Why is creating undead Evil?

[Quertus]

No. If you were willing to take the absolutist stance on pollution, maybe you'd have a case. But you accept that there are balancing tests based on utility. That means that if he kills more spontaneous undead than his animation causes, he's making a net-positive impact. Since we don't actually know how many spontaneous undead his actions cause, I am going to claim that it's less than one adventure's worth, and there's no argument you can make against me.

I think Atropos puts that number a little higher… otherwise, yeah, based on existing numbers, very few Necromancers should be able to tip the balance that much.

Doesn't save those who died from the spontaneous undead for which they are actually responsible, however, any more than those deaths an omniscient being could attribute to the pollution caused by my car.

I'm not in a corner at all. Not only are the rules clear, the rationale behind making them that way is also clear.

Have I missed this? Was this "clear rationale" posted at some point?

Also, as to the whole "undead cause harm by existing" thing...

Humans, simply by living, constantly release pollution (CO₂). And humans can only be sustained by consuming the corpses of other living beings (unlike undead, who don't need to eat).

If either of those factors make undead evil, then humans are inherently evil and creating humans is also inherently evil.

Well of course making humans is evil - humans are simply the larval state of (most) undead. If making undead is evil, them off course enabling them is also evil.

[hamishspence]

Fine, you then end up with a spell which is always evil but never [evil] and no specification of what specifically that means.

I'd say most of BOVD's "X is evil" things are general rules of thumb rather than hard-and-fast mechanical things.

Betrayal, as a general rule of thumb, is evil - but betraying Villains for extremely good reasons, may not be.

Similarly, creating undead, as a general rule of thumb, is evil, but it may not always be, in specific cases. Creating an Archlich, or a Baelnorn, for example. Still, these are very much edge cases.

Using Fell Animate on a spell that doesn't already have the [Evil] tag, won't give it the evil tag - but the act itself can still qualify as Evil. A multiclass Paladin/Wizard who takes the feat, and uses its ability to create zombies, should Fall.

Energy Drain doesn't have the [Evil] tag - but if you energy drain something to death, and abandon the corpse instead of destroying it, it will rise as a wight. A Paladin/Wizard who doesn't take the steps to prevent the wights from coming into being, should Fall.

And so on.

[Segev]

There are living creatures that need CO₂ to survive (e.g. plants.) It thus serves a purpose on the material.

Remind me, which ones need negative energy or spontaneous undead?

Why, undead need it.

I could construct an argument that plants are "evil" because they need CO₂ to exist, and they consume and destroy if allowed to grow out of control, but that they're a necessary evil because they keep (good) animals alive. I could also construct a setting where undead labor is so integral that it is impossible to disentangle it from living society in the same way it's impossible to disentangle plant life from animal life.

And I'm not even trying to argue that creating undead shouldn't be evil! (Just that saying "it's evil because it creates evil aura/energy/whatever" is like saying "he doesn't eat food because he's starving.")

[hamishspence]

Regarding Rebuke/Command Undead attempts - with enough punch behind them, they can animate the dead:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feat...oneOfAnimation

so it makes sense that they partake of the same moral nature that Animate Dead does - it's the same power, just not in the form that the spell takes.

[Psyren]

Why, undead need it.

They're not living creatures, by definition.

Using Fell Animate on a spell that doesn't already have the [Evil] tag, won't give it the evil tag - but the act itself can still qualify as Evil. A multiclass Paladin/Wizard who takes the feat, and uses its ability to create zombies, should Fall.

Energy Drain doesn't have the [Evil] tag - but if you energy drain something to death, and abandon the corpse instead of destroying it, it will rise as a wight. A Paladin/Wizard who doesn't take the steps to prevent the wights from coming into being, should Fall.

And so on.

Precisely.

Have I missed this? Was this "clear rationale" posted at some point?

As with all "this is an evil act" throughout D&D's history, the ultimate goal in gameplay terms is to discourage these acts as default strategies for (presumably heroic) players. Again, this is not to say that a "heroic necromancer" concept is completely impossible, any more than it's impossible to be a heroic assassin or a heroic slavemaster or a heroic crime boss, but you will likely have to work harder and/or likely have to be faced with much more extreme circumstances than the average adventurer. And again, that doesn't mean your default tactics aren't evil, just (potentially) justified, especially if viable alternatives are slim.

[Kalkra]

Well, I'm very late to this party, and just spent two hours reading this entire thread, and now I have a lot to respond to.

Before getting into the meat and potatoes of it, I want to point out that mummies were not at all evil monsters prior to the 1932 movie, but rather they were usually love interests for the main character. Just something I found interesting.

I'll also say that I don't like the whole, try to make up reasons for the rules to make sense thing. Sorry Psyren. I mean, I'm okay with a little of it, but at a certain point, it just reminds me of conversations I've had where people try to explain to me all the rules that Genie in Aladdin had that he explained off-camera in order to explain why people didn't just wish for various things which would have greatly changed the movie. I mean, plot holes are plot holes, and that's fine. Poems can be made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree. In other words, nobody can make an entire world which is internally consistent, and I don't think we need to try to make it so, as any such attempt is ultimately doomed to failure. I mean, this is especially true in DnD, where there are so many things that can only be explained by the constant intervention of some sort of overdeity, or by the DM.

Anyway, it seems to me like there's a lot of different stuff flying around, so I'll try to address all of it in no particular order:

First, Evil vs. evil. Casting enough spells with the [Evil] tag turns you evil. In other words, if you cast Deathwatch too many times, you start wanting to murder puppies. Before y'alls start saying that there are different kinds of evil, the puppies thing was a joke, sorta. More accurately, casting Deathwatch makes you evil in some way, which necessarily stops you from being good. You may not want to murder puppies specifically, but you can't be a good person, as defined by DnD rules, and you probably need to do at least one of the things that characterizes evil, as defined by DnD. More on that in a bit. Also, you'll go to hell when you die, and your soul will be tortured and destroyed. Or turned into a fiend, which may or may not count as destruction. Ship of Theseus, etc.

Second, morality in DnD is stupid. I think everyone agrees on this point. This and the previous point are probably why there are a lot of people who are viewing Good and Evil as more forms of energy than merely morality. In other words, if Evil quantifiably exists, but isn't always evil, it must just be a force of nature. Now I don't think this is the greatest argument, but I don't have any alternative for what Good and Evil are, if not some forms of cosmic energy, which is why I don't like Evil being stronger than Good. It just feels like Fire being stronger than Water, or some such. I don't particularly like the arguments about entropy and creation being harder than destruction for two reasons. The first is that Evil isn't necessarily destruction, nor is Good necessarily creation. I mean, I could create an automated system that breed animals and then tortures them to death, and some hero could come along and destroy it much more easily than I created it. With regards to entropy, magic exists, and it doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics. If the sun is gonna burn out, there are plenty of spells you can use to fix it. Sure magic that promotes entropy has an advantage over magic that opposes it, but that seems fairly negligible compared to how much more powerful Evil is mechanically than Good.

Third, I don't know how or why most undead are always evil. I mean, if it's because they always attack people, as per Libre Mortis, then animals and oozes and the like should also be evil. If it's because they're always animated and controlled by evil people, then they should stop being evil if they're uncontrolled. If it's because they cause pollution, then that means that being a danger to others makes you evil, which has all kinds of problems. This is another reason to differentiate Evil from evil. If Evil is just some sort of energy which inhabits undead, and also unrelatedly inhabits serial killers, then it makes sense, although very little else does. This would also explain the whole Planar Binding thing. I still don't like it, though. I'd like to think that all the Evil people are actually evil, and if I cast Detect Evil on somebody, I can kill them without needing to worry about it.

Third, I don't find the Eberron pollution thing to be satisfying explanation for why Animate Dead has the [Evil] outside of Eberron, just like you couldn't use Athasian defiling to explain it. That being said, even in Eberron I don't necessarily agree that it should be objectively evil. I mean, the argument seems to be that casting Animate Dead, as well as the existence or undead in general, releases some sort of energy which damages the local area, and also causes more uncontrolled undead, who will then go and attack people. The argument is that even if you can counteract these effects with specific other spells, the fact that the spell itself causes something bad makes it Evil. Now, there was a reference to spells that fix this pollution early on, but then they weren't mentioned again, and even after looking briefly through the Eberron Campain Setting I couldn't find any of this, so I'm just kinda guessing about stuff here. If somebody could tell me where all this stuff is, that would be nice. Anyway, if any spell that always causes something bad is Evil, even if that bad thing can be fixed, then that implies that surgery is Evil, because you cut people open, even if you stitch them back together. Even if there are no spells that repair, remove, or mitigate the effects of this pollution, as long as such a spell could be researched, the problem still stands, because Animate Dead won't suddenly lose its [Evil] tag once an anti-pollutant is developed.

Fourthly, as I saw somebody point out, Animate Dead is still Evil if cast on some Evil-aligned plane where presumably the pollution wouldn't actually make a difference, nor would it be Evil to pollute an area occupied entirely be Evil individuals.

Fifthly, the car thing. Casting Summon Undead I at CL 1 brings an undead into existence for one round. It would be very difficult to claim that the effects of casting that spell would be more damaging than people using cars, and yet Summon Undead is Evil. More to the point, the counterargument to the car thing I saw was twofold: firstly, people try not to pollute so much, and secondly cars are necessary. In other words, cars aren't Evil only if they pollute as little as possible. I don't find this argument to be compelling for a few reasons. First of all, cars aren't necessary. I mean sure, there are plenty of things we use cars for that we couldn't accomplish without cars, but those things aren't necessary. Furthermore, as technology improves, cars pollute have the capacity to achieve the same results while polluting less. However, if you say that all the people who used old cars weren't Evil because they didn't have access to better cars, you're kinda ignoring the objective nature of Evil. If you're about to die, and you find some scrolls of Summon Undead which could save you, using them will still turn you Evil. (I'm assuming that the whole thing with casting Evil spells turning you Evil also works with scrolls. If not, choose a different example. It doesn't matter The point is, there are times when certain things could only be accomplished by casting Evil spells, and you're still going to hell for doing them.) If there was something which could only be accomplished by murdering babies, that wouldn't be a reason to do it. Admittedly, cars exist in the real world, and we're talking about DnD morality here. Maybe cars all have the [Evil] tag in DnD-land, (ignoring D20 Modern and the like), so even if I were to prove that cars are Evil, that doesn't prove that they're evil, so it's kinda a moot point.

Sixthly, regarding all other explanations of why Animate Dead is [Evil], such as affecting the soul and whatnot, I'm not gonna address them individually, because they fail to explain any other spell, such as the aforementioned Deathwatch or Summon Undead, and if you need to make up something for each of them, then it's kinda meaningless.

Seventhly, and lastly, regarding non-[Evil] spells that produce undead, I don't really see any way around that without saying that mechanically they act as though they have the [Evil] tag, even though they don't, and that's problematic. I mean, if a spell doesn't say that casting it turns you Evil, casting it shouldn't turn you Evil any more than casting Fireball at somebody should turn you evil. Certainly if a person is unaware of the long-term global impact of casting a spell, casting it shouldn't turn him Evil unless the spell has the [Evil] tag, which evidently means that it has some sort of built-in alignment changing effect.

[hamishspence]

I'd like to think that all the Evil people are actually evil, and if I cast Detect Evil on somebody, I can kill them without needing to worry about it.

I prefer the "you do need to worry about it" approach. Killing an evil person just because they detect as evil, is likely to be considered murder, in most jurisdictions. Plus, plenty of evil people, may not "deserve killing".

Eberron in particular, takes that approach.

Also, from Quintessential Paladin 2 (third party, 3.5ed):

Spoiler

Show

Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately

Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

The first two are both compatible with RAW. The third, is very much homebrew.

[Kalkra]

I prefer the "you do need to worry about it" approach. Killing an evil person just because they detect as evil, is likely to be considered murder, in most jurisdictions. Plus, plenty of evil people, may not "deserve killing".

Eberron in particular, takes that approach.

Also, from Quintessential Paladin 2 (third party, 3.5ed):

Spoiler

Show

Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

The first two are both compatible with RAW. The third, is very much homebrew.

First of all, I'm trying to avoid 3rd party stuff, because that doesn't really speak to WoTC's philosophy, and also because there's so much stuff that contradicts, and there's enough of that with splatbooks.

Also, the reason I prefer to think that Evil people are evil and vice-versa is because of the interaction with the whole afterlife thing, which I touched on briefly, but didn't get into fully, because I really don't like it. In other words, if you can have someone who's evil but not Evil, does he go to heaven? What about those who are Evil but not evil? That being said, in general the whole afterlife system in DnD is really bad at getting anybody to do anything, and there are just a ton of things I really dislike about it, and it's one of those areas I need to suspend disbelief for anyway.

[hamishspence]

First of all, I'm trying to avoid 3rd party stuff, because that doesn't really speak to WoTC's philosophy, and also because there's so much stuff that contradicts, and there's enough of that with splatbooks.

Also, the reason I prefer to think that Evil people are evil and vice-versa is because of the interaction with the whole afterlife thing, which I touched on briefly, but didn't get into fully, because I really don't like it. In other words, if you can have someone who's evil but not Evil, does he go to heaven? What about those who are Evil but not evil?

Yes, "mildly evil" people will go to the Lower Planes. Yes, their souls don't really deserve to be tortured like that. That may be one reason why certain Good characters are keen to redeem evil ones, rather than just execute them.


Even if you stick to WOTC material, from Eberron Campaign Guide:

"In a world where characters have access to magic such as detect evil, it's important to keep in mind that evil people are not always killers, criminals, or demon worshippers. They mights be selfish and cruel, always putting their interests above those of others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers. The self-centered advocate is lawful evil, for example, and the cruel innkeeper is neutral evil."

And from WOTC's Dragonshards articles:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...ebds/20041122a

"In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place."

[Bohandas]

I think of it like a compass. A compass doesn't actually point due north, the geomagnetic field it points to is close to, but slightly misaligned with, the true geographic north pole. I think the alignment energies work in the same way.

[NigelWalmsley]

Creating "mindless" undead is essentially an evil act, because that undead-animating force causes continuing torture on the soul that was once linked to the body. It doesn't take that soul away from its afterlife or bind it in any way, but does cause it pain.

Is there anything in the rules to support that? You can certainly come up with a theory of why Animate Dead is Evil. But you can also come up with theories about why it's okay.

Even if negative energy itself is not evil, there are so many ties between Negative Energy and Evil, that it says something about the way the universe is set up. At least in 3.5.

What you're talking about is physics, not morality. The fact that there is a force named Evil doesn't magically cause that force to take on the moral connotations of Evil in the real world.

Evil clerics, even Evil clerics of Neutral deities, always get Rebuke Undead (and Cast Inflict Spells Spontaneously).

Doesn't that indicate that those things are not inherently Evil?

As I've said, if that's how your table wants to rule it go nuts. By RAW it's still evil.

By RAW, anesthetic is Evil. Are you biting that bullet, or are you accepting that "RAW says it's Evil" isn't a sufficient argument? There's not a third option where the Evil tag on Animate Dead has the force of RAW and the Evil tag on poisons is optional.

Doesn't save those who died from the spontaneous undead for which they are actually responsible, however, any more than those deaths an omniscient being could attribute to the pollution caused by my car.

Sure. But once you make the argument that cars are okay because they provided net positive utility compared to the alternatives (as Psyren does), you don't get to use that logic anymore. The absolutist reasoning RAW provides points us towards unacceptable conclusions. Psyren wants to drop those conclusions while accepting the reasoning, but he can't actually do that. Well, he can, but it's his house rules and is only meaningful anyone else to the degree that he persuades other people it is. Based on this thread, that appears to be "not much".

Have I missed this? Was this "clear rationale" posted at some point?

No, you haven't, because there isn't a clear rationale. If you want a level-headed discussion of the morality of necromancy, this is the best I've found. And Psyren's position is in there. It's "The Crawling Darkness", and it's an entirely reasonable way to rule necromancy to work. But it's not clearly or unambiguously RAW.

Yes, "mildly evil" people will go to the Lower Planes. Yes, their souls don't really deserve to be tortured like that.

And the souls of Good-aligned people don't deserve to be turned into celestial doornobs. The afterlife in D&D is horrible, but it's not horrible because the Evil afterlives are torture worlds. The Evil afterlife is a reward for doing a bunch of Evil in this life, not a punishment.

[Bohandas]

And the souls of Good-aligned people don't deserve to be turned into celestial doornobs. The afterlife in D&D is horrible, but it's not horrible because the Evil afterlives are torture worlds. The Evil afterlife is a reward for doing a bunch of Evil in this life, not a punishment.

They're torture worlds, but in a hell-is-other-people way, not a divine retribution way

Yes, "mildly evil" people will go to the Lower Planes. Yes, their souls don't really deserve to be tortured like that. That may be one reason why certain Good characters are keen to redeem evil ones, rather than just execute them.

They could also go to a Gate-Town.

By RAW, anesthetic is Evil. Are you biting that bullet, or are you accepting that "RAW says it's Evil" isn't a sufficient argument? There's not a third option where the Evil tag on Animate Dead has the force of RAW and the Evil tag on poisons is optional.

3.5e PHB says its not, and this supercedes BoVD by virtue of being (IIRC) a later publication

[Psyren]

Sure. But once you make the argument that cars are okay because they provided net positive utility compared to the alternatives (as Psyren does),

Always nice when people cram words in your mouth.

All I've said about cars, quite repeatedly, is that they are a horrendously bad analogy and do nothing to help your point.

By RAW, anesthetic is Evil.

Wrong yet again. Let's read what BoED pg. 34 actually says about poisons:

"Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures, it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness. Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use."

There you go, anesthetic and other unconsciousness poisons are totally fine. The "all poison is evil, burn your books" meme is just that, a meme, with no basis in reality. Your move.

[ShurikVch]

About the Atropus: it's not a Necromancy which awakening it, but deaths on massive scale - Caira wanted to use for it Apocalypse from the Sky spell

Once again, about the "Evil" things - apparently, 3.5 slapped that anywhere:
I checked Flying Fingers and Serpentflesh Golem - Constructs which I know required Animate Dead to craft
Guess what?
In both cases - "Alignment: Always neutral evil", and "Int —"
Authors, clearly, don't understood: what "Alignment" is - otherwise, why Flesh Golem is "Always neutral"?

About the "Negative Energy pollution":

Calling in an Entropic Creature (who have Negative Energy Aura, which actually damages living creatures in its radius) isn't an [Evil] act (unless the creature in question is also Evil). So, if Aura - which is strong enough to actually damage (and, eventually, kill) living creatures, but nowhere was it said it doing some lasting harm to environment, then how bad presence of common Undead could be?

Return to White Plume Mountian has Amulets of Epudiation: wearing it make Undead not just immune to Turn Undead, but - over time - causing Undead to "evolve": for example, "standard" Ghoul with this trinket turned into Elevated Ghoul (13 HD, can be harmed only with magical weapon (at least +2), cold immunity, fast healing, SR, improved natural attacks, and Paralysis is 24 hours long with -4 penalty on save)
This amulet is, actually, a minuscule portal to the Negative Energy Plane
But guess what would happen if a living creature would wear it? Big fat nothing! Book directly says there would be "no effect" at all.
So, if even wearing the literal Negative Energy Plane portal on your neck have no effect at all - despite it being strong enough to turn 2 HD fodder into 13 HD monster - then how, really, strong can be alleged "Undead pollution"?..

Also, even Overwhelming aura of Evil dissipates in 1d6 days; how long, exactly, lasts so-called "Undead pollution"?
Let's check the Book of Vile Darkness - Lingering Effects of Evil: A Bad Feeling

Even a short act of violence or a minor act of evil can have lingering effects after the event has passed. This type of evil can mentally scar a person who experiences or watches a horrible event. It can leave a sinister mark in a location where some act of evil once occurred. These events can also cause undead to rise of their own volition: A ghost might haunt the place of its murder, or a mohrg could linger in the spot where it was wronged. Acts that can cause this degree of lingering evil include the following.

• A gruesome, bloodthirsty murder.
• The proclamation of a foul edict, such as one that mandates the murder of infants to keep a new king from being born.
• A single sacrifice to an evil god or fiend.
• The animation of dozens of undead creatures.
• Abuse, starvation, and mistreatment of captives.
• Casting a permanent or long-lasting spell with the evil descriptor.

A bad feeling shows its effects in the following ways.
...
Locations: Being the site of a grisly murder or sacrifice gives an area a feeling of slight wrongness. Sometimes, undead or evil outsiders in such a place gain the effect of a bless spell.
...
Detect Evil: Usually, detect evil does not register an aura of evil associated with creatures, locations, or objects exposed to this degree of evil, but people can sometimes sense a cold chill in tainted locations.

Note: it says "dozens of undead creatures" - and all it results in is a random sense of chill and occasional Evil blessing
So much for dreaded "Undead pollution"...

Casting enough spells with the [Evil] tag turns you evil. In other words, if you cast Deathwatch too many times, you start wanting to murder puppies. Before y'alls start saying that there are different kinds of evil, the puppies thing was a joke, sorta. More accurately, casting Deathwatch makes you evil in some way, which necessarily stops you from being good. You may not want to murder puppies specifically, but you can't be a good person, as defined by DnD rules, and you probably need to do at least one of the things that characterizes evil, as defined by DnD. More on that in a bit. Also, you'll go to hell when you die, and your soul will be tortured and destroyed. Or turned into a fiend, which may or may not count as destruction. Ship of Theseus, etc.

Note: Deathwatch is on the Slayer of Domiel spell list (Book of Exalted Deeds): that PrC is not just Good, but Exalted Good - one [Evil] spell and they would fall...
For the less extreme example, Deathwatch is also on the list of Healer from Miniatures Handbook - not Exalted, but still "Any good"
Also, it's the first spell of Repose domain, which is "very similar to the Death domain ... but is granted by good-aligned deities whose clerics are barred from casting Evil spells."
Clearly, the [Evil] tag was added so sneakily authors don't even noticed it, and all the later confirmations are just post hoc justifications

What makes you think it isn't evil? Fell Animate is a feat, they usually don't get alignment descriptors. You are however creating undead, which is an evil act per BoVD pg. 8.

Feats don't get descriptors like that, try again.

Corrupt Spell (Champions of Ruin), Debilitating Spell (Heroes of Horror), and Violate Spell (Book of Vile Darkness) [metamagic] feats are all add [Evil] descriptor to their spells

I'm pretty persistently AFB - can *anyone* give me a simple, binary answer to my question: were the reasons given in Libris Mortis intended as RAW (like the grappling rules, or "Fireball is a 3rd level Sorcerer/Wizard spell"), clearly meant to apply to all 3e unless the GM is house ruling, or was it given as *optional* content (like milestone XP or gestalt) or campaign-specific content (like Kryn has 3 moons, or what cities / NPCs / gods are present in any given world), that *isn't* expected to be "true for all 3e content unless otherwise noted".

Rules from the Libris Mortis are all definite variant rules (borderline published houserules, Unearthed Arcana-style)
Text from the page 8 of Book of Vile Darkness looks more like a quick rule-of-thumb than hard-and-fast RAW

A) Negative Energy is inherently Evil. It needs evil intent to attune to it and channel it.

Spoiler: Spells

Show

Black Talon
Blood Snow
Boccob's Rolling Cloud
Chill Touch
Circlet of Enervation
Disk of Concordant Opposition
Dread Blast
Enervating Breath
Enervation
Ghoul Touch
Harm
Healing Sting
Inflict ... Wounds (, Mass)
Junglerazer
Kyristan's Malevolent Tentacles
Leech Undeath
Life Ward
Manifest Death
Mortal Wound
Necrotic Skull Bomb
Negative Energy Aura
Negative Energy Burst
Negative Energy Ray
Negative Energy Wave (both versions)
Positive Energy Protection
Ravenous Darkness
Ray of Entropy
Rebuking Breath
Retributive Enervation
Seed of Undeath (, Greater)
Shroud of Undeath
Slashing Darkness
Spectral Touch
Touch of Fatigue
Touch of the Graveborn
Waves of Exhaustion
Waves of Fatigue

This is the (probably incomplete) list of the spells which are - while using Negative Energy, aren't [Evil]

B) You are, knowingly and of your own free will, creating something whose very nature is to harm and destroy life. Even if you want to put it to good use (which, could be a balancing factor), it's still an evil act.

If you animating a Skeleton, then its "nature" is to follow your command;
If you animating Strahd’s Skeletal Steed - its "nature" is to carry a rider;
If you animating a Crypt Thing - its "nature" is to defend the crypt in question...
Should I continue?
Excluding those Undead which are appearing on their own - most of "creatable" corporeal Undead are perfectly manageable (except for Ghouls/Ghasts and Devourers)

C) Necromancy uses magic to suppress the free will of the undead to make them do your bidding. Slavery is an act of Evil (As per Book of Vile Darkness).

If we creating, say, Undead spider - which "free will" it had to begin with?
Add in various Mindless Undead...

D) Finally, Animation Necromancy not only shows disrespect to the Dead, it also prevents them from being resurected (at least by more common spells).

1. Resurrection - even True Resurrection - have a "time limit": 10 years/CL; pick remains which are old enough, and even a god of death wouldn't be able to resurrect them
2. Those who're died from the old age wouldn't be resurrected ever
3. What about the bones of various feral tribes with near-zero access to magic? Or, for that matter, - animals?

And, to be honest, even if a non-necromancer used your ancestor's bones or dead body for anything, especially without your permission, you'd probably be pretty mad at them.

So, a necromancer who would animate some skeletons in order to have them farm to provide free food for the poor, is still an evil guy, who may have some good intentions, or at the very least a Neutral guy with evil tendencies.

That's - presuming there are some living descendants nearby
And also - presuming we don't just used bones of animals
But even both points are "Yes" - one bones are pretty much like other bones; how they would recognize it?

My take on it...

Creating "mindless" undead is essentially an evil act, because that undead-animating force causes continuing torture on the soul that was once linked to the body. It doesn't take that soul away from its afterlife or bind it in any way, but does cause it pain.

And torture is evil, right?

In contrast, using animate object on the skeleton is just in bad taste, but not actually evil, because doing so doesn't torture the soul.

I suppose if you were to somehow create undead from a body that either never housed a soul or does not even nominally have planar access to the resting place of the soul associated with it, then you're good to go. But for most planes, that is quite a corner case.

Kir-lanan gargoyles are have no souls - at all
Death Giants (Monster Manual III) are sold their souls to Orcus; yes - all their souls - including the children in the future
Acquire a clone, animate it while original is still alive
Stone to Flesh on a statue gives you a corpse

Even if negative energy itself is not evil, there are so many ties between Negative Energy and Evil, that it says something about the way the universe is set up. At least in 3.5.

And what about the Positive Energy and Evil?
There is, obviously, Ragnorra
Then, Fleshforges of Abyss (layer #558) are Positive-Dominant
Thoon Thrall gets "overcapped fast heling" (like on the Positive Energy Plane), and can "go BOOM" by it
Also, when - say - Drow priestesses torturing their victims, with which energy they keep those victims from dying (too soon)?

Undead always detect as Evil, using the Detect Evil spell, even if their alignment is Neutral or Good (because the Detect Evil spell has an Undead line, not an Evil Undead line).

It's a bug, not a feature: why the heck Detect Undead spell exists otherwise?
In 2E, it was "Evil Undead", not just "Undead"

Many undead have "always (X) Evil" in their alignment line.

True
But many Aberrations are "always (X) Evil" too
And many Dragons...
And many Outsiders...

Gods with the Undeath domain are pretty much always Evil.

No wander - considering there are only 5 of them
On the other hand, Undead domain (Dragon #312) is much more widespread, and can be accessed from a non-Evil patrons

Remind me, which ones need negative energy or spontaneous undead?

Rot Reaver (Monster Manual III) - they creating Zombies mostly to feed on their Negative Energy
Slow Shadow (Dungeon #112), Trilloch (Monster Manual III), and Void Ooze (Planar Handbook) are all native to the Negative Energy Plane
Xeg-Yi energons and Negative Energy Elementals are alive, but, presumably, need Negative Energy (since they're made of it)

[icefractal]

Has this thread turned into "justify the RAW D&D alignment system"? I hope not, because that's not a topic that's ever produced a useful result, AFAIK.

Same problem with "But is creating undead really evil?" It isn't really anything because undead don't exist. And sure, we could talk about whether it's evil in a fictional setting, but D&D isn't even a setting, it's more like a vague genre. Even specific D&D settings like FR are too vague about the details of their metaphysics to have a definitive answer for this.

Like for example - how many souls do D&D characters have? You might say it's obviously one, but several belief systems posit multiple souls, and in fact having more than one soul, with different properties, better fits how the rules work. Although those rules contradict themselves enough that it's hard to nail down any definite number. Consider:
* Speak with Dead can ask questions of the body itself, not the soul. Ok, so it's like Stone Tell - except that it doesn't work on reanimated and then re-slain bodies. Why?
* Petitioners lose all their levels (but not memories) but get them back when resurrected.
* Being a zombie doesn't trap the soul in the body (you can visit it in the afterlife), but does prevent True Resurrection.
* Despite not having the "actual" soul, several types of undead retain the class levels and memories of the living creatures they were created from. Or maybe those kinds do have the actual soul? Unclear.

So for reference, while you're free to use them any way you want, any suggestions I've made in this thread have been from the perspective of:
"If you want to create a concrete reason why making undead is considered evil, here are some ideas."

Not "this proves that it is/isn't evil by RAW", because that's a hole with no bottom and no purpose.

[Psyren]

Rules from the Libris Mortis are all definite variant rules (borderline published houserules, Unearthed Arcana-style)
Text from the page 8 of Book of Vile Darkness looks more like a quick rule-of-thumb than hard-and-fast RAW

Why is "I don't like this rule so I'm going to houserule it" such a dirty word to you? All these contortions to try and deny rules in a first-party rulebook are unnecessary when you can simply say "I'm not going to play it that way at my table" and be done.

[Segev]

Why is "I don't like this rule so I'm going to houserule it" such a dirty word to you? All these contortions to try and deny rules in a first-party rulebook are unnecessary when you can simply say "I'm not going to play it that way at my table" and be done.

At least for me, that's not a problem. My problem is that I am having trouble figuring out a satisfactory evil thing to say happens as part of casting the spell. I certainly acknowledge it would be a house rule, but I want it to be, mechanically, relatively transparent, while still being satisfactorily evil.

[Ashtagon]

Is there anything in the rules to support that? You can certainly come up with a theory of why Animate Dead is Evil. But you can also come up with theories about why it's okay.

Why do you all act like house-ruling something is such a terrible idea? The guys who wrote the books weren't some kind of ascended being with deep insight into the nature of reality. They were men and women like us, with a writing deadline to meet and a wage to collect in order to keep body and soul together. Their words are not inscribed in stone to be pondered upon by lowly mortals. That they might sometimes - often, even - have made mistakes is all but inevitable.

To quote the giant,

Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

Kir-lanan gargoyles are have no souls - at all
Death Giants (Monster Manual III) are sold their souls to Orcus; yes - all their souls - including the children in the future
Acquire a clone, animate it while original is still alive
Stone to Flesh on a statue gives you a corpse

Congratulations - you found a few corner cases. I specifically noted there would be corner cases.

That said, their entry in FRCS says nothing about them not having souls although I'm quite willing to believe that somewhere there is a creature that is specifically noted as not having a soul in 3.x. (Oddly enough , in 1e, raise dead did not work on elves, for this reason; only a very few species had souls in that game, most others having spirits instead.) So sure, go ahead and find a creature in 3e that lacks a soul, and then make undead out of it.

And sure, death giants (presumably other creatures too) may well have pre-emptively sold their souls to one entity or another. That doesn't preclude torturing it; it simply creates an ownership on it.

Stone to flesh on a statue creates a corpse. So for the price of crafting a statue (call it 10 gp for the mason's time and materials) and a 7th level spell, you can make a zombie. Woop. Or if you want to go down the clone spell, the price becomes an 8th level spell to make a zombie. Again. Woop.

So sure. There are corner cases where animating dead would not be evil even with the houserule I noted. But in practical terms, they aren't getting used.

[Asmotherion]

Some negative energy spells lack the [Evil] tag. The Inflict X Wounds series, for example.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/in...ightWounds.htm

Only an evil, or "shady Neutral" cleric can spontaneously convert any spell into an Inflict X Wounds spell of the appropriate level:



but casting the spell itself, is not evil, even if Rebuking/Commanding Undead (as opposed to Turning them) is:



The Negative Energy Plane itself, lacks the Evil tag:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.ht...iveEnergyPlane

a Good being does not get the same penalties for being there, that they would get from visiting one of the deeper Lower Planes:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.ht...nedEvilAligned


There's certainly a connection between Negative Energy and evil - but it's not as straightforward as "The energy simply is evil".

PHB p160 Under "Neutral Clerics and Undead": "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil"

To my understanding, this phrase establishes that Negative Energy is inherently and Mechanically Evil.

Thus, a spell that uses Negative Energy is already Evil, wile a spell that has the Evil Tag is Even more evil (mathematically, the first would be +1 to the Evil scale, wile the other +2)

Sure, in a custom setting you can over-ride this with a "grey morality". But the cannon is that, by RAW, Using Negative Energy is an Evil Act, thus making Negative Energy an Evil Energy.

The "Gray Morality" aspect would be by doing a good act with it, such as kill a Demon with your Undead (A good Act) which balances out as a Neutral morality overall.

Spoiler: @ShurikVch

Show

About the Atropus: it's not a Necromancy which awakening it, but deaths on massive scale - Caira wanted to use for it

Apocalypse from the Sky spell

Once again, about the "Evil" things - apparently, 3.5 slapped that anywhere:
I checked Flying Fingers and Serpentflesh Golem - Constructs which I know required Animate Dead to craft
Guess what?
In both cases - "Alignment: Always neutral evil", and "Int —"
Authors, clearly, don't understood: what "Alignment" is - otherwise, why Flesh Golem is "Always neutral"?

About the "Negative Energy pollution":

Calling in an Entropic Creature (who have Negative Energy Aura, which actually damages living creatures in its radius) isn't an [Evil] act (unless the creature in question is also Evil). So, if Aura - which is strong enough to actually damage (and, eventually, kill) living creatures, but nowhere was it said it doing some lasting harm to environment, then how bad presence of common Undead could be?

Return to White Plume Mountian has Amulets of Epudiation: wearing it make Undead not just immune to Turn Undead, but - over time - causing Undead to "evolve": for example, "standard" Ghoul with this trinket turned into Elevated Ghoul (13 HD, can be harmed only with magical weapon (at least +2), cold immunity, fast healing, SR, improved natural attacks, and Paralysis is 24 hours long with -4 penalty on save)
This amulet is, actually, a minuscule portal to the Negative Energy Plane
But guess what would happen if a living creature would wear it? Big fat nothing! Book directly says there would be "no effect" at all.
So, if even wearing the literal Negative Energy Plane portal on your neck have no effect at all - despite it being strong enough to turn 2 HD fodder into 13 HD monster - then how, really, strong can be alleged "Undead pollution"?..

Also, even Overwhelming aura of Evil dissipates in 1d6 days; how long, exactly, lasts so-called "Undead pollution"?
Let's check the Book of Vile Darkness - Lingering Effects of Evil: A Bad Feeling

Note: it says "dozens of undead creatures" - and all it results in is a random sense of chill and occasional Evil blessing
So much for dreaded "Undead pollution"...



Note: Deathwatch is on the Slayer of Domiel spell list (Book of Exalted Deeds): that PrC is not just Good, but Exalted Good - one [Evil] spell and they would fall...
For the less extreme example, Deathwatch is also on the list of Healer from Miniatures Handbook - not Exalted, but still "Any good"
Also, it's the first spell of Repose domain, which is "very similar to the Death domain ... but is granted by good-aligned deities whose clerics are barred from casting Evil spells."
Clearly, the [Evil] tag was added so sneakily authors don't even noticed it, and all the later confirmations are just post hoc justifications



Corrupt Spell (Champions of Ruin), Debilitating Spell (Heroes of Horror), and Violate Spell (Book of Vile Darkness) [metamagic] feats are all add [Evil] descriptor to their spells



Rules from the Libris Mortis are all definite variant rules (borderline published houserules, Unearthed Arcana-style)
Text from the page 8 of Book of Vile Darkness looks more like a quick rule-of-thumb than hard-and-fast RAW

Spoiler: Spells

Show

Black Talon
Blood Snow
Boccob's Rolling Cloud
Chill Touch
Circlet of Enervation
Disk of Concordant Opposition
Dread Blast
Enervating Breath
Enervation
Ghoul Touch
Harm
Healing Sting
Inflict ... Wounds (, Mass)
Junglerazer
Kyristan's Malevolent Tentacles
Leech Undeath
Life Ward
Manifest Death
Mortal Wound
Necrotic Skull Bomb
Negative Energy Aura
Negative Energy Burst
Negative Energy Ray
Negative Energy Wave (both versions)
Positive Energy Protection
Ravenous Darkness
Ray of Entropy
Rebuking Breath
Retributive Enervation
Seed of Undeath (, Greater)
Shroud of Undeath
Slashing Darkness
Spectral Touch
Touch of Fatigue
Touch of the Graveborn
Waves of Exhaustion
Waves of Fatigue

This is the (probably incomplete) list of the spells which are - while using Negative Energy, aren't [Evil]


If you animating a Skeleton, then its "nature" is to follow your command;
If you animating Strahd’s Skeletal Steed - its "nature" is to carry a rider;
If you animating a Crypt Thing - its "nature" is to defend the crypt in question...
Should I continue?
Excluding those Undead which are appearing on their own - most of "creatable" corporeal Undead are perfectly manageable (except for Ghouls/Ghasts and Devourers)


If we creating, say, Undead spider - which "free will" it had to begin with?
Add in various Mindless Undead...


1. Resurrection - even True Resurrection - have a "time limit": 10 years/CL; pick remains which are old enough, and even a god of death wouldn't be able to resurrect them
2. Those who're died from the old age wouldn't be resurrected ever
3. What about the bones of various feral tribes with near-zero access to magic? Or, for that matter, - animals?


That's - presuming there are some living descendants nearby
And also - presuming we don't just used bones of animals
But even both points are "Yes" - one bones are pretty much like other bones; how they would recognize it?



Kir-lanan gargoyles are have no souls - at all
Death Giants (Monster Manual III) are sold their souls to Orcus; yes - all their souls - including the children in the future
Acquire a clone, animate it while original is still alive
Stone to Flesh on a statue gives you a corpse



And what about the Positive Energy and Evil?
There is, obviously, Ragnorra
Then, Fleshforges of Abyss (layer #558) are Positive-Dominant
Thoon Thrall gets "overcapped fast heling" (like on the Positive Energy Plane), and can "go BOOM" by it
Also, when - say - Drow priestesses torturing their victims, with which energy they keep those victims from dying (too soon)?


It's a bug, not a feature: why the heck Detect Undead spell exists otherwise?
In 2E, it was "Evil Undead", not just "Undead"


True
But many Aberrations are "always (X) Evil" too
And many Dragons...
And many Outsiders...


No wander - considering there are only 5 of them
On the other hand, Undead domain (Dragon #312) is much more widespread, and can be accessed from a non-Evil patrons



Rot Reaver (Monster Manual III) - they creating Zombies mostly to feed on their Negative Energy
Slow Shadow (Dungeon #112), Trilloch (Monster Manual III), and Void Ooze (Planar Handbook) are all native to the Negative Energy Plane
Xeg-Yi energons and Negative Energy Elementals are alive, but, presumably, need Negative Energy (since they're made of it)

Spoiler: Spells

Show

Black Talon
Blood Snow
Boccob's Rolling Cloud
Chill Touch
Circlet of Enervation
Disk of Concordant Opposition
Dread Blast
Enervating Breath
Enervation
Ghoul Touch
Harm
Healing Sting
Inflict ... Wounds (, Mass)
Junglerazer
Kyristan's Malevolent Tentacles
Leech Undeath
Life Ward
Manifest Death
Mortal Wound
Necrotic Skull Bomb
Negative Energy Aura
Negative Energy Burst
Negative Energy Ray
Negative Energy Wave (both versions)
Positive Energy Protection
Ravenous Darkness
Ray of Entropy
Rebuking Breath
Retributive Enervation
Seed of Undeath (, Greater)
Shroud of Undeath
Slashing Darkness
Spectral Touch
Touch of Fatigue
Touch of the Graveborn
Waves of Exhaustion
Waves of Fatigue

This is the (probably incomplete) list of the spells which are - while using Negative Energy, aren't [Evil]

Boccob's rolling cloud Has an equivalent amount of Positive Energy, balancing out to neutral.

For the rest, as I explained, Negative Energy (and the act of channeling it, be it for a spell or class ability) is inherently Evil, thus it does not need the "Evil" tag. Spells that have the Evil tag either don't referance Negative Energy as their source (thus, it needs clearification that they are, indeed, evil) or Are more evil than a regular Negative Energy Spell. Or are simply Taged as Evil for the Evil Domain Cleric to have access to them.

For example, wile it is heavyly implied, Animate Dead does not mention using Negative Energy. That's why it needs the Evil tag.

Chill tough, directly mentions that it channels negative energy, thus does not need the Evil Tag to be (mechanically) evil.

If you animating a Skeleton, then its "nature" is to follow your command;
If you animating Strahd’s Skeletal Steed - its "nature" is to carry a rider;
If you animating a Crypt Thing - its "nature" is to defend the crypt in question...
Should I continue?
Excluding those Undead which are appearing on their own - most of "creatable" corporeal Undead are perfectly manageable (except for Ghouls/Ghasts and Devourers)

If we creating, say, Undead spider - which "free will" it had to begin with?
Add in various Mindless Undead...

Your logic does not hold up. Just because there are exceptions to a rule, it does not make the rule invalid. A mindless Undead has no will, but any other does, and by ordering it (through Command Undead usually) you remove it's options. It has to obey if it fails a Charisma Check. A Crypt Thing can't say "Eh, I'd rather haunt that Crypt over there". It has to Haunt the Crypt you told it to.

1. Resurrection - even True Resurrection - have a "time limit": 10 years/CL; pick remains which are old enough, and even a god of death wouldn't be able to resurrect them
2. Those who're died from the old age wouldn't be resurrected ever
3. What about the bones of various feral tribes with near-zero access to magic? Or, for that matter, - animals?

1) The fact there is a time limit does not invalidate the claim that it does prevent resurection.
2) There are a number of ways to work around the time limit. Admitingly, some more rules-bending than others, but there's at least a couple of RAW valid ways.
3) In any case, it's just 1 of the reasons it's evil, not the only reason.

That's - presuming there are some living descendants nearby
And also - presuming we don't just used bones of animals
But even both points are "Yes" - one bones are pretty much like other bones; how they would recognize it?

Ignorance of an act, does not make the act less evil. If your Cousin killed your Best Friend, but you never leard he was the one who did it, does that make him less evil? Disrespect of a dead person is the same.

And, that's presuming relatives are not, indeed nearby when you oppen the crypt or grave to steal the bones.

Also, about Animals: All I can say is, Druids are a thing. Disrespect the cadaver of an animal, and you disrespect their beliefs. It's one thing to eat something (part of the natural cyrcle of life) and an other to, say, make an automaton out of it's lifeless corpse.

[hamishspence]

the cannon is that, by RAW, Using Negative Energy is an Evil Act, thus making Negative Energy an Evil Energy.

While I'll agree that channelling negative energy via Rebuke/Command Undead ability, is firmly established as an Evil act - I'd point out that casting spells that utilise negative energy, is not established as Evil.


Will a multiclass paladin/cleric, who has prepared an inflict wounds spell, and casts it against an enemy in battle, Fall?

I would suggest that the rules do not specifically state that, the way they do "Creating undead is evil".

Similarly, BoED states outright that casting a Heal spell, is not a good act in the same way that casting a [Good] spell is - positive energy, AKA healing energy, is similar to [Good] energy, but it is not quite the same thing.

A character who will Fall if they commit a Good act (such as a Paladin of Tyranny) can still heal themselves, or their minions, and not endanger their powers.

The same, in mirror, applies to all Negative Energy spells without the [Evil] tag.


[Using Rebuke Undead] is an Evil act, but [Using Negative Energy] is not intrinsically so - even if they look like the same thing, there is a difference.

Not only does the Negative Energy plane lack the [Evil] tag - but so do certain Negative Energy creatures - Energons, from Planar Handbook, despite being outsiders made of pure planar energy, all have Neutral as their alignment - even the Negative Energy ones and the Positive Energy ones.


Think of the energies as close to Evil and Good, but not actually being Evil and Good. Evil has an affinity with Negative energy - Good has an affinity with positive energy, - but "both sides" are capable of using both, without endangering their Goodness or Evilness.



Rebuke Undead, and Turn Undead, are specific methods of using energy, that are aligned, even if the energies themselves are not.

[NigelWalmsley]

Always nice when people cram words in your mouth.

That's not cramming words in your mouth, that's the exact argument you are making when you say cars are okay because there are no alternatives. If you'd like to stop making that argument, you can. But until you do, that's the argument you're making.

There you go, anesthetic and other unconsciousness poisons are totally fine. The "all poison is evil, burn your books" meme is just that, a meme, with no basis in reality. Your move.

Fine. Let's pivot the discussion to Chemotherapy, which is absolutely something that would cause ability damage in D&D. Are doctors who treat cancer patients Evil? You're also wrong to describe anesthetic as just knocking people out (sufficiently high doses are lethal, and it has lingering effects), but I think hearing you explain why the Good thing to do is to let people with cancer die does a better job of highlighting how absurd the position is.

Why is "I don't like this rule so I'm going to houserule it" such a dirty word to you? All these contortions to try and deny rules in a first-party rulebook are unnecessary when you can simply say "I'm not going to play it that way at my table" and be done.

Why is it such a dirty word to you? Your side doesn't have the authority of perfect RAW either. Personally, in the battle between "Psyren's opinion" and "ShurikVch's opinion", I have no problem picking the one that lets you play PC necromancers without causing problems for the party. Because letting people play what they want is good DMing.

Why do you all act like house-ruling something is such a terrible idea?

It's not. I had assumed that, like many people in this thread, you were asserting that your houserules are RAW. If you just want to go with the Crawling Darkness option, that's completely fine.

Has this thread turned into "justify the RAW D&D alignment system"? I hope not, because that's not a topic that's ever produced a useful result, AFAIK.

Always has been.

The question OP asked was explicitly grounded in the alignment system, and the reasons many people gave are as well. As soon as people insisted that "it's Evil because it has the Evil tag", it was inevitable that you'd end up having exactly this argument.

[Asmotherion]

While I'll agree that channelling negative energy via Rebuke/Command Undead ability, is firmly established as an Evil act - I'd point out that casting spells that utilise negative energy, is not established as Evil.


Will a multiclass paladin/cleric, who has prepared an inflict wounds spell, and casts it against an enemy in battle, Fall?

I would suggest that the rules do not specifically state that, the way they do "Creating undead is evil".

Similarly, BoED states outright that casting a Heal spell, is not a good act in the same way that casting a [Good] spell is - positive energy, AKA healing energy, is similar to [Good] energy, but it is not quite the same thing.

A character who will Fall if they commit a Good act (such as a Paladin of Tyranny) can still heal themselves, or their minions, and not endanger their powers.

The same, in mirror, applies to all Negative Energy spells without the [Evil] tag.


[Using Rebuke Undead] is an Evil act, but [Using Negative Energy] is not intrinsically so - even if they look like the same thing, there is a difference.

Not only does the Negative Energy plane lack the [Evil] tag - but so do certain Negative Energy creatures - Energons, from Planar Handbook, despite being outsiders made of pure planar energy, all have Neutral as their alignment - even the Negative Energy ones and the Positive Energy ones.


Think of the energies as close to Evil and Good, but not actually being Evil and Good. Evil has an affinity with Negative energy - Good has an affinity with positive energy, - but "both sides" are capable of using both, without endangering their Goodness or Evilness.



Rebuke Undead, and Turn Undead, are specific methods of using energy, that are aligned, even if the energies themselves are not.

I see what you mean, but my take is, since we approach this mechanically, it's more logical to interpreat "casting a negative energy spell" as slightly evil. A paladin who casts an Inflict spell on an Evil Creature once, probably won't fall (as the +1 evil would be negated by the +1 good act of harming a representative of Evil), yet a Paladin who uses Inflict spells as his default attack probably will end up falling.

Also, the referenced rule does not specify that "channeling negative energy for the purpose of Commanding/Rebuking" is an evil act, rather than "Channeling Negative Energy" is, which implies, at least to my understanding, that it covers Spells that Channel Negative Energy as well.

Energons are a different matter. Specific trumps Generic, as per the rules. That said, Energons are described as "barelly sentient". I know it colides with the notion that skeletons who are non-sentient, are evil, but the Manual of the Planes is 3.0e, and some things are bound to not make sence accross the two editions.

[hamishspence]

I see what you mean, but my take is, since we approach this mechanically, it's more logical to interpreat "casting a negative energy spell" as slightly evil. A paladin who casts an Inflict spell on an Evil Creature once, probably won't fall (as the +1 evil would be negated by the +1 good act of harming a representative of Evil), yet a Paladin who uses Inflict spells as his default attack probably will end up falling.

Also, the referenced rule does not specify that "channeling negative energy for the purpose of Commanding/Rebuking" is an evil act, rather than "Channeling Negative Energy" is, which implies, at least to my understanding, that it covers Spells that Channel Negative Energy as well.

"Channelling" is IMO a very specific term in this context. It covers Turn/Rebuke attempts, and only those.

It's worth noting that all strongly aligned magical weapons, including holy ones, can create undead.

If a 1st level Chaotic person picks up an Axiomatic weapon, or a 1st level Evil person picks up a Holy weapon, and so on -- they will take 1 negative level. A 1st level person who takes 1 negative level is instantly slain.

The standard rule for negative levels (be they inflicted by spells, effects, or monster abilities), is that anybody slain by one, rises as a wight, unless specified otherwise (some creatures who kill with negative levels, do have text specifying otherwise).


And yet, a holy weapon is no less holy after it's created a wight. An anarchic weapon doesn't become evil for killing Lawful people who touch it.

Energons are a different matter. Specific trumps Generic, as per the rules. That said, Energons are described as "barelly sentient". I know it colides with the notion that skeletons who are non-sentient, are evil, but the Manual of the Planes is 3.0e, and some things are bound to not make sence accross the two editions.

MoTP may be 3.0, but it was updated to 3.5. And Planar Handbook is 3.5. Both handle Energons exactly the same way.

"The negative energy plane has no alignment" may have been established in 3.0. But even the 3.5 DMG, takes exactly the same approach - in the section on The Planes.

Same applies to the Positive Energy Plane. Ravids - outsiders native to that plane, in MM, are TN, not NG. And are somewhat smarter than Energons.

[Asmotherion]

"Channelling" is IMO a very specific term in this context. It covers Turn/Rebuke attempts, and only those.

It's worth noting that all strongly aligned magical weapons, including holy ones, can create undead.

If a 1st level Chaotic person picks up an Axiomatic weapon, or a 1st level Evil person picks up a Holy weapon, and so on -- they will take 1 negative level. A 1st level person who takes 1 negative level is instantly slain.

The standard rule for negative levels (be they inflicted by spells, effects, or monster abilities), is that anybody slain by one, rises as a wight, unless specified otherwise (some creatures who kill with negative levels, do have text specifying otherwise).


And yet, a holy weapon is no less holy after it's created a wight. An anarchic weapon doesn't become evil for killing Lawful people who touch it.


MoTP may be 3.0, but it was updated to 3.5. And Planar Handbook is 3.5. Both handle Energons exactly the same way.

"The negative energy plane has no alignment" may have been established in 3.0. But even the 3.5 DMG, takes exactly the same approach - in the section on The Planes.

Same applies to the Positive Energy Plane. Ravids - outsiders native to that plane, in MM, are TN, not NG. And are somewhat smarter than Energons.

I just want to specify that most spells that use negative energy use the exact same wording: Chill touch for example, uses "... Each touch Channels Negative Energy..."

I get that, being included in the Cleric Class may make it seem in context towards Rebuke/Command, but factually, it is unspecified, and makes sence to apply towards the generic act of "Channel Negative Energy" as opposed to "Channel Negative Energy for Commanding/Rebuking".

On weapons: It still makes sence. In this context, a Good Weapon would only kill an Evil Creature (thus, the fact it turns into a Wight is blamed on the Creature), wile the Oposite is Blamed on the Weapon. At least it's the only way that this makes any kind of sence.

On Energons: I'm just going to say again that, Specific trumps Generic. Or, in other words, an exception to a Rule does not invalidate a Rule.

[hamishspence]

In this context, a Good Weapon would only kill an Evil Creature (thus, the fact it turns into a Wight is blamed on the Creature), wile the Oposite is Blamed on the Weapon. At least it's the only way that this makes any kind of sence.

An intelligent Good weapon will do exactly the same thing to a person of a different Good alignment who handles it. It's not really malice, so much as conflict - the energy difference is hazardous.

A LG hero who's unlucky enough to pick up a CG weapon, get killed by it, and rise as a wight - has done nothing wrong. But the weapon cannot control itself.

A paladin who casts an Inflict spell on an Evil Creature once, probably won't fall (as the +1 evil would be negated by the +1 good act of harming a representative of Evil), yet a Paladin who uses Inflict spells as his default attack probably will end up falling.

Regarding Exalted Good characters (or paladins) and Inflict Wounds - I see the absence of the [evil] tag as sufficient reason not to penalise characters merely for casting the spell.

What matters, with any form of violence, magical or otherwise, is how necessary it was. Sometimes it's necessary to attack predatory Neutral creatures. Sometimes it's not necessary, or even appropriate, to attack Evil creatures.

Killing someone with Inflict Critical Wounds, might under many circumstances, be more merciful than killing them with Fireball. And since, unlike Energy Drain, a victim of Inflict Wounds won't rise as undead - I can't see any reason to inflict alignment penalties, when they wouldn't be inflicted for using Fireball.

Specific trumps Generic. Or, in other words, an exception to a Rule does not invalidate a Rule.

The point is - there isn't a "casting Negative Energy spells is evil" line in BoVD. But there is a "creating undead is evil" line, and a "casting [Evil] spells is evil" line.

I see no reason to go beyond those two principles. Especially when BoED hammers home that its mirror, casting Healing spells, isn't inherently good.

If we're being specifically encouraged to not extrapolate from the Turn Undead ability to all positive energy abilities, then I can't see any reason to extrapolate from Rebuke Undead, to all negative energy abilities, either.

[Asmotherion]

An intelligent Good weapon will do exactly the same thing to a person of a different Good alignment who handles it. It's not really malice, so much as conflict - the energy difference is hazardous.

A LG hero who's unlucky enough to pick up a NG weapon, get killed by it, and rise as a wight - has done nothing wrong. But the weapon cannot control itself.




Regarding Exalted Good characters (or paladins) and Inflict Wounds - I see the absence of the [evil] tag as sufficient reason not to penalise characters merely for casting the spell.

What matters, with any form of violence, magical or otherwise, is how necessary it was. Sometimes it's necessary to attack predatory Neutral creatures. Sometimes it's not necessary, or even appropriate, to attack Evil creatures.

Killing someone with Inflict Critical Wounds, might under many circumstances, be more merciful than killing them with Fireball. And since, unlike Energy Drain, a victim of Inflict Wounds won't rise as undead - I can't see any reason to inflict alignment penalties, when they wouldn't be inflicted for using Fireball.


The point is - there isn't a "casting Negative Energy spells is evil" line in BoVD. But there is a "creating undead is evil" line, and a "casting [Evil] spells is evil" line.

I see no reason to go beyond those two principles. Especially when BoED hammers home that its mirror, casting Healing spells, isn't inherently good.

If we're being specifically encouraged to not extrapolate from the Turn Undead ability to all positive energy abilities, then I can't see any reason to extrapolate from Rebuke Undead, to all negative energy abilities, either.

I don't know. I always took it as a "munchkin"-targeted rule, were they'd abuse the rule to basically be murderhobos and then cast "cure" spells on the party to even it out.

I still think my interpretation is more RAW, but I can see your arguement. Not sure if there's some detail in an other book that can give some light on this.

The strongest arguement that backs up my interpretation is that most spells (I want to say all, but there are too many existing spells to check them all) that include the wording "channel negative energy" lack the "Evil" descriptor. Seeing how those two are not mutually exclusive, I'd suggest that the Evil descriptor is not nessesary for a Negative Energy spell, as it's already covered as being Evil by the "channel negative energy" text in it's description.

[hamishspence]

One of the very few [evil] Negative Energy spells is Curse Water, which imbues water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water.


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/curseWater.htm

But "negative energy is unholy" tends to be the exception, not the rule. All the Inflict spells work just fine on Evil outsiders - damaging them rather than healing them as they would with Undead.

All the Heal spells work just fine on them too - healing energy isn't holy enough to damage fiends.

I don't know. I always took it as a "munchkin"-targeted rule, were they'd abuse the rule to basically be murderhobos and then cast "cure" spells on the party to even it out.

The usual "casting [Evil] and [Good] spells evens out" suspect - would be Summon Monster - a caster Summoning an equal number of Fiends and Celestials every adventure.

[Psyren]

That's not cramming words in your mouth, that's the exact argument you are making when you say cars are okay because there are no alternatives. If you'd like to stop making that argument, you can. But until you do, that's the argument you're making.

I've told you what argument I'm making (repeatedly), so no.

Fine. Let's pivot the discussion to Chemotherapy, which is absolutely something that would cause ability damage in D&D.

[citation needed] for both this claim, and that this would be considered "poison" in D&D.

Why is it such a dirty word to you? Your side doesn't have the authority of perfect RAW either.

Of course I do. Casting Animate Dead is an evil act by RAW, from four separate and distinct sources including the primary source.

What you and Segev are arguing is that it perhaps shouldn't be, and that's fine - but that's opinion, not RAW. I further believe it should be, which is also opinion, but RAW is clear.

[hamishspence]

The way I see it is, while creating undead has always been portrayed as somewhat evil in D&D, until Monte Cook came along, it was never portrayed as "one of the most heinous acts a being can commit".

And negative energy, generally wasn't portrayed as evil until BoVD, with Monte Cook's

"Creating undead, even for good reasons, brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker and more evil place".

All subsequent authors, have appeared to ignore that.

He's the only D&D author with such a strong hang-up about negative energy.


As such, when it comes to "making the D&D universe make most sense" - retconning the stuff about negative energy, is easier and more logical than retconning the stuff about undead.


I would interpret Turn/Rebuke Undead as not so much "channelling negative/positive energy" as

"channelling holy power, in the form of positive energy" and "channelling unholy power, in the form of negative energy".

A "Rebuke Undead attempt" can be modified to not be negative energy. Specifically, via various feats. But it's still "unholy power" and spending it, still is an Evil act IMO.

Think of it (in its standard form) as modified Evil energy, rather than "pure undiluted negative energy".

Whereas a spell like Enervation, or Inflict Wounds, is pure negative energy, so doesn't have the Evil tag, the way spells that mix negative energy with unholy power, do.

[ShurikVch]

Why is "I don't like this rule so I'm going to houserule it" such a dirty word to you? All these contortions to try and deny rules in a first-party rulebook are unnecessary when you can simply say "I'm not going to play it that way at my table" and be done.

Quertus asked how "official" those rules
So, let's see:

Considering the Libris Mortis - it says:

Numerous theories exist concerning the nature of undeath, and though some hypotheses compete with or contradict one another, others reinforce or overlap each other. While these conjectures may not agree on the origins of unlife, most of them at least assert that this condition is generally visited upon the bodies of recently deceased creatures. Below are some of the more widely accepted theories about the origins of this affliction.

Thus - not even so much as "variant rules" rather than "possible variants of fluff"! Yes, it may have in-game implications, but even book itself admits it's all just unproved theories...

Text in the Book of Vile Darkness may be considered RAW - but only as a very very general RAW, which would be trumped by anything more specific (such as Baelnorns)

That said, their entry in FRCS says nothing about them not having souls

It's in the Races of Faerûn
They have no souls, no afterlife, completely incapable to Divine magic, and unable to use Positive Energy even via Arcane magic
Also, when I re-read their race description, I noticed they're harmed by Positive Energy, and healed by Negative Energy - thus, one more line for the Psyren's "which ones need negative energy" question

although I'm quite willing to believe that somewhere there is a creature that is specifically noted as not having a soul in 3.x.

Actually, there are very many of those - it's all Elementals and non-native Outsiders: both of them are "have no dual nature" - their body is their soul (or - their soul is their body?)
So, when one of those slayed, in theory - they should be whisked to their home plane; but, in practice - sometimes, for some reason, leaving behind (relatively) intact bodies (for example, see the "Demonic Death Throes" table in the Fiendish Codex I), which could be used for creation of Undead (because the "basic creature" either gonna get a new body - if not already -, or somehow gone forever)
Also, most of Constructs are have no souls too (being artificial non-living creations), but, apparently, still could be for creation of Undead (see Golem Remnant)

And sure, death giants (presumably other creatures too) may well have pre-emptively sold their souls to one entity or another. That doesn't preclude torturing it; it simply creates an ownership on it.

1. Death Giants are prefer to leave their souls as guardian spirits for other Death Giants; guardian spirits have no free will, so - possible "torturing" is 100% speculation (or, alternately, they're suffering anyway - if being a guardian spirit is a subjectively bad thing, and they agreeing to it just to escape nonexistence)
2. Not being satisfied with souls of their own kin, Death Giants also stealing souls of dying creatures around them; thus, being devoid of an afterlife, undeath may be the only posthumous retribution they can get
3. In a case when Death Giants' soul didn't became a guardian spirit (or captured by any other means - such as Thinaun or Soul Bind) - it's utterly destroyed 1 round after the giant's death; Death Giant cannot be raised, resurrected, or reincarnated (not even with a "usual exception" for Wish/Miracle!)

Stone to flesh on a statue creates a corpse. So for the price of crafting a statue (call it 10 gp for the mason's time and materials) and a 7th level spell, you can make a zombie. Woop.

Well, firstly - we don't specified the shape and size of the statue: can make a Zombie of creature which body is really difficult to obtain
And secondly - instead mere Zombies, it can be some other kind of Undead - such as Bloodhulks, Hulking corpses, or even Charnel Hound

Or if you want to go down the clone spell, the price becomes an 8th level spell to make a zombie. Again. Woop.

And once again - we don't specified what kind of creature is the clone's original: on top of gross physical abilities, there are possible racial (if not Class) features...

Also, Libris Mortis have such funny Undead as Raiment
It's not a flesh, blood, bones, or even soul (being Mindless preclude it), but just a clothes.
Now, would you really say necromancing somebody's clothes really hurts the owner's soul in the afterlife?
Sure, Raiment isn't much in usefulness sense, but if we find a way to mass-produce it for cheap...

Thus, a spell that uses Negative Energy is already Evil, wile a spell that has the Evil Tag is Even more evil (mathematically, the first would be +1 to the Evil scale, wile the other +2)

And what if we using a Consecrate Spell or/and Purify Spell [metamagic] with it?
Any of them make a spell tangibly Good in mechanical sense
So, what it will be: +1(Evil)+1(Good)=Neutral? +1(Evil)+1(Good)+1(Good)=Good?

Boccob's rolling cloud Has an equivalent amount of Positive Energy, balancing out to neutral.

So, if we animate a Skeleton made of Positive Energy - would it be Neutral?

Your logic does not hold up. Just because there are exceptions to a rule, it does not make the rule invalid. A mindless Undead has no will, but any other does, and by ordering it (through Command Undead usually) you remove it's options. It has to obey if it fails a Charisma Check. A Crypt Thing can't say "Eh, I'd rather haunt that Crypt over there". It has to Haunt the Crypt you told it to.

Well, firstly, what if we would use only Mindless Undead? (Or, at most, up to Int 2) No will - no slavery.
About the Crypt Thing - sentient Undead are famous for their one-track minds: thus, once created, Crypt Thing wouldn't want anything else but to guard and watch "over a religious treasure, tomb, or holy site." You know all those horror stories when ancient tombs or lost cities are guarded by the dead of people long forgotten? Crypt Thing is exactly like this - except it wouldn't resort to violence instantly (it's capable to conversation, and its main "battle tactics" is to teleport annoying invaders away)

1) The fact there is a time limit does not invalidate the claim that it does prevent resurection.

But it does!
If resurrection is impossible, then who cares if undeath prevents it?

2) There are a number of ways to work around the time limit. Admitingly, some more rules-bending than others, but there's at least a couple of RAW valid ways.

Please, enlighten me
The only way I'm aware of is to pump CL sky-high
For the records:
in the Kingdoms of Kalamar, kingdom of Brandobia was established 1044 years ago;
in the Forgotten Realms, Sarrukh Empires rose at -35000 DR
in the Eberron, Age of Giants started at –80000 YK
Thus, sufficient CL to resurrect somebody from those times are 105, 3500, and 8000 respectively. Up to the challenge?
(Don't forget: no consumptive field or hivemind - we're doing [Good] thing there)

Also, besides that - rare souls lingering in the afterlife for a truly long time: they're ascending as Outsiders, melding with their deities or the plane itself, got stuck in the Wall of Faithless, or reincarnated (yes, may be Reincarnated too - but, more likely, just reincarnated). In all of those cases, resurrection should be completely impossible:
ascended Outsider isn't dead - thus, neither need, nor can be resurrected;
melded soul isn't there to be "willing to return" - thus, resurrection request stays unanswered;
reincarnated creature isn't dead too - thus, neither need, nor can be resurrected;
and the hold of the Wall, after the some time, is stronger than any magic.

3) In any case, it's just 1 of the reasons it's evil, not the only reason.

Especially because I just proved it isn't a reason at all, since resurrection means nothing.
(Or, even worse - resurrection is unnatural and wrong: those Maruts are should punish somebody after all, and - judging by their power-set - not Undead)

Ignorance of an act, does not make the act less evil. If your Cousin killed your Best Friend, but you never leard he was the one who did it, does that make him less evil? Disrespect of a dead person is the same.

You're comparing thigs which are incomparable!

Your Cousin killing your Best Friend is bad, because:
Your Best Friend is dead now;
You don't have the Best Friend anymore;
Your Cousin is a killer now.

But who, exactly, affected, if we animating Undead which was dead for a very long time?

And, that's presuming relatives are not, indeed nearby when you oppen the crypt or grave to steal the bones.

Now, let's see about the animation of Undead: So, we found an old burial site with dead suitable for animation.
Now, question: is there a settlement of some sort nearby?
If yes - they may still use it, or - at the very least - venerate their ancestors. So, it may be a bad idea to use it (unless we're desperate).
If there are no settlements, but site still looks visited from time to time - may be still a bad idea, in case we would met with those who visiting the site, but notably less bad idea than in the previous case (What's the chance of such meeting? Would they really recognize their ancestor in the Undead? Heck, we can even replace the dead with some dummies, and locals still would be unaware!)
But if the site looks unvisited for who-know-how-long, then why, exactly, it's bad?

Now, notice: I don't suggesting to animate a random relatively-fresh corpse found very far from any known settlement. What if they have a friends who're searching for them? (And, maybe, even resurrecting them later!) Or, even, maybe there was no settlements nearby, but one appeared just recently, and they're from it?

Also, about Animals: All I can say is, Druids are a thing. Disrespect the cadaver of an animal, and you disrespect their beliefs. It's one thing to eat something (part of the natural cyrcle of life) and an other to, say, make an automaton out of it's lifeless corpse.

Any Druid who don't know Negative energy and Undead are parts of natural world is deserved to be whop with their own thorny stave.
Besides that, Druids are using Necromancy too, so for them to act indignant would be shameless hypocrisy...

I just want to specify that most spells that use negative energy use the exact same wording: Chill touch for example, uses "... Each touch Channels Negative Energy..."

Actually, this line is vanishingly rare outside of "Inflict ..." line and aforementioned Chill Touch: we have it in the Channeled Lifetheft, Spectral Touch, Touch of Fatigue, Touch of the Graveborn... and it's it!


For the end, allow me to questioning the "Goodness" of Positive Energy
Ragnorra and Fleshforges were already mentioned, but - besides that...

Psionic powers: Fiendish Conduit shoots Negative Energy, which harms living and heals undead; Celestial Conduit - Positive Energy, which harms undead, living, constructs, and even inanimate objects.

Blast of the Void - CF of Tenebrous Apostate - deals 1d8 damage per effective turning level to every living creature within a 30' cone - even if you used Turn Undead to power it.

Wormhunter PrC (Dragon #338) can get Spiritual Conduit: +1-to-+3 bonus on all Turn (or Rebuke) Undead, and all spells from Cure and Inflict lines work on you as if Empowered; gain this from a worm of Kyuss in a brain...

About the Energons: Bastion of Broken Souls have several more - all from the Positive Energy Plane
The most interesting there is Soulmarauder:

Soul Sip (Su): When the soulmarauder hits with an incorporeal touch attack, it permanently reduces a living opponent’s Constitution score by 2d4, or twice that amount on a critical hit. The soulmaruader heals 5 points of damage (or 10 on a critical hit) whenever it drains Constitution, using excess healing as temporary hit points. The attack allows a Fortitude save (DC 26).
Soul Consumption (Su): Once a soulmarauder has successfully “tasted” a victim's soul (by draining one or more of the victim’s Constitution points), the creature can remove and eat the victim's soul. On each following successful melee attack that deals damage normally, the victim must make a successful Fortitude save (DC 26). Failure means one of the soulmarauder's insubstantial tails curls into his or her body, becomes taut, then makes a sickening twist and emerges with the victim's soul (which appears as a multicolored pinpoint of light). The victim’s body falls to the ground like a puppet whose strings have been cut - the body appears loose, the skin too large for its bones, and is obviously missing a certain something. The soul is plunged into the soulmarauder's mouthlike orifice, and consumed utterly over the course of 1 hour. If the soulmarauder is slain before 1 hour, the soul returns to the body, reanimating the victim; however, the victim gains 1d4 negative levels from the partially successful digestion of its essence.
No form of raising or resurrection can restore a completely victim whose soul is completely digested to life. A wish, miracle, or true resurrection has only a 25% chance to restore a victim to life.

Look there: this thing eats souls! (Which prevents resurrection)
And it's from the Positive Energy Plane! (Alignment: Always neutral)

Once again - why the Positive Energy is the "Good" one?