Why is creating undead Evil?

[Calthropstu]

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).

That is literally what I stated earlier, and how it works in my personal world.

[Segev]

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).

Thing is, golem-making isn't inherently evil.

[gijoemike]

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).

1) You are discussing the USE of undead entities and their perpetual existence. This thread is attempting to discern why the creation of the undead is Evil. The creation and the use of said undead are completely different topics. But we keep mixing them together. See questions above about using create undead on savage murdering barbarians to save helpless town folk. The USE of undead is not evil, proven by the fact that command undead isn't tagged as such. Are you stating that creation AND any possible use of undead is evil in games you run?

2) Life is powered/healed by positive energy. There is no positive trapped elemental inside each being. Otherwise, mass murderers are just freedom fighters for the trapped elementals. Same goes for negative energy. It is just the flow of energy from the negative plane. A lighting bolt isn't a lighting elemental in the same sense. Your argument would indicate that all summoning/PBinding/Gate spells are evil because the summoned creatures must fight to the death against its will. None of the spells are tagged as such. It is kidnapping and slavery even if just briefly.

3) You make this statement of mindless undead not being able to heal while intelligent undead can. So? Cause X Wounds heals undead but isn't tagged as evil. I don't see the point you are attempting to make. I want to, could you explain more?

We all have houserules and our own views of how to play the game. To each their own. I believe that sharing our views and understanding of topics like these help us grow as a community and also help us become better DMs.

[ShurikVch]

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.

But what's about the poor little positive energy elementals?
They get used to power those pesky living creatures!
And realm they're trapped in is no less hostile to them than to their negative counterparts...

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).

See: if creation of Golems would be marked as universally Evil - I wouldn't bat an eye: it would be consistent.
But, alas, no:
You can enslave a free thinking creature for undetermined amount of time (Golems which were created in sarrukh empires are still around) - without being called Evil (unless [evil] spell was used during the creation)
You also can magically bring unrelated creatures from other world and force them to fight (and, possibly, die) for you - without being called Evil (unless you brought them from the "down below")
You can even compel some of local inhabitants to fight for you (even some of those who're just attacked you) - and it's still wouldn't count as Evil
But animate some Skeletons - and: "Boo! Bad caster! No Good afterlife for you!"

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.

No - it must be destroyed because you need a corpse for the resurrection to work on; Undead is not a corpse (in game terms)

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

It's fluff-dependent, and may fluctuate not just from setting to setting, but even from adventure to adventure

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.

And the reason for this - you need not just a soul, but body too
For the sake of argument: if somebody animate a corpse with Minor Servitor - would our hypothetical deity be able to resurrect it?
Also, let's don't look for Watsonian reason when the true cause may be entirely Doylist: writers just get too engrossed in their linking rules to other rules:

• Life And Death - "If the deity restores life to a mortal, this ability works like the true resurrection spell, except..."
• True Resurrection - "This spell functions like raise dead, except... You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed."

and forgot their own rules

As already was mentioned earlier, reading of RAW "Skeletons preventing True Resurrection" completely invalidating the Soul Bind spell:

• Soul Bind: 9th level; gp cost potentially unlimited (and rarely less than 1000 gp); "Saving Throw: Will negates"
• Animate Dead: 4th, 3rd, or even 2nd level; costs usually from 25 to 500 gp top; "Saving Throw: None"

Thus - unless you trying to prevent resurrection of something with no more than 20 racial HD (or even more than 20 - if it's a Dragon) - Animate Dead is clearly superior

Fair enough, there are exceptions to the general rule, though all of those are either spontaneously generated (most haunts)

And (nearly?) any spontaneously generated Undead can be recreated by sufficiently advanced magic(/psionics/.../whatever)

or have a chance to go terribly haywire in their creation and create an actual evil and rather powerful foe (Good Liches)

From where is such info? (Savage Species?)
For the counter-example: Andres Duvall is a good-aligned Bardic Lich (in Ravenloft of all places!) - despite the fact Azalin, when created him, don't even attempted to do so

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.

Underlined part:

1. I said "Maggot Golem", not "Flesh Golem"
2. Neither Flesh Golem, nor Maggot Golem isn't "not mindless"

Dragonflesh Golems - which creation don't required any [evil] spells -

Drolems have been known to kill their creators because a complex or incautiously worded command allowed such an option for fulfillment.

Also: Jumping Caltrops

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

I just checked BoVD - it have no such thing:
Mindless Undead mentioned only for Lichloved feat and Carrion Stench CF;
Skeletons - for Unliving Weapon spell, Babau anatomy, and Bone Creature template
Zombies - for Unliving Weapon spell, Cauldron of Zombie Spewing, and Corpse Creature template

But I am interested in the limitations of the notion that "they obey their last orders" followed by "Obey my verbal commands."

SRD:

Intelligence
A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).

Mindless Undead don't have Int 3+ - thus, it don't know any languages
While Undead is controlled, it magically understands its master, but once it's free...

1. Yes, absolutely an evil act.

Why is it?

2. Very much so. Incredibly evil as compared to the creation of constructs.

Once again - why is it? Even more so - "as compared to the creation of constructs"?
Especially considering the fact:

Negative Energy isn't evil. The use of negative energy is not listed as evil.

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.

How, in all Nine Hells, it can be anything worse than Neutral?
If it's about the "brainwashing" aspect - let me dissuade it:
I don't meant to take an Evil persona and twist them into Good (it may go wrong!)
I meant to take a dead body and give it sparkling Good new personality - Evil guy isn't even there, but their remains needed as a flesh(/bone/ectoplasm) suit for our new Champion

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.

-Dock, please, make me to don't want drugs anymore!..
-No, it's Evil!..
And it's a (relatively) simple drug addiction.
How about when a patient suffer from some dangerous obsession or delusion?
Or, less dangerous, but still - extremely traumatic memories?..
Mindrape is one more case of Monte simply don't understanding the spell's functionality (like he gave [evil] descriptor to Deathwatch) - otherwise, why they released the Programmed Amnesia spell later (other than the spell's name, and Book of Vile Darkness being 18+ book from 3.0 era)?

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*.

Well, according to a certain site, "But, in the last couple of decades, the attitude to all types of undead is being revised (partially, it's related with influence of Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight" and other similar works, and partly - with the ideas of tolerance and minority rights: representatives of the undead act as a metaphor for various kinds of stigmatized groups)"

There are the articles from the TV Tropes:
Friendly Ghost
Friendly Neighborhood Vampire
Friendly Skeleton
Friendly Zombie

Some examples:
Wake Up Deadman started at 2010
Being Human - 2008
Bone Song - 2007
Skulduggery Pleasant - 2005
Mummy Nanny - 2001
Mummies Alive! - 1997
The Nightmare Before Christmas - 1993
Throw Mummy from the Train (Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers) - 1989
Beetlejuice - 1988
Transylvanian Homesick Blues (The Real Ghostbusters) - 1987
Little Dracula - 1986
Straszydla - 1984 (have not only Undead, but even Fiends!)
Der kleine Vampir - 1979
The Saint-Germain Cycle - 1978

Thus, it's almost as old as AD&D itself

Or, if you prefer videogames:
2019 - Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night (Orlok Dracule)
2015 - Fran Bow (Itward), Undertale (Papyrus and Sans)
2014 - Dark Souls II (Chancellor Wellager)
2011 - Dark Souls (Vamos); The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Serana); Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure (Chop Chop)
2010 - Breath of Death VII (DEM the Skeleton Knight)
2004 - Silent Hill 4 (Joseph Schreiber)
2002 - Arx Fatalis (Queen Florence); Divine Divinity (Celdur, Gregar Brock, Miranda)
2001 - Arcanum (Pelojian)
1999 - Planescape: Torment (Deionarra, Hargrimm the Bleak, Morte, Stale Mary)
1998 - Grim Fandango (Salvador "Sal" Limones); MediEvil (Sir Daniel Fortesque)
1993 - Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness (Tanya Markarov)
1991 - Decap Attack

[icefractal]

Yeah, it does break the positive/negative energy symmetry; it would make more sense if the prime material was officially a positive-aligned plane, but it seems it's technically a neutral-aligned plane which just coincidentally has much more life than unlife in it.

Add that and the necessity of positing a new category of elemental creatures (not a fan of that for golems either - it makes sense in Eberron where elementals existing in an object-bound state is an established thing, but is an awkward outlier in most settings), and it's not likely the explanation I'd use if making a setting with undead being evil; several others on this thread fit more smoothly. I just thought it was an interesting alternative that's compatible with the existing rules (except golems).

And I am taking this thread as "How would you justify undead being evil if that was a thing you wanted in your setting?" rather than "Prove canonically whether undead are evil or not," because the latter has already been covered many pages back and the RAW answer is that there isn't a satisfying explanation.

Incidentally, D&D undead have a number of poorly-specified aspects that become issues when you try to consider their metaphysics. Like being perpetual motion machines without any source of energy. Not that this is unheard of in D&D, but none of the fluff even brings it up, AFAIK - this seems like it should be kind of a big deal if true. Or why Liches don't tend to progress nearly as much as you'd think, although TBF Elves have the same issue.

[Eldonauran]

Incidentally, D&D undead have a number of poorly-specified aspects that become issues when you try to consider their metaphysics. Like being perpetual motion machines without any source of energy. Not that this is unheard of in D&D, but none of the fluff even brings it up, AFAIK - this seems like it should be kind of a big deal if true. Or why Liches don't tend to progress nearly as much as you'd think, although TBF Elves have the same issue.

There has been some explanation for the undead-perpetual energy machine, though I think the best comes from the Pathfinder cosmology. They treat the Negative Energy plane more of an attractor of energy from the Positive Plane (ie, the flow of energy goes from Positive Plane through the fabric of creation, into the Negative Energy plane) and it creates a kind of 'recycle' system.

Undead don't simply run on empty, they are sort of walking black holes for positive energy while in the Material realm, soaking it up to fuel their connection to the Negative Energy plane, and bypassing the natural cycle of that energy by shunting it to its final destination prematurely. Several inferences can be made as to why positive energy hurts the undead when they get blasted with it (it overloads their ability to process the ambient energy, cutting off their access to the Negative Energy plane, and their body rapidly feeds off the energy left in their physical form in response). It would explain the mindless undead being ravenous for the flesh of the living, seeking to fulfill the demands of their connection to the Negative Energy plane. Maybe the whole reason that the creation of undead being Evil is because there are sinister forces that lurk behind the veil of the universe, seeking their chance to .... Wait, there are.

That energy is eventually going to run out. In the Pathfinder setting, Pharasma is the goddess that judges all that pass through life and death, and adamantly abhors the undead. It makes sense that someone directly involved with the natural cycle like that hates anything that short-circuits the system and brings about the energy death of the multiverse that much sooner.

[Segev]

And I am taking this thread as "How would you justify undead being evil if that was a thing you wanted in your setting?" rather than "Prove canonically whether undead are evil or not," because the latter has already been covered many pages back and the RAW answer is that there isn't a satisfying explanation.

I'm actually taking this thread even more literally than that. It's not, "how would you justify undead being evil," but rather, "how do you justify specifically the act of casting animate dead or create undead as being evil?"

These are distinct questions. It is plausible to create an evil creature without being evil, yourself, especially if you are very careful in how they're used, treat them humanely, and dispose of them before they can cause evil of their own volition. Note that mindless undead cannot be "mistreated," and also typically aren't evil aligned inherently. So that also means the question you're asking is a little "off" from D&D's rules. I'm not trying to criticize, here, mind, just be very precise.

Animate dead and create undead have the [evil] tag on them. I read this thread's topic as trying to discuss the reason why that is if we assume there's reason beyond "the writers put the tag there."

[Calthropstu]

@ShuriVch Incorrect.

A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.

That is the text from raise dead.

From resurrection:

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed

From True Resurrection:

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).
...
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

In other words, you need to destroy a skeleton made from someone's corpse before ANY resurrection can be done, even using true res which specifically does not need a body.

Edit:
This STRONGLY implies it tampers with the actual person's soul. I forget where I saw this explicitly stated, but I remember seeing it somewhere. Tampering with souls and binding them to the prime with negative energy is genuinely a **** move, whatever the reason for it.

[Eldonauran]

This STRONGLY implies it tampers with the actual person's soul. I forget where I saw this explicitly stated, but I remember seeing it somewhere. Tampering with souls and binding them to the prime with negative energy is genuinely a **** move, whatever the reason for it.

Well, it might actually just be a matter of blocking the soul from returning. If we imagine that each soul has a unique 'identifier' (like maybe a true name or a soul frequency), whatever animates the body of the person might just co-opt that particular label while it is in existence. Co-opting that label might not actually DO anything to the previous soul.

[ShurikVch]

@ShuriVch Incorrect.

That is the text from raise dead.

From resurrection:

From True Resurrection:

In other words, you need to destroy a skeleton made from someone's corpse before ANY resurrection can be done, even using true res which specifically does not need a body.

How was I incorrect?
Yes, you can TrueRes somebody if their body was destroyed; but if it wasn't - you still need a body (True Resurrection is a "Range: Touch" spell, thus - you need to be in touch with your target)

Edit:
This STRONGLY implies it tampers with the actual person's soul. I forget where I saw this explicitly stated, but I remember seeing it somewhere. Tampering with souls and binding them to the prime with negative energy is genuinely a **** move, whatever the reason for it.

And yet, it still able to animate corpse which never have a soul in the first place - such as Stone-to-Fleshed statue, or Kir-lanan

Actually, let's just accept that all "back-to-life" mechanics is very poorly thought out:
Say, it forbids to Res somebody who're currently Undead, but it doesn't forbid to animate somebody who's currently alive - and I don't mean Skeleton this time, but something smart (like Mummy or Ghost)
So, from where, exactly, comes the "extra soul" (because most of sentient Undead have souls)?
And, if we would later destroy that Undead, and hit it with Resurrection - does it mean there are two alive copies of that person now?

[gijoemike]

Why is it?

in response to The Creation of sentient, free-willed, non-Evil Undead (bonus point if they were Evil in life) is "inherently evil"?
Because the end result being not evil doesn't matter at all. It has no bearing in this discussion.
Same goes for the free will vs mindless. Doesn't matter at all.
Also, no bonus is given for it being the corpse of an evil creature. The moral alignment of a corpse is none.
So what you are really asking is Is Create Undead Evil? The answer is Yes.

Once again - why is it? Even more so - "as compared to the creation of constructs"?

The end result of construct creation can be more dangerous and evil than the resulting undead. This question actually makes my point. The literal process to make undead AKA the spell is EVIL. The product before and after doesn't matter whether it be a controlled construct or good aligned undead. I agree with you in that the end result is practically the same.

How, in all Nine Hells, it can be anything worse than Neutral?
If it's about the "brainwashing" aspect - let me dissuade it:
I don't meant to take an Evil persona and twist them into Good (it may go wrong!)
I meant to take a dead body and give it sparkling Good new personality - Evil guy isn't even there, but their remains needed as a flesh(/bone/ectoplasm) suit for our new Champion

in response to using a mass murderer to create a champion of the light. I took your first example with the bonus points to an extreme. The END result is amazing and good for everyone. There are no drawbacks, and it is simple 3rd level spell. Is the dark side more powerful? Yoda responds No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. The argument you have made is 100% an argument of the end justifies the means. The process of creating undead is Evil/Soul corrupting/bad mojo simply because it is a perfect tool to corrupt. NPCs, PCs walk into the deal knowing it is bad. The end result will be good, great, it will be a wash right?

You ask "how is it less than Neutral?" It is Evil with a capital E and doesn't approach the opposite end of the spectrum at all. We have to jump to Eberron for the spell Create Deathless. It is level 6 and has 2 times the material component cost. It creates "undead" but are good. The end result has a slightly different color of paint. The whole point is the proper process is slower, harder, and more costly. You take the end justifies the means short-cut you suck up the evil.

-Dock, please, make me to don't want drugs anymore!..
-No, it's Evil!..
And it's a (relatively) simple drug addiction.
How about when a patient suffer from some dangerous obsession or delusion?
Or, less dangerous, but still - extremely traumatic memories?..
Mindrape is one more case of Monte simply don't understanding the spell's functionality (like he gave [evil] descriptor to Deathwatch) - otherwise, why they released the Programmed Amnesia spell later (other than the spell's name, and Book of Vile Darkness being 18+ book from 3.0 era)?
[/Quote]

in BOTH the case of Mindrape and Deathwatch it is the process of what is taking place not the end result. It isn't the FUNCTIONALITY of the spells result. It is the process of the spell itself. Mindrape is 1 action, no material comp cost, medium range, 9th lvl spell, and can mess with alignment. Programmed Amnesia is 10 mins cast time, close range, 500 gp mat comps, 9th level, cannot alter alignment. Mindrape does a bit more, is quicker to cast. See Yoda's quote from above. The end result is nearly identical, I agree. The non evil way is to use multiple suggestions, gaes, hypnotism, and it has a chance to not work. Mindrape is easier, quicker, blah blah.

Deathwatch as an offensive spell is not very good. But as a medic's tool it is AMAZING. Maybe it is the idea of undeaths sight, or the eyes are the windows to the soul. Deathwatch is a Faustian deal. You accept this itty bitty bad thing plus this mountain of great things. The non evil way would be a standard action heal check at melee range. That MAY give you dead, near dead, really wounded, fine, near perfect health as levels. But even then your skill would matter. Once again see Yoda's quote.

Well, according to a certain site, "But, in the last couple of decades, the attitude to all types of undead is being revised (partially, it's related with influence of Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight" and other similar works, and partly - with the ideas of tolerance and minority rights: representatives of the undead act as a metaphor for various kinds of stigmatized groups)"

There are the articles from the TV Tropes:
Friendly Ghost
Friendly Neighborhood Vampire
Friendly Skeleton
Friendly Zombie

Some examples:
Wake Up Deadman started at 2010
Being Human - 2008
Bone Song - 2007
Skulduggery Pleasant - 2005
Mummy Nanny - 2001
Mummies Alive! - 1997
The Nightmare Before Christmas - 1993
Throw Mummy from the Train (Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers) - 1989
Beetlejuice - 1988
Transylvanian Homesick Blues (The Real Ghostbusters) - 1987
Little Dracula - 1986
Straszydla - 1984 (have not only Undead, but even Fiends!)
Der kleine Vampir - 1979
The Saint-Germain Cycle - 1978

Thus, it's almost as old as AD&D itself

Or, if you prefer videogames:
2019 - Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night (Orlok Dracule)
2015 - Fran Bow (Itward), Undertale (Papyrus and Sans)
2014 - Dark Souls II (Chancellor Wellager)
2011 - Dark Souls (Vamos); The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Serana); Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure (Chop Chop)
2010 - Breath of Death VII (DEM the Skeleton Knight)
2004 - Silent Hill 4 (Joseph Schreiber)
2002 - Arx Fatalis (Queen Florence); Divine Divinity (Celdur, Gregar Brock, Miranda)
2001 - Arcanum (Pelojian)
1999 - Planescape: Torment (Deionarra, Hargrimm the Bleak, Morte, Stale Mary)
1998 - Grim Fandango (Salvador "Sal" Limones); MediEvil (Sir Daniel Fortesque)
1993 - Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness (Tanya Markarov)
1991 - Decap Attack

I want to point out that Casper the Friendly Ghost was from 1945. That is more than 30 years prior to D&D and has the argument in the name of the cartoon. Undead, Demons, Devils, Werewolves, etc can be good aligned. It is hard for some of them but they can exist. There is an official LG paladin succubus in print. Also, you don't seem to have listed Auron from Final Fantasy 10.

But every listed item above is for the end result. You have a very good list of examples, I will only address Twlight since it was mentioned first. Dr. Carlisle Cullen, broke his oath to not consume blood, his oath as a doctor to do no harm, and murdered a young man in 1918 with his teeth spreading the vampire race. Other characters discuss how terrible and hard it was for him to remain in control and the toll it took on him. That was how Edward was saved from the Spanish flu. The act was evil and wrong, it is why Carlisle doesn't go around and do it all time. He only ever did it 3 times. but the end result was the whole story and a good thing for the world.

[Segev]

So what you are really asking is Is Create Undead Evil? The answer is Yes.

(...)

The literal process to make undead AKA the spell is EVIL.

You're missing the point of the question. Nobody is disputing that the spells have the [evil] tag and that they thus are evil acts to cast. What is being asked is, "Why is that so?"

"Because it is" is not a satisfying answer when the whole purpose of the thread is to come up with something beyond "because the writers arbitrarily labeled it such" as a coherent, consistent explanation.

For me, personally, I like these spells being evil acts. But I want the reason why they're evil to be clear. I find "evil for the sake of edginess" to be irritating, and anything that lets you "be evil" without actually doing something that SHOULD make a decent person uncomfortable on a logical as well as emotional level is just "evil for the sake of edginess."

[Jack_Simth]

You're missing the point of the question. Nobody is disputing that the spells have the [evil] tag and that they thus are evil acts to cast. What is being asked is, "Why is that so?"

"Because it is" is not a satisfying answer when the whole purpose of the thread is to come up with something beyond "because the writers arbitrarily labeled it such" as a coherent, consistent explanation.

For me, personally, I like these spells being evil acts. But I want the reason why they're evil to be clear. I find "evil for the sake of edginess" to be irritating, and anything that lets you "be evil" without actually doing something that SHOULD make a decent person uncomfortable on a logical as well as emotional level is just "evil for the sake of edginess."

Well, the game, D&D 3.5, is not self-consistent. Part of this is because they have how many?!?! writers involved in it over the course of it's lifespan. Which, among other things, means that anything that's:
1) Not spelled out in an obviously overriding source
2) Referenced obliquely in many locations
...simply will not be consistently handled.

Answering "Why is the creation of undead evil?" hits both of those.

We can infer things from parts of the rules that will be consistent with those parts (e.g., True Resurrection can't resurrect someone who's Shadow is running around elsewhere, despite not needing the corpse to still exist... but apply the spell directly to the shadow, and you get the living person again - see the Undead type entry - so... perhaps the undead creation spells drag the soul back from the afterlife?) but will eventually be found inconsistent with other parts (animate dead working on a statue affected by Stone to Flesh, or Clone not having the "won't affect an undead" clause).

If it becomes relevant, the solution is to pick something for your table that you expect will be fun, adjust things as necessary to make them consistent with your choice, and move on.

[gijoemike]

You're missing the point of the question. Nobody is disputing that the spells have the [evil] tag and that they thus are evil acts to cast. What is being asked is, "Why is that so?"

"Because it is" is not a satisfying answer when the whole purpose of the thread is to come up with something beyond "because the writers arbitrarily labeled it such" as a coherent, consistent explanation.

For me, personally, I like these spells being evil acts. But I want the reason why they're evil to be clear. I find "evil for the sake of edginess" to be irritating, and anything that lets you "be evil" without actually doing something that SHOULD make a decent person uncomfortable on a logical as well as emotional level is just "evil for the sake of edginess."

Ok, I am not missing the point. I will try this from a different approach. It is part of the cost of the spell. Think of it as temptation. There exists other spells that have the same end result that aren't temptation. Most of those are either higher level or have higher cost.

I have to correct myself a bit here, the 6th lvl spells create Undead and the 6th level spell create deathless have the same cost and same spell level. I messed that up earlier.

Lets do some word substitution...

Can we use nuclear power to generate electricity? Yes.
Why does it produce nuclear waste? The process you choose produces it.
But why? Its the process, other processes exist that accomplish the same thing. Choose one that doesn't have this side effect.

*nuclear power* = create undead
*generate electricity* = create a thinking creature
*(produce) nuclear waster* = evil

Spells with the Evil descriptor have a price that the caster has to pay. It keeps them super evil, or moves them toward it. When it is a PC, it is an active choice the player makes. These aren't evil for the sake of edginess. It is a willing price one must pay to get what they want. In this case a force multiplier. Good spells have a tag but don't alter alignment. The good tag locks out evil casters, while the evil tag alters the caster.

Think of a devil's contract. Devil says "We can fix that cancer issue of yours, just sign here." That won't make most people uncomfortable logically or emotionally when they are dealing with cancer. Yet that is flat out damning. Certain spells are like signing a single letter on that contract. That is what the evil descriptor is. Temptation. You can do amazing and great things with all of those spells. But in the end, you willingly and repeatedly asked to be rejected from the heavens. It is the price willing paid by the caster. Some of the best functioning spells in the game have this extra cost.

At the store, why does a $1 loaf of bread require us to pay $1 at the cashier? Because that is what the item costs is a perfectly acceptable answer. Bread isn't free at the grocery store. Some spells have a cost beyond a few GP. Level loss, ability drain/damage, and hits to alignment are among them.


I will end with this question. The following question is ridiculous.

Why is dispel magic/Haste/Animate Dead a 3rd level spell? It seems arbitrary to drop it at that level. Why not level 2 or 4? Lets determine why it has a cost of being a 3rd level spell.

[Xgya]

*snip*

Just wanted to say I love your interpretation and it makes a lot more sense than any of the arguments mostly because I think it directly addresses the question whereas most of the other discussions were about USING undead, and not CREATING them.

I was doing that earlier myself, and thank you for guiding me away from that line of reasoning.

The actual answer to the question is "Up to the DM"

A lengthier response makes this easy to understand: The Rules As Writ say that this spell is EVIL, and don't say WHY.
As such you get to decide why! Fun, imaginative answers will shock, awe and otherwise amaze your players.

Does the spell corrupt the soul to the point of denying someone their afterlife? It just might!
Does it bring more death and decay into the world? Who knows? Maybe!
Does casting the spell slowly sell your soul away like any good Evil spell should? Hey, it's all up to you!

By RAW, the spell is evil. The reason WHY is not, and can change from one setting to the next. Fantastic.

[Segev]

You're not treading new ground here. You can say "it's a price," but that doesn't answer the question. You can say "it produces nuclear waste," but...it doesn't. Libris Mortis suggests that, maybe, it produces a very low level of pollution, undetectable in any given instance, but that "too many" undead lead to "more undead." But now we're back to "are undead inherently an evil thing?" since the only evil stemming from creating undead is...more undead.

If you want to say, "it's a price," then my question remains: "What is that price?" If your answer is "committing an evil act," then I want to know what that "evil act" is. If your answer is "casting the spell," then we're back to a just-so, arbitrary, fake edgelord "evil." If you want to use the "undead pollution" explanation, that seems to satisfy some, but it doesn't satisfy me. May as well say that using nuclear power is evil because nuclear waste is created, and no amount of responsible management of it can make up for it, and thus anybody who flips on a light switch powered by nuclear energy is committing an evil act. Or, I suppose, you're not saying nuclear power is evil, just that nuclear waste is a consequence of it. But then, why is "evil" a consequence of casting animate dead? What, precisely, about doing it is evil? If we're not using the "it makes more undead if you do it way, way, way too much" explanation (which has multiple problems of its own, from 'why isn't it only evil to do it way, way, way too much' to 'I thought we established that undead existing is not inherently evil on its own'), then there needs to actually be something unquestionably evil that you're doing when you cast the spell.

And you aren't answering that.

If, for example, casting animate dead required you to sacrifice an unwilling sapient victim as part of the casting, that would be evil, and would explain why it's so evil. Notably, it does not require that, and I (at least) am looking for explanations that don't add mechanical requirements to casting the spell.

[Eldonauran]

I don't think we have enough information on the long term effects of undead on the fabric of the universe to satisfy a highly skeptical analysis of why Animate Undead is objectively [Evil]. There are too many factors for us to even agree on what those long term consequences are, and that's not even invoking the subjective justifications of morality, which have a mechanical impact on alignment as well.

All I can offer is that I see undeath as prematurely accelerating the energy death of the universe, possibly robbing future souls of their chance to be created and sorted through the Planar system.

[ShurikVch]

The literal process to make undead AKA the spell is EVIL.

Note: Bestow Curse, Limited Wish, Raise Dead, and Wish are all can be used in creation of certain kinds of Undead
(clarification - Wish spell line used not in their spell-duplicating capacity, but exactly "like itself")
None of them have [evil] descriptor
(Nor, for that matter, Energy Drain or Seed of Undeath spell line)

in response to using a mass murderer to create a champion of the light. I took your first example with the bonus points to an extreme. The END result is amazing and good for everyone. There are no drawbacks, and it is simple 3rd level spell. Is the dark side more powerful? Yoda responds No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. The argument you have made is 100% an argument of the end justifies the means. The process of creating undead is Evil/Soul corrupting/bad mojo simply because it is a perfect tool to corrupt. NPCs, PCs walk into the deal knowing it is bad. The end result will be good, great, it will be a wash right?

You ask "how is it less than Neutral?" It is Evil with a capital E and doesn't approach the opposite end of the spectrum at all. We have to jump to Eberron for the spell Create Deathless. It is level 6 and has 2 times the material component cost. It creates "undead" but are good. The end result has a slightly different color of paint. The whole point is the proper process is slower, harder, and more costly. You take the end justifies the means short-cut you suck up the evil.

For me, it reeks of hypocrisy: to do one thing is Evil, but to do about the same thing with different spell is Good? Oh, come on!..

in BOTH the case of Mindrape and Deathwatch it is the process of what is taking place not the end result. It isn't the FUNCTIONALITY of the spells result. It is the process of the spell itself. Mindrape is 1 action, no material comp cost, medium range, 9th lvl spell, and can mess with alignment. Programmed Amnesia is 10 mins cast time, close range, 500 gp mat comps, 9th level, cannot alter alignment. Mindrape does a bit more, is quicker to cast. See Yoda's quote from above. The end result is nearly identical, I agree. The non evil way is to use multiple suggestions, gaes, hypnotism, and it has a chance to not work. Mindrape is easier, quicker, blah blah.

I interested in find out your position on Sanctify the Wicked spell.

Deathwatch as an offensive spell is not very good. But as a medic's tool it is AMAZING. Maybe it is the idea of undeaths sight, or the eyes are the windows to the soul. Deathwatch is a Faustian deal. You accept this itty bitty bad thing plus this mountain of great things. The non evil way would be a standard action heal check at melee range. That MAY give you dead, near dead, really wounded, fine, near perfect health as levels. But even then your skill would matter. Once again see Yoda's quote.

It was already asked before, but once again: worse than Energy Drain? Really, gijoemike? Really?!

I want to point out that Casper the Friendly Ghost was from 1945. That is more than 30 years prior to D&D and has the argument in the name of the cartoon.

I know about Casper
Just, I presuming, like everybody else
Casper is so famous his name even used as a common name for any friendly ghost
I don't wanted to sound like Captain Obvious by mentioning him

Undead, Demons, Devils, Werewolves, etc can be good aligned. It is hard for some of them but they can exist. There is an official LG paladin succubus in print.

And the Ecstasy (gate town to Elysium) is ruled by Good-aligned Yugoloth.

Also, you don't seem to have listed Auron from Final Fantasy 10.

I didn't intended for that list to be all-encompassing
Say, Divinity: Original Sin I and II have some non-Evil Skeletons (including even one playable character!)

But every listed item above is for the end result. You have a very good list of examples, I will only address Twlight since it was mentioned first. Dr. Carlisle Cullen, broke his oath to not consume blood, his oath as a doctor to do no harm, and murdered a young man in 1918 with his teeth spreading the vampire race. Other characters discuss how terrible and hard it was for him to remain in control and the toll it took on him. That was how Edward was saved from the Spanish flu. The act was evil and wrong, it is why Carlisle doesn't go around and do it all time. He only ever did it 3 times. but the end result was the whole story and a good thing for the world.

OK
Except Twlight wasn't in my list, but mentioned as a part of translated quote from the article
I never read Twlight books, nor seen the movies, thus - don't sure vampires there are really Undead
Because not every Vampire is Undead (see Regis for example)

[Segev]

I don't think we have enough information on the long term effects of undead on the fabric of the universe to satisfy a highly skeptical analysis of why Animate Undead is objectively [Evil]. There are too many factors for us to even agree on what those long term consequences are, and that's not even invoking the subjective justifications of morality, which have a mechanical impact on alignment as well.

All I can offer is that I see undeath as prematurely accelerating the energy death of the universe, possibly robbing future souls of their chance to be created and sorted through the Planar system.

Thing is, if you have to dig that deeply into it, and it takes "long-term effects" to make such things evil, then burning fires is "evil" by the same token, because they lead to advancing the entropy and heat-death of the universe, too.

Outside of "casting spells that have the [evil] descriptor," the sorts of things that are unambiguously evil acts are enslaving the innocent, rape, wanton pillage/destruction, murder, torture and torment, and other such things that anybody who has legitimate claim to a Good alignment - and even some who are firmly Neutral - would find repugnant.

You can have relatively minor but definitely-evil acts - it's hardly evil to slaughter a rabbit for food, but if you torture it first and THEN slaughter it, that's an evil act. Maybe not one that will instantly drop you from Good to Evil, or even to Neutral, but it's definitely something that doing it regularly will make Neutral your "ceiling" on that axis.

One possibility I've toyed with for explaining the spell itself - not it's [evil] descriptor, but the components - is that the black onyx is some sort of bribe for psychopomps responsible for carrying the souls of the dead to the afterlife. Until you get to create undead, it can't be dragging the whole soul back, because that's way too powerful for a spell that makes only something as weak as skeletons and zombies. But if they're somehow being bribed to break the normal rules of afterlife transit, maybe bringing parts of souls back or something....

I'm still not happy with it, and I can't use an animal sacrifice or even torturing a human because that's not part of the cost nor description of the spell and WOULD have mechanical impact. This kind-of brings me back to the notion of pieces of souls causing wounds and pains on their afterlife-selves. But even that seems like something mitigated by a short-term use of the skeletons and volunteers signing on for it, thus making it not inherently evil.

[Calthropstu]

How was I incorrect?
Yes, you can TrueRes somebody if their body was destroyed; but if it wasn't - you still need a body (True Resurrection is a "Range: Touch" spell, thus - you need to be in touch with your target)



And yet, it still able to animate corpse which never have a soul in the first place - such as Stone-to-Fleshed statue, or Kir-lanan

Actually, let's just accept that all "back-to-life" mechanics is very poorly thought out:
Say, it forbids to Res somebody who're currently Undead, but it doesn't forbid to animate somebody who's currently alive - and I don't mean Skeleton this time, but something smart (like Mummy or Ghost)
So, from where, exactly, comes the "extra soul" (because most of sentient Undead have souls)?
And, if we would later destroy that Undead, and hit it with Resurrection - does it mean there are two alive copies of that person now?

I challenge that raise dead can turn a flesh to stoned statue into an undead. True, flesh to stone creates a "corpse" but animate dead states "a dead creature," not a corpse. That means a creature with the "dead condition," not just a corpse. In fact, the srd has the word "dead" as a hyperlink to the dead condition. Same with create undead.

Edit: once again, there is STRONG implication that animate dead requires a soul.

[Eldonauran]

Thing is, if you have to dig that deeply into it, and it takes "long-term effects" to make such things evil, then burning fires is "evil" by the same token, because they lead to advancing the entropy and heat-death of the universe, too.

You went a little bit to 'universal' with my statement. You don't have to dig deep nor rely on long-term effects to make such things evil. You DO have to dig that deep in order to satisfy a high skeptical analysis of why the spell itself is objectively [Evil]. A less skeptical analysis is a lot easier to satisfy. Why? Because the 'entropy' or 'heat-death' of Positive/Negative Energy interaction is not the same thing as what we know about heat in our physical universe. It was merely a closer related form of imagery to use to communicate the idea.

Outside of "casting spells that have the [evil] descriptor," the sorts of things that are unambiguously evil acts are enslaving the innocent, rape, wanton pillage/destruction, murder, torture and torment, and other such things that anybody who has legitimate claim to a Good alignment - and even some who are firmly Neutral - would find repugnant.

Some spells are objectively [Good] or [Evil], just like some actions and choices to perform those actions are objectively [Good] or [Evil]. We need to be able to divorce moral action from the argument entirely. The act of casting the spell is [Evil], no matter the use the spell is put towards. Finding out why that is so is the entire point.

...Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

For whatever reason, casting Animate Dead is literally calling on the forces of [Evil] to animate the body with energy that is directly opposed to that which gives life in the Material Realm. If other spells are missing the [Evil] tag that should have them, I am more of the mind to add the tags than wonder if we should remove the [Evil] tag from Animate Dead. Just like some spells can get a descriptor added to them based on what element is used to fuel the spell ([Fire] [Cold] [Electric] [Acid] .. you get the idea). That is probably why Animate Object lacks such a tag.

[Segev]

We need to be able to divorce moral action from the argument entirely. The act of casting the spell is [Evil], no matter the use the spell is put towards. Finding out why that is so is the entire point.

You just contradicted yourself as far as I can tell. You said we need to accept that the only thing that makes them [evil] is the fact that they are, and then finding out why is the point. But you just said there is no "why" beyond "they are."

I'm saying the 'why' is important and should be something that, when the caster casts it, makes anybody who has a conscience that cares about not-committing-evil will instinctively feel at least uncomfortable about doing. It cannot be something abstract and untraceable that we just "know" is evil because, uh, somebody said so. That way lies, at best, "edgelord evil," that isn't really evil except in the sense that dressing in black and wearing skull motifs and calling yourself "Blackedge Razordoom Edgeblack" makes you "evil."

[ThanatosZero]

For whatever reason, casting Animate Dead is literally calling on the forces of [Evil] to animate the body with energy that is directly opposed to that which gives life in the Material Realm. If other spells are missing the [Evil] tag that should have them, I am more of the mind to add the tags than wonder if we should remove the [Evil] tag from Animate Dead. Just like some spells can get a descriptor added to them based on what element is used to fuel the spell ([Fire] [Cold] [Electric] [Acid] .. you get the idea). That is probably why Animate Object lacks such a tag.

In this regard the spells, which create undead, have as their component a link designation towards the plane as the power source. In this case, the essence of the lower planes is channeled through the undead and may spread corruption around it, as they serve as minor portals.

If the spell was reworked, as in the designation changed for the plane in question, different kind of undead would be the result.
For example, if the essence of upper planes and the positive energy plane were used, the result would be good aligned deathless.

If the elemental planes were used, you would gain a elemental in the flesh.

Or if you use a plane, were nature is the main focus, the corpse might end up as a material component instead to create a humanoid plant creature under your command.

[Eldonauran]

You just contradicted yourself as far as I can tell. You said we need to accept that the only thing that makes them [evil] is the fact that they are, and then finding out why is the point. But you just said there is no "why" beyond "they are."

No contradiction. Perhaps a misunderstanding. Every worldview has foundational assumptions that are made, and the D&D universe is no exception. Animate Dead is objectively [Evil]. That is why it possesses the tag. If it was a moral decision, left to the autonomy of the moral actors, it would only have that tag added when it was used as part of that moral action. That means that objective [Evil] is being done, or the very substance of the universe that resonates with [Evil] is being use to power/fuel the spell itself. Evil Outsiders are objectively [Evil] and yet, we know of some that have chosen to act in morally objective [Good] ways.

Animate Dead is not morally [Evil]. It is objectively [Evil]. It is not a choice. It is fundamental power in the universe. I think that is where most of the confusion comes from. Morality must be divorced from the equation to get an answer that will satisfy a skeptical analysis. Treat it like we do with fundamental particles of matter, or natural forces, in our universe. Gravity does not care how you feel about it, but you can use it to slingslot yourself around a moon.

But, that is my opinion on the matter.

If the spell was reworked, as in the designation changed for the plane in question, different kind of undead would be the result.
For example, if the essence of upper planes and the positive energy plane were used, the result would be good aligned deathless.

That is a great idea for spell research. Don't want to invoke the powers of [Evil] when you cast the spell? Create a new one that draws on another force, if you can.

[Segev]

Animate Dead is not morally [Evil]. It is objectively [Evil].

Things cannot be evil without being morally evil. "Morally evil" is like saying "hot fire."

Murder is objectively evil. WE can go into lengthy discussions as to why, but I think that it's clear. Casting animate dead is not objectively evil just because you cast that spell. If I reasearch "animate skeleton or zombie" as a spell, and it has identical mechanics, but lacks the [evil] decriptor, I think there's a valid question to be asked: "What's actually different to make it lose the descriptor?"

There's no way to make murder not objectively evil while keeping it as murder. For animate dead to also be objectively evil to cast, then either something done as part of casting it, or the results of the spell, must be similarly unable to be mitigated without fundamentally changing the nature of the act to the point that you're not casting animate dead anymore.

My preference would be to define something that is part of the required steps of casting the spell that is, itself, as objectively aligned as murder is. It need not be as evil as murder, but it needs to be evil in as objective a sense, such that you cannot mitigate it and make it "okay" without making it no longer the necessary act to cast animate dead. Alternatively, something about how the undead become animate needs to be that kind of objective, unmitigatable evil.

Note, by "mitigate," here, I mean "made less evil by circumstances," not, "made an evil that some might understandably do a moral calculus as worth the good that comes of it."

If you had to torture a puppy to cast animate dead, for example, that would be objectively evil.

[Eldonauran]

Things cannot be evil without being morally evil. "Morally evil" is like saying "hot fire."

Not in the D&D universe, where [Good] and [Evil] are both fundamental forces. "Morally Evil" is more akin to saying "You chose Evil"

Murder is objectively evil

In the D&D universe, that is because that behavior and moral choice aligns you with the objective and fundamental forces of [Evil].

I think you are bringing in some real world baggage to the discussion. That might be what is causing the confusion.

[Segev]

Not in the D&D universe, where [Good] and [Evil] are both fundamental forces. "Morally Evil" is more akin to saying "You chose Evil"


In the D&D universe, that is because that behavior and moral choice aligns you with the objective and fundamental forces of [Evil].

I think you are bringing in some real world baggage to the discussion. That might be what is causing the confusion.

Nope. Evil is evil. To try to separate it from "morality" is to defeat the purpose of labeling it "evil" at all.

Evil is objective in D&D, yes. But it is still morality. You can't be "objectively evil" but not "morally evil." Again, that way lies Edgeblack Blackedge, evil-but-not-really edgy dark angst-hero who isn't actually evil but totally wears the costume. I disapprove strongly of placing animate dead in that category. Either make casting animate dead evil in a moral sense, or don't give it the descriptor. Making it not evil by any reason other than "we said so, 'cause it's spooky and edgy" is lame.

[Eldonauran]

Nope. Evil is evil. To try to separate it from "morality" is to defeat the purpose of labeling it "evil" at all.

I fundamentally disagree. Otherwise alignment subtypes really serve no purpose. [Evil] exists in such a way that things can be MADE of that force. Something that compromises a measurable part of the being's substance. Perhaps the relationship moral and fundamental [Evil] (and likewise with moral and fundamental [Good]) share can't entirely be pulled apart and distinctly separated, at least by us, but one certainly influences the other and one can certainly LEAD to the other (in the outer planes). Perform enough [Evil] in life and accumulate enough fundamental [Evil] that you end up in a plane that represents your particular flavor. Likewise for [Good].

[Segev]

I fundamentally disagree. Otherwise alignment subtypes really serve no purpose. [Evil] exists in such a way that things can be MADE of that force. Something that compromises a measurable part of the being's substance. Perhaps the relationship moral and fundamental [Evil] (and likewise with moral and fundamental [Good]) share can't entirely be pulled apart and distinctly separated, at least by us, but one certainly influences the other and one can certainly LEAD to the other (in the outer planes). Perform enough [Evil] in life and accumulate enough fundamental [Evil] that you end up in a plane that represents your particular flavor. Likewise for [Good].

But if being made of that force doesn't mean it inherently must do something evil, then "being made of evil" is meaningless.

[Remuko]

But if being made of that force doesn't mean it inherently must do something evil, then "being made of evil" is meaningless.

Evil outsiders are literally made of evil and can change alignment as long as they're sentient. (i agree with pretty much everything else you have said except that you'd prefer to keep the evil tag just for it to be there justifiably. i personally think it should be removed).