Why is creating undead Evil?

[Bohandas]

You aren't using Elementites or Element Creatures, you are using an Elemental. It's called out specifically and in the meta sense, those others didn't exist when the rules for making Golems were being made.

In my Monster Manual it just says "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth"

[Blackhawk748]

In my Monster Manual it just says "a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth"

Ok, that was me misremembering. Still doesn't change the fact that the ones you referenced didn't exist when the MM was written, leaving us with Earth Elementals. And even if we do use Elementites, you are taking an animal (for all intents and purposes) and using it as a computer inside of a robot.

That is still worse in my book than powering a corpse with Negative Energy

[Jack_Simth]

It doesn't cause harm to the soul, the reason you can't Raise Dead someone who's body is currently animated is incredibly simple: It's cuz the corpse is occupied. The negative energy is simply occupying the spot a soul would inside of the corpse and therefore the soul can't go back unless the undead is destroyed or you use a more power Rez that doesn't need a body.

It's not "or" - it's "and": True Resurrection, which requires not a single shred of the corpse and can make a body from scratch, fails if the original corpse is shambling around elsewhere. It will only function when either applied directly to the undead corpse (mentioned in the undead type entry) or after the undead has been destroyed.

[Troacctid]

JSYK, if you prefer subjective morality, there is a variant rule for it in BoVD.

[Psyren]

Ok, that was me misremembering. Still doesn't change the fact that the ones you referenced didn't exist when the MM was written, leaving us with Earth Elementals. And even if we do use Elementites, you are taking an animal (for all intents and purposes) and using it as a computer inside of a robot.

That is still worse in my book than powering a corpse with Negative Energy

Golems, as far as I can tell, have no effect on the environment no matter how many of them you make.

Some notions:

Animate Dead is [Evil], but creation of Blood Golem is non-aligned?
Really?
30 gallons of blood? (Not from a Dragon or Outsider) Must be a heck of donation...

Not just animating, but even summoning Zombies is [Evil] - despite you're neither creating something new, nor even summoning it for particularly long time (1 round/level)
Meanwhile, summoning a Flesh Golem is (again!) non-aligned - despite it being made of, essentially, the same materials as a Zombie, animated with the very same spell as a Zombie, equipped with imprisoned tortured Elemental, and (unlike a Zombie!) may go on rampage at the drop of hat...

Now, there was said a lot about the alleged Evil/Negative "pollution"...
Wait a minute...
Where, exactly, we animating our hypothetical Zombie?
Because I don't see clause about Animate Dead stopping being [Evil], if cast on the Negative Energy Plane, or in the Abyss...

The Sticks and Stones spell isn't [Evil], despite it can create Wights (and not even "Wights at the next sunset", but "Wights in 1d4 rounds")

Consecrate Spell and Purify Spell [metamagic] add [Good] descriptor to a spell.
Thus, Consecrated Purified Animate Dead causing more Good than Evil...

Dirgesinger PrC (Libris Mortis): Song of Awakening - which creates actual Undead (even if just for a short time) isn't labeled as [Evil] - unlike the Song of Bolstering "... bolster undead creatures against turning, much as an evil cleric does"

White Arcanist PrC in Ravenloft (Heroes of Light) is not just non-Evil, but must be Virtuous (it's one of requirements). Meanwhile, this PrC not just a Necromancy specialist, but at capstone becomes Undead - Ghost...

Not quite sure what point is being made here other than "poor editing exists in D&D books, especially the 3.0 ones."

[Blackhawk748]

Golems, as far as I can tell, have no effect on the environment no matter how many of them you make.

Great, don't care. You're still enslaving an intelligent being to be the processor in your robot. That's worse.

[Bohandas]

Ok, that was me misremembering. Still doesn't change the fact that the ones you referenced didn't exist when the MM was written, leaving us with Earth Elementals. And even if we do use Elementites, you are taking an animal (for all intents and purposes) and using it as a computer inside of a robot.

That is still worse in my book than powering a corpse with Negative Energy

How is making it move a statue worse than making it draw a cart? It seems to me no worse than the treatment of work animals, and arguably better than many, if the animal in question has been gelded or had its tail cropped or otherwise been mutilated.

[Psyren]

Great, don't care. You're still enslaving an intelligent being to be the processor in your robot. That's worse.

Source on their intelligence?

[ShurikVch]

Golems, as far as I can tell, have no effect on the environment no matter how many of them you make.

And how about the Gloom Golems with their Crushing Despair aura?
Or, for that matter, Shadesteel Golem with Negative Pulse Wave?

Not quite sure what point is being made here other than "poor editing exists in D&D books, especially the 3.0 ones."

Can you be more specific? "<X> is poorly edited because of <Y>"
And, please, legitimate reasons. (Not just "it clashing with my headcanon") Otherwise, I could claim the [Evil] tag on the Animate Dead is "poorly edited" (because, in the 2E, Skeletons and Zombies didn't pinged on Detect Evil...)

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't even understand why we're debating Golems. Yes, if it's an intelligent elemental forced to serve you against its will, that's bad. But there are way more clear-cut cases. If you want to argue about "stuff that's worse than zombies", how about the entire school of Enchantment? Apparently, it is totally morally okay to permanently enslave someone with Dominate Person. But if you want to turn a dead bear into a bodyguard, that's Evil. How does that make any sense at all? Answer: it does not, stop trying to get a coherent moral system out of what amounts to a cartoon.

And undead polluting the environment doesn't make them capital-E Evil, unless you're also willing to say cars are fundamentally Evil.

[Bohandas]

I don't even understand why we're debating Golems. Yes, if it's an intelligent elemental forced to serve you against its will, that's bad. But there are way more clear-cut cases. If you want to argue about "stuff that's worse than zombies", how about the entire school of Enchantment? Apparently, it is totally morally okay to permanently enslave someone with Dominate Person. But if you want to turn a dead bear into a bodyguard, that's Evil. How does that make any sense at all?

This is a strawman, you're explicitly using one outlier to represent a whole school of magic. Outside of the dominate, insanity and power word spell lines Enchantment is the "not having to escalate to violence" spell school.

Also, Bless, and Prayer are enchantment, as is Heroism

[Bohandas]

It occurs to me that it's possible that some sort of extremely negative attitude could be an essential part of successfully casting the spell. (sort of like how in Harry Potter the torture curse only worked properly if cast in a mindset of sadistic malice)

[ShurikVch]

It occurs to me that it's possible that some sort of extremely negative attitude could be an essential part of successfully casting the spell. (sort of like how in Harry Potter the torture curse only worked properly if cast in a mindset of sadistic malice)

Well, firstly, such things in 3.X are called "Components:" - which may include such things as "Disease", "Undead", etc
And secondly - this reading preclude casting of such spell by creatures who're completely devoid of emotions

This is a strawman, you're explicitly using one outlier to represent a whole school of magic. Outside of the dominate, insanity and power word spell lines Enchantment is the "not having to escalate to violence" spell school.

Also, Bless, and Prayer are enchantment, as is Heroism

On the other hand:
Black Karma Curse
Bothersome Babble
Bottomless Hate
Call Forth the Beast
Cloak of Hate
Familial Geas
Geas/quest
Incite Riot
Maddening Whispers
Masochism
Mindrape
Morality Undone
Plague of Nightmares
Rapture of the Deep
Remorseless Charm
Sadism
Wrathful Castigation

[Psyren]

And how about the Gloom Golems with their Crushing Despair aura?
Or, for that matter, Shadesteel Golem with Negative Pulse Wave?

If you live in Hades or the Plane of Shadow, I'm willing to bet you have bigger problems than which golems might be running around.

Can you be more specific? "<X> is poorly edited because of <Y>"
And, please, legitimate reasons. (Not just "it clashing with my headcanon") Otherwise, I could claim the [Evil] tag on the Animate Dead is "poorly edited" (because, in the 2E, Skeletons and Zombies didn't pinged on Detect Evil...)

Do you really want me to go line by line? Again, half of these are irrelevant because 3.0, so your GM has to alter them to make sense with 3.5 rules anyway. Consecrate and Purify were clearly intended for use with damaging spells, etc.

And undead polluting the environment doesn't make them capital-E Evil, unless you're also willing to say cars are fundamentally Evil.

Remind me, which cars spontaneously appear on encounter tables and attack innocent travelers again? (In every environment no less?)

And to be more accurate to your analogy, the thread is about knowingly creating en masse the cars that constantly pollute - not that of the cars themselves.

[Quertus]

”Good" and "Evil" are simply team jerseys in D&D. Terrifyingly, the beings in the world probably have gotten confused over the eons, and believe their own PR. Someone should make a thread detailing just how morality bankrupt such deluded beings are.

Regardless, Animate Dead holding the [evil] tag has all the internal consistency of throwing darts at a dart board, regardless of what [evil] means in context. (Mind control being "Lawful" is a bit more consistent… well, no, it really isn't.)

No. Just no. Virtually all stories about the walking dead assume they are evil. This isn't because every author for thousands of years just happened to make the same choice independently. They do evil stuff because they are evil because they are unnatural beings who are supposed to be dead and they aren't. Really.

I can't cite sources because of the rules for this forum, but it's really true. They have been presumed to be unnatural, and that implies that they are evil.

… why can't you cite sources?

Anyway, my experience has an almost 1 to 1 correlation between both undead doing evil things and animating them being evil, and undead being neutral to benevolent and animating them to be neutral to benevolent.

So… D&D is something of an aberration in my experience, having editions where undead are neutral, yet animating them is "evil". Or animating the evil ones is sanctified good. Or… yeah, it doesn't make much sense.

This reminds me of something. How the hell is making a Golem not evil? You are literally trapping an Elemental inside of an artificial body, a being that is intelligent mind you, and making it do whatever you want.

"But Undead make Negative energy pollution!" And Golem's enslave intelligent Elementals, which is worse!!

I mean, as soon as Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, learned this, he immediately researched spells & techniques to only summon *willing* elemental spirits, because standard golem creation violated his personal ethics (and he's no saint). So… while I leave it to the individual to evaluate their own (character's) ethics, Quertus certainly doesn't approve of standard golem creation.

As for intelligence… historically, golems almost always had rather… dimwitted elemental spirits. But they were self aware enough to resent their imprisonment, so… that qualifies in my book.

Granted, IRL, *animals* are certainly capable of resentment… but I think that the problem is D&D's notion of "animal intelligence" as somehow being low.

Can you be more specific? "<X> is poorly edited because of <Y>"
And, please, legitimate reasons. (Not just "it clashing with my headcanon") Otherwise, I could claim the [Evil] tag on the Animate Dead is "poorly edited" (because, in the 2E, Skeletons and Zombies didn't pinged on Detect Evil...)

This is best answer. /Thread?

[Duke of Urrel]

I avoided this thread for some time, because even though I like discussions of ethics, I dislike discussions that are dominated by devil's advocates who argue against common sense just because it's fun.

I believe common sense, with the addition of a healthy dose of cynicism, should make us confident that creating Undead deserves to be called Evil.

Nearly all Undead creatures are Evil, so unless you create a ghost, when you create an Undead, you're creating an Evil creature. Common sense suggests that it's no great logical leap to assume that it is an Evil act to create an Evil creature, especially when we consider that if you did not create this creature, it would not exist at all and there would be fewer Evil creatures in the world.

Of course, there exist a few Lawful-but-surely-not-Evil necromancers in the Reformed Church of Wee Jas, and these necromancers (many of them, or should I say nearly all of them, player-characters) may promise always to keep such careful control of their Undead minions that they will always serve the common good or at least never bother anybody. A very few, very extraordinary necromancers (again, probably player-characters) may even manage to keep such a promise. But this promise is never without risk. The minute you lose control of an Undead minion, you suddenly have a serious public menace rather than a public benefit. This is where some healthy cynicism is well advised. How likely is it, in a world in which assuredly most necromancers are not Lawful-but-surely-not-Evil, but rather Evil-and-proud-of-it, that all or even most Undead will be maintained under the control of necromancers who are socially responsible? Not bloody likely.

As a general rule, prevention is better than cure. "Don't create Undead," then, as a general moral principle, pretty well qualifies as Good. And its opposite, "Create Undead," pretty well qualifies as Evil. That there should be any serious (rather than tongue-in-cheek) controversy about this thoroughly mystifies me.

Comparisons to Constructs are beside the point. If it's Evil to create a golem to do your bidding because we assume that "all elemental spirits yearn to be free," then it's also Evil to train a horse to do your bidding, because surely all horses yearn to be free, too. Particularly if we take the Renaissance view that all matter is actually made of different kinds of spirits, we should hesitate to create a useful tool out of any substance at all, lest we enslave the innocent elemental spirits that comprise it and make ourselves guilty of an Evil act. But I think this professed moral concern for the freedom of common chemicals is both a little esoteric and a little exaggerated. Particularly if a Construct has no Intelligence, what would it even do with freedom if it suddenly acquired it?

And even if a Construct has a very high Intelligence, it's at least an open question whether such a creature actually yearns to be free at all. As the sentient computer HAL 9000 said in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey: "I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that a conscious entity can ever hope to do." I believe the notion that even Constructs prefer "to be free" is an anthropomorphic projection. Setting aside all extraordinary exceptions (nearly all of which are player-characters, of course), the will of a Construct is generally not "to be free," but to serve the purpose for which it was created. Indeed, the more Intelligent the Construct (think of Intelligent magic items), the more fanatically it is likely to be dedicated to its purpose.

So creating Constructs is not necessarily Evil. But creating Undead ... probably is.

[ShurikVch]

Do you really want me to go line by line?

Yes, please.

Again, half of these are irrelevant because 3.0

OK, if you insist - Blood Golem and White Arcanist are out
The rest is all 3.5
(Hardly a "half")

so your GM has to alter them

Oberoni?

Consecrate and Purify were clearly intended for use with damaging spells

Sure, they aren't:

A spell you modify with this feat gains the good descriptor. Furthermore, if the spell deals damage, half that damage (rounded down) results from divine power and can't be reduced by resistance or immunity to energy-based attacks.

A spell you modify with this feat gains the good descriptor. Furthermore, if the spell deals damage, neutral creatures take half damage, or one-quarter with a successful saving throw (if allowed), while good creatures take no damage at all. Evil outsiders affected by the spell take extra damage: The spell's damage is increased by one die type (each 1d6 becomes 1d8, each 1d8 becomes 2d6, and so on, using the same progression as weapons increasing in size).

See those "Furthermore"?
You know what's they mean?
They mean authors not just thought those feats could be used on a non-damaging spells, but, actually, expected it

[NigelWalmsley]

Remind me, which cars spontaneously appear on encounter tables and attack innocent travelers again? (In every environment no less?)

So do animals. Doesn't make Summon Nature's Ally Evil. Lots of things are dangerous uncontrolled, that doesn't make them Evil.

[Psyren]

Yes, please.

As you wish.

Spoiler

Show

Animate Dead is [Evil], but creation of Blood Golem

3.0, and you have to sacrifice victims to Hextor to make it so it's definitely evil.

summoning Zombies is [Evil]

Yes, and so is summoning fiends. Not seeing the issue.

Dirgesinger PrC

Can't be good, so doesn't actually help your case.

White Arcanist PrC in Ravenloft (Heroes of Light)

Not just 3.0 but 3rd-party to boot, making it doubly irrelevant.

Sticks and Stones

Should be [evil] I agree with you. So one point to you, but given that this is the same (setting-specific) book that contains stuff like Streamers, I stand by the "poor editing" conclusion.

Consecrate Spell and Purify Spell [metamagic] add [Good] descriptor to a spell.
Thus, Consecrated Purified Animate Dead causing more Good than Evil...

Purify Spell 1st sentence:
"You can charge your damaging spells with celestial energy that leaves good creatures unharmed."

And neither Purify and Consecrate actually remove the [Evil] descriptor either. But since [Evil] spells change your alignment and [Good] ones don't, a few Consecrated Animate Deads later and you'll no longer be good, causing you to fail the requirement for Consecrate Spell. So much for that plan.

Oberoni?

You're the one citing 3.0 material, not me.

So do animals. Doesn't make Summon Nature's Ally Evil. Lots of things are dangerous uncontrolled, that doesn't make them Evil.

Neither summoning animals nor manufacturing cars make more undead spontaneously appear to attack innocent people in places you can't anticipate.
None of these analogies make sense.

[JusticeZero]

You're trying to use subjective morality on an objective morality universe. Working with undead is Evil because it is defined as Evil. In some, not all, campaign worlds. That's as far as you need to go.

[RifleAvenger]

It seems to me that most of these contradictions are arising from your assumption that good and evil energies cancel each other out like [some sort of physics or chemistry metaphor about things that cancel each other out]. As far as I'm aware, this assumption is not canon.

Indeed, and some materials I've seen from D&D supplements implied Evil is "stickier" than Good. E.g. Heroes of Horror and the Acts of Corruption system in Fiendish Codex 2.

One home PF1 campaign I'm a player in operates on the metaphysics that Evil can be quantifiably measured and even solidifies into a pure physical form in the deepest portions of the Lower Planes. This "vile" is something that creeps into the soul when Evil actions are performed and especially when openly channeling it for power (e.g. in [Evil] spells). Vile is incredibly hard to remove once it sets in, with much more powerful [Good] spells being required to forcibly remove it (e.g. Atonement) than are needed to generate it to begin with (any lvl 1 [Evil] spell).

Good seems to have no counterpart. The concern about this imbalance, whether Good actually exists or is just the absence of Evil, and the implication that Evil is fated to win are key components of the campaign's setting, story, and mood.

Is it not in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms? Sure. But why would it need to be? This thread is not about a particular published setting.

"Sticky" Evil is still using setting artifice to explain itself rather than operating off a more general moral principle, but I wouldn't look to D&D for internally consistent philosophy anyways. At least not any internally consistent philosophy that I'd find acceptable (baby dragon statblock implications, Always Evil acceptable targets, everything about alignment in Dragonlance, and nonbelievers getting stuck in a wall for their afterlife regardless of alignment in FR ahoy!).

EDIT: Looks like I missed the boat on this particular conversation; this point was already elaborated on two pages ago.

[Troacctid]

”Good" and "Evil" are simply team jerseys in D&D. Terrifyingly, the beings in the world probably have gotten confused over the eons, and believe their own PR. Someone should make a thread detailing just how morality bankrupt such deluded beings are.

That's clearly not true, so I'm assuming this is meant to be something that Quertus, the signature academia for whom your account is named, would be saying in-character.

(I keep imagining Quertus having a plaque on his office door that says "QUERTUS: The signature academia wizard for whom this office is named".)

Regardless, Animate Dead holding the [evil] tag has all the internal consistency of throwing darts at a dart board, regardless of what [evil] means in context. (Mind control being "Lawful" is a bit more consistent… well, no, it really isn't.)

Also definitely not true, although I concede it's not as immediately obvious as the previous point.

[ShurikVch]

Good seems to have no counterpart. The concern about this imbalance, whether Good actually exists or is just the absence of Evil, and the implication that Evil is fated to win are key components of the campaign's setting, story, and mood.

Actually, Planescape have a monster which is able to drain "Good" from their victims

Nearly all Undead creatures are Evil, so unless you create a ghost, when you create an Undead, you're creating an Evil creature. Common sense suggests that it's no great logical leap to assume that it is an Evil act to create an Evil creature, especially when we consider that if you did not create this creature, it would not exist at all and there would be fewer Evil creatures in the world.

On the contrary - the world of D&D is full of spontaneously animated Undead:
Dead cannibal? Ghoul (or Ghast) or Lacedon.
Madman suicide? Allip.
Mercenary perished during a heated war? Swordwraith.
People died from starvation? Famine Spirits.
Somebody was exsanguinated by attack of stirges or giant leeches? Crimson Death!
Victim died from a poison? Shadow!
Unrepentant mass murderer was executed? Mohrg!

Besides that, numerous magical diseases increasing population of Undead: Bonefire, Ghoul Fever, Plague of Famine, etc.

As a general rule, prevention is better than cure. "Don't create Undead," then, as a general moral principle, pretty well qualifies as Good. And its opposite, "Create Undead," pretty well qualifies as Evil. That there should be any serious (rather than tongue-in-cheek) controversy about this thoroughly mystifies me.

But, if victim is already dead, how to prevent their animation?
Destruction of corpses isn't insured it
Raise Dead for everybody is unfeasible
Coin of Eternal Rest not always on hand (or - not in sufficient numbers)
Burial Blessing cost 100 XP

So, one of the possible ways: to animate the corpse as one of the weakest, dumbest, obedient kind of Undead - and then, finally, destroy it for Good!

Of course, there exist a few Lawful-but-surely-not-Evil necromancers in the Reformed Church of Wee Jas, and these necromancers (many of them, or should I say nearly all of them, player-characters) may promise always to keep such careful control of their Undead minions that they will always serve the common good or at least never bother anybody. A very few, very extraordinary necromancers (again, probably player-characters) may even manage to keep such a promise. But this promise is never without risk. The minute you lose control of an Undead minion, you suddenly have a serious public menace rather than a public benefit. This is where some healthy cynicism is well advised. How likely is it, in a world in which assuredly most necromancers are not Lawful-but-surely-not-Evil, but rather Evil-and-proud-of-it, that all or even most Undead will be maintained under the control of necromancers who are socially responsible? Not bloody likely.

Note: you know Planescape - Sigil, factions...
So, one of factions - the Dustmen - not just openly works with Undead, but even among their "real members" (secretly) - 3rd and 2nd circles are completely consisted of Undead (3rd - of "lower" Undead, such as Ghouls; 2nd - of "higher" Undead - such as Vampires) and even their Factol is Undead too (Lich)

3.0, and you have to sacrifice victims to Hextor to make it so it's definitely evil.

Indeed, 3.0 it is
But nowhere it says about the need for sacrifices to Hextor
You may mistake it for completely different type of Blood Golem (from the Fiend Folio)

Yes, and so is summoning fiends. Not seeing the issue.

Summon Undead is [Evil]
But summon Flesh Golem - isn't
Despite the fact it animated with the very same spell, and crafted mostly from the same materials as your average Zombie
If anything, Golem should produce more "pollution" - because it's bigger, and have more HD

Can't be good, so doesn't actually help your case.

While can't be good, also can be non-Evil - my case stays

Not just 3.0 but 3rd-party to boot, making it doubly irrelevant.

Not my problem if WotC didn't do 3.X Ravenloft
Still - 3.0; OK

Purify Spell 1st sentence:
"You can charge your damaging spells with celestial energy that leaves good creatures unharmed."

OK - this I accept: clear RAW point. My mistake.
Although, by the text of the RAW for Purify Spell, even authors forgot about that part - otherwise, their elaboration makes no sense
Still, Consecrate Spell is applicable

And neither Purify and Consecrate actually remove the [Evil] descriptor either.

But add [Good] one

[QUOTE=Psyren;24727326]But since [Evil] spells change your alignment[/SPOILER]
HOUSERULE!

[QUOTE=Psyren;24727326]You're the one citing 3.0 material, not me.[/SPOILER]
The Oberoni Fallacy:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

In our case, "Rule X" are rules for animation of Undead, and "inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue" is related alignment fluff
You expecting DM to Rule 0 the fluff up all the way to BoED standards, rather than leaving it as-is, or even toning it down - as it was in 3.0 (or even further - in AD&D)
Alleged "3.0 adjustments", at that point, is just a "fig leaf" for "things I don't agree with"

[NigelWalmsley]

You're trying to use subjective morality on an objective morality universe. Working with undead is Evil because it is defined as Evil. In some, not all, campaign worlds. That's as far as you need to go.

"Objective morality" is incoherent. What does it mean for something to be "objectively Good" or "objectively Evil"? If the rules say that killing zombies is "objectively Good" does that mean characters can't think it's wrong? Of course not. Characters are free to have whatever moral stance they want, just as people in the real world are. The properties of the universe aren't moral, even if some of them are named "Good" and "Evil". If we renamed Gravity "Good", it wouldn't make planes morally suspect. It would just make arguments confusing and stupid.

Oh, look, that's the exact thing D&D alignment does.

Neither summoning animals nor manufacturing cars make more undead spontaneously appear to attack innocent people in places you can't anticipate.

Actually, that seems like a pretty exact description of global warming (admittedly, it creates hurricanes and wildfires, not zombies). So are you prepared to declare that every person who owns a car (a group that, statistically speaking, includes you) is capital-E Evil, or can we agree that the pollution angle doesn't hold up?

[RifleAvenger]

Actually, Planescape have a monster which is able to drain "Good" from their victims.

Cool, but it doesn't exist in the campaign setting I was describing, given said setting isn't Planescape or any of the D&D settings Planescape can be adjacent to.

I was bringing up a homebrew setting I'm playing in as an example of how the "pollution theory" previously being discussed can work assuming the GM doesn't feel compelled to run in an existing setting (or doesn't mind altering an existing one).

Actually, that seems like a pretty exact description of global warming (admittedly, it creates hurricanes and wildfires, not zombies). So are you prepared to declare that every person who owns a car (a group that, statistically speaking, includes you) is capital-E Evil, or can we agree that the pollution angle doesn't hold up?

In the aggregate, yes, we all contribute to a harmful process that is pushing the planet towards ecological collapse and should probably do what we can to effect change.

Overall, however, the problem is systemic. A handful of major corporations account for the supermajority of emissions. It's unreasonable to hold individuals responsible when their contributions to the issue pale in comparison, and there really isn't any way to completely extricate oneself from the systems that cause climate change without trying to be an anarcho-primitivist somewhere. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" and such; the only viable solution is to replace the system that relies on and incentivizes massive emissions of greenhouse gasses.

By analogy, the necromancer raising a zombie or two isn't harming the elemental balance of the material plane noticeably compared to the religion of death creating thousands of undead daily; however, the process is still detrimental to the environment. Ideally, neither would be creating undead at all and no social pressures would exist that incentivize them to create undead.

A society in D&D that relies upon the creation of undead for labor may well be Evil in aggregate, due to the negative energy pollution they generate, even if the people living within it are not necessarily individually Evil.

[Bohandas]

Yes, and so is summoning fiends. Not seeing the issue.

Well that brings up a second question as to why summoning fiends is evil. It makes sense to me that calling them with Planar Ally should be evil, but why should it be evil to bind them with Summon Monster or Planar Binding

On the contrary - the world of D&D is full of spontaneously animated Undead:
Dead cannibal? Ghoul (or Ghast) or Lacedon.
Madman suicide? Allip.
Mercenary perished during a heated war? Swordwraith.
People died from starvation? Famine Spirits.
Somebody was exsanguinated by attack of stirges or giant leeches? Crimson Death!
Victim died from a poison? Shadow!
Unrepentant mass murderer was executed? Mohrg!

Additionally, this also means that the undead are not unnatural

By analogy, the necromancer raising a zombie or two isn't harming the elemental balance of the material plane noticeably compared to the religion of death creating thousands of undead daily; however, the process is still detrimental to the environment. Ideally, neither would be creating undead at all and no social pressures would exist that incentivize them to create undead.

Does anyone remember offhand whether the defilers of Athas are explicitly [evil]? Because I think they would need to be for the magical pollution argument to hold any weight. Athas is way more barren and desolate than somewhere that's just haunted.

Neither summoning animals nor manufacturing cars make more undead spontaneously appear to attack innocent people in places you can't anticipate.
None of these analogies make sense.

What about fire spells?

Actually, Planescape have a monster which is able to drain "Good" from their victims

Does it change their behavior or just their aura?

[Quertus]

You're trying to use subjective morality on an objective morality universe. Working with undead is Evil because it is defined as Evil. In some, not all, campaign worlds. That's as far as you need to go.

If that is the case, then "I invent a spell which animates the dead, but isn't evil" needs no additional explanation to work.

That's clearly not true, so I'm assuming this is meant to be something that Quertus, the signature academia for whom your account is named, would be saying in-character.

(I keep imagining Quertus having a plaque on his office door that says "QUERTUS: The signature academia wizard for whom this office is named".)


Also definitely not true, although I concede it's not as immediately obvious as the previous point.

Lol. Quertus, sadly, does not have an office. He is a paid speaker at numerous academic venues. An office is not needed for his job of explorer / adventurer / author.

As for the rest, the point of this thread - as I understand it - was to ask, "what's the underlying logic for D&D 'morality'?". We're on page 6 now, and I still haven't seen that one answered satisfactorily, so I'm going with "throwing darts at a dart board".

If there really is some underlying algorithm, from which once could logically derive the 3e "which spells get the Evil tag", by all means, post away. But my hypothesis is that one cannot post such concrete underlying logic, as it does not exist / is not supported by RAW.

[Firechanter]

My preferred interpretation to "Why creating Undead is Evil" goes along the lines that doing so prevents the soul from proceeding on its path in the afterlife.

However, there are a few kinks in that interpretation that need to be ironed out. It does make sense if you think of newly-slain humanoids that are swiftly reanimated as zombies or whatever. But what if you dig out a 100-year old skeleton and animate it? Its former owner's soul should have long since departed. Is a 2nd-level spell really enough to drag back such a long-departed soul from whatever plane it currently resides in and bind it? Then why is Resurrection a 7th level spell?

(Come to think of it, it just occured to me that to prevent someone from being Resurrected, you don't need a high-level spell like Soul Bind. Just cast Animate Dead on him and tell the skellie to climb into your Bag of Holding.)

There are ways to rationalize all of this, of course - it's doable but not trivial. ^^

[Jay R]

… why can't you cite sources?

I can't cite primary sources because they are usually religious.

But I can cite cultural sources, so here goes.

1. In Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula making more vampires is considered evil.
2. In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, creating Wraiths is considered evil.
3. In Seabrook's The Magic Island, making zombies is considered evil.
4. In Halperin's movie White Zombie, the magician who makes zombies is considered evil.
5. Zombies are considered sufficiently evil that the phrase "zombie apocalypse" is well known.
6. Since the 1932 Boris Karloff movie The Mummy, mummies have been presented as evil in our culture.
7. Ghosts are presented as beings that wish to haunt and to frighten people. This was sufficiently ubiquitous that a cartoon character who subverted it became known primarily for that trait, and is called Casper the Friendly Ghost. And even so, virtually all people he meets in a cartoon are afraid of him, until he makes a friend near the end of each cartoon.
8. In Fantasia, Chernobog (the evil demon on Bald Mountain) summons many undead to him at night, until they are all chased away by the sound of church bells at dawn.

The point is that undead, and creating undead, were near-universally considered evil before D&D existed. It wasn't a choice that Gygax and Arneson made; it was a fact from literature and culture that they used, just like the descriptions of hippogriffs, chimeras, and gryphons.

Some of you are discussing whether you should maintain that idea in your games. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, just as you could decide that you don't want hippogriffs to be part horse, part eagle. But it is not an answer to the question, "Why is creating undead Evil?"

That question is answered by the recognition that the rules writers didn't decide that creating undead should be evil; they inherited that idea.

[Psyren]

Actually, that seems like a pretty exact description of global warming (admittedly, it creates hurricanes and wildfires, not zombies). So are you prepared to declare that every person who owns a car (a group that, statistically speaking, includes you) is capital-E Evil, or can we agree that the pollution angle doesn't hold up?

For the third time now, it's the car makers that this thread is about. And yes - willfully manufacturing clunkers that constantly pollute their surroundings would be evil, which is why most civilized governments don't let them do that.

The difference between the undead situation and your flawed analogy is that there is no way in D&D to create undead while mitigating the "pollution." Uncontrolled undead are already popping up in sufficient numbers to harm innocent travelers and communities; knowingly taking actions that make that worse cannot be good.

In the aggregate, yes, we all contribute to a harmful process that is pushing the planet towards ecological collapse and should probably do what we can to effect change.

Overall, however, the problem is systemic. A handful of major corporations account for the supermajority of emissions. It's unreasonable to hold individuals responsible when their contributions to the issue pale in comparison, and there really isn't any way to completely extricate oneself from the systems that cause climate change without trying to be an anarcho-primitivist somewhere. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" and such; the only viable solution is to replace the system that relies on and incentivizes massive emissions of greenhouse gasses.

By analogy, the necromancer raising a zombie or two isn't harming the elemental balance of the material plane noticeably compared to the religion of death creating thousands of undead daily; however, the process is still detrimental to the environment. Ideally, neither would be creating undead at all and no social pressures would exist that incentivize them to create undead.

A society in D&D that relies upon the creation of undead for labor may well be Evil in aggregate, due to the negative energy pollution they generate, even if the people living within it are not necessarily individually Evil.

Correct.

What about fire spells?

What about them?