Why is creating undead Evil?

[Psyren]

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.

I think there's a distinct difference between "zero mechanical impact" and "mechanical impact is difficult to discern/measure." All those spontaneous undead on the encounter tables, especially the ones that can't be created by any known spells, came from somewhere, and LM's explanation is as good as any - better than most in fact, from my POV.

Examples of Moral (but not Aligned) Reasons

- "It traps the soul!" (False but an easy mistake to make for most people) (Psy: Only some intelligent undead do this.)
- "It's a defilement of nature!" (Potentially true, depends on your metaphysical views) (Psy: sort of; see the environmental one)
- "Insert god or authority figure said undead and those that make them are bad!" (Probably true, can't really argue with it) (Psy: I prefer not to stop at "my god said so" - instead going deeper to what the gods may know about our reality and the side effects of doing this that we mortals may not.)
- "Necromancy is a slippery slope magic that leads to evil!" (Probably true or at least enough that there's a correlation) (Psy: logical fallacy, specifically named)
- "It's graverobbing!" (Likely true in many cases) (Psy: this is a legal rather than moral issue)
- "It's utterly repulsive!" (Subjective but commonly true for most people. Undead are creepy.) (Psy: squick is subjective and not a moral issue)
- "It's desecrating a body!" (Probably true. Early doctors and surgeons had this issue too.) (Psy: this only matters morally from the "prevents resurrection" angle, which I detest except in the case of soul-trapping/warping undead.)
- "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.) (Psy: this one is true. It's not impossible to compensate for, but the fact that it must be compensated for is reason enough for the label.)
- "It's slavery!" (Might be, especially if you're going the create/command route with sapient undead.) (Psy: Only matters for the ones that trap souls.)
- "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.) (Psy: This is the major reason why otherwise neutral death deities e.g. Kelemvor/Pharasma/Raven Queen/Wee Jas hate them, but morally would require the other explanations to support it.)
- "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.) (Psy: Once again, I'm more interested in the underlying reason why evil deities would want this knowledge in mortal hands, rather than stopping at bad source = bad act.)
- "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.) (Psy: Legal/ethical again rather than moral.)
- "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?) (Psy: logical fallacy. Lots of things were warned against in folklore.)
- "It's negative energy and negative energy kills people." (True, but also not exactly fairly compared to other things, but such is human) (Psy: Partially true - there needs to be something special about the negative energy involved in undead creation for this to matter morally, an explanation which LM provides.)
- "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.) (Psy: obviously this is my most preferred explanation, though it need not be the only one.)

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.

Color coded for the ones I partially agree, fully agree and disagree with, along with rationale.

[Zanos]

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.

This seems like a pretty incredible splitting of hairs. 'Dead' is a condition that applies to creatures, a corpse is both a dead creature and a corpse. What circumstance do you think the clause applies to, if not animate dead? The clauses regarding souls and being turned into an undead creature are separate. Moreover, all templates specify that they are added to creatures. The idea that a skeleton immediately ceases to be the previous creature because it's actually a corpse is entirely baseless in the rules.

[Ashiel]

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 am definitely making a value judgment on interpretations. I think the interpretation that you are claiming is understandable (I can understand how you arrive at it) but flawed. You are free to do as you wish however because I don't have to play in your games. It would be nice if you would actually take what I have said in previous posts into account though if you're insistent upon having an argument.

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's perfectly logical. I explained why before and cited support from the rules. It likewise does not create absurdities like animate dead (3rd level) allowing you to effectively do more than soul bind (9th level).

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?

I'm not sure what you think you're responding to, but I already gave examples of characters that were turned into undead and would need destroying in contrast to undead simply created from objects, and gave rule citations to back them up. Nothing is was unaccounted for or meaningless. Non-outsiders are not their bodies after they die, their souls pass into the outer planes and are entirely different creatures.

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".

Why bring this up if your argument is I'm so wrong about an interpretation of RAW? It seems like you're grasping at things to pad your posts, and honestly our disagreement has probably gone on without anything of value being gained from it for long enough. Are either of us actually getting anything out of this exchange?

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.

There seems to be some confusion. I already said that it's evil because the devs said so. There's no other reason because you can test it repeatedly with other instances within the rules that are not auto-tagged as evil.

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".

The problem I have with that is that they are optional splatbooks, and both the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds are very explicit in noting they are not intended for all groups. I'm talking about the core rules which absent rule-0 are what constitute the foundation of the game and do not require your group to be using an addon that amends or alters the standard rules. The standard rules are also the basis for additional content to be produced.

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.

It completely undermines the argument that it's evil as a result of the negative energy, which is a common argument. It was a multi-faceted dissection.

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.

You're making additions that do not exist based on what you think is reasonable based on your interpretation. Whatever causes them to ping (sometimes erroneously) on detect evil has no influence on their actual alignment, nor do they have any alignment subtypes so they are not treated as being evil for mechanical purposes. If you cast holy smite on a non-evil vampire, it will not affect them in any way more meaningful than it would affect them. That alone proves that they are not the same as a murderer, demon, or unholy sword.

Also, yes they will radiate good, and very strongly at that. All other detect alignment spells in 3.x function as detect evil except where changed, which means they all detect undead auras, and undead produce stronger auras. This was made clearer in Pathfinder where they specified aligned undead.

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.

Uh, cool story?

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.

As noted before, all of them function as detect evil except where noted, and the only changes from detect evil are that they detect good creatures instead of evil. Their ability to detect undead was not changed, so it's not a non-sequitur.

Actually, this is a 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum, so you trying to "call me out" for "citing a splatbook from a previous edition" is actually out of line.

An optional splatbook that's rules were explicitly stated as not being for every group or game and were not carried over? Absolutely, and would do so again.

I absolutely am discussing in good faith. 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.

And even if you don't like it (and your distaste seems to stem from the fact that it neatly punctures your arguments), the BoVD is, in fact, a rulebook.

A rulebook that itself calls itself out as not being suitable for all games and groups. A rulebook itself that makes adjustments for running a specific theme of game and actually conflicts with the standard alignment rules. It's not even part of the SRD and so nothing in it is even expected to be referable to by OGL products. It's like saying that Taint is just a thing that exists in game by default because it's present by default in Heroes of Horror. We will just have to agree to disagree.

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.

When something conflicts, I'm going to default to the RAW assumed to be in use by the widest audience. Further arguments on the subject are dead in the water unless we are explicitly talking about something in the context of those products. There will simply be nothing of value to be gained arguing about it because we are operating on fundamentally different starting points.

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.

No worries. I wasn't even mad bro.

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.

Making things up again. Why keep trying to start an argument based on RAW only to try to make a philosophical case as to the weight of instantaneous vs duration and how that makes one more or less moral than the other? It seems counter-productive and like a waste of our collective time and energy. We could be collectively helping Segev come up with more ideas for their campaign.

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

Yeah, one stuffs neutral energy into something and is evil, the other enslaves a sapient life and is neutral. The golem is way worse morally. It's evil 'cause the devs say it's evil. We agree and have agreed for many posts now.

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.

Why are you arguing things I agreed with you on?

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".

Yes it would. I'm glad we agree that someone using undead to cause wanton death and destruction would be evil. I was beginning to think this conversation was hopeless.

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


These all tie into the RAW answer.

...
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".

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.

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.

I actually think this only stands up in 4e.

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

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.

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.

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.


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 think perhaps there has been a gross miscommunication of the purpose and point of everything below the bolded text in my previous post, and for that I sincerely apologize to you and anyone unfortunate enough to have to scroll through our conversation.

========
Also, since you liked the girl that called ghoul, here's something that will hopefully provide a bit of entertainment for you and anyone who has made it this far into this tangent.

"The history of the folktale 'The Girl Who Called Ghoul' is a curious one indeed. It's uncertain as to exactly where the story originated from. Our earliest records of it in written form date back to the second age but there is anthropological evidence that it existed orally for much longer, with the foremost evidence being that story is shared by several cultures that have not interacted with one-another since their divisions pre-written history.

The story itself is something of warning against the undead, and details a young girl who met an undead creature feeding on her sheep grazing about their lands. The accounts vary slightly depending on the telling, and some speculate that the name of the story is a bit of a misnomer as scholars of the undead generally agree that it would be unlikely for a literal ghoul to be feeding on freshly killed livestock, and so speculate that it may have actually been a fledgling vampire or maybe even some form of incorporeal creature. What is universally true of the stories is that titular girl in the story spoke with the creature and invited it home with her. Such an act might seem bizarre by modern standards but in some ancient times this would have been the sort of courtesy of hospitality expected towards strangers in need.

The most common result of this invitation is misfortune befalling the girl and her family, or in some cases their entire village. The specifics of the misfortune range from the comically mild notion that the guest ate more than its fair share of the livestock, to eating the girl and her family, to turning the girl and her eating her family, to turning the family and them eating their neighbors, and further down a rather morbid line of regional variations, each more ghastly than the last. It is the opinion of this author that the variations might have been influenced by regional troubles with specific undead or propagated by bards intending to make the tale more thrilling with each retelling.

The most frightful retelling I've personally encountered resulted in a warning against a small farmstead a bit out of sync with the time, with animals that do not die, where ghosts wear corpses and prey upon travelers looking for shelter in the evening hours. Though perhaps the most curious variations actually cast the titular ghoul in a more productive role and could be said to have had a 'happy endings'. These variations seem to have began gaining popularity around the time the wandering dhampir Falsan was driving out unwanted beasts like goblins and werewolves out of the south pass, and they range from trite forbidden love stories too saucy to discuss here to suggestions that befriending such spooks may earn your family a guardian benefactor for generations. It is my personal opinion that while entertaining these versions may cause more harm than not in the long run as they downplay the innate villainy that everyone knows is part and parcel to the walking damned." -- Worth a Thousand Words: A Guide to Folktales, Fascinations, and Falsehoods by Sir Azalim Scribe of Fireden

[ThanatosZero]

Alternatively let us take the following question into consideration.
Why is creating deathless Good?

The Eberron Campaign Setting book at page 275 explains, that the deathless are strongly tied to the plane of Irian, the Eternal Day, the birthplace of all souls. On the other hand, the undead draw their power from the plane of Mabar, the Endless Night, which is home to demons.
Just to clarify, both of these planes are minor-dominant with their energies, therefore they are not the positive and negative energy planes, where the energies are major-dominant.

If I have to guess, the original "animate dead", "create undead" and "create greater undead" spells have all a destination within their make-up, where they establish a link, in order to make the undead operational in the first place.

In Eberron's case the destination for these spells would have to be Mabar.
For all the other settings, where these spells have the Evil descriptor, those spells must be linked to similiar planes, the lower planes for example.

Therefore, if one wishes to animate dead/create undead without any ties to evil, they would need to create alternative/formulate spells with a different destination for to power the undead in the first place.

The best choice, would be to aim for a negative energy aligned plane (or demiplane), which is either neutral or good aligned.

[Ashiel]

This seems like a pretty incredible splitting of hairs. 'Dead' is a condition that applies to creatures, a corpse is both a dead creature and a corpse. What circumstance do you think the clause applies to, if not animate dead? The clauses regarding souls and being turned into an undead creature are separate. Moreover, all templates specify that they are added to creatures. The idea that a skeleton immediately ceases to be the previous creature because it's actually a corpse is entirely baseless in the rules.

Creatures don't actually exist in the game until they do though. Otherwise you couldn't have an inherited template because there would be no creature to add the template to prior to its already existing. Templates can be added to creatures (mechanical). You cannot apply the half-dragon template to a bag of holding and create a new monster. You can apply it to a dog and create a new monster.

Though this does make me wonder, at what point does a creature stop being a creature? Real question. Because outsiders aside, a dead body is not a creature. According to the information we have concerning souls you are not the creature in question after your death and become a completely different creature, and may even become another type of creature entirely in the afterlife. If a petitioner is killed (again) can it not be resurrected with true resurrection because the physical body of one of its past lives was animated into a skeleton?

Like, if I take a golem (a creature) and destroy it. Is there any way to make it so that the destroyed remains of the golem are no longer a creature? Is every thing that has ever been part of a creature always part of that creature forever? Is there some sort of process that something can go through and then be considered no longer a creature? If we're going to act like templates and such are some sort of biology instead of game tools for arriving at statistics for more game tools, then it would be a fair question to ask at which point does a devoured creature stop being that creature and become part of the creature that devoured it?

[FrogInATopHat]

All sortsa stuff

I have to admit, I agree that undead creation shouldn't be evil by RAW, but your argument demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what 'RAW' actually means.

Red Mage's response to this post is, basically, correct and your philosophising (regardless of my agreement with your actual opinion) is completely wrong.

Undead creation is evil by RAW because RAW says it is.

That is established and that is all the 'why' that that specific question needs.

This is entirely the wrong tack for an argument that it shouldn't be raw to take.

[Psyren]

Create Deathless is [Good] so that evil clerics can't cast it. Casting it doesn't actually change your alignment (BoED pg. 7) the way that repeatedly casting Animate Dead or Create Undead does.

[ThanatosZero]

Casting it doesn't actually change your alignment (BoED pg. 7) the way that repeatedly casting Animate Dead or Create Undead does.

Yes, but I argue evil spells should be treated in the same manner, as much as good spells.
For example: The spell Mindrape can be used to restore a individual's mind, mend mental scars and even teach them new information, especially if it was possible to have the consent of the individual in question.

[Psyren]

Yes, but I argue evil spells should be treated in the same manner, as much as good spells.
For example: The spell Mindrape can be used to restore a individual's mind, mend mental scars and even teach them new information, especially if it was possible to have the consent of the individual in question.

Even if you were to apply that standard, and say that evil spells shouldn't change the caster's alignment either - undead creation spells are still evil for a second reason, i.e. what they ultimately do (creating/animating undead), not only for their descriptor. Eliminating that second reason for its alignment impact does nothing to remove the first. And depending on the specific undead you're making, you may even be running afoul of other stipulations from that page - e.g. "damning or harming souls", and/or, if you're a divine caster, "worshiping evil gods or fiends." All of these acts are listed separately in BoVD, which incidentally happens to be the same source as Mindrape.

[nijineko]

I propose a frameshift of the original question.

The original question, "Why is creating undead Evil" is easily answered: it is because the PHB says it is right in the little [Evil] tag in the spell description. No other "why" is needed. And that is the RAW answer.

Thus, it seems what people are actually trying to ask, and most of the discussion relates to, is "Why do the rules say creating undead is evil," or perhaps, "Why did the designers decide that creating undead is evil?"

[Zanos]

Thus, it seems what people are actually trying to ask, and most of the discussion relates to, is "Why do the rules say creating undead is evil," or perhaps, "Why did the designers decide that creating undead is evil?"

Theming. Necromancers are bad guys. Reanimating dead bodies is generally what bad people do. I don't actually take issue with D&D using mechanics to enforce classic fantasy themes, and nothing prevents you from roleplaying a necromancer who tries to use undead for Good purposes so long as you accept that you're tapping into Evil powers to do so.

[Psyren]

I propose a frameshift of the original question.

The original question, "Why is creating undead Evil" is easily answered: it is because the PHB says it is right in the little [Evil] tag in the spell description. No other "why" is needed. And that is the RAW answer.

Thus, it seems what people are actually trying to ask, and most of the discussion relates to, is "Why do the rules say creating undead is evil," or perhaps, "Why did the designers decide that creating undead is evil?"

The easiest answer is the simplest; like every other evil act, they wanted to discourage most tables doing it - particularly not on a large scale.

[ShurikVch]

As tyckspoon said,

Detect Evil is just biased against Undead and will always show them as Evil regardless of their actual alignment.

(It's pretty clear the rules related to undead don't really have any space for undead as people instead of undead as monsters that are inherently opposed to life.

So, let's continue...

There isn't a different template for spontaneous undead or magically animated undead.

Actually, there may be some: Revived Fossil ("... created through special necromantic rituals ..."), Bloodhulk (not a template, but still), and even "common" Skeletons and Zombies - AFAIK, there isn't enough proof to say they really arose on their own rather than as a result of actions of one more necromancer (or just magical trap with Fell Animate), spill from Oil of Animate Dead storage, and so on...

I have to admit, I agree that undead creation shouldn't be evil by RAW, but your argument demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what 'RAW' actually means.

Red Mage's response to this post is, basically, correct and your philosophising (regardless of my agreement with your actual opinion) is completely wrong.

Undead creation is evil by RAW because RAW says it is.

That is established and that is all the 'why' that that specific question needs.

This is entirely the wrong tack for an argument that it shouldn't be raw to take.

Well, firstly: the original question was not "Is creating undead Evil?", but "Why is creating undead Evil?"

"Undead creation is evil by RAW because RAW says it is."
Oil is oily because it's oil.
It's a mathematician's answer - something which is, while completely true, is also completely useless

Also, what is this alleged "RAW" you're regarding so highly?
(Note: Being RAW don't makes it immune to being wrong - as Dysfunctional Rules threads demonstrating)

Player's Handbook: gives [evil] descriptor to all main Undead-producing spells
Unfortunately, it doesn't gives us any reasons of why they're [evil]
It's claim, but not a proof
(Let along the fact certain other Core spells - used in a creation of a more esoteric Undead - are completely lacking [evil] descriptors, and creation of a Hollow doesn't required any active spellcasting at all from the creator)

Libris Mortis: gives us several reasons for why it's [evil]... But immediately admits it's all just theories

Book of Vile Darkness: "... one of the most heinous crimes ..." yadda yadda
OK, it may look like it's RAW (if you squint)
My problems with this reading:
1. Creation of sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead (bonus point if they were Evil in life) is "inherently evil"? Really?!
2. Creation of mindless(/near-mindless), obedient, non-predatory(/murderous) Undead - how is it worse than creation of Constructs?
What?
"... undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place."
Oh, come on!..
This is your reason?
Negative Energy is not Evil, nor Evil are spells which bringing it to the world
Thus, sorry, but BoVD is wrong there
(Besides being non-updated 3.0 book in need of adjustments)

Spoiler: @RedMage125

Show

This is a slippery slope

And "slippery slope" is Informal fallacy...

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

It's wrong
If it was this way, than there wouldn't be any Fallen(or Elevated) Celestials(/Fiends/Modrons/etc)
For a mortal creature of Material Plane, it may be possible to change alignment; but for the embodiment of one of "the forces that shape the cosmos" to change their alignment would be as unlikely as for Fire Elemental to become cold and moist

Alignment isn't really "morality". It is which of those four cosmic forces one is aligned with.

Hey, what's about the fifth force - Neutrality?

He'd probably be quite shocked to take damage from Holy Smite.

That's unlikely, considering the Holy Smite damages non-Evil targets just fine.

But Selling One's Soul? Consorting With Fiends? These things are always evil.

And it's because Fiends are literally made of Evil: for them, answer to the "Why to do Evil?.." question is "Why not?!."

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.

See my answer to FrogInATopHat above

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.

Alternately, casting of the spell may result in absolutely nothing
(Not all corpses are "legal" for Undeath)
Yet, by the RAW, even ineffectual cast of those spells is still an Evil act

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.

Correction: settings may have such deviations, but until it's vividly proved - no need for such assumptions
Let's take Eberron for example: Action Points or Dragonmarks are clearly "local", but Shifters and even Warforged (!) gone generic
I even agree to take a step beyond "mere mechanics": there shouldn't be Halaster's Fetch spells in Eberron (because no Halaster), but - say - Necrotic Skull Bomb (from the Champions of Ruin) - why not?

Person killed by shadow...body left behind...no Resurrection.

The newly spawned Shadow is the soul
Thus - not "free and willing"

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.

The problem there is: some people - such as me, or Ashiel in the comment below - disagreeing it really works that way...

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.

Jaranda isn't from Planescape: Torment - she was in The Book of Chaos (Planes of Chaos)

(The "succubus paladin" is Eludecia - I don't used her due the dubious canon status)

And the "Blood War veterans" - come on, it's the Sigil we're speaking of: you know, "An angel and a devil sit down at a bar"?
The city is completely open, and fiends in-between their battles are able to visit, go in a bar or something...
And they don't even need any disguise: it's illegal for attacking them for just... well... being them

If you're asking "why to the rules say X?", you're asking about the rules.

Well - yes, but still no:
Yes - it's about "rules" in a sense of asking "why they're this way";
No - "rules" themselves don't answering the question in a non-contradictory manner

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.

Animate With the Spirit spell (Champions of Valor) says hi, being a Conjuration (Summoning)

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

Eh?..
What's you even meant there?..

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

My point is: how often we see the situation where DM says "That object doesn't fight anymore - its magic expired"?
I bet - only in the cases when it was animated mid-combat!
Let alone the fact Animate Objects isn't the only way to create Animated Objects - say, Minor Servitor is Permanent...

Not personally, but such is a valid tactic.

The problem is: pretty much never it have CL listed, thus - dispel attempt would either fail outright, or stray into the "Rule 0" territory

So...like an effigy created by an effigy master (PrC from Complete Arcane)?

Well, you may say so, except they were really alive at some point...
Just try to imaging a pair of "stuffed Humanoids" in their place...

Or perhaps Animate Objects was used as the spell in a trap?

AFAIR, there was no DC for detecting/disarming a trap

Is it still animated by a neutral elemental spirit?

Yes it is
But

True dragons hate dragonflesh golems and attack them on sight. Once a dragon has slain a drolem, it hunts down the creator as well, to exact retribution for the atrocities committed against dragonkind in creating such a creature.

Dragons, apparently, hate it

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

[Citation needed]

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".

Not all other - Trilloch and Xeg-Yi are live on Negative Energy even without the feat (I don't mentioned them initially because not too sure in Outsider's physiology)
Rot Reavers (Monster Manual III) are need Negative Energy so much they making Zombies mostly just to suck Negative Energy from them

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

When I said "affinity" of non-sapient creatures should be reflected via Subtype rather than Alignment, you said only non-native outsiders have Evil subtype
Since than, we proved several exceptions to your "rule": Intellect Devourer, Taint Elemental, Necrocarnum Zombie...
You dismissed Deathreap Ooze for being from Barovia, because "a part of the Demiplane of Dread"
I showing it's not - not in this time

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.

Note:
Loth is Evil, but spiders are (usually) Neutral
Ghaunadaur and Juiblex are Evil, but Oozes are (usually) Neutral
Imix, Kossuth, and Grand Sultan of All the Efreet are Evil, but most of Fire Elementals are Neutral
There is, like, one non-Evil Aberration deity, but about 20% of Aberration kinds are still non-Evil

So, if they are all non-Evil, then why living body of non-Evil creature, being animated by another non-Evil creature (using non-Evil methods!) should be Evil?

[Psyren]

A dysfunctional rule is an interaction which, when followed to the letter, creates a result that is either unintuitive or counterintuitive - like drowning someone to heal them.

Creating undead being evil doesn't qualify; it is in fact quite intuitive, because *gestures at decades of mainstream RPGs and fantasy media portraying undead as wrong/unnatural creations*.

Now you could argue that D&D could or should have bucked those trends and made creating undead, if not a morally upright act, at least a neutral or ambiguous one. I think a setting where that's the case can be a fun place to play in - we have very neutral necromancy in Diablo's Sanctuary setting for instance, and translating that to D&D wouldn't be a particularly heavy lift. But personally, I think there's something to be said for having the game's default expectation be more standard, and then leaving it up to supplementary material to subvert that expectation.

[nijineko]

I have an idea.

If the creation of undead uses mortal souls from the Prime Material, then it would technically violate the Pact Primeval and all outsiders who signed it (good or evil or neutral) would be required to act against said violation.

Obviously that is not the case, since undead are so common... so the animating souls are not coming directly from the Prime Material.

If it instead uses souls that are from the planes aligned with evil, then it is a slap in the face of all the non evil Powers who signed the Pact, reminding them of their biggest mistake by flaunting all the souls they will never get back due to the loophole in the Pact.

This could explain why many of the good and some neutral Powers are against undead. I think personality would determine the specific Power's attitude for, against, or indifferent towards undead.

In the case of spawned undead, the target has to die first, so that still works with this idea, if their souls are sent back promptly.

This obviously assumes that souls are used for at least some undead creation. If instead animating magic is what's actually powering all undead creation, even intelligent ones, then another idea will be needed.

The act of making new undead could be viewed as maliciously taunting, which depending upon the personality of the Power (The Burning Hate, anyone?), they may not take kindly to any new undead, nor the person involved. Also, the making of new undead could be viewed as aligning oneself with the evil outsiders and their evil agendas... something which could be considered an evil act.

[ThanatosZero]

Most recently on the Giantitp D&D 3.5e discord server a user posted about what Stone to Flesh can do.
Statues made out of stone, turn into corpses and become viable for the animate dead spell.

Ignoring for now what I said previously in the thread, what ramification has a undead made of Stone to Flesh Statue?
Still evil? And if it is, then why so?
(We also ignore the RAW answer for this, because it doesn't answer the question at it's very core)

[Duke of Urrel]

Most recently on the Giantitp D&D 3.5e discord server a user posted about what Stone to Flesh can do.
Statues made out of stone, turn into corpses and become viable for the animate dead spell.

Ignoring for now what I said previously in the thread, what ramification has a undead made of Stone to Flesh Statue?
Still evil? And if it is, then why so?
(We also ignore the RAW answer for this, because it doesn't answer the question at it's very core)

Well, if you change something into a corpse, you don't commit murder unless the thing was alive in the first place.

Even if you cast the Stone to Flesh spell upon a statue that was alive in the first place and you fail to revive the creature (because its Fortitude save fails), this still doesn't mean that you killed the creature, only that you tried to revive it and failed.

And if you change a statue that was never a living thing into a corpse, you don't murder anything, because the statue never had a soul.

Finally, if you change a stone golem into a flesh golem (as mentioned in the description of the Flesh to Stone spell), you only change the container that holds the golem's soul, which is probably some kind of elemental spirit. Even if you think there's something Evil about imprisoning the elemental spirit in the first place (and I have argued earlier on this thread that there isn't anything Evil about this), there's probably nothing Evil about changing the substance of its prison from stone to flesh.

So changing something into a corpse doesn't seem to me to be morally the same as changing a corpse into an undead.

Once you have a corpse to work with, you can either animate it as an undead or animate it as a flesh golem. In the former case, you create a creature whose default nature is Evil, whereas in the latter case, you create a creature whose default nature is Neutral, so there's still a moral difference there.

[Xgya]

OK, it may look like it's RAW (if you squint)
My problems with this reading:
1. Creation of sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead (bonus point if they were Evil in life) is "inherently evil"? Really?!
2. Creation of mindless(/near-mindless), obedient, non-predatory(/murderous) Undead - how is it worse than creation of Constructs?

1. There are no spells that create sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead. If there were, they'd break canon. When people rise as Undead, they rise as an Evil version of their former selves, even when free-willed.
2. Mindless undead still attack any living thing in sight when uncontrolled. Both the Libris Mortis and BoVD agree on this point. Creating mindless undead invariably creates the probably of them going haywire, be it by the sudden disappearance of their creators or their creators creating too many.
Constructs do not.

Spontaneously animated mindless undead do not need orders to suddenly want to kill and maim people. If they did, any scenario in which undead animate spontaneously (e.g: Atropus coming to town) would go entirely unnoticed - the corpse would suddenly turn undead, "ping" to Detect Evil, and never, ever move.
Since both spontaneously animated zombies and ones created by magic are the same template, magically animated undead whose control is relinquished do the same thing as mindless undead would, and attack the living on sight.
The main benefit of the Lichloved feat is being seen as an undead creature by otherwise uncontrolled mindless undead, meaning they don't attack you on sight.

Old crypts filled with ancient animated bones and bodies can no longer exist if uncontrolled undead simply revert to being inanimate because they no longer follow orders.
If animated undead keep obeying the last orders they were given even after being uncontrolled, it would make the HD limit pointless. "Here's your latest order. Obey my vocal orders." *relinquishes control* *Zombie obeys the last command it was given, and still obeys the Necromancer faithfully.*

Tl;DR: An uncontrolled undead is a potential hazard. An uncontrolled Iron Golem is not.

Once you have a corpse to work with, you can either animate it as an undead or animate it as a flesh golem. In the former case, you create a creature whose default nature is Evil, whereas in the latter case, you create a creature whose default nature is Neutral, so there's still a moral difference there.

I agreed with most of your case here but this last part stands out.
Creating a Flesh Golem is an Evil act because creating it requires casting the Animate Dead spell and that spell is Evil.
It's a moot point, but worth mentioning.

[Ajustusdaniel]

Deontologically, I imagine.

[Calthropstu]

I altered this in my world. Instead pf binding parts of peoples souls, you are instead binding negative energy elementals (a thing in my universe)
The elementals are innately destructive and, with no will to guide them, will attack anything comprised of positive energy (eg life) which is literally their opposite. Calling on the antithesis of life to create a destructive mockery is fairly evil.

In canon, you are literally binding a portion of the original corpse's soul using negative energy, affecting their afterlife. I can't think this couldbe considered anything but horrible.

[Segev]

In canon, you are literally binding a portion of the original corpse's soul using negative energy, affecting their afterlife. I can't think this couldbe considered anything but horrible.

The trouble with this interpretation is that it raises questions about why some corpses don't just refuse to animate, despite being in a condition that should let them do so, due to their souls being lost to time and planar absorption (or being consumed by devils, in the cases of lemures).

I've toyed with answers to this (and expressed some of those ideas in this thread), but they feel unsatisfactory to me and certainly don't seem to rise to the level of "casting this spell is always evil," even so.

[Eldonauran]

I've toyed with answers to this (and expressed some of those ideas in this thread), but they feel unsatisfactory to me and certainly don't seem to rise to the level of "casting this spell is always evil," even so.

In the case of SOME unusual circumstances, such as a corpse lasting long enough beyond the expiration date of its previous inhabiting soul (that's a lot of gentle repose), we have to remember that no statement or explanation is going to be universally applicable every time. However, we can hazard a guess as to why the spell is still [Evil] at this point, even if it can't actually effect the soul of the previous being.

For example... we know that negative energy is not inherently [Evil], if it just a polarized force set against positive energy, and can be used towards [Good]. However, the Animate Dead spell has the [Evil] descriptor regardless of how much we dislike it. It would just be a simple matter to say that that spell (and any with the [Evil] descriptor) is actually calling on ACTUAL forces of [Evil] in order to bring about the desired result. Those forces might not even care how their power is being used, only that the [Evil] is being drawn forth into the world. So it doesn't get to affect the soul of the body that it is infusing? Bummer, still have an undead creature eager to feast on the living.

You want someone to point a finger at about why using negative energy to raise undead is [Evil]. I point you at Atropos. Perhaps you are drawing on their power, bringing their attention that much closer to the Material Realm, and setting up the next undead apocalypse. Who knows? Makes a great plot hook, though.

[ShurikVch]

In canon, you are literally binding a portion of the original corpse's soul using negative energy, affecting their afterlife. I can't think this couldbe considered anything but horrible.

There are some problems with this argument:

1) The "binding a portion of the original corpse's soul" moment is relevant only for sentient undead - what if Necromancer just need some Skeletons?

2) What if would-be Undead wasn't a Good person in life at all?
Say, those invaders which slaughtering and pillaging local population - is it wrong to animate some of them to repel those invaders and protect aforementioned locals?

3) What's about the Animals?
Vermins?
Oozes?
Plants?
Sticks and Stones (for crying out loud!)?

4) Not all afterlives are equally satisfying:
What if the deceased soul was tortured somewhere in the Nine Hells, prepared to a Night Hag's cauldron, or stuck inside the Wall of Faithless?
And let's not even start about Eberron, where afterlife is universally awful.
Also - speaking of Eberron - what's about the Warforged? When people asking them what they seen in their afterlife, they answered "Nothing. Absolutely nothing."
And, of course, creatures without a souls don't get afterlives at all.

1. There are no spells that create sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead.

Even leaving aside such effects as Wish, Reality Revision, Epic Spellcasting, or Alter Reality - Shrouds of the Unholy explicitly able to create any Undead (since no restrictions or even guidelines mentioned)

If there were, they'd break canon. When people rise as Undead, they rise as an Evil version of their former selves, even when free-willed.

Incorrect:
Crypt Things, Forlorn Husks, Gravecrawlers, Mourners, and Revenants are "always Neutral"
Taunting Haunt is Chaotic Neutral
Curst is "Chaotic (any)" - thus, easily can be non-Evil
Rokugan have a lot of not-always-Evil Undead (and even one "always Good")
Good Liches are Good, and Knight Haunts are "Always Lawful Good"

2. Mindless undead still attack any living thing in sight when uncontrolled. Both the Libris Mortis and BoVD agree on this point. Creating mindless undead invariably creates the probably of them going haywire, be it by the sudden disappearance of their creators or their creators creating too many.
Constructs do not.

Berserk...
Cadaver Golem...
Maggot Golem...

Spontaneously animated mindless undead do not need orders to suddenly want to kill and maim people.

Proof?

If they did, any scenario in which undead animate spontaneously (e.g: Atropus coming to town) would go entirely unnoticed - the corpse would suddenly turn undead, "ping" to Detect Evil, and never, ever move.

It's Atropus commanding them.

The main benefit of the Lichloved feat is being seen as an undead creature by otherwise uncontrolled mindless undead, meaning they don't attack you on sight.

And Mindless Undead isn't limited to Skeletons and Zombies: from Blood Amniote and Bloodmote Cloud are need their blood, let alone fearsome Charnel Hounds...

Old crypts filled with ancient animated bones and bodies can no longer exist if uncontrolled undead simply revert to being inanimate because they no longer follow orders.

Who says they would become inanimate?
They continue to fulfill their last orders

If animated undead keep obeying the last orders they were given even after being uncontrolled, it would make the HD limit pointless. "Here's your latest order. Obey my vocal orders." *relinquishes control* *Zombie obeys the last command it was given, and still obeys the Necromancer faithfully.*

There are two possible interpretations:
1) No: Undead just wouldn't hear/understand the Necromancer once they're not in control anymore
2) Yes: It's exactly how it works. After all, isn't it unheard for a bad guy to have some Skeletons or Zombies under their command while lacking any magical power?
The Necromancer who animated those Undead just said them: "Obey that guy's orders!"
Cities of Bone includes scenario about couple of Necromancers restoring ruined city by a veritable army of over 5000 Skeletons. I refuse to believe in Necromancers with 2500+ control pool.

[gijoemike]

As tyckspoon said,


So, let's continue...

snip

My problems with this reading:
1. Creation of sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead (bonus point if they were Evil in life) is "inherently evil"? Really?!
2. Creation of mindless(/near-mindless), obedient, non-predatory(/murderous) Undead - how is it worse than creation of Constructs?
What?
"... undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place."
Oh, come on!..
This is your reason?
Negative Energy is not Evil, nor Evil are spells which bringing it to the world
Thus, sorry, but BoVD is wrong there
(Besides being non-updated 3.0 book in need of adjustments)

1. Yes, absolutely an evil act.
2. Very much so. Incredibly evil as compared to the creation of constructs.
3. Negative Energy isn't evil. The use of negative energy is not listed as evil.

People seem to be hung up on this. Let me rephrase the statement as such

The use of the spell Create Undead to create a Lawful Good Champion of Truth and Justice from the remains of the Chaotic Evil mass murder is 100% Evil with a capital E.

The title of this thread is "Why is creating undead Evil?"

The prior good/evil nature of the target corpse doesn't matter and doesn't factor into this. (a corpse is a neutral object)
The resulting creature or how that creature is later used doesn't factor into this. (Command Undead is not tagged evil).

The process is evil and corrupting. The process of creating a construct or bringing back the dead are not in and of themselves evil. For example rezing a mass murder cult leader isn't tagged as evil. One could clearly argue it is but it isn't tagged as such. The use of undead isn't tagged as evil. You can do evil things with undead but it isn't tagged. The word PROCESS or CREATION or CREATING is what we need to focus on not the word undead.

This same argument goes for the absurd spell mindrape. The process of destroying a mind, even if you rebuild it the same or even better, is evil. End of story. What happened before or after does NOT matter when judging this specific moment in time.

[noob]

There are some problems with this argument:

1) The "binding a portion of the original corpse's soul" moment is relevant only for sentient undead - what if Necromancer just need some Skeletons?

2) What if would-be Undead wasn't a Good person in life at all?
Say, those invaders which slaughtering and pillaging local population - is it wrong to animate some of them to repel those invaders and protect aforementioned locals?

3) What's about the Animals?
Vermins?
Oozes?
Plants?
Sticks and Stones (for crying out loud!)?

4) Not all afterlives are equally satisfying:
What if the deceased soul was tortured somewhere in the Nine Hells, prepared to a Night Hag's cauldron, or stuck inside the Wall of Faithless?
And let's not even start about Eberron, where afterlife is universally awful.
Also - speaking of Eberron - what's about the Warforged? When people asking them what they seen in their afterlife, they answered "Nothing. Absolutely nothing."
And, of course, creatures without a souls don't get afterlives at all.



Even leaving aside such effects as Wish, Reality Revision, Epic Spellcasting, or Alter Reality - Shrouds of the Unholy explicitly able to create any Undead (since no restrictions or even guidelines mentioned)


Incorrect:
Crypt Things, Forlorn Husks, Gravecrawlers, Mourners, and Revenants are "always Neutral"
Taunting Haunt is Chaotic Neutral
Curst is "Chaotic (any)" - thus, easily can be non-Evil
Rokugan have a lot of not-always-Evil Undead (and even one "always Good")
Good Liches are Good, and Knight Haunts are "Always Lawful Good"


Berserk...
Cadaver Golem...
Maggot Golem...


Proof?


It's Atropus commanding them.


And Mindless Undead isn't limited to Skeletons and Zombies: from Blood Amniote and Bloodmote Cloud are need their blood, let alone fearsome Charnel Hounds...


Who says they would become inanimate?
They continue to fulfill their last orders


There are two possible interpretations:
1) No: Undead just wouldn't hear/understand the Necromancer once they're not in control anymore
2) Yes: It's exactly how it works. After all, isn't it unheard for a bad guy to have some Skeletons or Zombies under their command while lacking any magical power?
The Necromancer who animated those Undead just said them: "Obey that guy's orders!"
Cities of Bone includes scenario about couple of Necromancers restoring ruined city by a veritable army of over 5000 Skeletons. I refuse to believe in Necromancers with 2500+ control pool.

2500+ control pool would involve tricks like caster level shenanigans to raise the cl to a few hundreds for necromancy spells(doable, involves a few feats, extreme multiclassing and casting progression loss), chain spell(applied with for example a custom lesser rod of chain spell) and command undead.
But then you either have laser focused casters that can not even cast animate dead or really high level casters(like 11+) both of which would be not very likely.

[Clistenes]

I think there's a distinct difference between "zero mechanical impact" and "mechanical impact is difficult to discern/measure." All those spontaneous undead on the encounter tables, especially the ones that can't be created by any known spells, came from somewhere, and LM's explanation is as good as any - better than most in fact, from my POV.



Color coded for the ones I partially agree, fully agree and disagree with, along with rationale.

You forgot to mention the feelings of both the person who would eventually become that corpse, and of their relatives and loved ones... I mean, many people would be utterly terrified by the idea of being turned into a meat puppet controlled by others, and their relatives even more so...

When you create an undead without consent of both the former corpse and of their relatives and loved ones, you are inflicting that abject horror on them...

[Segev]

2500+ control pool would involve tricks like caster level shenanigans to raise the cl to a few hundreds for necromancy spells(doable, involves a few feats, extreme multiclassing and casting progression loss), chain spell(applied with for example a custom lesser rod of chain spell) and command undead.
But then you either have laser focused casters that can not even cast animate dead or really high level casters(like 11+) both of which would be not very likely.

Command undead, especially if you use Chain Spell and Extend Spell on it, can cover a huge number of creatures in your control.

But I am interested in the limitations of the notion that "they obey their last orders" followed by "Obey my verbal commands." Obviously, it fails if the mindless undead cannot understand the caster absent the control power, but let's assume the necromancer solves that problem. How might his hordes that he's relying on "obeying their last orders" be less effective than the ones that are still directly controlled? There's the obvious vulnerability to somebody else taking control (no CL checks or Charisma checks to oppose it; the new spell just works). Perhaps their mindless state makes them even more prone to misunderstanding or simply not comprehending the orders, but this is tricky to adjudicate without making the answer just, "No, that doesn't work."

Such undead, having no connection to their master, would use their own Sense Motives to determine if it's really their master (or his designated lieutenant) giving them orders.

They may default to only working at all in areas that were rote for them in life; you'd want ex-farmers' skeletons working fields, and ex-soldiers' zombies shambling in your armies, because those are the limits of their understanding of your verbal orders. Works nicely and thematically, I think, in line with the sometimes-used trope of mindless undead miming the activities of their prior lives.

Complexity of commands likely falls greatly with this method, too. They do simple, direct things, or they perform rote routines from life; you can't teach them anything and they can't handle if/then statements more complex than "come to me if anybody approaches." (If your "last orders" that they're obeying are more complex, up to things like "kill anybody who tries to remove this diamond from this pedestal without reciting the passphrase," I think you could let that stand, though.)

[Xgya]

There are some problems with this argument:

1) The "binding a portion of the original corpse's soul" moment is relevant only for sentient undead - what if Necromancer just need some Skeletons?

The main argument for this point is the fact even something raised as a measly skeleton cannot be brought back from the dead, even through divine salient abilities only available to overdeities presiding over life and death.

Incorrect:
Crypt Things, Forlorn Husks, Gravecrawlers, Mourners, and Revenants are "always Neutral"
Taunting Haunt is Chaotic Neutral
Curst is "Chaotic (any)" - thus, easily can be non-Evil
Rokugan have a lot of not-always-Evil Undead (and even one "always Good")
Good Liches are Good, and Knight Haunts are "Always Lawful Good"

Fair enough, there are exceptions to the general rule, though all of those are either spontaneously generated (most haunts) or have a chance to go terribly haywire in their creation and create an actual evil and rather powerful foe (Good Liches)

Berserk...
Cadaver Golem...
Maggot Golem...

Cadaver Golems aren't mindless, and creating one is an Evil act.
Flesh Golems aren't mindless, but creating one is an Evil act.
Golems that can go berserk only do so in combat, meaning that people using them can know the risks.

Proof?

BoVD about undeath and spontaneously arisen undead being driven by hunger and anger.

[Calthropstu]

There are some problems with this argument:

1) The "binding a portion of the original corpse's soul" moment is relevant only for sentient undead - what if Necromancer just need some Skeletons?

2) What if would-be Undead wasn't a Good person in life at all?
Say, those invaders which slaughtering and pillaging local population - is it wrong to animate some of them to repel those invaders and protect aforementioned locals?

3) What's about the Animals?
Vermins?
Oozes?
Plants?
Sticks and Stones (for crying out loud!)?

4) Not all afterlives are equally satisfying:
What if the deceased soul was tortured somewhere in the Nine Hells, prepared to a Night Hag's cauldron, or stuck inside the Wall of Faithless?
And let's not even start about Eberron, where afterlife is universally awful.
Also - speaking of Eberron - what's about the Warforged? When people asking them what they seen in their afterlife, they answered "Nothing. Absolutely nothing."
And, of course, creatures without a souls don't get afterlives at all.

Even with skeletons, it is applicable... hence why the undead made from a person's corpse must be destroyed before any attempt at resurrection can be made.

For your second point: is it wrong to USE undead in such a manner? Certainly not. The making of the undead is despicable, no matter what. Is it gross to stick your hand into a pile of manure? Yes. Is it still gross to do if you have to retrieve your wedding ring from one? Yes. But you'll do it anyways. Kind of a similar logic applies.

And, seeing how it is the GODS themselves that set the frames for good and evil, messing with their carefully constructed system by tampering with souls? Probably not going to be well received. Even most evil gods won't like you messing with the system of soul torture they got going on. Except, of course, for those gods who like that kind of thing.

Plus, I have seen most undead described as being fairly tortured existences.

[icefractal]

An interesting reason just occurred to me, that's compatible with all existing rules (I think), although not at all suggested by the lore.

Undeath is evil because it's slavery, but not for the soul of a dead person. It's slavery for the negative energy elementals that keep the corpse animate. Not only are they trapped in a realm that's hostile to them, but they get used up to power the undead creature. Mindless undead have to be manually recharged through spells or other methods of pulling in negative energy (ie. no natural healing), but intelligent ones can slowly pull more through on their own.

Not how undeath is normally described, but it does have some precedent with golems (which, if they are powered by "bound elementals" should probably be evil to create also, unless these are special totally-mindless elementals).