Why is creating undead Evil?

[noob]

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.

Animate dead is a level 2, 3 and 4 spell at once.
It depends on the class.
So there is no specific reason why it is a third level spell because it is not just a third level spell: it have the level needed for the classes getting it to have it at the level where it makes the most sense for the class(ex: heavily necromancy focused classes will get it early and classes that are very much not necromancy based can still get it but later).
Your question starts with an inexact statement.

[Eldonauran]

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

See, this is where we are not communicating properly. Being made of Evil and doing Evil are not necessarily the same thing. That is the distinction between being made up of a fundamental force of the universe and choosing to actively perform morally evil actions. I believe that literally being made up of a fundamental force of the universe is going to push the creature towards one particular kind of behavior over others, but once you bring sentience into the mix, that creature is not entirely governed by its inherent nature.

If this doesn't satisfy you as an explanation, that is fine. You are free to rationalize to the best of your ability on that matter. I just fear that you will NEVER find an adequate explanation and are more served by removing such alignment tags from spells in your game.

[Segev]

See, this is where we are not communicating properly. Being made of Evil and doing Evil are not necessarily the same thing. That is the distinction between being made up of a fundamental force of the universe and choosing to actively perform morally evil actions. I believe that literally being made up of a fundamental force of the universe is going to push the creature towards one particular kind of behavior over others, but once you bring sentience into the mix, that creature is not entirely governed by its inherent nature.

If this doesn't satisfy you as an explanation, that is fine. You are free to rationalize to the best of your ability on that matter. I just fear that you will NEVER find an adequate explanation and are more served by removing such alignment tags from spells in your game.

See, to me, this is like suggesting that a water elemental can be dry.

[Eldonauran]

See, to me, this is like suggesting that a water elemental can be dry.

Your analogy on the comparison is flawed. Wetness and dryness are physical properties, and are contradictory to each other. One place can not be wet and dry at the same time. One place is either saturated with water, or it is not saturated with water. The water does not choose to be wet, it simply is. Yet, a water elemental can choose to relocate itself to a drier environment (even if that might not be a safe thing for it to do).

We do not live in a universe that has fundamental forces of [Good], [Evil], [Law] or [Chaos] (that we know of). We have moral ideas of what constitutes choices that encompass these concepts. We do not know what the physical properties of these forces entail. They exist outside of the Material realm in their purest form.

Perhaps the best thing to is imagine those forces as sub-atomic particles that have an influence on the moral tendencies of the creatures they inhabit (like the Higgs-Boson and gravity). Except in this case, adding sentience is like finding a way to ignore the tug of gravity to a certain degree, regardless of how you do it. A being made up of [Evil] is going to be tugged down (as if by gravity) though one with sentience is going to have the ability to choose to move away from that tugging with effort, though it is an ever present force that will never go away.

Spoiler

Show

To expand on the idea of [Evil] being like a fundamental force or particle, I can imagine that the moral decisions a person makes while in/on the Material Realm (and those that journey beyond it, for these forces exist everywhere) attract more and more of this force/particle into their being/soul. When it is saturated enough, that force has grown dense enough to be detected through various spells. As a soul gains experience and grows in levels, the amount of this force it can contain also grows. Making different moral decisions can attract different kinds of forces/particles, and the diametrically opposed particles cancel each other out.

Keeping this in mind, certain spells can draw upon these forces to such a degree that the act of using the spell is sufficient enough to expose the caster to the gathered forces/particles. So while the caster has not made a moral choice in casting the spell, the universe still treats it as if the caster had, and assigns that accumulated essence to the caster's soul.

While the specific mechanics behind how the universe assigns an alignment to certain behavior is unknown to us (or 'because the author decided it'), the sentient beings inside the universe are able to clearly observe that doing X results in Y. Casting Animate Dead = Detectable presence of [Evil]. Slaughtering an orphanage leaves a stain of [Evil] behind that is detectable with such spells.

[Segev]

Your analogy on the comparison is flawed. Wetness and dryness are physical properties, and are contradictory to each other. One place can not be wet and dry at the same time. One place is either saturated with water, or it is not saturated with water. The water does not choose to be wet, it simply is. Yet, a water elemental can choose to relocate itself to a drier environment (even if that might not be a safe thing for it to do).

We do not live in a universe that has fundamental forces of [Good], [Evil], [Law] or [Chaos] (that we know of). We have moral ideas of what constitutes choices that encompass these concepts. We do not know what the physical properties of these forces entail. They exist outside of the Material realm in their purest form.

I'm going to stop right here to respond simply because you're creating a division between [Good] and "good" while saying that "water" and "wateriness" (i.e. "being wet") can't have that division.

My whole point is that being made of evil and being evil are as linked as being made of water and being watery/wet. [Water] is a type just as much as [Good] is a type. Both are, in fact, planar-related things.

Creating the divide you're trying to create is essentially saying that [Evil] isn't really evil. [Good] isn't really good. [Water] could actually be this super-dry sand-creature that just happens to encourage other things to get wet somehow.

I reject this, because I like the notion that objective morality in D&D actually means what it says it does, and that the idea that you can have [good] things being evil villains and heroic [evil] things that are not twisted and wicked to undermine the entire concept. If a Yugoloth is acting with pure benevolence, that should have a similar effect on it that a water elemental drying itself out would on the water elemental.

The water does not choose to be wet, it simply is.

And a fiend simply IS evil. Now, this is actually a little more complex, because agency likely was involved. And still can be. But a fiend that is made of evil got that way by acting evil, and that choice to act that way constructed his soul out of [evil], such that now that he's just his soul (as Outsiders tend to be), he's made of [evil]. He cannot "act good" in any real, meaningful sense without ceasing to be what he is, any more than a fire elemental could replace parts of himself with stone and continue to be a fire elemental.

There is nuance, and lots of room for choice of action within any given alignment. This doesn't abrogate their agency, necessarily. But it does limit their choices if they don't wish to undergo an extremely painful and possibly risky/deadly process of ceasing to be [alignment].

It's like saying that a human who decides he wants to be an elf so transplants an elf's brain into his own head is still that human. Is he? Really? Or is he the elf? Or is he just dead? These are the sorts of things that start happening when you see an Outsider made of [alignment] start behaving in ways that make them less that [alignment].

At least, to any conception where I accept that terming the alignment types by those names has any meaning whatsoever. If you say that being [evil] has nothing to do (save by happenstance) with actually evil acts, then I say that [evil] as you name it is actually [edgy] and not evil at all.

[Eldonauran]

I am creating a division between [Good] as a fundamental force and good as a moral choice. The same thing with [Evil] and evil, with [Law] and law, and with [Chaos] and chaos. Rejecting that notion because you like a different, more objective way at looking at the alignment in the D&D universe, is your choice. Good and Evil still exist on a moral level, and are still quite objective.

We are saying very similar things and are merely talking past one another at this point. I only offered my opinion on the matter to help resolve a specific issue with the use of the [Evil] tag on the Animate Dead spell (and spells like it). If you don't like the explanation, feel free to disregard it. You are free to use whatever subjective or objective moral measuring stick you wish.

[Segev]

I am creating a division between [Good] as a fundamental force and good as a moral choice. The same thing with [Evil] and evil, with [Law] and law, and with [Chaos] and chaos. Rejecting that notion because you like a different, more objective way at looking at the alignment in the D&D universe, is your choice. Good and Evil still exist on a moral level, and are still quite objective.

We are saying very similar things and are merely talking past one another at this point. I only offered my opinion on the matter to help resolve a specific issue with the use of the [Evil] tag on the Animate Dead spell (and spells like it). If you don't like the explanation, feel free to disregard it. You are free to use whatever subjective or objective moral measuring stick you wish.

And that's fine, but I would always reject your choice of terminology, because what you call [Good] may as well be called "Light" and what you call [Evil], [Law], and [Chaos] may as well be called "Dark," "Chrome," and "Florid" (respectively) for all the bearing they have on good, evil, law, and chaos as moral and ethical considerations. Roughly associated themes that don't actually tell you anything about their morals or ethics except that they kind-of look like most people who adhere to a particular sort.

[Eldonauran]

And that's fine, but I would always reject your choice of terminology, because what you call [Good] may as well be called "Light" and what you call [Evil], [Law], and [Chaos] may as well be called "Dark," "Chrome," and "Florid" (respectively) for all the bearing they have on good, evil, law, and chaos as moral and ethical considerations. Roughly associated themes that don't actually tell you anything about their morals or ethics except that they kind-of look like most people who adhere to a particular sort.

A better use of our time would be spent clarifying and refining our statements so that we reach an understanding, rather than simply rejecting each other's opinions based around a dislike of the other's terminology. I tried to be fairly consistent with my use of terms by adding brackets to the words I meant to set aside from the moral and ethical considerations.

[Segev]

A better use of our time would be spent clarifying and refining our statements so that we reach an understanding, rather than simply rejecting each other's opinions based around a dislike of the other's terminology. I tried to be fairly consistent with my use of terms by adding brackets to the words I meant to set aside from the moral and ethical considerations.

If I understand you correctly, something being [Evil] doesn't make it evil. You can be a good and noble individual who just happens to like edgy things like animating skeletons, and your official alignment will be neutral or evil, but you won't actually be evil and anybody who knows you will recognize that you're an upstanding pillar of the community, as long as the community isn't pearl-clutching over the fact that you call yourself "Eve Lynn Badgirl" and insist on laughing maniacally every time you do a good deed.

Is that a fair, if somewhat cartoonish, representation of your take on it? If not, please correct me.

[Jack_Simth]

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.

In this vein, personally, I go with "Traps a once-living soul in a prison of rotting flesh, and tortures it for power for the undead" (usually the body's original inhabitant, but the spell isn't actually picky, and will grab any old soul if the original isn't available for whatever reason). Works by pretending to be another chance at life (like Reincarnate or Raise Dead; do note that Animate Dead is 3rd for Clerics, and 4th for Wizards - while Reincarnate is a 4th level spell for Druids and Raise Dead is 5th for Clerics - so really, it's just a level or two beneath the things it's pretending to be).

Try to cast Animate Dead on a body that's been resurrected elsewhere? Works just fine (doesn't always grab the original's soul).
Try to cast Resurrection on a finger when you get back to town, but a necromancer animated your buddy's corpse before you got to town? Expensive lesson. Next time, do try to remember: Cremation fixes lots of problems.

Is it 100% consistent with every nitty gritty thing in the rules? Nope. Far from it. If I'm DM'ing, I'll adjust those as they come up. Justifies the spell being Evil? Yeppers.

[icefractal]

I think everyone in this thread knows that the rules say it's evil. Many people are looking for satisfying explanation of that.
Not because such an explanation is necessary to play the game.
Not because we haven't realized that it has the [Evil] descriptor.
Not because we're going to solve this once and for all across all campaigns in existence.

Simply because it's interesting to brainstorm, and it would make the flavor feel more consistent.
So, "you don't need a reason" is technically true, but not very helpful.


On that topic, if "very subtle effect on the entire world" is too abstract, what about "creating an undead kills a random person, somewhere in the world"? That's more concrete, but does the fact that you'll never know who it is make it too easy to ignore? I kind of like that aspect - people doing evil through convenience because they don't have to directly face the consequences resonates with a lot of things - but YMMV.

[hamishspence]

I like the notion that objective morality in D&D actually means what it says it does, and that the idea that you can have [good] things being evil villains and heroic [evil] things that are not twisted and wicked to undermine the entire concept. If a Yugoloth is acting with pure benevolence, that should have a similar effect on it that a water elemental drying itself out would on the water elemental.

And a fiend simply IS evil. Now, this is actually a little more complex, because agency likely was involved. And still can be. But a fiend that is made of evil got that way by acting evil, and that choice to act that way constructed his soul out of [evil], such that now that he's just his soul (as Outsiders tend to be), he's made of [evil]. He cannot "act good" in any real, meaningful sense without ceasing to be what he is, any more than a fire elemental could replace parts of himself with stone and continue to be a fire elemental.

We know that it is possible to have the [Evil] subtype without having an Evil alignment in 3e to 3.5e, because the MM says so, in the section on the Evil subtype.


As such, your interpretation of how "Being an Outsider with the Evil subtype" works (the vast majority of creatures with the Evil subtype are Outsiders) is likely far too restrictive.

Elder Evils has an Angel, still with its [Good] subtype, as an evil villain - so you can have "[good] things being evil villains" in D&D. Sometimes angels fall - and that doesn't mean they instantly turn into fiends. They might eventually do so, but changing right away is not mandated.

[Segev]

We know that it is possible to have the [Evil] subtype without having an Evil alignment in 3e to 3.5e, because the MM says so, in the section on the Evil subtype.


As such, your interpretation of how "Being an Outsider with the Evil subtype" works (the vast majority of creatures with the Evil subtype are Outsiders) is likely far too restrictive.

Elder Evils has an Angel, still with its [Good] subtype, as an evil villain - so you can have "[good] things being evil villains" in D&D. Sometimes angels fall - and that doesn't mean they instantly turn into fiends. They might eventually do so, but changing right away is not mandated.

I am unfamiliar with this material, but will say that I find it as bad as many find BoED and BoVD, conceptually, if your representation of it is as it makes it seem.

I will continue to reject as bad design choices anything that makes the alignment subtypes not actually have causal or identity-based relation to actual alignment and alignment-determining behaviors.

A [Good] subtyped being that is evil aligned should be a contradiction and impossibility on a conceptual level to the point that, if one appears in a work, it should represent something has fundamentally broken in reality in the same way that “stairs that only go up” would represent a fundamental break in our understanding of the way the real world works.

This may mean we have to agree to disagree. Because I reject such inclusions as a failure by the writers to be coherent, or a failure of nomenclature in their choice to make [Good] need have nothing to do with good alignment.

[Eldonauran]

If I understand you correctly, something being [Evil] doesn't make it evil.

The confusion is the inability for you to separate the mechanical aspect of [Evil] from the moral aspect of Evil. Only in very specific, and probably unique, instances would your statement be accurate. A being compromised of [Evil] possess all the moral compunctions and tendencies to behavior in a manner that is Evil. Until sentience is added to the mix, an [Evil] creature is an Evil creature. And [Evil] creature with a mind of its own can choose to act in manners inconsistent with its very nature and may run the risk of undoing itself. But, no matter how Good it acts, it will continue to register as [Evil] so long as it is comprised of those forces.

...You can be a good and noble individual who just happens to like edgy things like animating skeletons, and your official alignment will be neutral or evil, but you won't actually be evil and anybody who knows you will recognize that you're an upstanding pillar of the community, as long as the community isn't pearl-clutching over the fact that you call yourself "Eve Lynn Badgirl" and insist on laughing maniacally every time you do a good deed.

Regardless of how the community perceives such an individual, or that individual perceives themselves, that individual is not a 'good and noble' person. The universe does not care how any individual perceives itself. Their objective outlook and actions would accumulate the respective fundamental forces that would go to determine their alignment. No such character that you've described in this manner is a Good person that is truly capable of doing [Good] deeds without giving lie to his 'edginess'. Actual [Good] deeds require a level of sacrifice of self with actual benevolent intentions, and not some self-contrived plan to heighten their status in society through perception of their actions.

Is that a fair, if somewhat cartoonish, representation of your take on it? If not, please correct me.

No, I do not feel it is a fair representation of my take on the matter. It is certainly cartoonish in its portrayal of how alignment actually works. In my opinion of course. I try to keep my handling of the alignment system as consistent as possible, even if it rankles the feathers of others.

I personally do not see a paradox or impossibility for [Evil] to choose Good. Or for [Good] to choose Evil. We have stories of fallen angels in the mythologies of the real world, as well as redemption arcs for damned creatures. Choosing Evil leads to [Evil]. Choosing Good leads to [Good]. While you still possess the ability of choice, where you end up is always in flux.

[Segev]

Going to tread delicately around any reference to real world religion. I think D&D is actually unique in stating that Outsiders are fundamentally composed of “alignment stuff.” I cant include any analysis of real-world religions in this and stay within forum rules, so I apologize if you feel I’m missing something there. I will confine myself to saying that the closest I’ve seen to D&D’s treatment of alignment subtypes in other fiction is the Dresden Files.

An Angel in the Dresden Files indicates that if he acts in even a moderately sinful way or his Grace is used to perform an act of even moderate sin, the Angel will be undone. In Dresden Files, we have examples of Fallen Angels which are distinctly different in nature and composition to the normal sort. Nothing about the Fallen in that story suggests they are still [Good]. They have had everything about them save how powerful they are (well, maybe even that) change.

I do not think it makes sense to have an [evil] action which is only fiat-evil. That in no way aligns with what the word means in common language. If your categorization is purely arbitrary, then you may as well label Fireball and Polymorph to be [evil] and Cure Light Wounds and Fly to be [good]. There’s no pattern to be found. It’s purely arbitrary. You could even label torturing a particular race of creature to be a good act because you say so. No way to tell that that shouldn’t be good, because there’s no underlying rule.

[hamishspence]

Going to tread delicately around any reference to real world religion. I think D&D is actually unique in stating that Outsiders are fundamentally composed of “alignment stuff.”

I think people overstate the amount of [aligned] that is incorporated into an [aligned] outsider. Most of the being is, IMO, regular matter (hence spells like Disintegrate, etc. working on it) - there's just enough [aligned] energy though, to make a difference when it comes to how spells interact with the being.


It's not so much comprised of evil, as incorporating some evil - in the case of fiends.

Outsider Type
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

So, a fiend is partially composed of the essence of one of the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Not completely - partially. Its alignment can change - but it retains the subtype. Changing the subtype requires more than simply changing behaviour (there's a ritual in Savage Species for it though). But changing your behaviour, changes your alignment.



And it isn't just 3e - most D&D editions have allowed for evil celestials and nonevil fiends.

Even 5e, which people tout as the most "black-and-white" when it comes to this sort of thing, has evil celestials in the MM. It's explicitly stated that 25% of Empyreans - the most powerful Celestials in the 5e MM - are NE (the other 75% are CG).

I am unfamiliar with this material, but will say that I find it as bad as many find BoED and BoVD, conceptually, if your representation of it is as it makes it seem.

The core MM in 3.5 isn't exactly obscure.

[Eldonauran]

Going to tread delicately around any reference to real world religion. I think D&D is actually unique in stating that Outsiders are fundamentally composed of “alignment stuff.” I cant include any analysis of real-world religions in this and stay within forum rules, so I apologize if you feel I’m missing something there. I will confine myself to saying that the closest I’ve seen to D&D’s treatment of alignment subtypes in other fiction is the Dresden Files.

I believe hamishspence beat me to it. They did a very good job of explaining the concept.

An Angel in the Dresden Files indicates that if he acts in even a moderately sinful way or his Grace is used to perform an act of even moderate sin, the Angel will be undone. In Dresden Files, we have examples of Fallen Angels which are distinctly different in nature and composition to the normal sort. Nothing about the Fallen in that story suggests they are still [Good]. They have had everything about them save how powerful they are (well, maybe even that) change.

I've read those novels extensively as well, and the religion that those particular beings are drawn from (inspiration-wise), Good is an absolute concept. Evil is what happens to fall short of that concept, and has nearly infinite differing shades of expression. This differs greatly from D&D cosmology.

I do not think it makes sense to have an [evil] action which is only fiat-evil. That in no way aligns with what the word means in common language. If your categorization is purely arbitrary, then you may as well label Fireball and Polymorph to be [evil] and Cure Light Wounds and Fly to be [good]. There’s no pattern to be found. It’s purely arbitrary. You could even label torturing a particular race of creature to be a good act because you say so. No way to tell that that shouldn’t be good, because there’s no underlying rule.

I agree that without an absolute, objective standard of morality, then actions can be subjectively labeled whatever you wish. But that objective measuring stick does not exist in the D&D universe outside of what sort of [alignment] seems to resonant with your own actions. We have to suspend our 'common language' understanding of these words so that they do not carry into the game world with their own baggage attached. Disconnecting real world morality and adopting D&D universe morality is one of the greatest struggles players have in immersing themselves in the game.

[Segev]

I think people overstate the amount of [aligned] that is incorporated into an [aligned] outsider. Most of the being is, IMO, regular matter (hence spells like Disintegrate, etc. working on it) - there's just enough [aligned] energy though, to make a difference when it comes to how spells interact with the being.

Maybe. In that case, we're definitely side-tracked. The point here is about the [evil] tag on animate dead.

My statement remains that something being able to be "evil" by fiat when there is absolutely no way to determine, absent the label being provided by the arbitrator, that it qualifies, is bad category design.

Let me be overly pedantic to be precise: I am not saying you can't have fundamental premises that are fiat-given, because premises are always such. But when you special-create a premise unrelated to the others just to cover a case so you can label it as part of the category, it's as useless as saying, "These are the qualities that define being a 'bird:' Feathers, beaks, lays eggs, or is a human being."

The core MM in 3.5 isn't exactly obscure.

I think we're talking past each other here: are you asserting there are evil-aligned creatures with the [Good] subtype in the 3.5 MM? Or am I missing something in your statements, claims, or arguments?

I agree that without an absolute, objective standard of morality, then actions can be subjectively labeled whatever you wish. But that objective measuring stick does not exist in the D&D universe outside of what sort of [alignment] seems to resonant with your own actions. We have to suspend our 'common language' understanding of these words so that they do not carry into the game world with their own baggage attached. Disconnecting real world morality and adopting D&D universe morality is one of the greatest struggles players have in immersing themselves in the game.

It's a categorization problem.

Is your classification system defined by "this is the list of things that fall into the category, and we have no need for any rules other than this list in order to define them?" Or is it defined by a set of rules that can be used to determine whether a new "thing" you see falls into a particular class?

If it's purely arbitrary, then there's no meaning to the classification.

[hamishspence]

I think we're talking past each other here: are you asserting there are evil-aligned creatures with the [Good] subtype in the 3.5 MM? Or am I missing something in your statements, claims, or arguments?

I'm stating that (in each subtype description in the MM) it states that creatures with alignments differing from their subtype, are possible. That it is unambiguous that nonevil creatures with the [evil] subtype can exist, nongood creatures with the Good subtype can exist, and so forth.

As such:

A [Good] subtyped being that is evil aligned should be a contradiction and impossibility on a conceptual level to the point that, if one appears in a work, it should represent something has fundamentally broken in reality in the same way that “stairs that only go up” would represent a fundamental break in our understanding of the way the real world works.

isn't consistent with the way the MM is written.

This:

Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment.

makes it clear that the designers conceived the possibility of situations like Evil-aligned creature with [Good] subtype, or vice versa.

For evil-aligned creature with Good subtype, Holy weapons will damage them fully because they are Evil-aligned. Unholy weapons will also damage them fully, because they have the Good subtype.

It's not necessary for reality to have "fundamentally broken" for this sort of thing to happen.

[Eldonauran]

It's a categorization problem.

Is your classification system defined by "this is the list of things that fall into the category, and we have no need for any rules other than this list in order to define them?" Or is it defined by a set of rules that can be used to determine whether a new "thing" you see falls into a particular class?

If it's purely arbitrary, then there's no meaning to the classification.

I'm just not seeing the categorization problem. I don't have a system where I expect everything to fit into nice, neat little boxes so that they can be easily sorted and labeled. I expect things to get messy, spill over and pool into different areas. I expect things to overlap and appear to conflict. It is where these things eventually end up and settle, where the multiple aspects of each stabilize and remain consistent, that I eventually draw my final conclusions on them.

I may not be fully understanding your statement, however. I don't have an inherent issue with Animate Undead having the [Evil] tag attached to it.

[Segev]

I'm just not seeing the categorization problem. I don't have a system where I expect everything to fit into nice, neat little boxes so that they can be easily sorted and labeled. I expect things to get messy, spill over and pool into different areas. I expect things to overlap and appear to conflict. It is where these things eventually end up and settle, where the multiple aspects of each stabilize and remain consistent, that I eventually draw my final conclusions on them.

I may not be fully understanding your statement, however. I don't have an inherent issue with Animate Undead having the [Evil] tag attached to it.

Except that that's precisely what creating a categorization system that has no categorization rules other than "check this list" does: it puts things in neat little boxes that are arbitrary and useless.

If arson, murder, and plucking your eyebrows on Tuesdays is evil, then "evil" has little to do with what we mean when we use the word outside of the context of D&D.

I do not think it too much to ask that things that are evil actually be evil, such that it would and should prick the conscience of somebody who analyzes it both emotionally and intellectually. I find anything where you can say, "Okay, if you aren't willing to sacrifice your morals to achieve this positive end, you're a worse person than somebody who would," to be repugnant worldbuilding. It's bad writing when stories try to pull that nonsense. If I can build a necromancer who is steeped in evil, but other than the fact that he's surrounded by undead of his own making, there's nothing you can point to to say, "He's evil," and he does nothing but good with his minions and his efforts, and construct a valid argument that he's actually a pretty swell guy who nobody should feel uncomfortable around based on his behavior other than having a lot of undead minions, that's a failure of the system if the system still insists that he's evil because he animates a lot of dead.

If animating the dead is evil, it should be something that makes him a callous, selfish, or negligently cruel person to choose that method and means of his otherwise good deeds. Otherwise, it's saying that using a black screwdriver with a skull and crossbones on it is evil, but using a red screwdriver is neutral.

[Eldonauran]

If animating the dead is evil, it should be something that makes him a callous, selfish, or negligently cruel person to choose that method and means of his otherwise good deeds. Otherwise, it's saying that using a black screwdriver with a skull and crossbones on it is evil, but using a red screwdriver is neutral.

Evil does not need to be callous, selfish or negligently cruel. In the end, it is all about being self-serving to the point that you hold your own way of doing things superior to every other way. It might not be a repugnant or vile sort of evil, this character that you are describing, but the evil is still present unless you want to change the very nature of game concerning the undead, the powers and hungers that drive them, and have the character blatantly ignore those factors in the creatures he creates and harnesses power from.

If the character would be willing to find other sources of power to animate 'things' to serve him and accomplish his goals, ones that don't draw on a form of energy that is by its nature opposed to life energy, then ... if he was willing, a Good character would seek out those other powers. A Neutral character would accept that the powers he dabbles in are tainted, and though they feel reluctant about it, would be willing to use them. An Evil character justify away their own feelings on the matter (if they had any) and choose to use those powers as long as they were useful.

But this all comes back to WHY the [Evil] tag is being assigned to the Animate Dead spell. It is an axiom that was assumed by the authors and written into the lore of the game. Perhaps they had reasons for doing so (and based on much of the material released, that is what they intended).

[Segev]

Evil does not need to be callous, selfish or negligently cruel. In the end, it is all about being self-serving to the point that you hold your own way of doing things superior to every other way. It might not be a repugnant or vile sort of evil, this character that you are describing, but the evil is still present unless you want to change the very nature of game concerning the undead, the powers and hungers that drive them, and have the character blatantly ignore those factors in the creatures he creates and harnesses power from.

If the character would be willing to find other sources of power to animate 'things' to serve him and accomplish his goals, ones that don't draw on a form of energy that is by its nature opposed to life energy, then ... if he was willing, a Good character would seek out those other powers. A Neutral character would accept that the powers he dabbles in are tainted, and though they feel reluctant about it, would be willing to use them. An Evil character justify away their own feelings on the matter (if they had any) and choose to use those powers as long as they were useful.

But this all comes back to WHY the [Evil] tag is being assigned to the Animate Dead spell. It is an axiom that was assumed by the authors and written into the lore of the game. Perhaps they had reasons for doing so (and based on much of the material released, that is what they intended).

Nope. Nothing you've written here maker the character evil for choosing an aesthetic that is "icky".

I could as factually and as meaningfully say all magic is tainted and that only evil characters use it. Any who claim otherwise are evil for holding their own way of doing things superior to any other way.

[Eldonauran]

I could as factually and as meaningfully say all magic is tainted and that only evil characters use it. Any who claim otherwise are evil for holding their own way of doing things superior to any other way.

Yes, you could do that. And likely convince others if you had any sort of evidence in the core game system to substantiate such claims.

[Segev]

Yes, you could do that. And likely convince others if you had any sort of evidence in the core game system to substantiate such claims.

The evidence is that I've added the [evil] tag to every spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural power. With no other mechanical changes. And for no reason other than I say they're evil. Well, one mechanical change: I permit Paladins and clerics to delude themselves into thinking they're not doing evil, and make paladin "falling" a matter of them realizing their perfidy rather than an external judgment. But paladins who use lay on hands and smite evil creatures and do nothing but make the world a better place are barely holding on to a LN alignment, because of just how many evil acts they take. Many so-called "good" clerics who also make the world a generally better place with their magics, hurt nobody, but maybe are, you know, imperfect mortals in their non-magical lives so aren't paragons of virtue, are alginment-wise rather evil because of all the magic they do. They're about as evil as the career thug who serves as a mafia enforcer, despite hurting nobody to any appreciable extent. Because magic is evil, and the so-called "good" cleric is using lots of magic rather than accepting that his methods are not superior to non-magical ones and shunning the magical efforts. The fact that he's right and using medicine is slower and less reliable than remove disease doesn't change that he's evil for thinking so.

[Eldonauran]

And, now we've devolved into houseruling the issue one way or the other. That is not something I am interested it. If a character concept you want to play requires a houserule (ie, removing the [Evil] tag from Animate Dead), that is an issue that is between you and your GM/players. I don't believe the alignment tag was added to Animate Dead flippantly or without reason.

I really see no point forward in this direction of the conversation, so I will withdraw from discussing the matter for now.

[Segev]

And, now we've devolved into houseruling the issue one way or the other. That is not something I am interested it. If a character concept you want to play requires a houserule (ie, removing the [Evil] tag from Animate Dead), that is an issue that is between you and your GM/players. I don't believe the alignment tag was added to Animate Dead flippantly or without reason.

I really see no point forward in this direction of the conversation, so I will withdraw from discussing the matter for now.

Once again, you're missing my point. I don't want to remove the [evil] tag. I am perfectly fine with - nay, actually like - the notion that casting animate dead and create undead is an evil act. However, I want it to actually be an evil act, and not "evil." I am as dissatisfied with the notion that casting animate dead and then proceeding to otherwise be a paragon of virtue and light and never using nor permitting your created skeletons to do any harm to anything that doesn't unquestionably deserve it is evil, as I am with the notion that you could have a [good] spell that a caster could use habitually to keep himself "good aligned" because he casts it so often, despite otherwise being a rather selfishly neutral person. Never does any good for anybody with it other than himself, and just refrains from doing excessive harm to people, but he has a bright and shiny spell he keeps casting and that somehow makes him Good.

I want animate dead and create undead to have, as part of casting them or a direct consequence of the process of casting them, something unambiguously uncomfortable for good-aligned people to countenance, and maybe that could slightly prick the conscience of neutral people if they don't have a really good reason to be doing it. I want the [evil] tag to be more than an equivalent of wearing chrome spikes and skull-motif black robes for your "evil" character who...never quite gets around to otherwise being actually a bad person.

[hamishspence]

I am as dissatisfied with the notion that casting animate dead and then proceeding to otherwise be a paragon of virtue and light and never using nor permitting your created skeletons to do any harm to anything that doesn't unquestionably deserve it is evil, as I am with the notion that you could have a [good] spell that a caster could use habitually to keep himself "good aligned" because he casts it so often, despite otherwise being a rather selfishly neutral person. Never does any good for anybody with it other than himself, and just refrains from doing excessive harm to people, but he has a bright and shiny spell he keeps casting and that somehow makes him Good.

IMO there is a bit of asymmetry in tags. Casting [Evil] spells like Protection from Good, even harmlessly, will eventually turn a Neutral character Evil (in the absence of anything to make up for this).

But no amount of casting Protection from Evil, in the absence of other Good behaviour, will turn a Neutral character Good.


Evil energy taints - but Good Energy doesn't really redeem.

That's why there's a big list of negative effects in BOVD for various degrees of "exposure to evil" but nothing like that in BOED for "exposure to Good".

An evil deity being born means a massive influx of evil energy - that can turn neutral beings in the vicinity Evil, confer on beings the Evil Brand vile feat, or the Corrupted template and so on.



But a good deity being born doesn't do anything like that in reverse. It doesn't change neutral beings around the location Good, or confer the Celestial template, or Exalted feats, or anything like that.

[Segev]

IMO there is a bit of asymmetry in tags. Casting [Evil] spells like Protection from Good, even harmlessly, will eventually turn a Neutral character Evil (in the absence of anything to make up for this).

But no amount of casting Protection from Evil, in the absence of other Good behaviour, will turn a Neutral character Good.


Evil energy taints - but Good Energy doesn't really redeem.

That's why there's a big list of negative effects in BOVD for various degrees of "exposure to evil" but nothing like that in BOED for "exposure to Good".

An evil deity being born means a massive influx of evil energy - that can turn neutral beings in the vicinity Evil, confer on beings the Evil Brand vile feat, or the Corrupted template and so on.



But a good deity being born doesn't do anything like that in reverse. It doesn't change neutral beings around the location Good, or confer the Celestial template, or Exalted feats, or anything like that.

Which makes the tags even more worthless and bad game design. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of what they are/do, but I am saying it was a bad design choice.

[hamishspence]

The irony of it is that BOED takes the most flak for excessive symmetry - inventing diseases and poisons that only work on Evil characters, as a mirror to the regular diseases and poisons that Evil characters use as weapons.


IMO, when it comes to Good and Evil, asymmetry makes more sense.