Why is creating undead Evil?

[awa]

I do have magic of incarnum
necocarum is described as super evil such that most evil beings would not touch. Using tortured souls of good creatures.

"Indeed, the necorcarnate subjects pure souls to agony and torment far beyond the limits possible in mortal life, draining them of their vital essence in pursuit of her hideous power."
Pg 132

That feels like a reasonably justification as to why it gets the evil subtype even if normal zombies don't

[ShurikVch]

Note: if nobody noticed, the original question - "Why is creating undead Evil?" - is still unanswered in any RAW fashion.
All suggested answers so far were either straight incorrect (Negative Energy is not Evil!), lacked any mechanical effect ("Evil pollution"), appealed to cultural norms (which are inapplicable to, say, Animals), wandered into the "Wild Guess" territory ("entrapped souls in a Skeletons", "Evil spirits possession"), or preached Monte Cook's opinion ("BoVD says so, what else you need?")

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

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.".

I'm sorry, but it looks like NO spell fits for such description - because Animate Dead etc can be used for item creation, which is deviates from the "sole function of the spell" parameter

I am not familiar with Seed of Undeath or Blood Oath.

Sorry, there I was inaccurate - the actual spell's name is Oath of Blood (Heroes of Horror): if it cast on a creature under the Geas-like effect, and creature would die befor fulfilling the geas, it would be animated as Undead (selected from the Create Undead list) and try to fulfill the geas by the best of its newfound Undead abilities; if/when geas is fulfilled, Undead de-animates

Seed of Undeath (Complete Mage): being cast on a Humanoid or Animal, it lasts for day/CL; if during this time subject die (without destruction of the body), it becomes a Zombie (and automatically under the caster's control - presuming enough control pool)
Greater Seed of Undeath (Complete Mage) affects area in 40' radius; whoever dies there during the time, animates as if Seed of Undeath was cast on them (presuming legit target)

non-setting specific?

And why they should be non-setting specific?

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.

Creation of Undead not always required the whole corpse: Skeletal Guard required just a finger bone; the rest of the body should be good enough to Reanimation

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.

Believe me, I'm aware what is "circumstantial evidence"
But in that particular case, I seen more of "wild guess" and "jumping to conclusion":
to bring somebody back from the dead, you would need their Body and Soul;
with Soul, everything is clear - it should be willing, not entrapped, and not destroyed (although, amusingly, it's easier to revive somebody whose soul was destroyed than entrapped);
but - if Body was turned into a Skeleton or Zombie - do you still have a Body to resurrect?
I think not.
See how simple?

If they've just fallen, how are they undead creatures, again?

Maybe, by dying in the area of Greater Seed of Undeath?

Where does it specify that what you're claiming is specifically possible? Care to support that?

Nowhere. And no I can't - AFAIK, there was no elaboration of this line in RAW (especially because the "greater effects" of the spell are, essentially, in the "ask your DM nicely" territory - by design)

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 would presume you just don't read the second line of my point: Animate Dead and Raise Dead could be separated by 6 character levels (2nd and 5th spell levels respectively)
It's more than overwhelming majority of the world's population would reach in their lifespan

And even if we presuming spellcasting services - not in every settlement there is a spellcaster of sufficient level (only settlement no smaller than Large Town may have one)
Let alone the necessary payment - how long it would take for average inhabitant to repay for those 5000 gp of diamonds?

And, like somebody already said, many "more conventional" means to keep dead dead - such as Thinaun - aren't labeled Evil at all

Thus, like I already said, ability/inability to be resurrected is a red herring for this thread

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.

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.

On the contrary, I think your approach is more of a slippery slope: either we would treat the "Allowing a fiend to exist" line very literally, or like a code lock with unknown combination
First approach would require to destroy Fall-from-Grace and Felthis ap Jerran (or die trying), and to go on the crusade
The second approach suggest there are, essentially, no way to don't "allowing a fiend to exist" - because fiends "destroyed" outside of their home plane don't, actually, die - but return to the plane, thus - continue "to exist"

Minor nitpick: Fall-from-Grace isn't Good - she's LN

So, OK - you wouldn't attack Fall-from-Grace or Felthis ap Jerran on sight.
But how about the Jaranda of Gallowsgate (the oldest living member of the Doomguard)? She's Marilith (in disguise).
Still no?
OK
Then how about all those Blood War veterans who're chilling out in Sigil? Sure, for attacking them unprovoked, your Paladin may be brained by Harmonium, tried by Fraternity of Order, and executed by Mercykillers (presuming our Paladin even survives the initial confrontation), but hey - at least he didn't "allowed a fiend to exist"...

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.

And I said you it wasn't about RAW from the very 1st post, because RAW don't answering the question

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

An undying soldier or councilor is an undead creature, but it is charged with positive energy and sustained by the devotion of its descendants.

Also, the fact Create Deathless and Create Greater Deathless are Necromancy rather than Conjuration or even Transmutation

In their reverence for their ancestors, the Aereni were determined to find a way to preserve their heroes through their interest in the art of necromancy. This research followed two paths: the negative necromancy of the line of Vol, which many blame for the spread of vampirism into Khorvaire, and the positive energy of the Priests of Transition. Ultimately it was the positive path that took root in the land, and the lines united behind the cult of the deathless.

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

The point if "corpse is an object" or not is debated to death, so I would ignore it
My point is: not all Undead required the whole corpse: Skeletal Guard, Forsaken Shell, Skin Kite, even Crawling Head...

Animated Object - temporarily ambulatory due to positive energy. Has a duration.

It's inaccurate - if you just look at it a bit closer:
How often you seen encounterd Animated Object suddenly run out of duration?
Or even - do you even seen PC zapping Animated Object with dispel and it stopping?
My point is: Animated Objects encountered during the adventurers aren't produced via Animate Object spell, but by some other way (probably, Craft Construct feat)
I got the idea from one of adventures where, when PC enter a Trophy Room(/Chamber/Hall/don't remember), two of dummies - Gray Render and Owlbear - animates and attacking PC; mechanically, they're two Large Animated Objects, but from the "corrupt mockeries of life" standpoint...

Flesh Golem - DOES involve an Evil act in it's creation, we determined that, remember.

Fair point.
But let me ask: how about the Dragonflesh Golem (Monster Manual II)?
It doesn't use [evil] spells in its creation
So - isn't it one of "corrupt mockeries of life"?

Deathless - CANNOT be created against the subject's will.

[Citation needed]
AFAIK, neither Create Deathless, nor Create Greater Deathless says anything about "willing"

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.

Once again - [citation needed]
And I (IIRR) already gave you link to dragonshard articles archive - was it the wrong one?

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

Not just magic - if corpse is sufficiently damaged, Raise Dead wouldn't work too
Or is decapitation now evil too?

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

It's contradicted by existence of Dead condition, and "Target:" line for Raise Dead and Reincarnate ("Dead creature touched") and Speak with Dead ("One dead creature")

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".

OK, "limited answer" ≠ "wrong answer"
Still, your example isn't that good: if PC is absolutely sure Vampire is there, they could just start zapping with Turn Undead (or, for that matter, Rebuke Undead)

It required a magical phenomena for them to be animate.

And, once again, - [citation needed]
Is there some text which says cannibal killed during their "meal" wouldn't turn into Ghast, or hanged murderer wouldn't become a Mohrg - if their bodies would be inside the "magic-free" area (AMF/Dead Magic/etc)?

Negative Energy is the opposite of the energy of life.

On the contrary: Negative Energy is able to support life no worse than Positive Energy - people with Tomb-Tainted Soul are still breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping, getting older, and may even have kids - thus, completely alive

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.

No, it isn't - it's remake of the original Ravenloft module, which is preceded the Demiplane of Dread
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft:

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is a 226-page hardcover book, released as an updated and expanded version of the original Ravenloft module for the D&D v3.5 ruleset. This returned the adventure to its roots, stripping the demiplane setting of the Ravenloft campaign. This expanded version was designed to be able to run a mini-campaign for about 20 sessions taking characters from level 6 to 10, with options for instead running long (8 session), short (4 session) or single session adventures. It includes suggestions for incorporating the adventure into an existing generic, Forgotten Realms, Eberron or d20 Modern campaign, but makes no mention of doing so in a Ravenloft campaign setting.

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.

Sure, fire can be used for evil - but why creation of undead is Evil act?

Side note: one more reason for me to hate the "Mindless, but still Evil" Zombies concept - bodies animated by Myconid Sovereign and Slaver Fungus are based on "Zombie, except..."
While Zombie were Neutral, everything was OK
But then authors went and adopted the Tweet's template - and suddenly, everything become dumb:
Myconid Sovereign is "Usually lawful neutral";
Slaver Fungus is "Always neutral";
animated bodies are Mindless - and no, they aren't Undead: "fungus zombie" is Plant, and those animated by the Spores of Animation are keep their original type;
and there even no way to argue for "Evil magic" - because both abilities are (Ex): no magic, just weird biology...

[RedMage125]

Spoiler: ShurikVch

Show

Note: if nobody noticed, the original question - "Why is creating undead Evil?" - is still unanswered in any RAW fashion.
*snip*
or preached Monte Cook's opinion ("BoVD says so, what else you need?")

BoVD is RAW.

D&D is a construct of fantasy. As such, the devs have every right to say "X is evil", with or without the "why". They DID give us the why. That is literally enough. While in a lot of other arenas, this would be Appeal to Authority, in this instance, it's valid. The Devs could say, in a rulebook, "picking your nose is an Evil act in D&D", and that would be a true statement by RAW.

So the original question WAS answered. Repeatedly.

You "don't like" that answer. Your opinion has been noted. And while your opinion is perfectly valid for you, as an indictment of the rules, it is functionally worthless.

I'm sorry, but it looks like NO spell fits for such description - because Animate Dead etc can be used for item creation, which is deviates from the "sole function of the spell" parameter

You're playing word semantics and I don't appreciate it. Animate Dead, Create [Greater] Undead, the only result of casting the spell as depicted in the spell description is an undead creature.

Other spells I am not familiar with, and don;t have my laptop with me atm.

And why they should be non-setting specific?

Because many settings have deviations from core rules assumptions, and if something is only true for that setting, it's not a valid indictment of the general rules.

Creation of Undead not always required the whole corpse: Skeletal Guard required just a finger bone; the rest of the body should be good enough to Reanimation

Believe me, I'm aware what is "circumstantial evidence"
But in that particular case, I seen more of "wild guess" and "jumping to conclusion":
to bring somebody back from the dead, you would need their Body and Soul;
with Soul, everything is clear - it should be willing, not entrapped, and not destroyed (although, amusingly, it's easier to revive somebody whose soul was destroyed than entrapped);
but - if Body was turned into a Skeleton or Zombie - do you still have a Body to resurrect?
I think not.
See how simple?

Person killed by shadow...body left behind...no Resurrection. Or, the example I have been using. Guy dies, party cute off his hand, takes to town. While transiting, some random necromancer finds the handless corpse and casts Animate Dead on it. Resurrection no longer works, but it would have if the zombie had not been created.

That's "circumstantial eveidence", not "jumping to conclusion". So why don't you "jump" to "drop the condescension"?

Maybe, by dying in the area of Greater Seed of Undeath?

Are you going to move the goalposts every time I poke holes in your points? That wasn't in your original scenario.

Nowhere. And no I can't - AFAIK, there was no elaboration of this line in RAW (especially because the "greater effects" of the spell are, essentially, in the "ask your DM nicely" territory - by design)

Then...not really much of a "debunk" is it?

I would presume you just don't read the second line of my point: Animate Dead and Raise Dead could be separated by 6 character levels (2nd and 5th spell levels respectively)
It's more than overwhelming majority of the world's population would reach in their lifespan

And even if we presuming spellcasting services - not in every settlement there is a spellcaster of sufficient level (only settlement no smaller than Large Town may have one)
Let alone the necessary payment - how long it would take for average inhabitant to repay for those 5000 gp of diamonds?

And, like somebody already said, many "more conventional" means to keep dead dead - such as Thinaun - aren't labeled Evil at all

Thus, like I already said, ability/inability to be resurrected is a red herring for this thread

I would presume that you didn't read or chose to ignore the actual thrust of what I was saying.

It's not "inability to be resurrected = Evil". It's "inability to be [true] resurrected is circumstantial evidence that there's some connection between the soul of the person whose body was used, and the zombie". So it's NOT a red herring, you're just trying to twist or ignore arguments that you cannot defend against.

On the contrary, I think your approach is more of a slippery slope: either we would treat the "Allowing a fiend to exist" line very literally, or like a code lock with unknown combination
First approach would require to destroy Fall-from-Grace and Felthis ap Jerran (or die trying), and to go on the crusade
The second approach suggest there are, essentially, no way to don't "allowing a fiend to exist" - because fiends "destroyed" outside of their home plane don't, actually, die - but return to the plane, thus - continue "to exist"

I think you're getting closer to that Argumentum Ad Absurdum line.

Minor nitpick: Fall-from-Grace isn't Good - she's LN

So, OK - you wouldn't attack Fall-from-Grace or Felthis ap Jerran on sight.
But how about the Jaranda of Gallowsgate (the oldest living member of the Doomguard)? She's Marilith (in disguise).
Still no?
OK
Then how about all those Blood War veterans who're chilling out in Sigil? Sure, for attacking them unprovoked, your Paladin may be brained by Harmonium, tried by Fraternity of Order, and executed by Mercykillers (presuming our Paladin even survives the initial confrontation), but hey - at least he didn't "allowed a fiend to exist"...

Wait...are those characters from Planescape: Torment? You know that game played very fast and loose with a LOT of the rules, right? And at their core was 2e rules anyway, not 3e, which this subforum is.

I figured you were referring to the succubus paladin, I didn't remember her name.

And I said you it wasn't about RAW from the very 1st post, because RAW don't answering the question

If you're asking "why to the rules say X?", you're asking about the rules. And since homebrew is too fickle and varied to be taken into account, only RAW in 1st party books is "True".

Fact is, RAW does answer the question. Your stance is "I feel like my point of view is better than the RAW, so I find the answer unsatisfying. Therefore you failed to answer the question."

And that's not a valid metric for you to carry on a conversation with anyone.

Also, the fact Create Deathless and Create Greater Deathless are Necromancy rather than Conjuration or even Transmutation

I'm aware that they are necromancy. They're basically "create [greater] undead", but positive energy and not negative. Conjuration would be for HEALING. You know, like the red herring YOU threw at me and wasted time debating.

The point if "corpse is an object" or not is debated to death, so I would ignore it
My point is: not all Undead required the whole corpse: Skeletal Guard, Forsaken Shell, Skin Kite, even Crawling Head...

Undead is a creature type. Not a corpse. The end.

It's inaccurate - if you just look at it a bit closer:
How often you seen encounterd Animated Object suddenly run out of duration?

Does the Animate Objects spell have a duration? Yes or no?

Or even - do you even seen PC zapping Animated Object with dispel and it stopping?

Not personally, but such is a valid tactic.

My point is: Animated Objects encountered during the adventurers aren't produced via Animate Object spell, but by some other way (probably, Craft Construct feat)
I got the idea from one of adventures where, when PC enter a Trophy Room(/Chamber/Hall/don't remember), two of dummies - Gray Render and Owlbear - animates and attacking PC; mechanically, they're two Large Animated Objects, but from the "corrupt mockeries of life" standpoint...

So...like an effigy created by an effigy master (PrC from Complete Arcane)? Or perhaps Animate Objects was used as the spell in a trap? Lots of ways to do that, mechanically.

Fair point.
But let me ask: how about the Dragonflesh Golem (Monster Manual II)?
It doesn't use [evil] spells in its creation
So - isn't it one of "corrupt mockeries of life"?

Is it still animated by a neutral elemental spirit?

[Citation needed]
AFAIK, neither Create Deathless, nor Create Greater Deathless says anything about "willing"

Going off memory here, but reasonably sure it's in the BoED.

Once again - [citation needed]
And I (IIRR) already gave you link to dragonshard articles archive - was it the wrong one?

Don't know. I am on deployment right now, and boat internet doesn't allow me to follow that link for whatever reason.

Not just magic - if corpse is sufficiently damaged, Raise Dead wouldn't work too
Or is decapitation now evil too?

No, if you have the head and hold it up to the neck stump, Raise Dead works. Try again.

It's contradicted by existence of Dead condition, and "Target:" line for Raise Dead and Reincarnate ("Dead creature touched") and Speak with Dead ("One dead creature")

And an Undead creature with positive hit points isn't a "dead creature", is it?

OK, "limited answer" ≠ "wrong answer"
Still, your example isn't that good: if PC is absolutely sure Vampire is there, they could just start zapping with Turn Undead (or, for that matter, Rebuke Undead)

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".

This point doesn't bear any further time invested from me than copy/pasting what I already said

And, once again, - [citation needed]
Is there some text which says cannibal killed during their "meal" wouldn't turn into Ghast, or hanged murderer wouldn't become a Mohrg - if their bodies would be inside the "magic-free" area (AMF/Dead Magic/etc)?

No idea. Good question.

On the contrary: Negative Energy is able to support life no worse than Positive Energy - people with Tomb-Tainted Soul are still breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping, getting older, and may even have kids - thus, completely alive

You are aware that Specific Overrides General, right? The existence of a feat which creates a specific exception to the otherwise General rule for all other living creatures without that feat does not make the General statement "false".

No, it isn't - it's remake of the original Ravenloft module, which is preceded the Demiplane of Dread
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft:

What was this in regards to again? I have genuinely lost track.

Sure, fire can be used for evil - but why creation of undead is Evil act?

Has literally been answered dozens of times in this thread.

Side note: one more reason for me to hate the "Mindless, but still Evil" Zombies concept - bodies animated by Myconid Sovereign and Slaver Fungus are based on "Zombie, except..."
While Zombie were Neutral, everything was OK
But then authors went and adopted the Tweet's template - and suddenly, everything become dumb:
Myconid Sovereign is "Usually lawful neutral";
Slaver Fungus is "Always neutral";
animated bodies are Mindless - and no, they aren't Undead: "fungus zombie" is Plant, and those animated by the Spores of Animation are keep their original type;
and there even no way to argue for "Evil magic" - because both abilities are (Ex): no magic, just weird biology...

So...once again, 1) animation of undead is ALWAYS an evil act (PHB, BoVD); 2) we know Evil is a tangible, detectable force, one that leaves lingering taint (PHB, BoVD); 3) some creatures are inherently evil because evil is a part of their bodies, irrespective of individual will (PHB, MM); 4) Mindless (INT "-") creatures lack moral agency to be anything but Neutral (PHB, MM). What you're missing is that the last one is a General Rule. And the Specific one regarding "some creatures have evil because it is a part of their bodies, irrespective of individual will", in this instance, trumps the General Rule regarding "mindless creatures and alignment". So yes, most mindless creatures are Neutral. Mindless Undead (which have been created by an evil act, no matter what that act was), however, thus have Evil inside them.

[Ashiel]

Animate Dead cannot stop someone from being raised unless you're trying to raise them using the animated corpse specifically. Animate dead does not target a creature and does not transform a creature into the undead. It targets a corpse, and it transforms the corpse into an undead creature with statistics derived from the statistics of the creature whose corpse it was (or presumably would have been in the case of manufactured corpses).

Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

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

Targets one or more corpses touched
...
This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands.

A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.

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

The most common form of creating undead has no effect on the soul of any creature, nor does it transform any creature into an undead creature, nor will it stop the soul of the creature from being raised with the exception of if you try to use the creature's (now undead) corpse as the means of raising them.

This is not surprising, since it makes rational sense. Where raising the undead becomes tricky is with creatures that are actually transformed into undead, such as vampires. These creatures are sapient and have souls, as is made clear by the magic jar spell and thus you cannot raise them from the (un)dead without first destroying them because there is no soul to put into the body otherwise, though sufficiently high level magic (e.g. resurrection) can turn a destroyed undead back into a living creature (making it no-longer undead in the process).

EDIT: It's worth noting that if it did block resurrection, animate dead would be more effective than trap the soul (a 9th level spell) and much cheaper on the material cost.
Also worth noting is that there is no reason why creating undead is evil outside of some developer decided to make it so. It fails every logical test.

1. Other effects that bind souls or prevent raising are not evil-aligned (any death effect, soul bind, trap the soul, magic jar).
2. Negative energy is neutral.
3. Corpses are neutral.
4. Mindless creatures are neutral (or immediately become Neutral after creation as per Alignment rules).
5. Cultural and social standards do not dictate D&D alignment (even if your culture says it's fine to beat your wife it's still evil), so even if it's gross it's not evil unless it's actively harming someone (and not just their feelings).
6. Manipulating dead objects is neutral (you can cast animate objects on some corpses and it's not evil).
7. Manipulating magically animate but mindless entities is not evil (unseen servant, animate objects, etc).
8. Compared to the creation of Golems (which actually involves the unwilling enslavement of a soul to power) it is positively benign, yet golem creation is not viewed as intrinsically evil.
9. Every argument or speculation as to their somehow generally degrading the environment is either wholly unsupported by actual mechanics or is equally true for other forms of unaligned magics. Even then, being an environmental hazard is not a moral issue. Comically, undead are also probably the "greenest" industrial technology.

[Segev]

Animate Dead cannot stop someone from being raised unless you're trying to raise them using the animated corpse specifically. Animate dead does not target a creature and does not transform a creature into the undead. It targets a corpse, and it transforms the corpse into an undead creature with statistics derived from the statistics of the creature whose corpse it was (or presumably would have been in the case of manufactured corpses).

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, your claim here is that you can use resurrection or true resurrection to bring back a creature whose corpse is currently a zombie because the clause that says you cannot bring them back if they're currently undead doesn't apply, because the zombie is not "them?"

[Zanos]

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, your claim here is that you can use resurrection or true resurrection to bring back a creature whose corpse is currently a zombie because the clause that says you cannot bring them back if they're currently undead doesn't apply, because the zombie is not "them?"

I was about to say, both of these spells have specific callouts that you must first destroy the undead the creature has been turned into. Animate dead also applies templates, it doesn't generate new creatures.

Interestingly though, nothing prevents you from using a spell that creates a new body to raise someone, and then turning the old corpse into an undead.

[Unavenger]

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, your claim here is that you can use resurrection or true resurrection to bring back a creature whose corpse is currently a zombie because the clause that says you cannot bring them back if they're currently undead doesn't apply, because the zombie is not "them?"

Wait, I'm sure there's a bit in the Tome of Magic which might clear this up...

...

...

Okay, so it's not as clear-cut as I recalled, but:

"...your personal truename never changes, even if you undergo personal upheaval or magical transformation (such as a polymorph spell)"
"Some undead and constructs likewise have no Intelligence and thus no personal truenames. If the Intelligence of a creature with a personal truename drops below 3, it does not lose its personal truename."

The implication is that mindless undead are not the creature that they were in life, because if they were just intelligent creatures which happened to be in a different form from usual and suffering from a temporary lack of intelligence from being undead, they would retain their true names. Since they don't, they're probably different creatures.

EDIT: Although, yes, the intention of resurrection and true res is pretty clear.

[Ashiel]

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, your claim here is that you can use resurrection or true resurrection to bring back a creature whose corpse is currently a zombie because the clause that says you cannot bring them back if they're currently undead doesn't apply, because the zombie is not "them?"

I was about to say, both of these spells have specific callouts that you must first destroy the undead the creature has been turned into. Animate dead also applies templates, it doesn't generate new creatures.

Interestingly though, nothing prevents you from using a spell that creates a new body to raise someone, and then turning the old corpse into an undead.

Yes. I already quoted the relevant bits from the rules. A skeleton or zombie is not the creature being raised. It has no effect on the creature's soul. As Zanos points out, there is nothing stopping you from casting animate dead on an old body and raising another (or clone). The point is simple: animate dead does nothing to the soul of the creature that inhabited the body. The body is explicitly not the creature (outsiders being the exception). Animate dead cannot be used to trap someone's soul beyond simply making their previous body unusable.

EDIT: This means you cannot (usually) raise them with raise dead because raise dead requires you to have a relatively whole intact body (which was presumably used to create an undead creature at the moment), but reincarnate and resurrection only require a small part of the creature's body (such as a lock of hair), and true resurrection doesn't even need that much.

In the case of creatures that have been turned into the undead (e.g. have or are souls per magic jar) you wouldn't have a soul to raise without first destroying them in their current form. You cannot for example cast true resurrection and call a ghost or vampire back into a living body.

While one could argue otherwise (because we could argue about anything) other options all lead to an abundance of absurd conclusions that aren't any more supported by the rules than this one. This one is simply the most functional and least absurd of the interpretations that I have found. All of this is of course simply academic when it comes to the morality of spells like animate dead because by simply comparing it to other examples in D&D we can see that its Evil tag is arbitrary. Even if it did enslave souls (which it actually cannot), spells like soul bind and trap the soul and planar binding are not in and of themselves evil (in fact, capturing a good outsider with planar binding gives it the [Good] tag).

If anyone wants to take a more absurd interpretation, that's totally fine. I don't have to participate in your game and you don't have to participate in mine. We can co-exist.
=======================

Animate dead also applies templates, it doesn't generate new creatures.

The GM generates new creatures, and templates are just a tool. By the logic that a template must be added to a creature that already exists in the world (rather than being a mechanical tool to create creature statblocks for the GM), inherited templates couldn't exist because there is no creature to apply it to until there is, and when there is you couldn't apply the template because they don't have the template.

Also if you want to be technical, animate dead doesn't actually apply templates to things, it just turns them into skeletons or zombies. It's simply that the statistics for skeletons and zombies are determined by the GM applying the templates to the statblocks appropriate for the corpses in question. In the case of a manufactured corpse, the stats would be based on whatever statistics the GM wished to use as the base creature. For example, if you created a corpse with magic, there was no original creature but the GM can decide the closest appropriate statblock to use for the created corpse. For example if you cast something like sculpt corpse to change the size or apparent type of creature you will be animating there GM will be the one who decides what effects that has on the statistics of the final skeleton or zombie (turning the corpse of a small sized goat into a bipedal humanoid for example might cause the GM to use the generic statistics for a human, or the GM might use the statistics for a goat and modify them for being bipedal and a bit larger). Either way you get a skeleton or zombie with animate dead.

[Psyren]

The whole "you have to find and destroy every random skeletal undead made from Roy's fingerbones to be able to True Rez him" never sat well with me. I can understand that requirement with intelligent undead where the soul itself is trapped inside or warped, but there are plenty of mindless undead and organic constructs that can literally be made from any part of you.

[Ashiel]

The whole "you have to find and destroy every random skeletal undead made from Roy's fingerbones to be able to True Rez him" never sat well with me. I can understand that requirement with intelligent undead where the soul itself is trapped inside or warped, but there are plenty of mindless undead and organic constructs that can literally be made from any part of you.

That's one of the many absurdities I was referring to in my previous post actually. You can actually create many different undead from the remains of a body. Off the top of my head there are undead you can make out skins while also reanimating their skeletons as a separate thing and all the left over meat and organs can be used to construct other types of undead with those abominable-mish-mash critters. So which one would be "the creature" to be raised? None of them.

Pretty much all the mindless undead sorts are created from the corpses or waste of something, not the creature themselves. Naturally you couldn't use the (now undead) remains to raise someone since they are a new creature, but the soul is free to be revived in some other method. Sometimes a creature is actually transformed into an undead version of itself. Examples of these would be liches, vampires, ghosts, wights, etc, all of which are sapient and as per magic jar have or are souls.

The only absurdity I've seen with this interpretation is that there's still the edge case where you can cast create (greater) undead on a corpse whose soul is already accounted for, and without GM intervention, the corpse can still be turned into a sapient undead (and thus have or be a soul), but this is true in the other interpretations as well so it's more that the majority of the glitches are cut out with one shared remaining. For dealing with this quirk, the GM and their group should probably figure out if and/or when it is possible within their campaigns. Depending on your campaign and its cosmology and norms, it might be that the soul in the created undead is more of an echo (in which case you've created an undead pseudo-clone), or it might be that a new soul enters the vacant body, or perhaps the necromancer pulls another soul out of the afterlife, or maybe it's possessed by a fiend or whatever is appropriate for your campaign. You might even decide that if a soulless sapient undead is created it seeks out the original to kill it so its soul can enter its new undead body proper. Such things are of course beyond the scope of the rules themselves and more for specific campaigns (sort of how Ravenloft adjudicates or tweaks stuff from the core).

That said, it would be perfectly valid for the GM to also simply say a spell like create undead simply fails if there's no soul to call into the corpse since you are creating an undead that per magic jar has or is a soul (in this case I would not have the material components be consumed but that's just 'cause I dislike being antagonistic that way). Or you might let the spell work but you end up with a powerful undead body that is vacant and has little use beyond being controlled with magic (I think this might actually be the best way to handle such an edge case but your mileage may vary). Or you could possess them with magic jar which could be kinda neat in its own way.

[Segev]

The whole "you have to find and destroy every random skeletal undead made from Roy's fingerbones to be able to True Rez him" never sat well with me. I can understand that requirement with intelligent undead where the soul itself is trapped inside or warped, but there are plenty of mindless undead and organic constructs that can literally be made from any part of you.

That's a fair way to look at it. It makes building a satisfying reason creating unintelligent undead via animate dead is inherently evil harder for me to do, but it's a reasonable dislike.

Honestly, I'd settle for something you have to do during casting that is a horrible thing to do. But "sacrifice a small animal" isn't listed as part of it nor as a material component, and I'm having trouble coming up with anything "evil" that wouldn't be of a similar "add things not evinced in the spell description" level of change.

[RedMage125]

Ashiel, while your theorycrafting is interesting, some of the claims you are making about the RAW are incorrect.

If your buddy dies in a dungeon, and you cut just his hand off the corpse, you could, as per the rules, use Resurrection on that hand to bring him back to life. The spell would create the rest of the body. But if, while your party was headed back to town, some level 5 evil cleric came along and used Animate Dead on the hand-less corpse to make a zombie...the Resurrection in town will fail. The spell description of Resurrection is actually quite clear on this.

Resurrection and True Resurrection both say "As Raise Dead, except...", which means they target a corpse. You MUST target a corpse, unless the spell specifies otherwise. So even True Resurrection must have a corpse available, if it exists, and it must be in "Touch" range. True Res just creates a special exception if the corpse was destroyed. And Resurrection, of course, specifies that a part of the body will do if that part was part of the whole when the person died (so someone that loses a hand 2 rounds before death...that hand will not work for the spell).

EDIT: It's worth noting that if it did block resurrection, animate dead would be more effective than trap the soul (a 9th level spell) and much cheaper on the material cost.

That's actually true. Best way to keep someone from coming back is turn them into a zombie. Then put the zombie in a lead-lined sarcophagus (so scrying can't find it). Place spells to protect the coffin from being located magically, as well as Dimensional anchor (to keep it from being summoned), and make those spell effects permanent. Then drop this sarcophagus in the bottom of the ocean. The only way to bring someone back to life would be to manually search and find that sarcophagus, open it, kill the zombie, and then resurrect the person.

Also worth noting is that there is no reason why creating undead is evil outside of some developer decided to make it so.

Except that D&D is a construct of fantasy. And if the developers say "this is evil in the default rules of D&D", then it is. Period. It's also internally consistent (Animate Dead and Create (Greater) Undead both have the Evil tag).

It fails every logical test.

Not even remotely true.

1. Other effects that bind souls or prevent raising are not evil-aligned (any death effect, soul bind, trap the soul, magic jar).

Those don't "create corrupt mockeries of life" (to quote the BoVD).

2. Negative energy is neutral.

So are fire, acid, electricity, cold...but you can perform evil acts with them, can't you?

3. Corpses are neutral.

No argument there

4. Mindless creatures are neutral (or immediately become Neutral after creation as per Alignment rules).

And yet there are also creatures to whom Evil is a part of what they are, yes? This is a case of "Specific > General". Because creation of undead is Evil, objectively, and since evil energy is present in ALL undead, regardless of their personal alignment (see Detect Evil spell), it follows quite logically that since mindless undead have this "Evil energy", which is both observable and quantifiable, that they are Evil and not Neutral (as per the General rule for Mindless creatures).

5. Cultural and social standards do not dictate D&D alignment (even if your culture says it's fine to beat your wife it's still evil), so even if it's gross it's not evil unless it's actively harming someone (and not just their feelings).

No, but 3.5e RAW specifies that certain acts ARE evil. And most of them resonate with Western societal norms and classic fantasy tropes. As a construct of fantasy, D&D was not required to maintain this resonance, but they did. That's actually incidental, in this instance.

6. Manipulating dead objects is neutral (you can cast animate objects on some corpses and it's not evil).

Animate Objects uses positive energy, and, more importantly...has a duration.

7. Manipulating magically animate but mindless entities is not evil (unseen servant, animate objects, etc).

Unseen Servants are not "entities". It is "an invisible, mindless, shapeless force".

8. Compared to the creation of Golems (which actually involves the unwilling enslavement of a soul to power) it is positively benign, yet golem creation is not viewed as intrinsically evil.

Elementals do not have "souls" the same way mortals do. "Its soul and body form one unit" (Monster Manual). The entire elemental (a neutral spirit) is contained inside a golem.

9. Every argument or speculation as to their somehow generally degrading the environment is either wholly unsupported by actual mechanics or is equally true for other forms of unaligned magics. Even then, being an environmental hazard is not a moral issue. Comically, undead are also probably the "greenest" industrial technology.

Once again, RAW specifies that it is a "crime against the world".

There's also the fact that most uncontrolled undead pose an indiscriminate threat to living creatures around them.

[noob]

The main lesson I did learn from this thread is: get that feat that makes your body explode on death(final strike) or else you can not be true resurrected due to the existence of a body when the party flees.
And somehow there was people who said it was a worse than useless feat.

[Ashiel]

Ashiel, while your theorycrafting is interesting, some of the claims you are making about the RAW are incorrect.

I already addressed all the points you made and why I think they're wrong.

If your buddy dies in a dungeon, and you cut just his hand off the corpse, you could, as per the rules, use Resurrection on that hand to bring him back to life. The spell would create the rest of the body. But if, while your party was headed back to town, some level 5 evil cleric came along and used Animate Dead on the hand-less corpse to make a zombie...the Resurrection in town will fail. The spell description of Resurrection is actually quite clear on this.

Already quoted the relevant spells, resurrection and true resurrection included. They support my claim. But they might support your claim. It might be a difference in how the they are interpreted. I just went with the one that made sense.

Resurrection and True Resurrection both say "As Raise Dead, except...", which means they target a corpse. You MUST target a corpse, unless the spell specifies otherwise. So even True Resurrection must have a corpse available, if it exists, and it must be in "Touch" range. True Res just creates a special exception if the corpse was destroyed. And Resurrection, of course, specifies that a part of the body will do if that part was part of the whole when the person died (so someone that loses a hand 2 rounds before death...that hand will not work for the spell).

It specifies that you cannot resurrect someone who has been turned into an undead creature, not someone whose corpse was used to create an undead creature. Also for the record it says dead creature, whereas animate dead specifies that it turns corpses into undead creatures. One specifies a dead creature, the other specifies a corpse. The difference is one presumes a creature (whose soul you are interacting with) and the other presumes an object.

That's actually true. Best way to keep someone from coming back is turn them into a zombie. Then put the zombie in a lead-lined sarcophagus (so scrying can't find it). Place spells to protect the coffin from being located magically, as well as Dimensional anchor (to keep it from being summoned), and make those spell effects permanent. Then drop this sarcophagus in the bottom of the ocean. The only way to bring someone back to life would be to manually search and find that sarcophagus, open it, kill the zombie, and then resurrect the person.

IMHO, this is a good acid test that your conclusion on the matter is faulty. Your (possibly just as valid) reading of the rules makes less sense on the whole, because that would make spells which are a much higher level redundant, which from a mechanical standpoint is nonsense. This is supplementary point as to why I believe this is the wrong interpretation, because the one I presented is more mechanically consistent.

Except that D&D is a construct of fantasy. And if the developers say "this is evil in the default rules of D&D", then it is. Period. It's also internally consistent (Animate Dead and Create (Greater) Undead both have the Evil tag).

"Also worth noting is that there is no reason why creating undead is evil outside of some developer decided to make it so." - Ashiel, 2 posts ago.

Those don't "create corrupt mockeries of life" (to quote the BoVD).

Mockeries of life have nothing to do with core alignment rules and I'm not impressed by quotes from outmoded optional splatbooks.

So are fire, acid, electricity, cold...but you can perform evil acts with them, can't you?

Yes. You can perform evil acts with undead too. And with positive energy. Do you have a point?

No argument there

{Scrubbed}

And yet there are also creatures to whom Evil is a part of what they are, yes? This is a case of "Specific > General". Because creation of undead is Evil, objectively, and since evil energy is present in ALL undead, regardless of their personal alignment (see Detect Evil spell), it follows quite logically that since mindless undead have this "Evil energy", which is both observable and quantifiable, that they are Evil and not Neutral (as per the General rule for Mindless creatures).

In 3.x results in a false positive if the undead isn't evil. In Pathfinder, requires the undead to actually be evil. Different strokes man.

No, but 3.5e RAW specifies that certain acts ARE evil. And most of them resonate with Western societal norms and classic fantasy tropes. As a construct of fantasy, D&D was not required to maintain this resonance, but they did. That's actually incidental, in this instance.

Actually the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder alignment rules in the core rulebooks makes no such claims. The actual alignment rules never state that any act is specifically aligned, but that you can determine how aligned an action is based on the implications. This is not something that I am going to argue with you about, {Scrubbed}, as evidenced by your citing an optional splatbook that alters the game in radical ways from a previous edition as if it had some sort of relevancy to a general conversation about the topic.

Animate Objects uses positive energy, and, more importantly...has a duration.

You made that up. Also duration is irrelevant.

Elementals do not have "souls" the same way mortals do. "Its soul and body form one unit" (Monster Manual). The entire elemental (a neutral spirit) is contained inside a golem.

Yes, Elementals are souls. We've covered that.

Once again, RAW specifies that it is a "crime against the world".

You act as if this somehow is evidence that it's evil beyond "because they say it is".

There's also the fact that most uncontrolled undead pose an indiscriminate threat to living creatures around them.

Their posing and indescriminate threat to living creatures around them has no bearing on their morality and no more bearing on their creator's morality than any other thing that is dangerous to the living that was created (fire springs to mind, since if not properly managed fire will mindlessly kill anything and everything indiscriminately).

That said:
"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative." - 3.5 SRD

And Since It Bears Repeating
If anyone wants to take a more absurd interpretation, that's totally fine. I don't have to participate in your game and you don't have to participate in mine. We can co-exist.

[icefractal]

I mean, to be clear, the "they **** up the environment" explanation was never supposed to be "this is the official answer by RAW", it's just supposed to be mostly-compatible with it.

The official answer by RAW is that it just is evil, and nowhere is there a satisfying reason given for exactly why.

Now you have three things you can do with that:
1) Change the rules, say that in fact it isn't evil.
2) Just have it be evil and don't think too hard about why.
3) Make up your own explanation for why it's evil.

I didn't read the OP as "I need to know the WotC-issued reason exactly why it's evil" (and if that was the intent, see the second sentence of this post), I see it as "I need a satisfying reason why it's evil". For which there's not going to be a single definitive answer, but rather a bunch that you can pick from.

Would it be better to go with option #1 and say that really it isn't evil? That's a matter of preference. At one point I thought so, but at this point my feeling is that while an interesting setting, a necro-transhuman one isn't inherently better or worse than others.

[Ashiel]

I mean, to be clear, the "they **** up the environment" explanation was never supposed to be "this is the official answer by RAW", it's just supposed to be mostly-compatible with it.

The official answer by RAW is that it just is evil, and nowhere is there a satisfying reason given for exactly why.

Now you have three things you can do with that:
1) Change the rules, say that in fact it isn't evil.
2) Just have it be evil and don't think too hard about why.
3) Make up your own explanation for why it's evil.

I didn't read the OP as "I need to know the WotC-issued reason exactly why it's evil" (and if that was the intent, see the second sentence of this post), I see it as "I need a satisfying reason why it's evil". For which there's not going to be a single definitive answer, but rather a bunch that you can pick from.

Would it be better to go with option #1 and say that really it isn't evil? That's a matter of preference. At one point I thought so, but at this point my feeling is that while an interesting setting, a necro-transhuman one isn't inherently better or worse than others.

This, 100%. It is because it is. There's no other reason that isn't trivially dismantled by even a marginal amount of critical thinking.

Personally I like evil to really mean something in my games so I go with the its not inherently evil route (the same route Spheres of Power thankfully took). It's also consistent with the core alignment rules so that's just icing on the cake for me (there is nothing in the core rulebook that makes casting an aligned spell inherently an act of that alignment, merely a note that subtype tags can indicate how they interact with things, with alignment being one of those things, which is consistent since some classes like Cleric are restricted from casting certain spell tags based on their personal alignment or the alignment of their deity).

This makes good and evil far more meaningful as well. It's not about appearances or simply existing, it's about choices. If you encounter an evil vampire in my games, you know the reason he's evil is because he is actually evil. He had choices. He could have changed his alignment at any time because he had the free will to do so. But he didn't. Being a vampire made him dangerous, but he made himself (or allowed himself to be) evil by his own choices. That makes him a compelling villain worth fighting. Anything else and he's just a brush fire in another form: dangerous but uncompelling because brush fires don't choose they just destroy. Brush fires are not characters.

[Jay R]

The official answer by RAW is that it just is evil, and nowhere is there a satisfying reason given for exactly why.

I've said it earlier in this thread. It's still the answer.

WotC considered creating undead to be evil because TSR did. Wizard didn't decide this; they inherited it.

TSR considered creating undead to be evil because it fits the general definition of desecrating corpses of most societies throughout history. TSR didn't decide it either; they inherited it as well.

Zombies, animated skeletons, ghouls, wraiths, vampires, etc. have been considered evil in most legends and stories about them for centuries -- possibly millennia.

It's not a D&D invention. Having the dead walk while still dead (not resurrected, for instance) is pretty much considered evil, in all cultures (I know of) that actually considered it.

There are exceptions, but they are rare exceptions.

There are very few stories about Count Dracula the Philanthropist, about the Zombie economic boom, or about the Egyptian mummy that comes out of the tomb to feed the poor.

You may disagree, and that's fine. You may change it for your games, and that's fine. But you can't change the history: D&D rules consider creating undead to be evil for the same reason they consider dragons to be scaly, gargoyles to have wings, and hippogriffs to be part-eagle and part horse.

Because that's what's in the stories.

[Segev]

I've said it earlier in this thread. It's still the answer.

WotC considered creating undead to be evil because TSR did. Wizard didn't decide this; they inherited it.

TSR considered creating undead to be evil because it fits the general definition of desecrating corpses of most societies throughout history. TSR didn't decide it either; they inherited it as well.

Zombies, animated skeletons, ghouls, wraiths, vampires, etc. have been considered evil in most legends and stories about them for centuries -- possibly millennia.

It's not a D&D invention. Having the dead walk while still dead (not resurrected, for instance) is pretty much considered evil, in all cultures (I know of) that actually considered it.

There are exceptions, but they are rare exceptions.

There are very few stories about Count Dracula the Philanthropist, about the Zombie economic boom, or about the Egyptian mummy that comes out of the tomb to feed the poor.

You may disagree, and that's fine. You may change it for your games, and that's fine. But you can't change the history: D&D rules consider creating undead to be evil for the same reason they consider dragons to be scaly, gargoyles to have wings, and hippogriffs to be part-eagle and part horse.

Because that's what's in the stories.

The trouble is that D&D explicitly does not have skeletons and zombies behave in the fashion that those fictions describe in order to explain the evilness of it. Not without an evil master ordering them to.

[Ashiel]

WotC considered creating undead to be evil because TSR did. Wizard didn't decide this; they inherited it.

TSR considered creating undead to be evil because it fits the general definition of desecrating corpses of most societies throughout history. TSR didn't decide it either; they inherited it as well.

Gonna pause right here and note that good-aligned clerics could cast animate dead pre-3rd edition. The only clause was that regularly casting the spell was not in keeping with a good alignment. Pretty sure skeletons and zombies were Neutral as well. I know for a fact they were neutral in 3.0.

[Ashiel]

The trouble is that D&D explicitly does not have skeletons and zombies behave in the fashion that those fictions describe in order to explain the evilness of it. Not without an evil master ordering them to.

It's also worth noting that it doesn't matter how much killing you do or how dangerous you are, you cannot be aligned if you're mindless. A mindless construct created to murder all life is still just Neutral. A common housecat will gladly slaughter countless species for nothing more than its own play and amusement, but it's still Neutral because it cannot morally process its actions.

This is where the #1 problem with mindless undead being evil comes int. The core rules for alignment will simply shift their alignment to Neutral pretty much instantly and it will never return. Even if they are evil the moment you apply the template, immediately after they will become Neutral because alignment is determined by your general behavior and they cannot act in any way that is not Neutral even if they are doing nothing but slaughtering life forms from dusk til dawn till dusk all day every day.

It's a similar "problem" with things like vampires. Even if your alignment shifts instantly due to the template being applied, there's nothing stopping you from being good and thus becoming good again. It might temporarily make a Paladin fall as a result but it won't even stop him or her from getting atonement. It won't even cost them anything if they didn't become one willingly.

Only creatures with alignment subtypes are actually always an alignment, and even then it's not even their real alignment, it's just alignment for purposes of game mechanics.

[Segev]

It's also worth noting that it doesn't matter how much killing you do or how dangerous you are, you cannot be aligned if you're mindless. A mindless construct created to murder all life is still just Neutral. A common housecat will gladly slaughter countless species for nothing more than its own play and amusement, but it's still Neutral because it cannot morally process its actions.

This is where the #1 problem with mindless undead being evil comes int. The core rules for alignment will simply shift their alignment to Neutral pretty much instantly and it will never return. Even if they are evil the moment you apply the template, immediately after they will become Neutral because alignment is determined by your general behavior and they cannot act in any way that is not Neutral even if they are doing nothing but slaughtering life forms from dusk til dawn till dusk all day every day.

It's a similar "problem" with things like vampires. Even if your alignment shifts instantly due to the template being applied, there's nothing stopping you from being good and thus becoming good again. It might temporarily make a Paladin fall as a result but it won't even stop him or her from getting atonement. It won't even cost them anything if they didn't become one willingly.

Only creatures with alignment subtypes are actually always an alignment, and even then it's not even their real alignment, it's just alignment for purposes of game mechanics.

To be fair, the statement that casting animate dead or animating undead is inherently evil doesn't require the undead themselves be aligned at all, merely that evil be an unavoidable consequence of performing the act.

If you had to kill a person to cast animate dead, it being [evil] to cast would make sense even if undead were entirely neutral to all accounts.

[ThanatosZero]

I have this theory for a in-universe reason. The creation of undead is evil, not because of the act itself, but it is hardwired with someone evil existing.

For example: A evil deity holding the portfolio of the undead.
Creating a undead immediatly empowers the deity in question and expands their influence over the world. And the more undead exist, their divinity grows stronger.

If a evil aligned deity would hold the portfolios of animated objects and golems, the creation of them would become a evil act for the same reason.

Now, if a good aligned deity would hold the portfolios instead, it would be a good act instead.

[Ashiel]

To be fair, the statement that casting animate dead or animating undead is inherently evil doesn't require the undead themselves be aligned at all, merely that evil be an unavoidable consequence of performing the act.

If you had to kill a person to cast animate dead, it being [evil] to cast would make sense even if undead were entirely neutral to all accounts.

Oh, I agree 100%. It's essentially the cannibalism fallacy.

Per core D&D alignment rules (crappy splatbooks aside), cannibalism itself is not evil, because you are not hurting, oppressing, or killing a sapient creature. The catch is, murdering people is. So if you're murdering people to eat them, you're going to get evil doing the murdering. If you just ate a corpse by opportunity it's not evil (just gross).

That said, you can (and likely should) devote your animations to non-humanoid and non-sapient creatures. Generally speaking animals make for better adventuring undead than humanoid ones unless you need minions with opposable thumbs. If your intention is to use the majority of your undead for combat and/or carrying stuff, animals and magical beasts are almost always better.

Further still, these days there are some remarkably humane methods of using necromancy. With spells like sculpt corpse, you can actually butcher a small sized goat, turn its body into a medium humanoid, and animate it as a skeleton, so if you want to have an undead lacky who can open doors for you, you don't even need a sapient humanoid to do it.

There's some ghost necromancers in my campaigns that do that. They generally use corpse-shaping magics to create physical vessels for themselves that they animate and then possess using malevolence to interact with the physical world.

[Segev]

Oh, I agree 100%. It's essentially the cannibalism fallacy.

Per core D&D alignment rules (crappy splatbooks aside), cannibalism itself is not evil, because you are not hurting, oppressing, or killing a sapient creature. The catch is, murdering people is. So if you're murdering people to eat them, you're going to get evil doing the murdering. If you just ate a corpse by opportunity it's not evil (just gross).

That said, you can (and likely should) devote your animations to non-humanoid and non-sapient creatures. Generally speaking animals make for better adventuring undead than humanoid ones unless you need minions with opposable thumbs. If your intention is to use the majority of your undead for combat and/or carrying stuff, animals and magical beasts are almost always better.

Further still, these days there are some remarkably humane methods of using necromancy. With spells like sculpt corpse, you can actually butcher a small sized goat, turn its body into a medium humanoid, and animate it as a skeleton, so if you want to have an undead lacky who can open doors for you, you don't even need a sapient humanoid to do it.

There's some ghost necromancers in my campaigns that do that. They generally use corpse-shaping magics to create physical vessels for themselves that they animate and then possess using malevolence to interact with the physical world.

My problem is different. I like it being [evil]. But I want it to be both worth being a morally-reprehensible act, and to be evil because you can't deny that you did something bad when you chose to do it. And I struggle to find a way to make it fill those criteria in a satisfying way without fundamentally changing any mechanics.

[Ashiel]

My problem is different. I like it being [evil]. But I want it to be both worth being a morally-reprehensible act, and to be evil because you can't deny that you did something bad when you chose to do it. And I struggle to find a way to make it fill those criteria in a satisfying way without fundamentally changing any mechanics.

There's not really an rational way of doing that without making some campaign specific alterations similar to how Ravenloft makes some changes to the core or adopting some optional splatbook material. That said, I can tell you how I handle it in my games and maybe you can take anything that you find helpful.

Most necromancers in my games are evil, and most (non-mindless) undead are also evil, and have all the usual tropes. It just that they're evil because they are evil, not simply because of what they are (generally its a power corrupts sort of thing). Necromancy is an attractive art for those with ill intentions because it just has so much synergy (you murder people and then you get fearless and unthinking minions to murder more people on your way to your goals). Because necromancy is icky and primarily practiced by those of ill intent, it is viewed in an extremely poor light in society (even if there's nothing morally wrong alignment-wise about how you're using the magic, that doesn't mean it's socially acceptable), and often gets painted by its detractors as innately wicked and/or a gateway drug to more awful things (necromancy tends to go hand in hand with mad science and dealing with souls, dealing with souls might turn to dealing in souls, and casually dealing with the undead might lead to a disrespect for life and the living, etc). Social intolerance usually leads to legal intolerance as well, which also means practicing necromancy may be illegal in many civilized areas, which pushes the notion that it is the art of vile criminal scum even harder.

It's just that individuals can choose to go against the current. These current-contenders are usually player characters or the odd NPC. Maybe someone brutally murdered who arose as a wight seeking vengeance and later becomes a superhero figure because they now have the supernatural strength to fight those who prey on the innocent because they're an undead monster and as such are dangerous, and choose to use their newfound power for the betterment of the world. A bit like a fiend-blooded sorcerer using their hellborn powers to rescue fair maidens from dragons and what-not.

Generally means I get to have my cake and eat it too. I get all my classic tropes, my villains are villains, and there's a foot in the door for someone who wants to be a heroic necromancer. I generally find role-playing issues and cultural stigmas more interesting than having characters base everything off of the invisible mechanics of the game. Even if you are right or wrong mechanically, tell it to the angry mob, or tell a priest their religion is wrong, or tell the circle of mages at the academy that their highly regarded thesis about necromancy being a gateway drug to the corruption of the soul through temptations is ill conceived. Even if you could prove it, its doubtful any of them could care enough to humor you or get past years of cultural conditioning unless they were already open to the idea.

Also means that you have more flexibility with such things culturally. At the north pole in my campaign, there's a small civilization that is basically all the "evil wizard" tropes turned upside down. They're a bunch of isolated monks who are all about spiritual advancement and understanding the world and connecting with the creator spirit of the universe. They become undead to continue their meditations and pass on their wisdom to the newer generations and to protect the living. They routinely "take part in creation" by altering the physical natures of plants, animals, and people to make them more suited to certain things (to the point that their society actually views fleshwarping a bit like cosmetic surgery). Most of their machines and city lights are powered by toxic radioactive crystals that must be handled by the undead because they make living people sick. They're slowly turning the frozen wasteland into a place that's nice to live and believe that their doing so is showing playful love and appreciation to God and their intended purpose in the world. Their culture and their mystics would probably give most people in the world an aneurysm trying to make sense of them.

I guess the tl;dr is I would recommend in-world reasons rather than mechanical reasons.

[Segev]

I guess the tl;dr is I would recommend in-world reasons rather than mechanical reasons.

Separating those is not always possible, but yeah, I'm more interested in the moral reason. It can be something with zero mechanical impact. Ideally it is, in fact.

[Ashiel]

Separating those is not always possible, but yeah, I'm more interested in the moral reason. It can be something with zero mechanical impact. Ideally it is, in fact.

Yeah for that, I'd definitely go with the cultural approach. Morality in D&D is pretty objective, but it's also very tight on what counts. Good = "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"; Evil = "hurting, oppressing, and killing others". Anything else is just noise. And that's a good thing honestly, because these are all you need to define good vs evil in a tangible way while still leaving lots of room for nuance in the campaign.

Humans have a tendency to try to define anything they don't like as evil. Pretty sure you can find at least one human that will openly profess that chocolate is evil incarnate and would be more than willing to explain why. Lots of in-universe reasons may exist as to why animating the undead (any undead) is evil. They may or may not be factually true but they may exist as part of the common belief structures of the populace, and even if proven false people frequently cling to a repeated lie fervently. It's worth noting that commonly believed false information likely extends far beyond morality (including myths about monster weaknesses, misremembered folktales, etc). The majority of people in the world aren't going to know how the cosmos in D&D works, even if there are a few high level individuals who can literally teleport to heaven and talk to the gods, to most mortals that stuff's just hearsay.

Examples of Moral (but not Aligned) Reasons
- "It traps the soul!" (False but an easy mistake to make for most people)
- "It's a defilement of nature!" (Potentially true, depends on your metaphysical views)
- "Insert god or authority figure said undead and those that make them are bad!" (Probably true, can't really argue with it)
- "Necromancy is a slippery slope magic that leads to evil!" (Probably true or at least enough that there's a correlation)
- "It's graverobbing!" (Likely true in many cases)
- "It's utterly repulsive!" (Subjective but commonly true for most people. Undead are creepy.)
- "It's desecrating a body!" (Probably true. Early doctors and surgeons had this issue too.)
- "It's reckless, they seek to destroy all life!" (Might be true depending on the undead. Most people wouldn't know a zombie from a mummy half the time.)
- "It's slavery!" (Might be, especially if you're going the create/command route with sapient undead.)
- "It's thieving against the gods!" (Could be true. Some cultures might think that liches, mummies, vampires, etc. are keeping souls from their rightful owner.)
- "It's magic that was given to mortals by insert evil power here." (Possibly true. Might be a case of guilty by association because it originated from a big evil like an Orcus-type.)
- "It was banned and with good reason and you're a dirty criminal for even studying it!" (Probably true. People can't agree on drug ethics, let alone army of the dead raising ethics.)
- "It was warned against in common folklore, fable, or metaphors." (You've heard of the boy who cried wolf, but how about the girl that called ghoul?)
- "It's negative energy and negative energy kills people." (True, but also not exactly fairly compared to other things, but such is human)
- "Negative energy probably seeps off of them and kills the environment. I bet the reason we had a bad crop this year - besides the drought, the flood, the early frost, and the locusts was because you were animating rats in your basement. In fact, you probably called all those things onto us because even the gods hate your black magics!" (...There's just not winning some arguments man.)

This list is by no means exhaustive but would probably give you a starting point for lots of reasons why people would be morally opposed the necromancy or anything regarding the undead. In a well developed world, there are probably countless things that are considered morally wrong (like disrespecting your parents, not standing up when a woman enters the room, not adopting a late family member's children, not attending certain holy festivals or rites, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) which aren't aligned in D&D morality but are very, very important to the people of a campaign world.

[Misereor]

I contend, as many do, that there's nothing inherently Evil about raising the undead.

The restless dead. The unquiet dead. The walking dead.
All these terms refer to creatures denied their eternal rest. That can't be a good thing, even if it is only flavor text rather than mechanics.


<Let-me-tell-you-about-my-campaign alert!>
The fantasy cosmology I use divides undead into three categories. The restless, the bound, and the hungry dead.

- The restless dead are those undead who arise naturally, due to having unfulfilled business on the mortal plane after dying. This is your stereotypical undead knight who rises on every full moon to defend his fallen castle. The betrayed wife seeking vengeance on the faithless husband who murdered her, and so on. Undead who for one reason or another cannot rest, but while they can be dangerous, they are still a naturally occurring phenomena. Help them resolve whatever it is that awakened them and they will go back to their rest, while you get XP for solving the puzzle.

- The bound dead refer to those animated by necromancy. A fraction of their soul is called from beyond to animate their remains. The stronger the animating magic, the bigger the soul fragment. Most are neutral, but stronger and more self-aware creatures will tend to be angrier and more destructive (due to their higher awareness of being controlled and denied their rest), resulting in evil alignments. Whatever the variant, these are souls denied their rest by an animator, which is not a good deed. Releasing them is, so good aligned parties should hit them with swords, spells, and heavy objects when encountered.

- The hungry dead are those undead animated by demonic forces. These are remains animated not by their original soul, but by fragments of Abyssal essence, and so they are much more malevolent and sadistic than the other versions. These are useful for undead apocalypse type scenarios, or where you want to establish settings where Orcus, Prince of Demonic Undeath or similar beings are challenging the local deity of death for their portfolio.

Best of all, besides the flavor text, the only thing you need to change as a GM is the alignment decription, so you don't have to do any extra work.

[RedMage125]

And Since It Bears Repeating
If anyone wants to take a more absurd interpretation, that's totally fine. I don't have to participate in your game and you don't have to participate in mine. We can co-exist.

I'm not trying to influence how you play your game, and am not under the impression that you are trying to influence mine.

But you're making some claims here, things you claim are "fact" that are not true.

And, as you can see from what I underlined, it is YOU making a value judgement on other people's interpretations, not me.

I already addressed all the points you made and why I think they're wrong.


Already quoted the relevant spells, resurrection and true resurrection included. They support my claim. But they might support your claim. It might be a difference in how the they are interpreted. I just went with the one that made sense.

Your claim only "makes sense" if there is a distinction between "someone who has been turned into an undead creature" and "someone whose corpse was used to make an undead creature", which doesn't logically follow. Nor is it supported by any of the rules.

It specifies that you cannot resurrect someone who has been turned into an undead creature, not someone whose corpse was used to create an undead creature. Also for the record it says dead creature, whereas animate dead specifies that it turns corpses into undead creatures. One specifies a dead creature, the other specifies a corpse. The difference is one presumes a creature (whose soul you are interacting with) and the other presumes an object.

It also specifies that if someone had been turned into an undead creature, said undead creature must be destroyed. What does your interpretation say that clause means?

Because if you were correct, then that is an entirely superfluous clause.

If I'm right, then that text still has meaning.

Just...objectively here...which is more likely? That the writers included entirely meaningless and useless words, or that the words in that spell description mean something?

IMHO, this is a good acid test that your conclusion on the matter is faulty. Your (possibly just as valid) reading of the rules makes less sense on the whole, because that would make spells which are a much higher level redundant, which from a mechanical standpoint is nonsense. This is supplementary point as to why I believe this is the wrong interpretation, because the one I presented is more mechanically consistent.

This is why I refer to that example as circumstantial evidence that there is some connection between a zombie and the soul of the person whose corpse was used.

Less canon (but somehow still "official"*) is that the Dragon Magazine "Core Beliefs" article on Wee Jas which states that Animate Dead does bind the soul of the individual whose corpse was used by default, but can be modified to use a different one.

*There was a point around the time of the 3.5 transition that Dragon/Dungeon content was declared "100% Official". You can tell which ones this is, because not only did it usually say this on the cover, but the font was regular block letters instead of the awesome swirly font. Most people, however, do not consider the content "canon". So, I usually file that along with "circumstantial evidence".

"Also worth noting is that there is no reason why creating undead is evil outside of some developer decided to make it so." - Ashiel, 2 posts ago.

Yes, those are the exact words I quoted and was responding to.

MY POINT is that, while Appeal To Authority is a logical fallacy in other arenas, since D&D is a game and a construct of fantasy, it is not a fallacy in this instance. The devs actually have such authority. If they tautologically made a claim in the rulebooks that "picking your nose is an evil act", such would be true by the default RAW of D&D.

Ergo, it is the correct answer, and a valid one.

Mockeries of life have nothing to do with core alignment rules and I'm not impressed by quotes from outmoded optional splatbooks.

That's the reasoning given in the BoVD, which, like it or not, is a Rules Supplement, and everything in it constitutes Rules.

Contrast to the "pollution" explanation in the Libris Mortis, which is parsed as "theories" and "conjectures".

Yes. You can perform evil acts with undead too. And with positive energy. Do you have a point?

Yes, I do.

And that is, that the fact that "Negative Energy is a Neutral Energy" does not undermine "creation of undead is evil". That's the point.

Claiming "but Negative Energy isn't evil by itself" is somehow "evidence that the RAW about undead are inconsistent" is a false claim. Because Negative Energy isn't Evil. But using it to animate undead is. It is an Evil act using a Neutral Energy.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

In 3.x results in a false positive if the undead isn't evil.

A good-aligned undead will ALSO radiate good, though, won't it? The point of pointing this out is that it IS internally consistent and coherent with the other rules.
1) Evil is a distinct, objective energy that can be observed and quantified.
2) This Evil energy is the same in a murderer, a demon, or an unholy sword (as per the Detect Evil spell)
3) Creating undead is always an evil act.
4) All undead have some of this Evil energy inside them, irrespective of their ACTUAL alignment. Which, for sentient undead, works just like mortal alignment, but for mindless undead (which would otherwise be Neutral as per the General Rules for mindless creatures), it means they are Evil.

Point #2 here is key. One must remember that truly "Neutral" is the absence of any of the 4 cosmic force energies (good, law, chaos, evil). Most mindless creatures ARE absent of those energies. But undead are not. Even mindless ones.

In Pathfinder, requires the undead to actually be evil. Different strokes man.

Right, Pathfinder specifies aligned undead to show that they radiate whichever alignment at a different HD-to-strength ratio that either mortal creatures or outsiders.

But I was talking about 3.5e mechanics, so...non sequitur.

Actually the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder alignment rules in the core rulebooks makes no such claims. The actual alignment rules never state that any act is specifically aligned, but that you can determine how aligned an action is based on the implications. This is not something that I am going to argue with you about,{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}, as evidenced by your citing an optional splatbook that alters the game in radical ways from a previous edition as if it had some sort of relevancy to a general conversation about the topic.

{Scrubbed} I'm citing sources relevant to the editions specified for this subforum to support my points, and I am simply clarifying what is (and what is not) a FACT, based on the RAW.

{Scrubbed}, the BoVD is, in fact, a rulebook.

The Core Rulebooks are not the sole determiners of RAW. What the Draconomicon says about Dragon physiology is true, even of MM dragons. What Lords of Madness says about beholders, mind flayers, and so on is still true about the ones in the MM. BoVD gives extra detail about the nature of evil, and supports (but does not contradict) what's in the Core Rules.

You made that up. Also duration is irrelevant.

Was about to get offended at you calling me a liar, so I double checked my sources. And it seems that I was incorrect. I made an inference due to how the Ravid's Animate Objects power works, and forgot that it didn't specify in the spell. So I was incorrect, and can admit it.

Duration IS relevant. You don't see a distinction between a spell that COULD target a corpse (or a candelabra, or an armoire), and move it around like a puppet for 1 round per caster level, and one that ONLY targets a corpse, and creates a monster that will last until it is destroyed? Given that the reason given in the RAW is a "crime against the world" by creating "a corrupt mockery of life"...duration is very significant.

Yes, Elementals are souls. We've covered that.

The point is that comparing golem creation to undead creation is a false corollary. The entire elemental is bound into a golem.

You act as if this somehow is evidence that it's evil beyond "because they say it is".

Again, that's the fact of RAW. Doing what you wish in your home game is fine. I think our hobby thrives on customization. But when you're making claims about what the RAW are (or are not), you need some basis of "fact" for founding assumption. Therefore, in a forum discussion, we cannot appeal to specific house rules, and only RAW constitutes this fact. And even if RAW make self-referential, tautological claims, those are valid. At least in terms of what is and is not "true".

So yes. As far as an official answer "because they say it is" is a valid response. BoVD, which was just more detail on the "why". I can be satisfied with that, because I set aside my own pre-suppositions about "Good/Evil/etc" when I run a game, and use what the RAW says. RAW says "animating undead is an evil act because it's a crime against nature". I say "okay". If I decide I want something different, I understand I am house ruling. I have no issue with house rules. But I can accept and acknowledge the validity and authority of the RAW. And I can see how the rest of the rules ARE consistent with each other.

Their posing and indescriminate threat to living creatures around them has no bearing on their morality and no more bearing on their creator's morality than any other thing that is dangerous to the living that was created (fire springs to mind, since if not properly managed fire will mindlessly kill anything and everything indiscriminately).

Except that intentionally starting an uncontrolled fire for the purpose of causing wanton death and destruction would be an Evil act. So it does "have bearing on the creator's morality".

Examples of Moral (but not Aligned) Reasons
- "It traps the soul!" (False but an easy mistake to make for most people)

Like I have said multiple times. There is circumstantial evidence to support this, but not a straight RAW statement of such.

- "It's a defilement of nature!" (Potentially true, depends on your metaphysical views)
- "Insert god or authority figure said undead and those that make them are bad!" (Probably true, can't really argue with it)
- "Necromancy is a slippery slope magic that leads to evil!" (Probably true or at least enough that there's a correlation)

These all tie into the RAW answer.

- "It's graverobbing!" (Likely true in many cases)
- "It's utterly repulsive!" (Subjective but commonly true for most people. Undead are creepy.)
- "It's desecrating a body!" (Probably true. Early doctors and surgeons had this issue too.)

...
I actually don't think any of those stack up as "evil" by RAW. I mean "repulsive" sort of connects to the "crime against the world", but...just being icky isn't "evil".

- "It's reckless, they seek to destroy all life!" (Might be true depending on the undead. Most people wouldn't know a zombie from a mummy half the time.)

I mean, a lot of undead pose an indiscriminate threat to those around them. Allips and Bodaks come to mind. Wights and ghouls/ghasts certainly do.

- "It's slavery!" (Might be, especially if you're going the create/command route with sapient undead.)
- "It's thieving against the gods!" (Could be true. Some cultures might think that liches, mummies, vampires, etc. are keeping souls from their rightful owner.)

Meh...again with the circumstantial evidence. I refer again to the Dragon Magazine "Core Beliefs: Wee Jas" article. Which supports these points, but is of questionable authority.

- "It's magic that was given to mortals by insert evil power here." (Possibly true. Might be a case of guilty by association because it originated from a big evil like an Orcus-type.)

I actually think this only stands up in 4e.

- "It was banned and with good reason and you're a dirty criminal for even studying it!" (Probably true. People can't agree on drug ethics, let alone army of the dead raising ethics.)

I would even argue this is subjective. Mortal civil laws have little to do with Alignment (even on the law/chaos axis).

- "It was warned against in common folklore, fable, or metaphors." (You've heard of the boy who cried wolf, but how about the girl that called ghoul?)

I would say this is only relevant as one is examining and hypothesizing about Designer Intent, which is a meta-game, and even meta-rules discussion point. Only because D&D mores aligne fairly well with Western societal norms and fantasy tropes.

Also: I like "the girl that called ghoul", lol.

- "It's negative energy and negative energy kills people." (True, but also not exactly fairly compared to other things, but such is human)

I mean, death is a part of nature, and Negative Energy is the energy of death and decay. I think it's important to remember that the 6 Inner Planes (Air, Fire, Water, Earth, Pos. Energy, Neg. Energy) are the energies that make up our world, in some fashion or another.

- "Negative energy probably seeps off of them and kills the environment. I bet the reason we had a bad crop this year - besides the drought, the flood, the early frost, and the locusts was because you were animating rats in your basement. In fact, you probably called all those things onto us because even the gods hate your black magics!" (...There's just not winning some arguments man.)

That one is in the Libris Mortis, right? As one of the "theories or conjectures"? I argue FOR the RAW and evil-ness of creating undead, and wouldn't use that to support my points.

This list is by no means exhaustive but would probably give you a starting point for lots of reasons why people would be morally opposed the necromancy or anything regarding the undead. In a well developed world, there are probably countless things that are considered morally wrong (like disrespecting your parents, not standing up when a woman enters the room, not adopting a late family member's children, not attending certain holy festivals or rites, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) which aren't aligned in D&D morality but are very, very important to the people of a campaign world.

That's because Alignment isn't really "morality". We use terms like "morality" and "ethics" as shorthand when discussing alignment, but it's not technically correct. So a given society could consider something morally repugnant (even using the word "evil"), but by D&D alignment mores it might be Neutral.

Since Good/Evil/etc are dispassionate, objective, and observable forces...and since these forces are the same ones found in mortals...it is more correct to say that alignment is about which force or forces one is or is not aligned with, moreso than it is "morality". It's also why "shades of gray" morality can exist in individual perceptions in a world using RAW alignment. Someone with an evil alignment might believe they are not evil, and may only act for the "greater good", but the weight of their deeds (and their unrepentence for them) would determine their alignment.

[Gnaeus]

That's because Alignment isn't really "morality". We use terms like "morality" and "ethics" as shorthand when discussing alignment, but it's not technically correct. So a given society could consider something morally repugnant (even using the word "evil"), but by D&D alignment mores it might be Neutral.

Since Good/Evil/etc are dispassionate, objective, and observable forces...and since these forces are the same ones found in mortals...it is more correct to say that alignment is about which force or forces one is or is not aligned with, moreso than it is "morality". It's also why "shades of gray" morality can exist in individual perceptions in a world using RAW alignment. Someone with an evil alignment might believe they are not evil, and may only act for the "greater good", but the weight of their deeds (and their unrepentence for them) would determine their alignment.

I agree with pretty much all RedMage’s points. With this side/supporting argument.

How many genocides does a character have to attempt to not be LG? Apparently at least one more than Garl Glittergold. Without wandering too far into real world religion, crack your Deities and Demigods and check how many serial rapists get Good tags. Whether good/evil is societally based, it certainly is in D&D from the early days. Garl is good to code that gnomes are friends not food. Undead are evil to code that when you explore the ancient tomb you can kill what you find. Because the developer said so is the only reason that remotely makes sense on the alignment wheel for most of the game. Why would we expect undead being evil to be logical when pretty much nothing else gets justified. It is impossible to develop a logical argument that has a fraction of the weight of “because Gary Gygax”.