Why is creating undead Evil?

[AnimeTheCat]

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.

I don't think the issue is necessarily with the disease that the body itself carries, that will be limited due to the fact that it doesn't breathe. The issue would be parasitic, or other non-native entities to that body, that would be carriers and communicators of disease. While those bodies that are from people who died due to trauma may not be carrying disease, they are a perfect environment for any number of bacteria, molds, or other creatures that are disease carriers.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think the issue is necessarily with the disease that the body itself carries, that will be limited due to the fact that it doesn't breathe. The issue would be parasitic, or other non-native entities to that body, that would be carriers and communicators of disease. While those bodies that are from people who died due to trauma may not be carrying disease, they are a perfect environment for any number of bacteria, molds, or other creatures that are disease carriers.

But the things that want to nom a dead body aren’t usually the things that want to nom you, and the bacteria on a dead body are mostly the stuff that we normally carry, not stuff that will make you really sick. Live humans are much better environments for disease carriers like fleas or mosquitoes. It isn’t exactly safe. It’s just way safer than the living human next to you. Basically don’t eat it, and don’t dump it in your drinking water.

Spoiler

Show

Spraying is a waste of disinfectant and manpower. Indiscriminate burial of corpses demoralises survivors and the lack of death certificates can cause practical problems to survivors.[1] Other considerations which are very important, but not directly relevant to the topic of health risks, include religious and cultural practices, the stench, and the effect on morale.

The incorrect notion that all dead bodies inherently cause diseases is consistent with:

The incorrect historical miasma theory of disease, which held that diseases are spread by foul air—in this case fouled by the stench of decomposing corpses.
Confusion between normal decay processes and signs of disease; and the incorrect idea that microorganisms responsible for decomposition are dangerous to living people. "Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic".[2]
After a major disaster disease among survivors is indeed a problem, but is actually due to living in harsh conditions with poor sanitation. "Survivors present a much more important reservoir for disease [than cadavers]".[2]
Noting that corpses of those who died from certain contagious diseases (for example, in epidemics) do, indeed, spread disease, such as is the case with ebola, smallpox, and the 1918 flu, and incorrectly generalising this to all corpses.
According to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) "concern that dead bodies are infectious can be considered a 'natural' reaction by persons wanting to protect themselves from disease" although "the risk that bodies [of those killed in a natural disaster] pose for the public is extremely small".[2]

Contamination of water supplies by unburied bodies, burial sites, or temporary storage sites may result in the spread of gastroenteritis from normal intestinal contents.[3]

According to a PAHO article on the Infectious Disease Risks From Dead Bodies Following Natural Disasters:[2]

There is little evidence of microbiological contamination of groundwater from burial. Where dead bodies have contaminated water supplies, gastroenteritis has been the most notable problem, although communities will rarely use a water supply where they know it to be contaminated by dead bodies. Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic.

To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others.

[awa]

But the things that want to nom a dead body aren’t usually the things that want to nom you, and the bacteria on a dead body are mostly the stuff that we normally carry, not stuff that will make you really sick. Live humans are much better environments for disease carriers like fleas or mosquitoes. It isn’t exactly safe. It’s just way safer than the living human next to you. Basically don’t eat it, and don’t dump it in your drinking water.

Spoiler

Show

Spraying is a waste of disinfectant and manpower. Indiscriminate burial of corpses demoralises survivors and the lack of death certificates can cause practical problems to survivors.[1] Other considerations which are very important, but not directly relevant to the topic of health risks, include religious and cultural practices, the stench, and the effect on morale.

The incorrect notion that all dead bodies inherently cause diseases is consistent with:

The incorrect historical miasma theory of disease, which held that diseases are spread by foul air—in this case fouled by the stench of decomposing corpses.
Confusion between normal decay processes and signs of disease; and the incorrect idea that microorganisms responsible for decomposition are dangerous to living people. "Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic".[2]
After a major disaster disease among survivors is indeed a problem, but is actually due to living in harsh conditions with poor sanitation. "Survivors present a much more important reservoir for disease [than cadavers]".[2]
Noting that corpses of those who died from certain contagious diseases (for example, in epidemics) do, indeed, spread disease, such as is the case with ebola, smallpox, and the 1918 flu, and incorrectly generalising this to all corpses.
According to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) "concern that dead bodies are infectious can be considered a 'natural' reaction by persons wanting to protect themselves from disease" although "the risk that bodies [of those killed in a natural disaster] pose for the public is extremely small".[2]

Contamination of water supplies by unburied bodies, burial sites, or temporary storage sites may result in the spread of gastroenteritis from normal intestinal contents.[3]

According to a PAHO article on the Infectious Disease Risks From Dead Bodies Following Natural Disasters:[2]

There is little evidence of microbiological contamination of groundwater from burial. Where dead bodies have contaminated water supplies, gastroenteritis has been the most notable problem, although communities will rarely use a water supply where they know it to be contaminated by dead bodies. Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic.

To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others.

While it does go against my instincts, it also seems plausible and as I am certainly no expert I will concede that point and accept that zombies are not innately unhygienic.

[Segev]

But the things that want to nom a dead body aren’t usually the things that want to nom you, and the bacteria on a dead body are mostly the stuff that we normally carry, not stuff that will make you really sick. Live humans are much better environments for disease carriers like fleas or mosquitoes. It isn’t exactly safe. It’s just way safer than the living human next to you. Basically don’t eat it, and don’t dump it in your drinking water.

Spoiler

Show

Spraying is a waste of disinfectant and manpower. Indiscriminate burial of corpses demoralises survivors and the lack of death certificates can cause practical problems to survivors.[1] Other considerations which are very important, but not directly relevant to the topic of health risks, include religious and cultural practices, the stench, and the effect on morale.

The incorrect notion that all dead bodies inherently cause diseases is consistent with:

The incorrect historical miasma theory of disease, which held that diseases are spread by foul air—in this case fouled by the stench of decomposing corpses.
Confusion between normal decay processes and signs of disease; and the incorrect idea that microorganisms responsible for decomposition are dangerous to living people. "Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic".[2]
After a major disaster disease among survivors is indeed a problem, but is actually due to living in harsh conditions with poor sanitation. "Survivors present a much more important reservoir for disease [than cadavers]".[2]
Noting that corpses of those who died from certain contagious diseases (for example, in epidemics) do, indeed, spread disease, such as is the case with ebola, smallpox, and the 1918 flu, and incorrectly generalising this to all corpses.
According to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) "concern that dead bodies are infectious can be considered a 'natural' reaction by persons wanting to protect themselves from disease" although "the risk that bodies [of those killed in a natural disaster] pose for the public is extremely small".[2]

Contamination of water supplies by unburied bodies, burial sites, or temporary storage sites may result in the spread of gastroenteritis from normal intestinal contents.[3]

According to a PAHO article on the Infectious Disease Risks From Dead Bodies Following Natural Disasters:[2]

There is little evidence of microbiological contamination of groundwater from burial. Where dead bodies have contaminated water supplies, gastroenteritis has been the most notable problem, although communities will rarely use a water supply where they know it to be contaminated by dead bodies. Microorganisms involved in the decay process (putrefaction) are not pathogenic.

To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others.

It's worth noting that it's probably not healthy to live in a house where you just throw the uneaten meat from your meals on the floor and leave it there to rot indefinitely, either.

Nor would you want to eat putrified meat, and one of the issues with zombies serving, say, your food, might be bits of flesh falling in. Ew.

[RedMage125]

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.

That's been mentioned. But some people are rabidly anti-"anything alignment related", and are fully convinced that their opinions are vital and universal, and more true than the RAW.

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.

I've mentioned this exact point several times. But, from a legal standpoint, one would call this circumstantial evidence, as opposed to proper "evidence". Which isn't as convincing as having RAW that explicitly says this, but should be considered.

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.

Now I am imagining a necromancer who is also OCD about dirt and grime. His skeletons that act as perpetual motion machines are all impeccably bleached, dried, and even scented with potpourri (linen bags of it in their ribcages or something). His lair less resembles a mausoleum as it does a noble lady's manor house.

[Segev]

Now I am imagining a necromancer who is also OCD about dirt and grime. His skeletons that act as perpetual motion machines are all impeccably bleached, dried, and even scented with potpourri (linen bags of it in their ribcages or something). His lair less resembles a mausoleum as it does a noble lady's manor house.

Doilies and flower prints EVERYWHERE.

[RedMage125]

Doilies and flower prints EVERYWHERE.

Really puts the ROMANCE back in Necromancer.

I'll see myself out.

[Xgya]

If we live in a post-scarcity world and dealing with food is the only issue about undead servants, recasting traps of Heroes' Feast solves it neatly.
The spell does the table, service and cleaning, and even gets rid of any existing disease the recipients might have carried just in case somebody DID dump a zombie into their water supply :P

There might be other issues, such as wear and tear over longer periods of time, but, by the very setting, undead staying inside dungeons for decades or even centuries and remaining operational is definitely not out of the question.


I still count undeath as a form of unwilling slavery, the creature never gave consent and cannot take away consent even if it previously did.

Mindless undead, when uncontrolled, still claw away at anything that comes their way. After all, mindless undead can spontaneously spring up from places where malicious deeds happened, and those can and do start murdering innocent bystanders, even though they just started re-existing, and were never given an order to start with.

A caster that relinquishes previously controlled undead usually means they become free-roaming, and entirely ignore previous commands, and go back to their basic instinct.

Both skeletons and skyscraper-sized centipedes are mindless. Both act on instinct alone.
A centipede's instinct is the simplest living organism. Feed, shelter yourself and reproduce.
A skeleton's instinct is to make anything that's alive a lot less so.

If 'Mindless' meant 'Does nothing unless asked', then creating undead would be the same as creating golems. It doesn't. Creating mindless undead creates natural-born murder machines that will not back down even if it means their own destruction and will go back to doing so the second they're given a chance.

You'd need a LOT of casters to control enough undead to fill all the spots inside a society, and cannot afford to leave a single one UNcontrolled. Since each undead would generally be controlled by single masters, a single untimely death would mean a massive rampage until the next caster got hold of all the ones previously controlled by the recently deceased.
That or require multiple failsafes that means the amount of undead you could actually control is that much lower.

[RedMage125]

If we live in a post-scarcity world and dealing with food is the only issue about undead servants, recasting traps of Heroes' Feast solves it neatly.
The spell does the table, service and cleaning, and even gets rid of any existing disease the recipients might have carried just in case somebody DID dump a zombie into their water supply :P

There might be other issues, such as wear and tear over longer periods of time, but, by the very setting, undead staying inside dungeons for decades or even centuries and remaining operational is definitely not out of the question.


I still count undeath as a form of unwilling slavery, the creature never gave consent and cannot take away consent even if it previously did.

Mindless undead, when uncontrolled, still claw away at anything that comes their way. After all, mindless undead can spontaneously spring up from places where malicious deeds happened, and those can and do start murdering innocent bystanders, even though they just started re-existing, and were never given an order to start with.

A caster that relinquishes previously controlled undead usually means they become free-roaming, and entirely ignore previous commands, and go back to their basic instinct.

Both skeletons and skyscraper-sized centipedes are mindless. Both act on instinct alone.
A centipede's instinct is the simplest living organism. Feed, shelter yourself and reproduce.
A skeleton's instinct is to make anything that's alive a lot less so.

If 'Mindless' meant 'Does nothing unless asked', then creating undead would be the same as creating golems. It doesn't. Creating mindless undead creates natural-born murder machines that will not back down even if it means their own destruction and will go back to doing so the second they're given a chance.

You'd need a LOT of casters to control enough undead to fill all the spots inside a society, and cannot afford to leave a single one UNcontrolled. Since each undead would generally be controlled by single masters, a single untimely death would mean a massive rampage until the next caster got hold of all the ones previously controlled by the recently deceased.
That or require multiple failsafes that means the amount of undead you could actually control is that much lower.

So...shameless plug, but here is my concept for a non-evil Necromancer. What I think you may especially like is the description of the character's homeland. Short version is that it's heavily based off of Egypt, but the whole society worships Wee Jas. Slavery is a thing in this land, to include use of undead slaves. And much of the society and government is in the hands of magi (term for the clergy of Wee Jas) who are usually casters of some kind, but not necessarily divine. Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and there are a LOT of arcane casters. Since she does not necessarily disapprove of undead (I refer to the Core Beliefs article on her in Dragon...350, I think it was), undead are often used as labor, arrow fodder in armies, and sometimes, as punishment for lawbreakers.

The concept leans heavily on the idea that Wee Jas, as a LN goddess of death, takes ALL applicable souls into her domain after death. This is in keeping with Greyhawk lore, in which she actually took ALL Suel souls that were not otherwise bound for the domain of their own patron deity. She is LN and her afterlife is eternal peace and serenity, no matter if you were Good or Evil in Life. And leans on the idea that being turned into an undead creature denies one the afterlife. So some people may be changed into an undead creature to serve off a debt for a given amount of time, and then the undead would be destroyed to allow them to pass on. And of, course, with so many casters, voluntary transition to undeath is an acceptable option for powerful casters. These mummies and liches, however, often do not go out in public. They understand that they are unpleasant to behold, and they respect their neighbors and countrymen, who, in turn, respect their privacy.

If you're interested, follow the link. There's a spoiler block in the OP with the description of the land, with a lot more detail.

As an aside, since the land is mostly desert, it would solve some of the problems inherent with rot, as even zombies would become desiccated in short order.

[ShurikVch]

Found good article about the Necromancers - "Shades of Death" (Dragon #289):

To many, the word necromancy evokes images of shrouded dread and undead terrors. These assumptions help to propagate the common perception of necromancers as evil beings who animate soulless creatures, robbing them of an afterlife for purely selfish reasons. Some say Necromancy is the vilest of the black arts, the darkest of all the magical schools, and that to even think about it is to be tempted to wickedness. In truth, Necromancy is no more dangerous than any other school of magic. It focuses on the study of death and the forces that can hold a soul in immortal balance, caught in perpetual undeath.
Necromancers are adept at manipulating these forces and relationships, and many learn to create or control undead creatures. Each necromancer must decide how he wants to use his powers. Does he raise undead armies to guard his tower, to set upon his enemies, and to hunt wayward travelers? Or does he respect the wishes of the dead, allowing them to complete unfinished tasks in return for protection and aid? Does he use his powers to further his own twisted ambitions, or does he use them to help those on both sides of the curtain of life who are in need?

The article mentioning three possible "Paths":
The Black Path - LE, NE, and CE Necromancers;
The Gray Path - LN, N, and CN;
And...
Yes.
The White Path - for Necromancers of Good alignment:

The White Path
Without a doubt the most unusual spellcasters, good necromancers are very few and far between. They live apart from more mundane societies, knowing that only a few people can grasp the complexities of the necromantic arts enough to see beyond their capability for evil. Good necromancers prepare spells to heal their undead allies, and they often spend enough time with intelligent individual undead creatures to get to know them. They never use undead simply as expendable shock troops or walking trap detectors. As rare as good necromancers are, rarer still are the ones who don't wince a bit when one of their creations falls.
Other good necromancers study the art as a part of the "know thy enemy" philosophy. These are the ones who are near fanatical in their need to seek out and destroy the evil necromancers who abuse their powers. They fight fire with fire to bring evil to its knees.
Lawful Good: Lawful good necromancers are usually militant, dedicated to stamping out those who use Necromancy for evil deeds. Rather than count on a vast horde of lowly skeletons, they create a few undead troops, empowered by as many spells and enhancements as they are capable of casting. These spellcasters move with their undead allies, bolstering and supporting the creatures with spells and items. The undead of a lawful good necromancer are often organized in military-like groups, with commanders reporting to the necromancer and relaying orders to the lower level adjutants.
Neutral Good: Neutral good necromancers range from comical to insane. They often employ undead servants for mundane tasks, such as chopping wood or hauling goods. Neutral good necromancers realize that many of the physical hardships that the living must suffer through can be done easily with undead workers, and they often forget or ignore the many unpleasant attributes of undead. Digging latrines, dredging swamps, hauling massive stone blocks for the temple, all are jobs that can be done swiftly and easily with the proper work force. Neutral good necromancers aren't afraid to send their minions into battle, as long as it is in order to help out someone in need. They don't go looking for trouble, but they don't mind settling it. They view undead as tools and resources.
Chaotic Good: Chaotic good necromancers are the ones most likely to treat their undead as boon companions. Treating their creations with fairness and equality, they form a band of well-trained, well-behaved undead adventurers. Only a few bands such as this have ever existed, but the benefits of undeath cannot be overestimated when you are hunting down vampires, medusae, or other powerful monsters. Undead following the tutelage of chaotic good necromancers have, from time to time, branched out to fight evil on their own, merging with evil hordes and destroying them from the inside. These close-knit groups of intelligent undead surrounding chaotic good necromancers are truly a force to be reckoned with.

Note: despite their Good alignment, Necromancers of the White Path are still creating some Undead (rather than limit themselves to just debuffs, SoD, and direct damage spells)

Now, let's compare it with the Book of Vile Darkness:

ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD
Unliving corpses - corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
Many communities keep their graveyards behind high walls or even post guards to keep grave robbers out. Grave-robbing is often a lucrative practice, since necromancers pay good coin for raw materials. Of course, battlefields are also popular places for grave-robbers - or for necromancers themselves - to seek corpses.

Note: just two months separating this two publications (article was earlier.)

So, if creating Undead is really this bad - then how Necromancers of the White Path keep their Good alignment?

No contradiction.

You don't actually CAST a spell when you're making a magic item.

Oh, but you do!
Flesh Golem:

Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor.

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

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

Which is wrong, Animate Dead had the Evil tag in 3.0 PHB.

No, it isn't wrong - since not every Undead is created with Animate Dead (or, for that matter, any other spell)
In the PHB, [evil] descriptor is limited to the three spells
BoVD claiming there: any creation of Undead - regardless of kind, method, or purpose - is "one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit"
That's new

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.

Hint: it isn't.
Monte Cook clearly peddled Darker and Edgier there:

My primary concern was, 'What will Wizards of the Coast let me get away with?' The answer turned out to be 'pretty much anything.'

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

In D&D world, Negative Energy is no more magical than Positive Energy (which is able to make a chandelier to dance)
There are, AFAIK, no indications of impossibility of undead occurrence in a magically-scarce lands: Incorporeal Undead may be absent, but cannibals would still turn into Ghouls, and fallen soldiers may become Sworwraiths...

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.

Did you even make any actual effort to check the "FACTS"?

Intellect Devourer is what - Outsider?

Evil subtype exists also for:
Constructs - such as Gloom Golem;
Dragons - for example, Aspect of Tiamat;
Elementals - Breathdrinker, Grue, Taint Elementals;
Giant - Abyssal Giant;
Magical Beasts - Demonwasp Swarm, Lucent Worm, Pack Fiend, Fire Spider Swarm;
Oozes - Deathreap Ooze, Infernal Conflagration Ooze, Whelps of Zargon;
and, of course, Undead - Aspect of Atropus, Atropal, Fireshadow, Necronaut, Plague Blight, Visage, and the whole Necrocarnum Zombie template!

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.

Blowing up an occupied orphanage with Fireball would neither give the Fireball an [Evil] descriptor, nor ping on Detect Evil scan (at least, the latter isn't guaranteed)

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?

Nice goalpost moving...
But, unfortunately, it still doesn't helps - because of Flesh Golems...

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".

Yes.
And?..
The statement was: creating Undead (even mindless one!) from a dead body prevents resurrection because it ensnares the creature's soul
Reanimation clearly proves: everything is OK with the soul
Thus, person which body was used for creation of a Skeleton (or other mindless Undead) can be resurrected

It also explicitly says that Raise Dead can be used on the target once Reanimation ends.

Yes.
And?..

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.

Even if it's true (I'm still not convinced), I can instead pay for Miracle - it's the same level as True Resurrection, able to raise the whole army, and doesn't have the "... and then destroyed" clause

Also, "resurrection argument" looks like a red herring - in a settings where only bad guys got access to resurrection, Animate Dead is still [Evil]

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

Speak for yourself - you're reminding me about the old D&D jokes:
-I swear, nobody is using Massive Damage rules(/Multiclassing XP penalties/Encumbrance rules/.../whatever). I never was in a game where it was enforced.
-Gee, I never was in a game where it wasn't!..

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

Those ones?

[Psyren]

So, if creating Undead is really this bad - then how Necromancers of the White Path keep their Good alignment?

That is one of several questions your GM will have to answer when they allow third-party content

[ShurikVch]

That is one of several questions your GM will have to answer when they allow third-party content

No need to "allow third-party content": can't get more 1st-party than the Wizards of the Coast

[noob]

Found good article about the Necromancers - "Shades of Death" (Dragon #289):

The article mentioning three possible "Paths":
The Black Path - LE, NE, and CE Necromancers;
The Gray Path - LN, N, and CN;
And...
Yes.
The White Path - for Necromancers of Good alignment:

Note: despite their Good alignment, Necromancers of the White Path are still creating some Undead (rather than limit themselves to just debuffs, SoD, and direct damage spells)

Now, let's compare it with the Book of Vile Darkness:


Note: just two months separating this two publications (article was earlier.)

So, if creating Undead is really this bad - then how Necromancers of the White Path keep their Good alignment?

The thing is that they use the terms of minions and the term of their undead but never says that the undead are created by them.
So it could be just that those necromancers goes and meets undead and tells them "Hello would you like to work for me? I pay well and I also provide with easy feeding options and with unlife guarantee: each time you die I restore your unlife. Here is the contract with all the details if you are so interested"(lawful good version)
or maybe they say "I heard the evil necromancer who created you left you alone after they died? we can help each other and you see: with me your unlife is nearly guaranteed" or they see an non thinking undead and cast command undead or rebuke it.
And it would fit perfectly all the description in the text you quoted.

[Psyren]

No need to "allow third-party content": can't get more 1st-party than the Wizards of the Coast

Wizards of the Coast are not the publishers of Dragon Magazine

(Until 4e anyway)

[hamishspence]

Wizards of the Coast are not the publishers of Dragon Magazine

(Until 4e anyway)

Paizo didn't start publishing Dragon till September 2002.

WOTC was Dragon's publisher from January 2000 to August 2002.

And issue 289 was November 2001 - part-way through WOTC's first period of ownership of the magazine before Paizo took over.

[Eldonauran]

So, if creating Undead is really this bad - then how Necromancers of the White Path keep their Good alignment?

As far as I am concerned, there are no such thing as GOOD necromancers (practicing or otherwise), only deluded spellcasters who will have a reckoning with the universal forces sooner or later. As far as the actual rules go, I suppose that a Necromancer of the "White Path" might maintain a Good alignment by going out of their way to perform as many Good acts as possible to offset the negative scores their actions are having on the universe (and these would need to be considerable Good actions, otherwise we end up with a Neutral Necromancer).

One does not toy with the dark forces of the universe and walk away spotless from the exchange.

[RedMage125]

Spoiler

Show

Found good article about the Necromancers - "Shades of Death" (Dragon #289):

The article mentioning three possible "Paths":
The Black Path - LE, NE, and CE Necromancers;
The Gray Path - LN, N, and CN;
And...
Yes.
The White Path - for Necromancers of Good alignment:

Note: despite their Good alignment, Necromancers of the White Path are still creating some Undead (rather than limit themselves to just debuffs, SoD, and direct damage spells)

Now, let's compare it with the Book of Vile Darkness:


Note: just two months separating this two publications (article was earlier.)

So, if creating Undead is really this bad - then how Necromancers of the White Path keep their Good alignment?

Paizo didn't start publishing Dragon till September 2002.

WOTC was Dragon's publisher from January 2000 to August 2002.

And issue 289 was November 2001 - part-way through WOTC's first period of ownership of the magazine before Paizo took over.

And yet, Dragon Magazine Content was not considered "Official 1st Party Content" with the exception of what was published in Dragon Annual.

Oh, but you do!
Flesh Golem:

Someone beat you to that. I can admit I was wrong on that detail, but that doesn't really undermine anything I was saying. Especially because I brought up Flesh Golems myself earlier, so you're not discovering some "hole" in my argument.

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

No, it isn't wrong - since not every Undead is created with Animate Dead (or, for that matter, any other spell)[/quote]
And ANY creation of undead is an evil act. Why is that difficult for you?

In the PHB, [evil] descriptor is limited to the three spells

Incorrect. You neglect all the spells which gain an alignment subtype when contacting lower planes. Summon Monster I-IX, when used to summon a fiendish creature, gains the [Evil] subtype, as does Gate, and several other spells.

BoVD claiming there: any creation of Undead - regardless of kind, method, or purpose - is "one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit"
That's new

I find it hypocritical that you actually accuse ME of "moving the goalposts" down the line. This line of back-and-forth was started by YOUR declaration that "The fact Undead is always detected by Detect Evil is the obvious failure of game-design".

Hint: it isn't.
Monte Cook clearly peddled Darker and Edgier there:

In the vein of what we are discussing right now? It certainly is. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The value of the rest of that book is not the topic of discussion here.

In D&D world, Negative Energy is no more magical than Positive Energy (which is able to make a chandelier to dance)
There are, AFAIK, no indications of impossibility of undead occurrence in a magically-scarce lands: Incorporeal Undead may be absent, but cannibals would still turn into Ghouls, and fallen soldiers may become Sworwraiths...

The very existence of naturally-occuring creatures that are "Magical Beasts" highlights that magical phenomena are not limited to what is accomplished by spells (which are "one-time magical effects"). I said that a being animated by negative energy is a magical phenomena.

You, once again, fail to disprove that point. Try Again.

Did you even make any actual effort to check the "FACTS"?

Intellect Devourer is what - Outsider?

Evil subtype exists also for:
Constructs - such as Gloom Golem;
Dragons - for example, Aspect of Tiamat;
Elementals - Breathdrinker, Grue, Taint Elementals;
Giant - Abyssal Giant;
Magical Beasts - Demonwasp Swarm, Lucent Worm, Pack Fiend, Fire Spider Swarm;
Oozes - Deathreap Ooze, Infernal Conflagration Ooze, Whelps of Zargon;
and, of course, Undead - Aspect of Atropus, Atropal, Fireshadow, Necronaut, Plague Blight, Visage, and the whole Necrocarnum Zombie template!

So I didn't capitalize "outsider" on purpose, which was because I did not specifically mean the creature type. I, personally, still use that term, even in 5e, as shorthand for creatures from other planes. That's my bad for being lazy. I should have been more clear that I meant non-native to the Material Plane. Which almost everything on your list consists of.

Aspect of Tiamat is the aspect of a DEITY, one who resides in Baator.
Gloom Golems come from Hades.
Most of the other ones are clear from the name (Infernal, Abyssal, etc) that they come from other planes.
Atropals are extraplanar, as is the Aspect of Atropus.

Intellect Devourers are the only good point you've made there. I can't even begin to explain that one, especially because nothing in the description mentions them having extraplanar origin. That might be an actual discrepancy, because everything else on that list comes from another plane.

Blowing up an occupied orphanage with Fireball would neither give the Fireball an [Evil] descriptor, nor ping on Detect Evil scan (at least, the latter isn't guaranteed)

I would imagine that that kind of slaughter of so many children would leave a Lingering Effect of Evil (from BoVD).

But apart from that, you're being pedantic. I was countering your point that "Negative Energy is not Evil". Just because Negative Energy is not Evil doesn't mean using it to animate undead isn't evil. Neutral forces can be used for Evil. That was the point. Full stop. You are attempting to de-rail that point to further your "I hate alignment and that makes me smarter and better than those who use it" mindset.

Nice goalpost moving...
But, unfortunately, it still doesn't helps - because of Flesh Golems...

That isn't "goalpost moving". Not on my part, anyway. YOUR reply certainly is, though. I said "Spells which target a corpse, and turn it into an undead creature as the sole function of the spell all have the [Evil] tag.". You replied with an alternate use of Animate Dead, one that does not result in an undead creature, and act like I am the one "moving goalposts"?

Absurd. And possibly trolling.

Yes.
And?..
The statement was: creating Undead (even mindless one!) from a dead body prevents resurrection because it ensnares the creature's soul
Reanimation clearly proves: everything is OK with the soul
Thus, person which body was used for creation of a Skeleton (or other mindless Undead) can be resurrected

This statement is entirely non-sequitur. If you cast Reanimation on the corpse, it isn't being used to make a skeleton. The spell explicitly says that the reanimated person is not undead.
Reanimation also explicitly says the soul must be "free and willing to return". It also explicitly refers back to the PHB's rules on Bringing Back the Dead, making it more like Raise Dead than any undead creating spell (again, it is a Conjuration (Healing) spell, not necromancy).

Even if it's true (I'm still not convinced), I can instead pay for Miracle - it's the same level as True Resurrection, able to raise the whole army, and doesn't have the "... and then destroyed" clause

True Resurrection cannot be duplicated by Miracle. You can imitate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower.

So...you're WRONG.

Also, "resurrection argument" looks like a red herring - in a settings where only bad guys got access to resurrection, Animate Dead is still [Evil]

WTF is this even referring to?

You've failed to debunk the Resurrection point, and now you're talking about settings where "only the bad guys get access to resurrection"?

Speak for yourself - you're reminding me about the old D&D jokes:
-I swear, nobody is using Massive Damage rules(/Multiclassing XP penalties/Encumbrance rules/.../whatever). I never was in a game where it was enforced.
-Gee, I never was in a game where it wasn't!..

I don't know where you're going with that. And it has no bearing on the fact that no one else is confused as to the limitations of those spells.

For what it's worth, I have played in games where Encumbrance rules were enforced. And Multiclassing XP penalties (but even that DM abandoned it after we retired those characters, to much extra bookkeeping for him).

Those ones?

I'm on a Navy Carrier right now, and cannot follow the link. So...maybe? I don't know. I know it's been said somewhere that any deathless that travel or accompany ambassadors need to return to Irian manifest zones.

[hamishspence]

And yet, Dragon Magazine Content was not considered "Official 1st Party Content" with the exception of what was published in Dragon Annual.

That may only officially apply to Paizo's tenure of it - not to the short period in 3.0 where WOTC published it themselves.

In Draconomicon, (page 287) it lists

"all dragons published in official Dungeons & Dragons products up to the publication of this book"

- and among them are dragons from issues 284 and 296 of Dragon Magazine.

[Troacctid]

It's true. Paizo's run of Dragon began with #298 and concluded with #359. That means there are four 3.5 issues (#360–363) and twenty-four 3.0 issues (#274–297) that are fully 1st party, published by Wizards of the Coast.

[Xervous]

I recall some mention of Deathless running out of juice in the Stormreach book but that might have been one of the side suggestion ‘what ifs?’ that are littered around the Eberron books.

Spoiler: @redmage

Show

Curiosity leads me to wonder which CVN. I’m seeing Nimitz and Reagan as the only ones deployed. Looks like Reagan is wrapped up in exercises so that’s my guess. Didn’t know they posted so much on the internet.

[Jazath]

Well, creating undead is probably violating the rights of that body using them are considered evil for the dark energies required to animate them. Necromancy affects things like negative levels, hit point loss, and hit point restoration that could shrivel up a living creature with a touch or use life force to heal someone. These are considered evil acts by nature and are obtained through dark means

But is necromancy inherently evil? Well...... I guess it depends on how you see it.

[Psyren]

It's true. Paizo's run of Dragon began with #298 and concluded with #359. That means there are four 3.5 issues (#360–363) and twenty-four 3.0 issues (#274–297) that are fully 1st party, published by Wizards of the Coast.

Granted - however, being first-party isn't the end of the story here either. This just means that we have two conflicting rules - one from an article in Dragon #289, and one from the "Evil Acts" chapter in BoVD, both 3.0.

The RAW way to resolve such conflicts is via the Primary Source rule. Of these two sources, I would conclude that BoVD is the primary source on evil acts, and thus trumps. If Shurik can convince his DM to go with Dragon instead however, more power to him.

[RedMage125]

I recall some mention of Deathless running out of juice in the Stormreach book but that might have been one of the side suggestion ‘what ifs?’ that are littered around the Eberron books.

Great, one of the few books I don't have an electronic copy of. I am proud to say I own every Eberron product in print.

Spoiler: @redmage

Show

Curiosity leads me to wonder which CVN. I’m seeing Nimitz and Reagan as the only ones deployed. Looks like Reagan is wrapped up in exercises so that’s my guess. Didn’t know they posted so much on the internet.

Spoiler

Show

I am on the USS Nimitz. One of the squadrons. Obviously, I can't say where the Nmitz IS. As a 1st class in QA on Night check, I have decent internet hours and a decent amount of time to get online, usually.

Well, creating undead is probably violating the rights of that body using them are considered evil for the dark energies required to animate them. Necromancy affects things like negative levels, hit point loss, and hit point restoration that could shrivel up a living creature with a touch or use life force to heal someone. These are considered evil acts by nature and are obtained through dark means

But is necromancy inherently evil? Well...... I guess it depends on how you see it.

Not all Necromancy is evil, no. Most of the spells that just cause negative levels aren't evil. Animation of undead, specifically, is.

Granted - however, being first-party isn't the end of the story here either. This just means that we have two conflicting rules - one from an article in Dragon #289, and one from the "Evil Acts" chapter in BoVD, both 3.0.

The RAW way to resolve such conflicts is via the Primary Source rule. Of these two sources, I would conclude that BoVD is the primary source on evil acts, and thus trumps. If Shurik can convince his DM to go with Dragon instead however, more power to him.

I quite agree.

[hamishspence]

Granted - however, being first-party isn't the end of the story here either. This just means that we have two conflicting rules - one from an article in Dragon #289, and one from the "Evil Acts" chapter in BoVD, both 3.0.

The RAW way to resolve such conflicts is via the Primary Source rule. Of these two sources, I would conclude that BoVD is the primary source on evil acts, and thus trumps.

The problem with BOVD is that a lot of what Monte wrote doesn't fit in well with other authors' work, written both before and after BoVD.

He called Chromatic dragons "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" yet redeemed chromatic dragons exist.

He recommended giving the Deathwatch spell the [Evil] tag (and did so in 3.5 PHB) - yet that doesn't gel with Healers from Miniatures Handbook (which are Always Good) and Slayers of Domiel from BoED (which Fall if they ever commit an Evil act).

And so forth.

Not all Necromancy is evil, no. Most of the spells that just cause negative levels aren't evil. Animation of undead, specifically, is.

True - but BoVD's rationale for animating the undead being evil, was (page 8):


"Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place."


So the "negative energy is evil" misconceptions, can be traced to him and BOVD.

[Psyren]

He called Chromatic dragons "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" yet redeemed chromatic dragons exist.

The primary source for Redemption is BoED (see pg. 8), which does allow for a vanishing minority of chromatic dragons to be redeemed.

He recommended giving the Deathwatch spell the [Evil] tag (and did so in 3.5 PHB) - yet that doesn't gel with Healers from Miniatures Handbook (which are Always Good) and Slayers of Domiel from BoED (which Fall if they ever commit an Evil act).

Did his "recommendation" explain why?
Regardless, I don't view the existence of deathwatch (which has nothing but a single tag describing its evil) to have any bearing on animate dead (which has multiple separate sources doing so.)

"Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place."


So the "negative energy is evil" misconceptions, can be traced to him and BOVD.

He didn't say "negative energy is evil." He said bringing it into the world is evil.
Radiation isn't evil either, but dumping your radioactive material into a forest glade or town square would be an evil act.

[PattThe]

Has anyone covered that Orcus has a slight influence over all undead that draw energy from the negative energy plane?
If anyone were to blame for undead being evil, it'd be him. Bringing an undead into the world is bringing Orcus' taint and desires one step closer to coming true- even if that skeleton exists only to take a few arrows for you and hold a door. If it gets away it will follow the urges to bring about the end of all life. Without Orcus around they would likely be blank entities or, more like the classic Devourer, have their own alien personalities opposite to beings of pure positive energy but not based on any alignment. The positive and negative planes to me are more akin to the far realm than the outer planes.

[noob]

As far as I am concerned, there are no such thing as GOOD necromancers (practicing or otherwise), only deluded spellcasters who will have a reckoning with the universal forces sooner or later. As far as the actual rules go, I suppose that a Necromancer of the "White Path" might maintain a Good alignment by going out of their way to perform as many Good acts as possible to offset the negative scores their actions are having on the universe (and these would need to be considerable Good actions, otherwise we end up with a Neutral Necromancer).

One does not toy with the dark forces of the universe and walk away spotless from the exchange.

You are wrong: white path necromancers are never told to animate undead: only that they use them.
So as far as I know they recruit undead the same way a cleric would recruit living creatures on their quest and never animates undead and so do no evil actions.
necromancer in dnd can have the following meanings: "someone specialising in the school of magic called necromancy or using it a lot" or "someone speaking with the dead often" or "someone who animates undead"
Those 3 can be done together but you can also do 1 and never talk with undead nor animate them and you can do 2 but never do 1 or 3 and you can even do 3 and never do 1 and 2.
As far as I know white path necromancers are exclusively people who do 1(ex: casts energy drain then makes sure the killed people do not reanimate as undead) and 2(say hello to the undead of an opponent necromancer and recruit them to their cause) but never 3.


Only necromancers animating the dead are guaranteed to be not good: a necromancer specialist could just be a wizard that casts enervation at all of his opponents(and makes sure to burn their corpses afterwards) and a necromancer "that talks with the dead" could just be a cleric that casts speak with dead on assassinated people every day in order to bring justice and never casts any other necromancy spell.

[Zanos]

Has anyone covered that Orcus has a slight influence over all undead that draw energy from the negative energy plane?
If anyone were to blame for undead being evil, it'd be him. Bringing an undead into the world is bringing Orcus' taint and desires one step closer to coming true- even if that skeleton exists only to take a few arrows for you and hold a door. If it gets away it will follow the urges to bring about the end of all life. Without Orcus around they would likely be blank entities or, more like the classic Devourer, have their own alien personalities opposite to beings of pure positive energy but not based on any alignment. The positive and negative planes to me are more akin to the far realm than the outer planes.

I believe this is 4e lore? I remember something about Orcus having sway over all undead and being the patron that enabled the creation of many Liches. There was even the arch-lich epic destiny for characters that pursued lichdom without bringing themselves under Orcus's power.

But as far as I know, there's nothing to support that reading in the 3.5 lore, even in settings where Orcus does exist. Demon Princes have always been weird because they usually claim dominion over things that are controlled by actual deities who are far more powerful than them.

[hamishspence]

He didn't say "negative energy is evil." He said bringing it into the world is evil.

Which leads to posters having misconceptions that all castings of negative energy spells, (presumably including Summonings of entropic creatures, Inflict Wounds spells, etc, are evil, even if they don't have the [Evil] tag.

Negative energy is, by definition, very much evil. If that was not enough, it is stated across multiple sources.

...

A) Negative Energy is inherently Evil. It needs evil intent to attune to it and channel it.

PHB p160 Under "Neutral Clerics and Undead":

"Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil"

To my understanding, this phrase establishes that Negative Energy is inherently and Mechanically Evil.

Thus, a spell that uses Negative Energy is already Evil, wile a spell that has the Evil Tag is Even more evil (mathematically, the first would be +1 to the Evil scale, wile the other +2)

Sure, in a custom setting you can over-ride this with a "grey morality". But the cannon is that, by RAW, Using Negative Energy is an Evil Act, thus making Negative Energy an Evil Energy.

[Psyren]

Which leads to posters having misconceptions that all castings of negative energy spells, (presumably including Summonings of entropic creatures, Inflict Wounds spells, etc, are evil, even if they don't have the [Evil] tag.

I don't particularly care what "posters" have misconceptions about. They are just as welcome to read Libris Mortis as anyone else, and it contains more specific rationale for exactly this reason.