled by a single powerful will.
Most humbabas guard sacred places such as the Forest of Cedars, an abode of the gods, or the many necropolises where the bodies of heroes lie buried in splendor. They are not evil, but they are relentless in their defense of certain tombs and borderlands. Some believe that they were first created by the gods of the afterlife.
Humbabas speak Celestial, Common, and Infernal.

Incorrect, it's nature is to seek out and consume without concern for any repercussions or implications for their action. Created undead are animated under your control. Being under your control does not mean their nature is "do as you command" it's that your command precludes their nature. What would happen if you created too many undead and lost control of some other ones? They would default to consuming with reckless abandon. That is their nature.

Oh, come on!..

Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
A skeleton is seldom garbed in anything more than the rotting remnants of any clothing or armor it was wearing when slain.
A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple, such as “Kill anyone who enters this chamber.”
A skeleton attacks until destroyed, for that is what it was created to do. The threat posed by a group of skeletons depends primarily on its size.

Even the Table 1–1: Undead Diet gives Skeleton "—" in all three columns

If we were taking a purely mathematical approach (which doesn't have any mechanical support, but I'll roll with it), you would have to look at the act of creating an undead as well as casting an evil spell, so you're already at a -2 on the scale (evil acts adding -1, good adding +1). So, consecrate spell and purify spell both do the same thing, add the [good] descriptor to the spell. Adding the [good] descriptor twice doesn't make it a [good][good] spell, it's just a [good] spell. So a consecrated, purified, animate dead is at a -1 on the scale, and is thus evil.

Do you even read the thread?
The question there was not about Animate Dead, but "attack" spells which utilizing Negative Energy
Asmotherion - making a far-reaching conclusions from alignment rules for clerical channeling - insisting all Negative Energy spells are always Evil - even if they lacking the descriptor
When I gave him example of Boccob's Rolling Cloud spell, he said "evilness" of Negative Energy "balanced" by equal damage from Positive Energy
I, using this "mathematical" approach, suggested to combine such spells with metamagic from BoED

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

What's up - there were popularity polls about which creatures to include in the new setting?
Show me!!!
I want to see how they managed to get Changlings which are have nothing to do with any Fey...

so I think it's safe to say you're in the minority in considering them "stupid."

Should I really show you the quotes?
Such as in the Weird Dumb D&D Monsters:

Is it true that in earlier editions of D&D, mummies were positive energy undead, and they'd get healed by healing spells and such?

It sort of came back with the Deathless, which started with the Book of Exalted Deeds, and got adopted by Eberron.

The Deathless are creatures which have died, but which hang around after their lives, either in an incorporeal form, or inhabiting their old bodies. Exactly like undead do. But they're not undead, because they're powered by positive energy, and are all good in alignment!

No, I don't know why they couldn't just introduce some types of good undead either. Instead, let's blow a hole in the metaphysics of the setting with I Can't Believe They're Not Undead.

Or in the Stupid D&D things that aren't monsters:

Another bit I hated from Book of Exalted Deeds: The deathless. They're pretty much Good undead, animated by positive energy. Which would make them...alive. But since animating anything with negative energy is automatically Evil because mumble mumble, we apparently needed a way to have benevolent spirits or mummies who guard sacred sites and whatnot.

Or on this very forum:

Personally, I've always thought that the concept of Deathless is kind of silly. We already have plenty of examples of creatures animated by positive energy: They're called "living".

Quite a few undead have the potential to be good. Mummies and ghosts in Core are two examples I can think of. Deathless are just . . . no, just no. I see nothing inherently good about positive energy, so the whole switch is just silly in my eyes. Actually, I find the whole idea at least as creepy than undead. Stuffing a corpse so full of elan vital it assumes a gross parody of life, this is 'good' how exactly?

And bigger part of What the heck are the deathless? thread

Personally I think they solve a lot of the complaints that have come up elsewhere in this thread - they fit well with the sorts of "guardian undead" like Baelnorns and old-school Mummies that are created solely to protect very limited locations, where their "undeath" is less fast track to immortality or cheap labor than it is ultimate sacrifice.

The problem there is:

1. We already had those - in the form of aforementioned Baelnorns, or other not-Always-Evil Undead
2. Even if not Undead - they could make them Constructs, Outsiders, Fey, even Aberrations...

In conclusion, let me quote the Tome of Necromancy:

The Morality of Necromancy: Black and Gray

The rules of D&D attempt to be all things to all people, and unfortunately that just isn’t possible if you’re trying to make a system of objective morality. By trying to cater to two very different play styles as regards to the moral quandaries of the use of negative energy, the game ends up catering to neither – and this has been the cause of a great many arguments for which there actually are no possible resolutions. Ultimately therefore, it falls to every DM to determine whether in their game the powers of Necromancy are inherently evil, or merely extremely dangerous. That’s a choice which must be made, and has far reaching implications throughout the game. That’s an awful lot of work, and most DMs honestly just don’t care enough to be bothered with it, and I understand. Fortunately, we have collated those changes for you right here:

Moral Option 1: The Crawling Darkness

Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy in general, and undead in particular, be inherently Evil. So much so that we can capitalize it: Evil. And say it again for emphasis: Evil. That means that when you cast a negative energy wave you are physically unleashing Evil onto the world. When you animate a corpse, you are creating a being whose singular purpose is to make moral choices which are objectionable on every level.

That’s a big commitment. It means that anyone using Inflict Wounds is an awful person, at least while they are doing it. The Plane of Negative Energy is in this model the source of all Evil, more so than the Abyss or Hell. It’s Evil without an opinion, immorality in its purest most undiluted form.

Moral Option 2: Playing with Fire

Many DMs will choose to have Negative Energy be a base physical property of the magical universe that the D&D characters live in – like extremes of Cold or Fire it is inimical to life, and it is ultimately no more mysterious than that. An animate skeleton is more disgusting and frightening to the average man than is a stone golem, but it’s actually a less despicable act in the grand scheme of things because a golem requires the enslavement of an elemental spirit and a skeleton has no spirit at all.

The Plane of Negative Energy in this model is precisely the same as all the other elemental planes: a dangerous environment that an unprotected human has no business going to.

Implications:

It’s not actually enough to simply make a sweeping generalization about the morality of Negative Energy and leave it at that. Like a butterfly flapping its wings, such changes will eventually cause Godzilla to destroy Tokyo. Or something like that, I stopped math at Calculus.

Creatures

Some monsters have been written up with the (incorrect) assumption that either “The Crawling Darkness” or “Playing With Fire” was the general rule. Others have been written in such a fashion that is actually incompatible with any possible interpretation of morality in D&D.

[Psyren]

What's up - there were popularity polls about which creatures to include in the new setting?
Show me!!!

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.

[hamishspence]

3e doesn't dwell much on what a skeleton or zombie does in the absence of orders.

5e does. It states that a skeleton or zombie, because it is driven by hatred of the living, will attack them unless it has been given specific "do not attack the living outside of special circumstances" orders and is still under control.

So they're not just automatons - they are hatred-consumed beings.

Miltiades the Undead Paladin was created by Tyr - the lawful good greater god of law and justice in the Faerûnian pantheon. Are you implying the Lord of Justice used some sort of... "unholy energy" to animate him?

Good deities don't have to "be good all the time, or Fall" the way celestials do.


FRCS 233:

"The deity's alignment is the most common alignment evidenced by the deity. Just as evil deities can act benignly to advance their cause, good deities sometimes need to be cruel to save something of importance, and so a deity's alignment us just a guideline."


Miltiades was also invented long before 3e - back then, creating undead was portrayed as somewhat less evil than the way 3e in general and BoVD in particular portrays it. More compatible the idea of Good beings committing the occasional minor Evil act and remaining Good.

[NigelWalmsley]

So they're not just automatons - they are hatred-consumed beings.

They're that in 5e. They're explicitly not that in 3e. Which, it turns out, is the edition we are discussing, this being the 3e forum and not the 5e forum. Again, The Crawling Darkness is an entirely reasonable model of necromancy to have. But 3e isn't unambiguously in favor of it, as you can see in any number of places.

[hamishspence]

They're that in 5e. They're explicitly not that in 3e. Which, it turns out, is the edition we are discussing, this being the 3e forum and not the 5e forum.

It's mostly the same universe, regardless of the edition.

2e Forgotten Realms, 3e, 4e, 5e - all the same place, just with different rulesets, each, imperfectly, representing it.

3.0e skeletons are Neutral. 3.5e skeletons are Evil. But which is the outlier? This can be found by comparing the many editions. And in most of them, Skeletons are Evil. Or Chaotic, in Rules Cyclopaedia (Chaotic being mostly, but not always, synonymous with Evil in that edition).

IMO, the "some undead are just automatons" idea only really applies when those undead are under control. Outside of control, there's a strong implication that they have evil spirits in, which make them attack the living.

Libris Mortis (page 7):

"A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead."

Skeletons and zombies are the two main "mindless undead" types.

[NigelWalmsley]

2e Forgotten Realms, 3e, 4e, 5e - all the same place, just with different rulesets, each, imperfectly, representing it.

FR seems like a bad example for you to cite, because that setting is way into big cataclysms that explain mechanical changes between editions (e.g. the Spellplague).

IMO, the "some undead are just automatons" idea only really applies when those undead are under control.

Not according to the core rules, which explicitly say that "A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do". Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the rules on this topic aren't perfectly consistent by RAW? What about the rest of the game convinces you to expect that? No one is saying you can't choose to use The Crawling Darkness as the model for Undead in your game. If you want Undead to be totally Evil all the time and to behave in a manner consistent with that, you can do that. But the RAW isn't perfectly behind that conclusion (and, yes, it is also not perfectly in support of Playing With Fire either).

[hamishspence]

Not according to the core rules, which explicitly say that "A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do".

That, IMO, applies only to a controlled Skeleton, not an uncontrolled one. If a player frees a skeleton of their control, to make room for a better, more powerful one - what happens?

The "it does nothing whatsoever, not even if it's attacked" explanation, doesn't really work. The "it promptly becomes a dangerous threat to anything living near it" explanation, does. It's consistent with other editions too.

No one is saying you can't choose to use The Crawling Darkness as the model for Undead in your game. If you want Undead to be totally Evil all the time and to behave in a manner consistent with that, you can do that. But the RAW isn't perfectly behind that conclusion (and, yes, it is also not perfectly in support of Playing With Fire either).

It's a compromise between the two. Creating undead is always evil - but it's a minor evil act, not "one of the most heinous acts a being can commit" (BoVD). Not all undead are evil - but nearly all mindless undead are - for good reason.

And all undead, even Good-aligned ghosts, detect as evil.

Making use of all the "theories" in Libris Mortis, as much as reasonably possible, works - especially when they do reinforce each other to a degree.

[NigelWalmsley]

That, IMO, applies only to a controlled Skeleton, not an uncontrolled one.

Okay. But we have now exited the realm of "RAW" and entered the realm of "hamishspence's opinion". As I've said, there's nothing wrong with that, but just because you like The Crawling Darkness more than Playing With Fire doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to. Once you've conceded that what you're talking about is not "RAW" but "my synthesis of the RAW", we're in an entirely different ballpark.

The "it does nothing whatsoever, not even if it's attacked" explanation, doesn't really work.

Why not? If skeletons become dangerous once they become uncontrolled, it just means that before a new casting of Animate Dead you order all your old minions to destroy themselves.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, 4e strikes a balance - while it states that free-willed skeletons and zombies attack all living creatures they encounter, it also makes them Unaligned rather than Evil. So it's possible to have "effectively mindless undead beings" that "attack the living on sight" without tagging them with Evil alignment.


I would speculate that the reason for the changeover for skeletons and zombies going from TN to Evil between 3.0 and 3.5 was Monte Cook.


He thought that creating undead was heinous - and said so in BoVD. He recommended that Deathwatch be given the [Evil] tag in BoVD, because of "the foul powers of unlife" - I suspect that it gaining it in the 3.5 PHB, is because the creators of 3.5 followed his recommendation.


And BoED and Miniatures Handbook were probably mostly written before 3.5 came out - they received a few revisions to bring them into line with 3.5, but the fact that Deathwatch had gained the [Evil] tag was not spotted. This is why the Slayer of Domiel (Exalted, so falls if they commit an Evil act) gets Deathwatch, as does the "Any good alignment only" Healer.

[Psyren]

Okay. But we have now exited the realm of "RAW" and entered the realm of "hamishspence's opinion". As I've said, there's nothing wrong with that, but just because you like The Crawling Darkness more than Playing With Fire doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to. Once you've conceded that what you're talking about is not "RAW" but "my synthesis of the RAW", we're in an entirely different ballpark.

Well, pure 3e RAW without any synthesis is that both making undead and casting the animate dead spell are (separate) evil acts. So if you're not interested in any kind of synthesis at all, go nuts, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion beyond "houserule it away if you don't like it."

Why not? If skeletons become dangerous once they become uncontrolled, it just means that before a new casting of Animate Dead you order all your old minions to destroy themselves.

The fact that you have to do that every time or risk putting innocents in danger is plenty of reason for a default [evil] tag, even if it weren't for the other parts of the explanation.

[Efrate]

The 1995 quote from TSR about undead being a headache makes me feel Monte was dming and had a player say "Hey, unlimited minions with no consequence of them destroying can handle all the nasty stuff" and had a player minionmance away a carefully constructed dungeon he had, and he is being petulant. No basis for that just a feeling.

[AnimeTheCat]

Oh, come on!..

Even the Table 1–1: Undead Diet gives Skeleton "—" in all three columns

Ok, cool. So you've bolded what a mindless skeleton will do while under control. You have, however, failed to bold the last line, which directly contradicts your second point about the "-" in all diet columns, as well as undermines your idea that they're perfect little . Here's the part you failed to bold:

A skeleton attacks until destroyed, for that is what it was created to do.

That seems pretty in-line with the theory I discussed above. They consume/destroy/etc until they themselves are destroyed, because that's what they're created to do. They are created purely to destroy, which seems pretty much spot on supported by the idea that they are created using a connection to the negative energy plane, a plane that exists to consume, destroy, etc.

Do you even read the thread?
The question there was not about Animate Dead, but "attack" spells which utilizing Negative Energy
Asmotherion - making a far-reaching conclusions from alignment rules for clerical channeling - insisting all Negative Energy spells are always Evil - even if they lacking the descriptor
When I gave him example of Boccob's Rolling Cloud spell, he said "evilness" of Negative Energy "balanced" by equal damage from Positive Energy
I, using this "mathematical" approach, suggested to combine such spells with metamagic from BoED

Ok, so apply the same logic I presented to an attack spell that uses negative energy. If it has the evil tag you're still starting at -1 (and that's only if you're using it for a non-evil act, if you're using the evil spell to do evil, you're again at -2). Consecrate and Purify both apply the [good] tag, so using both does nothing special, and you either arrive at 0 (neutral) or -1 (evil) again. Not seeing where the disconnect was because the point was that consecrate spell and purify spell do the same thing, and thus don't stack. And again, this "mathematical" approach to determining spell alignment doesn't really have any support, and is actually contradicted by supplemental rules at the very least in BoED.

[mashlagoo1982]

Accusation was aimed strictly to the inhabitants of the game world - such as Valenar Elves
If real people parroting such opinions (not as a quote, and not while describing a homebrew) - than the blame isn't on them, but on the authors who failed to present coherent image of a setting

Okay, I just misunderstood the point of your statement.
Moving on...

Big deal!
Sehaine Moonbow have Death in her portfolio while being Chaotic good.

I don't know if this is really a argument against my statement. It can be deduced from Kelemvor's dogma that the undead being unnatural is the reason he wants them destroyed. I can't find why this deity hates the undead. Was this only to prove that other deity exist that are A) not evil and B) have Death as their domain? If so, I don't think that disproves my original theory.

Newly-appointed people often want to prove themselves
For example: at the start, Kelemvor also get rid of the Wall of Faithless...

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of this either.

No: they're hated because they're often disgusting, scary, murderous, spreading, and relatively hard to put down

Very true as well.
I should more accurately state it appears the reason Kelemvor wants them destroyed is because they are unnatural.
I don't know if he hates the undead.

It would be safe to said none of "natural" Undead are died happy: unfinished business, unfulfilled duties, unrealized ambitions, anger, hatred, helplessness...
Even if the death wasn't a result of some Evil act - at the very least, it occurred at a sad tragic circumstances
Certain kinds of Undead may naturally happen outside of Material Plane
Hardened villains could came back as Mohrgs or Wights

So, your argument (as I understand it) is that undead are natural and yet there appear to be no instances of them (those whom could be created through Evil spells) being created through natural means? Granted, tragedy can produce undead, but I would not call that method natural.

I also notice you did not truly address my original argument.
Kelemvor is a major god of death (yes, others do exist... but that doesn't detract from the argument).
Kelemvor is neutral and not evil (again, yes there are others... I don't know any instances that detract).
A big part of Kelemvor dogma is death is a natural part of the life and death cycle.
Kelemvor stresses the destruction of undead.

So, it would seem that Kelemvor's stance indicates the reason undead are considered evil is because they are unnatural.

I should note that I don't really care how other people play their games.
I'm just looking for what I think the developers in-universe reason was for justifying making some undead evil and by extension the spells used to create such undead.

I wonder if any good/neutral deity of fate or nature approve of these evil undead...
If such a deity existed, that may prove undead are accepted as natural.