Why is creating undead Evil?

[hamishspence]

They are just as welcome to read Libris Mortis as anyone else, and it contains more specific rationale for exactly this reason.

The "it pollutes the environment" argument does have issues:

About the "Negative Energy pollution":

Calling in an Entropic Creature (who have Negative Energy Aura, which actually damages living creatures in its radius) isn't an [Evil] act (unless the creature in question is also Evil). So, if Aura - which is strong enough to actually damage (and, eventually, kill) living creatures, but nowhere was it said it doing some lasting harm to environment, then how bad presence of common Undead could be?

Return to White Plume Mountian has Amulets of Epudiation: wearing it make Undead not just immune to Turn Undead, but - over time - causing Undead to "evolve": for example, "standard" Ghoul with this trinket turned into Elevated Ghoul (13 HD, can be harmed only with magical weapon (at least +2), cold immunity, fast healing, SR, improved natural attacks, and Paralysis is 24 hours long with -4 penalty on save)
This amulet is, actually, a minuscule portal to the Negative Energy Plane
But guess what would happen if a living creature would wear it? Big fat nothing! Book directly says there would be "no effect" at all.
So, if even wearing the literal Negative Energy Plane portal on your neck have no effect at all - despite it being strong enough to turn 2 HD fodder into 13 HD monster - then how, really, strong can be alleged "Undead pollution"?..

Also, even Overwhelming aura of Evil dissipates in 1d6 days; how long, exactly, lasts so-called "Undead pollution"?
Let's check the Book of Vile Darkness - Lingering Effects of Evil: A Bad Feeling

Even a short act of violence or a minor act of evil can have lingering effects after the event has passed. This type of evil can mentally scar a person who experiences or watches a horrible event. It can leave a sinister mark in a location where some act of evil once occurred. These events can also cause undead to rise of their own volition: A ghost might haunt the place of its murder, or a mohrg could linger in the spot where it was wronged. Acts that can cause this degree of lingering evil include the following.
A gruesome, bloodthirsty murder.
The proclamation of a foul edict, such as one that mandates the murder of infants to keep a new king from being born.
A single sacrifice to an evil god or fiend.
The animation of dozens of undead creatures.
Abuse, starvation, and mistreatment of captives.
Casting a permanent or long-lasting spell with the evil descriptor.

A bad feeling shows its effects in the following ways.
...
Locations: Being the site of a grisly murder or sacrifice gives an area a feeling of slight wrongness. Sometimes, undead or evil outsiders in such a place gain the effect of a bless spell.
...
Detect Evil: Usually, detect evil does not register an aura of evil associated with creatures, locations, or objects exposed to this degree of evil, but people can sometimes sense a cold chill in tainted locations.

Note: it says "dozens of undead creatures" - and all it results in is a random sense of chill and occasional Evil blessing
So much for dreaded "Undead pollution"...

So, if it takes dozens of undead creations, to equal one bloodthirsty murder, pollution-wise - then maybe, of itself, one undead creation is only a tiny fraction of the evilness of a murder.

[Eldonauran]

You are wrong:

No, you just don't agree with my opinion. That is fine. If you want to take my general statement and tighten down the definitions to such a fine point that a specific example makes the argument more grey, you can certainly do that. I don't operate in a world of strict black and white. Exceptions always exist, and that doesn't create a problem for me.

white path necromancers are never told to animate undead: only that they use them.

What someone is told to do and what they do are vastly different things. See most laws or religious texts that are not followed by people in the real world.

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.

Well, let's not pretend that I meant "a wizard that casts necromancy spells but doesn't animate undead" then. It might help you better understand my stance on the matter. Considering this thread is dealing specifically with animating undead, the inherent evil of it, and those that practice the art of doing so, shifting to another definition of necromancer to detract from the topic serves to do nothing but distract.

[hamishspence]

white path necromancers are never told to animate undead: only that they use them.

"Their creations" is used a few times:

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.

So, it's fairly unambiguous that the approach is that a character who creates the undead, can maintain a Good alignment - albeit with some difficulty.

[Psyren]

The "it pollutes the environment" argument does have issues:

So, if it takes dozens of undead creations, to equal one bloodthirsty murder, pollution-wise - then maybe, of itself, one undead creation is only a tiny fraction of the evilness of a murder.

How is that an "issue?" Can you show me where I said animating one skeleton = a murder?

And that passage speaks only about the evil lingering in a location from the act of reanimation. It says nothing about the effects of leaving them active.

[hamishspence]

Can you show me where I said animating one skeleton = a murder?

You didn't, but Monte implied that animating one skeleton is worse than committing one murder, when he called it

"One of the most heinous acts a being can commit".

The point is that it's not really consistent with the way it's portrayed everywhere else - even within BOVD itself, it's not portrayed as being on the same level of heinousness.

[Psyren]

You didn't, but Monte implied that animating one skeleton is worse than committing one murder, when he called it "one of the most heinous acts a being can commit".

"Can" is the operative word there. If you create even one Shadow or Wight, the results of that can be catastrophic. That passage says nothing about a lone skeleton.

[hamishspence]

It just says "Creating Undead".

No caveats.

No "This only applies to spawning undead."

[Psyren]

It just says "Creating Undead".

No caveats.

No "This only applies to spawning undead."

It says "can commit." Not "will commit every single time without fail."

(Pedantry goes both ways.)

[hamishspence]

It says "can commit." Not "will commit every single time without fail."

If it was phrased as

"Creating undead can be one of the most heinous acts a being can commit"

rather than

"Creating undead is one of the most heinous acts a being can commit"

it would be more compatible with your proposed reading of it.



If you're going with "Not everything in BoVD should be taken ultra-literally - there is a great deal of room for nuance" - I'd agree with that.

And part of that nuance, might be allowing that Good-aligned undead-makers exist. The elves who make baelnorns. The god Tyr. And so forth.

Maybe, "White Path Necromancers" too?

[Psyren]

If it was phrased as

"Creating undead can be one of the most heinous acts a being can commit"

rather than

"Creating undead is one of the most heinous acts a being can commit"

it would be more compatible with your proposed reading of it.

That wording's more precise, sure, but it's hardly the only rules text to lack precision in the game.

If you're going with "Not everything in BoVD should be taken ultra-literally - there is a great deal of room for nuance" - I'd agree with that.

And part of that nuance, might be allowing that Good-aligned undead-makers exist.

If only I had covered this already. Oh wait!

As with all "this is an evil act" throughout D&D's history, the ultimate goal in gameplay terms is to discourage these acts as default strategies for (presumably heroic) players. Again, this is not to say that a "heroic necromancer" concept is completely impossible, any more than it's impossible to be a heroic assassin or a heroic slavemaster or a heroic crime boss, but you will likely have to work harder and/or likely have to be faced with much more extreme circumstances than the average adventurer. And again, that doesn't mean your default tactics aren't evil, just (potentially) justified, especially if viable alternatives are slim.

[hamishspence]

"Heroic" doesn't mean "good-aligned" though.


As Champions of Valor points out, it's possible to be "an evil-aligned valorous hero" though it's rare.


So, are you agreeing that it's possible to be a Good-aligned "animator"?

[Psyren]

"Heroic" doesn't mean "good-aligned" though.

I used heroic to mean "non-evil"; I wasn't referencing Champions of Valor.
Yes, Good is possible (if "very few and far between"), but not if someone makes a habit of doing evil acts without extreme extenuating circumstances. (Note that even the White Path entry mentions "fighting fire with fire," i.e. it assumes the presence of those circumstances before the Good alignment can be considered.)

[Xgya]

A Good character can commit an Evil act and remain Good.

This is beyond the thread's discussion though, since it doesn't address the question.

It wouldn't be possible for a Paladin to create a zombie and keep his powers. He willingly committed an Evil act, and Paladins very specifically cannot do so even for the Greater Good.
He might be able to atone for it more easily than others, but he most definitely did commit an Evil act.

For the same reason, a Good Cleric couldn't cast Animate Dead. It's an Evil spell. The Wizard can deal in shadier business (and remain Good, as above), but the Cleric's supervisor is always right over his shoulder to make sure that never happens.

[hamishspence]

For the same reason, a Good Cleric couldn't cast Animate Dead. It's an Evil spell. The Wizard can deal in shadier business (and remain Good, as above), but the Cleric's supervisor is always right over his shoulder to make sure that never happens.

This is true even when the "supervisor" is Neutral rather than Good.

A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one).

A Good cleric of a Neutral deity - even a Neutral deity with a strong affinity toward the undead, like Evening Glory from Libris Mortis, is incapable of casting [Evil] spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's somewhat of a meta reason--

Good guys don't use disposable minions. They may have allies, but not mooks. And they mourn the loss of those allies. And undead are the ultimate in disposable minions--no one mourns if skeleton #34 gets crunched. "I stand in the back and send waves of goons at the enemy" is a classic villain tactic.

D&D has always built a lot of trope-logic into its internal workings. Not always consistently, but...

------------

More formally, good alignment carries with it an core ethos of selflessness. When faced with risk and danger, good people tend to assume the risk, shielding others from danger. Even at personal cost. Evil people tend to push the risk off onto others. And creating and maintaining undead, like most minionmancy, is exactly pushing the risk off onto other beings. And thus less good. And doing so in ways that increase the risk to others (uncontrolled undead, spontaneous generation of undead, etc) pushes risk onto unconnected people.

Now is this consistently applied at the mechanical level? Hah. No. But then again nothing is, so...

[hamishspence]

Good guys don't use disposable minions. They may have allies, but not mooks. And they mourn the loss of those allies. And undead are the ultimate in disposable minions--no one mourns if skeleton #34 gets crunched. "I stand in the back and send waves of goons at the enemy" is a classic villain tactic.

The writer of the "White Path Necromancy" article would appear to agree:

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.

Though oddly, the NG necromancers viewing undead as "tools and resources" doesn't quite gel with that. Maybe though, "Just because they're tools, doesn't mean they're expendable".

[noob]

Here's somewhat of a meta reason--

Good guys don't use disposable minions. They may have allies, but not mooks. And they mourn the loss of those allies. And undead are the ultimate in disposable minions--no one mourns if skeleton #34 gets crunched. "I stand in the back and send waves of goons at the enemy" is a classic villain tactic.

D&D has always built a lot of trope-logic into its internal workings. Not always consistently, but...

------------

More formally, good alignment carries with it an core ethos of selflessness. When faced with risk and danger, good people tend to assume the risk, shielding others from danger. Even at personal cost. Evil people tend to push the risk off onto others. And creating and maintaining undead, like most minionmancy, is exactly pushing the risk off onto other beings. And thus less good. And doing so in ways that increase the risk to others (uncontrolled undead, spontaneous generation of undead, etc) pushes risk onto unconnected people.

Now is this consistently applied at the mechanical level? Hah. No. But then again nothing is, so...

The low level undead are disposable but higher level undead such as vampires, liches and ghosts can not be thrown in waves at problems or if thrown in waves at problems do so because they know they will come back to life.(but you need like epic charisma to bring the average edgelord I mean vampire against the opponent in a massive wave of undead (for liches you just need a good tactically sound reason))

[NigelWalmsley]

Good guys don't use disposable minions. They may have allies, but not mooks. And they mourn the loss of those allies. And undead are the ultimate in disposable minions--no one mourns if skeleton #34 gets crunched. "I stand in the back and send waves of goons at the enemy" is a classic villain tactic.

Animate Objects is, tactically speaking, very much the same as Animate Dead. But it doesn't get the Evil tag. Insofar as undead have a trope-based alignment, it's because Necromancers are traditionally bad guys, not because minions are. Good guys can even use expendable undead minions (via Command Undead), they just can't make any new ones.

More formally, good alignment carries with it an core ethos of selflessness.

Is there anything more selfless than giving not just your life, but your body itself to the cause? Setting aside the fact that alignment debates are inherently intractable, I think it's very difficult to make a general moral principle from which "don't use undead ever" can be derived.

[RedMage125]

Animate Objects is, tactically speaking, very much the same as Animate Dead. But it doesn't get the Evil tag. Insofar as undead have a trope-based alignment, it's because Necromancers are traditionally bad guys, not because minions are. Good guys can even use expendable undead minions (via Command Undead), they just can't make any new ones.

Couldn't possibly be because Animate Objects creates temporary moving objects, and can be anything, like furniture, while Animate Dead creates a corrupt mockery of life that lasts until it is destroyed and has some kind of connection (again, circumstantial evidence) to the soul of the departed? (As evidenced by them not being able to be resurrected).

Nope. Nigel says it's only because of "trope-based alignment". That must be the only answer

Is there anything more selfless than giving not just your life, but your body itself to the cause? Setting aside the fact that alignment debates are inherently intractable, I think it's very difficult to make a general moral principle from which "don't use undead ever" can be derived.

You mean...OTHER than the one laid down by the developers? You know, the one that says by the default RAW of D&D, creating undead by any means is an evil act because it is a crime against nature? Because, as a fantasy construct, the devs ACTUALLY DO have the right to say "by the RAW this is true" for the game they create. While Appeal to Authority is a fallacy in many other contexts, in this instance it's actually not a fallacy. D&D is FANTASY. And if the designers say "in the default RAW X is Evil", then it is a FACT that it's Evil.

Your personal preference or house rules notwithstanding. Play how you like, but pretending that the RAW are not clear on this is intellectually dishonest.

[Segev]

While Appeal to Authority is a fallacy in many other contexts, in this instance it's actually not a fallacy. D&D is FANTASY. And if the designers say "in the default RAW X is Evil", then it is a FACT that it's Evil.

Your personal preference or house rules notwithstanding. Play how you like, but pretending that the RAW are not clear on this is intellectually dishonest.

It remains a fallacy when the argument is either over whether the RAW are foolish or inconsistent, or when the discussion is about finding a good in-narrative reason to back up the RAW. That latter being my goal in this. Remember: I like that it's evil. I think it is a good rule for setting tone. However, I want that to be other than arbitrary in setting. And I am, personally, not satisfied by "it's evil because, uh, magical evil nasty stuff magically appears when you do it." I could make literally anything "evil" with that justification. It invites the kind of story I find absolutely the most annoying in any fiction about "complex morals:" A person who does nothing wrong and just wants to live a happy life who has to be destroyed because his very existence is evil. Why is it evil? Because his breathing creates the same magical mystical evil nastiness that animating the dead does. Why? Because it does. Same reason animating the dead does. Do you kill this otherwise-innocent person who hasn't hurt anybody, or do you permit them to continue to spread horrible evil with their every breath?

That's why I find that explanation unsatisfying. It's just as arbitrary as any other explanation, because the only explanation for why it is is "because it is."

And I loathe "moral conundrums" that really are "the evil choice or the good choice, but we've declared the good choice is also evil because we said so."

[Xgya]

Couldn't possibly be because Animate Objects creates temporary moving objects, and can be anything, like furniture, while Animate Dead creates a corrupt mockery of life that lasts until it is destroyed and has some kind of connection (again, circumstantial evidence) to the soul of the departed? (As evidenced by them not being able to be resurrected).

I'll repeat here the fact that while both zombies and animated objects are mindless, zombies left to themselves will do their best to try and kill people around them, while animated objects won't.

Zombies, Monstrous Vermin, Golems.
All mindless, yet there's a rather clear difference between the Constructs and the other two.

Undead can spontaneously animate and those that do are hostile to every living thing they can detect. If mindless undead only acted when ordered, spontaneously animated zombies would remain motionless.

Creating undead is evil because it creates creatures naturally hostile to all forms of life.
Creating and spreading flesh-eating bacteria is evil because it creates something naturally hostile to all forms of life.

Creating flesh-eating bacteria (or undead) to kill that evil Dragon that's been plaguing the area is fighting Evil with Evil. Like most cases of fighting fire with fire, it has decent chances to backfire phenomenally.

It's arbitrary in the same way we say murder is Evil.
Sure, you can try to argue that because it's arbitrary, that murder isn't necessarily Evil and we only CALL it Evil "because it is".
Then you can create a new thread called 'Why is murder Evil?'

Any argument you can bring against Murder could be used against creating Undead.
Killing a tyrant in their sleep is an Evil act committed in the name of the Greater Good. It's still an Evil act.

[hamishspence]

I'll repeat here the fact that while both zombies and animated objects are mindless, zombies left to themselves will do their best to try and kill people around them, while animated objects won't.

Zombies, Monstrous Vermin, Golems.
All mindless, yet there's a rather clear difference between the Constructs and the other two.

Undead can spontaneously animate and those that do are hostile to every living thing they can detect. If mindless undead only acted when ordered, spontaneously animated zombies would remain motionless.

It's been argued that maybe spontaneously animated zombies, or zombies "freed of control" do remain motionless:

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.

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.

Citation *strongly* needed. IME, it works just fine.

Now, where you may have a point is *spontaneous* skeletons. Anything else, and I think you've gone outside the realm of RAW.

And when I suggested otherwise, the response was:

Okay. But we have now exited the realm of "RAW" and entered the realm of "hamishspence's opinion".

[Xgya]

It's been argued that maybe spontaneously animated zombies, or zombies "freed of control" do remain motionless:

I'd say RAW contradicts itself here.
There isn't a different template for spontaneous undead or magically animated undead.
Spontaneously animated undead act out of hunger and anger. (per the Libris Mortis)
Ergo, magically animated undead, the very same creature but brought about through a different means, acts out of hunger and anger unless otherwise controlled.

Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead.

The section in the Book of Bad Latin about undead sentience is also pretty clear - uncontrolled undead DO act, but do so predictably, almost mechanically, triggered by certain stimuli.
It separates them from those that are agents of an intelligent master.

This is made quite obvious by Atropus' Signs, which immediately animates dead bodies as mindless undead, but doesn't give them orders. Either the sign just makes it so normal dead bodies do and act as normal dead bodies, but 'ping' on Detect Evil, or Atropus, the embodiment of an undead apocalypse, creates an undead apocalypse.

[ShurikVch]

I'd say RAW contradicts itself here.
There isn't a different template for spontaneous undead or magically animated undead.
Spontaneously animated undead act out of hunger and anger. (per the Libris Mortis)
Ergo, magically animated undead, the very same creature but brought about through a different means, acts out of hunger and anger unless otherwise controlled.

No actual contradiction there: since some Undead would act "out of hunger and anger", it fulfills RAW
But it doesn't mean every single uncontrolled Undead should act this way
For example, Gravecrawler:

Gravecrawlers would rather be venerated than fought. If seriously threatened, they usually try to flee below ground.

The section in the Book of Bad Latin about undead

And why should we care about Undead in Harry Potter?

This is made quite obvious by Atropus' Signs, which immediately animates dead bodies as mindless undead, but doesn't give them orders. Either the sign just makes it so normal dead bodies do and act as normal dead bodies, but 'ping' on Detect Evil, or Atropus, the embodiment of an undead apocalypse, creates an undead apocalypse.

Well, we could claim those Undead are controlled by Atropus
But even if not - it's, still, just a specific case...

Couldn't possibly be because Animate Objects creates temporary moving objects

Question: Animate Legion and Animate Undead Legion are - unlike the most Undead-creating magic - time-limited too.
But despite it - they're still [Evil]
Why?
OK, I may justify Animate Legion because "undead created will attack the nearest living creatures"
But it's not the case for Animate Undead Legion; moreover - RAW says Undead which leaves the spell's radius are instantly destroyed
And, despite it all - Animate Undead Legion is still [Evil]
So, once again, - why?

has some kind of connection (again, circumstantial evidence) to the soul of the departed? (As evidenced by them not being able to be resurrected)

Even if it's the case - it may be more restriction of the Resurrection spell itself than anything else
After all, Bringing Back the Dead doesn't says anything about Undead, and just asks for body and soul to be available (and, in case of soul, - willing)

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

And ANY creation of undead is an evil act. Why is that difficult for you?

And it's Evil because Book of Vile Darkness said so!
Disprove me!
(InB4 appealing to [Evil] descriptors on the spells - those all are specific cases)

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.

And which of those spells are used to create Undead?
I. e. - while 3.X Player's Handbook had many spells with [Evil] descriptor, only three of them were directly used in creation of Undead
Your point there is technical correction without any actual contradiction

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".

Something which nobody disproved so far: Detect Undead still barely useful in a most games, and Good Undead still pings on Detect Evil

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.

Ah!
I see what you mean
But, unfortunately, it's a circular argument: BoVD is OK - because it's "consistent" with PH (hint - it isn't), and PH is OK - because of text in BoVD

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.

Please, tell me:

1. Do those Magical Beast ping on the Detect Magic?
2. Would they turn into mere Animals in a Dead Magic zone?

If not - then the word "Magical" is just a word, and shouldn't be taken literally

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.

Sorry!
Actually, I was confused by the "native" word: "Outsider" and "native" are going together like a bolt and nut (for example, Rakshasa)
Most of your points are, actually, valid there
Still, exceptions (besides Intellect Devourer):

• Construct - Kani Doll (Dragonlance)
• Elemental - Taint Elementals (Heroes of Horror; there are no Elemental Plane of Taint)
• Ooze - Deathreap Ooze (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; no indications of being extraplanar)
• and Undead - Plague Blight, all Necrocarnum Zombies

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

Even putting aside the fact it's explicit Variant Rule - to ping on Detect Evil, it should be "A lasting Evil" (rather than just "A bad feeling") which isn't ensured

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.

Pretty please, don't put words in my mouth
You point was: "Creation of Undead is Evil every single time, no exceptions, no ifs or buts!.."
As a proof, you used one (very) specific example of Fireball spell usage

So, can animation of mindless Undead be Evil?
Probably.
(After all, even Cure Wounds spells could be used for Evil)
But every single case?..

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.

Please, tell me: do you really think turning living breathing creature into undead monster is, somehow, less evil than to make a mindless undead from their remains (which - by the RAW! -wouldn't affect their soul)?
My point there was: Flesh Golem is made of dead bodies, and its creation still need an [Evil] spell

Also, you said: "All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources)."
When I gave you not one, but several spells which are lacking [Evil] descriptor, you quickly switched it to "Spells which target a corpse, and turn it into an undead creature as the sole function of the spell"
Sorry, but it doesn't helps: Raise Skeleton, Raise Skeleton Mage, and Revive are all turn corpses into Undead, but lacking [Evil] descriptor

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).

My point there was: creation of mindless Undead from creature's remains don't prevent you from successfully using Reanimation spell on it (no "... and then destroyed ..." clause)
Which mean - soul is free to return
Which mean - presumption the Skeleton or Zombie somehow "entraps" the creature's soul is incorrect

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

So...you're WRONG.

No need to duplicate True Resurrection:

Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 5,000 XP because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following.

• Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.

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"?

In the Midnight Campaign Setting, Resurrection is limited for evil NPC

But even in any other setting, Raise Dead is how much later than Animate Dead?..

Thus - red herring

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).

I mean - to don't spread rules from your table to the rest of us
RAW isn't clear, and your statement "But it is..." don't, actually, make it any clearer
Referring to "everybody"/"nobody" is a blatant fallacy, thus - please, don't use it.

[Xgya]

No actual contradiction there: since some Undead would act "out of hunger and anger", it fulfills RAW
But it doesn't mean every single uncontrolled Undead should act this way
For example, Gravecrawler:

Moot point. Gravecrawlers aren't mindless. Even then, the very presence of these undead is anathema to most living creatures.
It's not every uncontrolled Undead. Undead with an Intelligence score can obviously have designs of their own, and value their survival. Mindless Undead obviously don't.
A Ghoul would act out of "hunger and anger", but wouldn't fulfill the RAW, since the complete quote mentions that those make up the legions of mindless undead.

Question: Animate Legion and Animate Undead Legion are - unlike the most Undead-creating magic - time-limited too.
But despite it - they're still [Evil]
Why?
OK, I may justify Animate Legion because "undead created will attack the nearest living creatures"
But it's not the case for Animate Undead Legion; moreover - RAW says Undead which leaves the spell's radius are instantly destroyed
And, despite it all - Animate Undead Legion is still [Evil]
So, once again, - why?

Animate Undead Legion isn't WotC AFAICT.

Even if it's the case - it may be more restriction of the Resurrection spell itself than anything else
After all, Bringing Back the Dead doesn't says anything about Undead, and just asks for body and soul to be available (and, in case of soul, - willing)

True Resurrection won't work.
The divine salient ability Life And Death, the highest form of divine power related to resurrection available, won't work either.
Devil's advocate time: the Epic Seed: Life doesn't mention that limitation, but every epic spell is subject do DM approval, so I'm not quite sure it's a good argument to use here. Still, worth mentioning.
It might be an oversight, but Contingent Resurrection, an epic spell using it as the seed, still bears no mention.

[RedMage125]

Spoiler

Show

Question: Animate Legion and Animate Undead Legion are - unlike the most Undead-creating magic - time-limited too.
But despite it - they're still [Evil]
Why?
OK, I may justify Animate Legion because "undead created will attack the nearest living creatures"
But it's not the case for Animate Undead Legion; moreover - RAW says Undead which leaves the spell's radius are instantly destroyed
And, despite it all - Animate Undead Legion is still [Evil]
So, once again, - why?

Because Animated Objects aren't "corrupt mockeries of life"? You cut that out of my post when you quoted to respond.

Even if it's the case - it may be more restriction of the Resurrection spell itself than anything else
After all, Bringing Back the Dead doesn't says anything about Undead, and just asks for body and soul to be available (and, in case of soul, - willing)

And yet Raise Dead cannot bring someone back who has been turned into an undead creature, EVEN IF that creature has been destroyed.

The point is that undeath being inflicted on the corpse interferes with any attempt to bring someone fully back to life.

And it's Evil because Book of Vile Darkness said so!
Disprove me!
(InB4 appealing to [Evil] descriptors on the spells - those all are specific cases)

*sigh*
I said the BoVD was consistent with what was in the 3.0 PHB. Which it is. BoVD clarifies that ANY creation of undead is Evil. The PHB did not give us that. But nothing in what the BoVD says contradicts the way the RAW in the PHB work. To the contrary, now it makes sense why all the undead-creating spells in the PHB are [Evil].

And which of those spells are used to create Undead?
I. e. - while 3.X Player's Handbook had many spells with [Evil] descriptor, only three of them were directly used in creation of Undead
Your point there is technical correction without any actual contradiction

Thought you'd like a little taste of pedantry.

Something which nobody disproved so far: Detect Undead still barely useful in a most games, and Good Undead still pings on Detect Evil

A vampire disguising itself at a royal ball while wearing a Ring of Mind Shielding will not register on Detect Evil, but will still ping on Detect Undead.

Wow, that took NO EFFORT at all. The point remains that any time you need to determine whether or not something is undead you would use the latter. Hell, plenty of NPCs at the aforementioned ball might be Evil. But since alignment is not an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation, Detect Evil would be useless there. If you are trying to find the vampire, however, Detect Undead would serve your purposes better.

Ah!
I see what you mean
But, unfortunately, it's a circular argument: BoVD is OK - because it's "consistent" with PH (hint - it isn't), and PH is OK - because of text in BoVD

No, PHB is okay because it's RAW. Yes, the PHB doesn't explicitly tell us that all undead creation is evil, but all those spells have the Evil tag. BoVD just clarifies why.

Stop trying to pretend my point is anything other than that to further whatever your narrative is.

Please, tell me:

1. Do those Magical Beast ping on the Detect Magic?
2. Would they turn into mere Animals in a Dead Magic zone?

If not - then the word "Magical" is just a word, and shouldn't be taken literally

I'd have to go back a BUNCH of quotes, but I'm pretty sure what I said (because I've said it before) was that the magicks that animate them are Evil. I use that word for a reason. It is just a word. Magical Beasts don't turn into normal animals in a Dead Magic Zone. SPELLS don't work in a DMZ, and magic items are rendered nonmagical.
And Magical Beasts don't ping on Detect Magic, because they're not animated by magic. A Golem would, however (as a magic item, since Craft Construct is an Item Creation feat).

You clearly understand what I'm saying. You're being obtuse on purpose.

Sorry!
Actually, I was confused by the "native" word: "Outsider" and "native" are going together like a bolt and nut (for example, Rakshasa)
Most of your points are, actually, valid there
Still, exceptions (besides Intellect Devourer):

• Construct - Kani Doll (Dragonlance)
• Elemental - Taint Elementals (Heroes of Horror; there are no Elemental Plane of Taint)
• Ooze - Deathreap Ooze (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; no indications of being extraplanar)
• and Undead - Plague Blight, all Necrocarnum Zombies

Gonna dismiss the setting-specific ones. ESPECIALLY the one from Ravenloft, as it is a demiplane literally ruled over by Dark and Evil Powers.
I don't know what books those undead came from, but the Taint Elemental might be #2 as far as exceptions.

Pretty please, don't put words in my mouth
You point was: "Creation of Undead is Evil every single time, no exceptions, no ifs or buts!.."
As a proof, you used one (very) specific example of Fireball spell usage

No, YOU are putting words in MY mouth.
Fireball was specifically brought up to counter your point about "Negative Energy is not evil". THe whole point of the fireball example was to show that neutral energies can be used to Evil.
FULL STOP. Anything other than that on this vein of conversation is you making things up.

So, can animation of mindless Undead be Evil?
Probably.
(After all, even Cure Wounds spells could be used for Evil)
But every single case?..

What's baffling to me is that you will accept other precepts and "givens" of a fantasy setting.
Gargantuan and Colossal dragons that can still fly? Sure.
Spells that warp reality? Okay.
Normal, nonmagical beings that live for centuries? Totally Fine.
Demons, Angels, and other beings tied to Cosmic Forces of Good and Evil? A-okay.
But that in the same setting, the idea that forcibly animating a corpse into a corrupt mockery of life (in a manner that has some -unspecified- connection to the soul of the person whose body is uses as evidenced by the effect undeath has on Resurrection) is an absolutely Evil act? Nope. That is too much to accept.

Seriously...why is that difficult? It's a construct of FANTASY. And Making Undead being an Evil act resonates with common tropes of fantasy.

Please, tell me: do you really think turning living breathing creature into undead monster is, somehow, less evil than to make a mindless undead from their remains (which - by the RAW! -wouldn't affect their soul)?

Also, you said: "All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources)."
When I gave you not one, but several spells which are lacking [Evil] descriptor, you quickly switched it to "Spells which target a corpse, and turn it into an undead creature as the sole function of the spell"
Sorry, but it doesn't helps: Raise Skeleton, Raise Skeleton Mage, and Revive are all turn corpses into Undead, but lacking [Evil] descriptor

I am not familiar with Seed of Undeath or Blood Oath. But you also mentioned Energy Drain, which ONLY creates a wight if it kills someone. Which WOULD then be an evil act. But not every casting of Energy Drain results in an Undead creature, ergo, it's not an "always Evil" act, because inflicting negative levels (but NOT killing with them) isn't an Evil act. I assumed the other 2 spells were similar.

And where do Raise Skeletal Mage and the others come from? I've never even heard of them. Are they 1st party and non-setting specific?

My point there was: creation of mindless Undead from creature's remains don't prevent you from successfully using Reanimation spell on it (no "... and then destroyed ..." clause)
Which mean - soul is free to return
Which mean - presumption the Skeleton or Zombie somehow "entraps" the creature's soul is incorrect

Reanimation targets a CORPSE. You cannot cast it on an undead creature. That is a CREATURE.

So, the "Target" line of the spell actually says you are WRONG.

And...ONCE AGAIN, since you seems to have missed it all the times I have said it since the beginning:
THE EVIDENCE THAT EVEN MINDLESS UNDEAD HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO THE SOUL OF THE PERSON USED IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
I've said that from the get-go. There's also things from non-canon sources (such as the Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas in Dragon Magazine) that specify that Animate Dead traps the soul, but that isn't canon. Acting like you're "proving" something with poking holes in it is not making a point against me. It's just being extremely pedantic. I've only EVER said that it's circumstantial evidence.

No need to duplicate True Resurrection:

If they've just fallen, how are they undead creatures, again? Where does it specify that what you're claiming is specifically possible? Care to support that?

In the Midnight Campaign Setting, Resurrection is limited for evil NPC

But even in any other setting, Raise Dead is how much later than Animate Dead?..

Thus - red herring

I have no familiarity with that setting, and was not talking about that setting. So your attempt to bring it up as if it has any bearing on this discussion is a Straw Man.

I mean, seriously? You ACTUALLY think it was a cogent argument to say "well, in this OTHER setting where the RAW of D&D are altered significantly, your point is a red herring, therefore I will be dismissive of it as it applies to RAW D&D as well". That sounds like a rational train of thought to you?

I mean - to don't spread rules from your table to the rest of us
RAW isn't clear, and your statement "But it is..." don't, actually, make it any clearer
Referring to "everybody"/"nobody" is a blatant fallacy, thus - please, don't use it.

Literally NO ONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD is confused by the limitations on Raise Dead, Resurrection, or True Resurrection vis a vis undead creatures made from the corpse of the intended resurrection.

To imply that there IS confusion (which I would assume includes a reading deficiency), as if that somehow makes my point less true is absurd. Is there a logical fallacy for "Appeal to Idiocy"? Because it sounds like you've been saying "well, what if someone doesn't understand what those words in the spell means? The RAW are not crystal-clear to those people".

To which I say: Anyone who cannot read and comprehend the text is not the intended audience for this argument. And I thus do not care about them.

[ShurikVch]

Note to all those who clinging to the text from Book of Vile Darkness: on the same page as "ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD", is also "CONSORTING WITH FIENDS"

If characters can be judged by the company they keep, then those who deal with fiends - demons and devils - are surely evil beings themselves. Fiends are the ultimate expression of evil given animate form - literally evil incarnate. Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil.

Oh, come on!..

"Allowing a fiend to exist..." - really?
You know where exist the largest population of fiends?
In the Lower Planes!
So, how many Paladins embarked on a life-long crusade to the Lower Planes to not "allow fiends to exist"?..
And how many Paladins are fell for not going on such crusade?

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act"?
So, what would you say, if in your game a PC Paladin would gank Fall-from-Grace on sight, reasoning it: "Fiend. Must destroy. Always a good act"?
Or even attack the Philosopher King unprovoked - with the very same reasoning?

So, if the page contain such overblown exaggerations, why should we believe in "... one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit"?

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

For me, it was the two halves of the same question all along: answer "WHY" - and you would know if "SHOULD" or not

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

If they really did any sort of research, they literally couldn't miss the backlash produced by the introduction of creatures which are, basically, "Undead, but GOO-OO-OOD!"
To make from all this decision to include the non-standard (and, certainly - at that moment -, unpopular) creature in the new setting is a questionable decision on the same scale as to go to the left when the only sign pointing right
Moreover, sourcebooks are peppered with hints Undying were supposed to be Undead, and switched to Deathless in the last possible moment
So, it would be safe to presume there was NO actual research - unless you have some proof of the contrary

Moot point. Gravecrawlers aren't mindless. Even then, the very presence of these undead is anathema to most living creatures.
It's not every uncontrolled Undead. Undead with an Intelligence score can obviously have designs of their own, and value their survival. Mindless Undead obviously don't.
A Ghoul would act out of "hunger and anger", but wouldn't fulfill the RAW, since the complete quote mentions that those make up the legions of mindless undead.

OK, you have a point with Gravecrawler
Still, Ashen Husk (Sandstorm) is "Int —", but nothing in the fluff says it's particularly aggressive toward living creatures
Sure, Dehydrating Aura is inconvenient, but if just leave it alone - would it really chase living creature to actively dehydrate them? Proof?

True Resurrection won't work.
The divine salient ability Life And Death, the highest form of divine power related to resurrection available, won't work either.
Devil's advocate time: the Epic Seed: Life doesn't mention that limitation, but every epic spell is subject do DM approval, so I'm not quite sure it's a good argument to use here. Still, worth mentioning.
It might be an oversight, but Contingent Resurrection, an epic spell using it as the seed, still bears no mention.

Bier of Resurrection (Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) may work, because it says: "This effect even works on those killed by a death effect or who have become undead. It cannot, however, help someone dead of old age."
Dark Resurrection (Call of Cthulhu d20) + Ignore Material Components would work - because it includes no restrictions for creature which became Undead, and the body is a material component

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

Because Animated Objects aren't "corrupt mockeries of life"? You cut that out of my post when you quoted to respond.

Animated Object (stuffed animal)?..
Flesh Golem?..
Deathless?..
Your argument is unconvincing.

And yet Raise Dead cannot bring someone back who has been turned into an undead creature, EVEN IF that creature has been destroyed.

Note: Raise Dead also - by some bizarre reason - incapable to bring back someone who was killed by a spell with [death] descriptor - even if the spell have nothing to do with souls, and just causing gross physical harm (like Detonate, or Heart Ripper)
Such a limited spell...

The point is that undeath being inflicted on the corpse interferes with any attempt to bring someone fully back to life.

Which is the very thing I'm questioning:
1. Some spells, apparently, don't care about the current Undead status of the corpse. So, why should we care about if just most of the reviving spell don't work?
2. Not everybody got their True Resurrection, you know.
What about those countless low-level mooks any experienced adventurer killed during their carrier?
Goblins, kobolds, orcs... Whole tribes of them were cut down - and without any funeral for deceased. Nobody would resurrect them. Ever! So, how about animating them?..
What, too Evil?
Then how about Animals? Get the animal - OK, kill the animal - OK, cook the animal - OK, eat the animal - OK, make gear from the animal's body parts - OK, animate the animal's remains - YOU'RE A MONSTER!?
Or how about a Vermin? Ooze?

*sigh*
I said the BoVD was consistent with what was in the 3.0 PHB. Which it is. BoVD clarifies that ANY creation of undead is Evil. The PHB did not give us that. But nothing in what the BoVD says contradicts the way the RAW in the PHB work. To the contrary, now it makes sense why all the undead-creating spells in the PHB are [Evil].

Yes. And?..
How it disproves what I just said?
(Backward PHB justification aside)

Thought you'd like a little taste of pedantry.

Believe me, I'm absolutely OK with pedantry.
I was just afraid there was some actual point there, which I couldn't see despite re-reading it several times (English isn't my language, you know)

A vampire disguising itself at a royal ball while wearing a Ring of Mind Shielding will not register on Detect Evil, but will still ping on Detect Undead.

Wow, that took NO EFFORT at all. The point remains that any time you need to determine whether or not something is undead you would use the latter. Hell, plenty of NPCs at the aforementioned ball might be Evil. But since alignment is not an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation, Detect Evil would be useless there. If you are trying to find the vampire, however, Detect Undead would serve your purposes better.

It's not that different from the hamishspence's example
Still, it have the whole swath of problems:

• What if Vampire in question would use instead of (or even - in addition to!) Ring of Mind Shielding an item of Misdirection?
• The "empty spot" in the detection is telling by itself: honest people don't hide their alignment
• Because the spell-per-day/spell known restriction, there is major chance the spell wouldn't be prepared regardless of how useful it may be
• You need to concentrate for the 3 rounds to pinpoint the Vampire - do you expect them to conveniently stand on a place and not go out of the cone of detection?
• But you know what don't required any preparation, don't take 3 turns, and don't fooled by illusions or abjurations? Turn Undead!

I'd have to go back a BUNCH of quotes, but I'm pretty sure what I said (because I've said it before) was that the magicks that animate them are Evil. I use that word for a reason. It is just a word. Magical Beasts don't turn into normal animals in a Dead Magic Zone. SPELLS don't work in a DMZ, and magic items are rendered nonmagical.
And Magical Beasts don't ping on Detect Magic, because they're not animated by magic. A Golem would, however (as a magic item, since Craft Construct is an Item Creation feat).

You clearly understand what I'm saying. You're being obtuse on purpose.

No, your point was - occurrence of Undead is always magical, no matter how or when it happened
My point there: not everything which contradicts IRL science is magical in any shape or form

Gonna dismiss the setting-specific ones. ESPECIALLY the one from Ravenloft, as it is a demiplane literally ruled over by Dark and Evil Powers.

Correction: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is setting-neutral adventure, which can be played in any setting

I don't know what books those undead came from

Plague Blight is from Libris Mortis
Necrocarnum Zombie template is from the Magic of Incarnum

No, YOU are putting words in MY mouth.
Fireball was specifically brought up to counter your point about "Negative Energy is not evil". THe whole point of the fireball example was to show that neutral energies can be used to Evil.
FULL STOP. Anything other than that on this vein of conversation is you making things up.

Your example was wrong: you comparing arson and murder to manipulations with unfeeling corpse - hardly equal comparison

What's baffling to me is that you will accept other precepts and "givens" of a fantasy setting.
Gargantuan and Colossal dragons that can still fly? Sure.
Spells that warp reality? Okay.
Normal, nonmagical beings that live for centuries? Totally Fine.
Demons, Angels, and other beings tied to Cosmic Forces of Good and Evil? A-okay.
But that in the same setting, the idea that forcibly animating a corpse into a corrupt mockery of life (in a manner that has some -unspecified- connection to the soul of the person whose body is uses as evidenced by the effect undeath has on Resurrection) is an absolutely Evil act? Nope. That is too much to accept.

Seriously...why is that difficult? It's a construct of FANTASY. And Making Undead being an Evil act resonates with common tropes of fantasy.

Like Talakeal said:

The "BUT DRAGONS!" fallacy once again rears its ugly head

The "But Dragons!" fallacy is the idea that if any element of a setting is in any way unrealistic, then you cannot apply logic to any other element.

For example:
Person A: "In issue 35 super-man flew to Mars and back in under two minutes, but in issue 43 he failed to outrun a train, what gives?"
Person B: "You are talking about a guy who can fly, of course his speed isn't consistent!"

or

Person A: "Why did Captain Kirk bother knife fighting with the enemy boarding party, why didn't Scotty just beam them directly to the brig?"
Person B: "You are talking about a show where aliens all look like humans and speak English and a Star Ship can fly faster than the speed of light, why would character's ever be expected to act in a rational manner?"

Dragons, magic, Outsiders, etc - it's all called "fantastical assumptions"

But Evil is not - it exists IRL

IRL Evil required evil intention - otherwise, it isn't evil at all: that's why insanity defense working, and animal trials mostly stopped

Fantastical assumption: there is some Elemental/Primal/Primordial Evil - it's why mindless creatures of Lower Planes are still Evil - they're literally "made of Evil"
Like in Time Bandits:

Don't lose any of that stuff. That's concentrated evil.
One drop of that could turn you all into hermit crabs.

But Undead isn't made by stuff of Lower Planes, but by completely neutral Negative Energy

And where do Raise Skeletal Mage and the others come from? I've never even heard of them. Are they 1st party and non-setting specific?

Yes, they're 1st-party
Diablo II
Obscure, but legit

[icefractal]

Any argument you can bring against Murder could be used against creating Undead.
Killing a tyrant in their sleep is an Evil act committed in the name of the Greater Good. It's still an Evil act.

I think this demonstrates an issue with any discussion of what's really good or evil - people have conflicting opinions.

For example, you seem to be making a distinction here - killing a tyrant in their sleep - that I don't agree with. Intentionally killing the tyrant either is or isn't evil. Whether you do that in their sleep or walk up to them and announce your intention before doing it doesn't really change whether it's evil. Changes whether it's Lawful maybe.


Something I find helpful in considering these situations is to imagine yourself on the receiving end. Like, I would consider someone intentionally killing me an evil act on their part. Obviously I'm biased in that regard, but let's take it as a given for the sake of the example.

So assassinating me in my sleep - evil. But what if instead, a MMA champion, a special-forces soldier, and a professional hitman* walk up, announce that they're going to kill me, and let me pick up a knife before the fight starts? That's not really any better! I'm still going to die and I still think they're evil for doing so. In fact, even if the would-be assassin said he'd flip a coin, shoot me on heads, and shoot himself on tails - so perfectly fair odds - that would still be evil. Dying because you lost a fair fight still sucks as much as dying for other reasons.

*A rough representation of a typical party's combat abilities vs most people in the setting. Point is, if you outclass a foe enough then it's not really a "fair fight" regardless of whether they're armed.

[Ruethgar]

Iirc creating undead adds negative energy to the world and disrupts the balance, so is universally evil, even if you use them for good, as the Greater Good demands you never make them. Don't have a source for that, but I do know that having undead and negative energy around empowers Attropus from Elder Evils and moves us closer to the apocalypse, so that's also a thing.

So I would think that there would be automatic balances like with the elemental planes. At least in Faerun, there are fissures to the elemental planes everywhere that keep the material in balance, else the world would be drowning from all the Create Water casts. Considering that undeath is also sometimes naturally occurring, there it likely weak points where the positive energy plane balances in as well.

[RedMage125]

Spoiler: ShurikVch

Show

Note to all those who clinging to the text from Book of Vile Darkness: on the same page as "ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD", is also "CONSORTING WITH FIENDS"

Oh, come on!..

"Allowing a fiend to exist..." - really?
You know where exist the largest population of fiends?
In the Lower Planes!
So, how many Paladins embarked on a life-long crusade to the Lower Planes to not "allow fiends to exist"?..
And how many Paladins are fell for not going on such crusade?

This is a slippery slope, and you're edging dangerously close to the border of Argumentum Ad Absurdum. That would be like asking why a paladin doesn't fall from grace while sleeping in an inn because someone was knifed in the alley behind it while she was sleeping.

Yes, consorting with beings made of Evil is an Evil act. But that doesn't create some obligation to travel to the plane that literally spawns them out of nothing on a crusade. In the Lower Planes is where they belong.

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act"?
So, what would you say, if in your game a PC Paladin would gank Fall-from-Grace on sight, reasoning it: "Fiend. Must destroy. Always a good act"?

She is supposed to create moral questioning. She can demonstrably prove she isn't evil, though. She radiates Good, Evil, and Chaos with equal strength. The most Good thing to do is help her go through the rituals in Savage Species which would remove the Chaos, Evil and Tan'ari subtypes, and perhaps add the Good subtype. That way, if and when she is eventually destroyed, the Abyss doesn't get a new succubus, the heavens get a new celestial.

So, if the page contain such overblown exaggerations, why should we believe in "... one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit"?

I believe I told you once that I will not accept as a rational debate point "the RAW is wrong and I am right"? I did say that.

Moreover, sourcebooks are peppered with hints Undying were supposed to be Undead, and switched to Deathless in the last possible moment
So, it would be safe to presume there was NO actual research - unless you have some proof of the contrary

I'd like to see your research for YOUR point. KB has always made it clear that the Aerenai detest undead.

Bier of Resurrection (Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) may work, because it says: "This effect even works on those killed by a death effect or who have become undead. It cannot, however, help someone dead of old age."

Still requires a corpse, though, right? An undead creature is a creature. A corpse is an object.

Animated Object (stuffed animal)?..
Flesh Golem?..
Deathless?..
Your argument is unconvincing.

Animated Object - temporarily ambulatory due to positive energy. Has a duration.
Flesh Golem - DOES involve an Evil act in it's creation, we determined that, remember. But the golem itself is animated by a neutral elemental spirit. And elementals' spirits and bodies are one, so one is not imprisoning a "soul"
Deathless - CANNOT be created against the subject's will. Are temporary. BoED ones, for sure are, and I stand by what I said about Eberron Aerenai ones. I wish I could check out the old dragonshard articles.

Note: Raise Dead also - by some bizarre reason - incapable to bring back someone who was killed by a spell with [death] descriptor - even if the spell have nothing to do with souls, and just causing gross physical harm (like Detonate, or Heart Ripper)
Such a limited spell...

So if some form of conflicting MAGIC is involved, Raise Dead is not sufficient to resurrect someone...hmmmm

Which is the very thing I'm questioning:
1. Some spells, apparently, don't care about the current Undead status of the corpse. So, why should we care about if just most of the reviving spell don't work?

I repeat. Again. A corpse is an object. Undead is a creature type.

2. Not everybody got their True Resurrection, you know.
What about those countless low-level mooks any experienced adventurer killed during their carrier?
*snip*

Yes.

Yes. And?..
How it disproves what I just said?
(Backward PHB justification aside)

The PHB doesn't require the BoVD to be a rule. Or to be consistent. You can infer from just the PHB and get the same conclusion the BoVD spells out in text.

(English isn't my language, you know)

Language barriers can be problematic. I will try to keep that in mind and not lose my patience, knowing that now.

It's not that different from the hamishspence's example
Still, it have the whole swath of problems:

• What if Vampire in question would use instead of (or even - in addition to!) Ring of Mind Shielding an item of Misdirection?
• The "empty spot" in the detection is telling by itself: honest people don't hide their alignment
• Because the spell-per-day/spell known restriction, there is major chance the spell wouldn't be prepared regardless of how useful it may be
• You need to concentrate for the 3 rounds to pinpoint the Vampire - do you expect them to conveniently stand on a place and not go out of the cone of detection?
• But you know what don't required any preparation, don't take 3 turns, and don't fooled by illusions or abjurations? Turn Undead!

Nothing is foolproof. A well-prepared spellcaster is a subtle and dangerous foe. But you asked for the benefit of Detect Undead when Detect Evil exists. Possible uses were provided. Your question was answered. We didn't ask you to keep trying to make them "not an answer".

No, your point was - occurrence of Undead is always magical, no matter how or when it happened
My point there: not everything which contradicts IRL science is magical in any shape or form

It required a magical phenomena for them to be animate. Negative Energy is the opposite of the energy of life.

Correction: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is setting-neutral adventure, which can be played in any setting

Which takes the party through the mists into Barovia...which is a part of the Demiplane of Dread. Just because you can START in any setting doesn't mean the module does not take place in the Demiplane of Dread.

Plague Blight is from Libris Mortis
Necrocarnum Zombie template is from the Magic of Incarnum

Don't have my laptop with my books on it. But I'm not going to look at Magic of Incarnum for the first time ever and presume to know anything about how incarnum rules work.

Your example was wrong: you comparing arson and murder to manipulations with unfeeling corpse - hardly equal comparison

My example was not wrong. You missed the point.

Fire = Neutral energy
Use fire to burn down an orphanage = Evil act.
Negative Energy = Neutral energy
Use Negative Energy to create an undead creature = Evil act.

Neutral energies can be used in evil ways. That is it. Full stop.

Dragons, magic, Outsiders, etc - it's all called "fantastical assumptions"

But Evil is not - it exists IRL

IRL Evil required evil intention - otherwise, it isn't evil at all: that's why insanity defense working, and animal trials mostly stopped

Fantastical assumption: there is some Elemental/Primal/Primordial Evil - it's why mindless creatures of Lower Planes are still Evil - they're literally "made of Evil"
Like in Time Bandits:


But Undead isn't made by stuff of Lower Planes, but by completely neutral Negative Energy

But in D&D the default, core assumption is "Good and Evil are not different points of view, they are the forces that shape the cosmos" (PHB, chapter 6).

The "evil" in the heart of a miserly old man (level 2 Aristocrat), a balor, an unholy sword, and a zombie are all the same energy. This is proven in that the "Detect Evil" spell in the PHB picks up ALL of them, in varying amounts, based on HD (or caster level, with evil magical objects).

Alignment isn't really "morality". It is which of those four cosmic forces one is aligned with. Someone may not know their actual alignment. A person could be travelling the world, killing orphans, to stop a prophecy that says during a conjunction of moons in 7 years, an orphan in their second decade of life will bring Demogorgon into the Prime. This guy may believe he is serving the greater good. He may think he is Good (or at least some sort of grim, Neutral hero). But the repeated, continuous, and above all unrepentant murder of so many children means his alignment will be Evil. He'd probably be quite shocked to take damage from Holy Smite. When someone's alignment is "Evil" there is an observable, quantifiable amount of Evil inside them.

That means that some acts have objective weight vis a vis Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. The BoVD and BoED clarify for us that Intent and Context matter (check out the Zophas example in chapter 2 of the BoVD). Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

But Selling One's Soul? Consorting With Fiends? These things are always evil. Creating Undead is just in keeping with those. On those same lines. The rules regarding this are consistent and coherent.

It's not "BUT DRAGONS", because it is in keeping in line with other rules, which, like many of this edition, serve to reinforce classic fantasy tropes.

Yes, they're 1st-party
Diablo II
Obscure, but legit

The Diablo II book counts as setting-specific, my friend.