Why is creating undead Evil?

[Psyren]

D&D is rather inconsistent about the fate of those who go to the afterlife, with petitioners sometimes being actually the people they were in life going to their final reward, and other times being pale shadows with no memory of who they once were, and sometimes people do become fiends or celestials or the ethical equivalents. There's plenty of room for theorizing what causes these discrepancies.

Whether they remember their lives or not isn't relevant to the question of whether they can be harmed by what happens on the Material plane though. But if some nebulous harm to the soul that results from messing with the corpse works for you as a rationalization, then I'm fine leaving it there.

Spoiler: @Nigel

Show

Yes, but since it doesn't define anything, any answer for how many spontaneous undead you get is a houserule. As long as one spontaneous undead rises between now and the heat death of the universe (or however D&Dland meets its ultimate end), the RAW is fulfilled. Any specific number or timeline you pick is a houserule. One guided by RAW, but a houserule nonetheless.

The amount that arise is enough to make casting the spell [Evil]. I'm fine with the specific number varying from table to table as long as it fulfills that condition.

Sure, but Fell Drain Acid Splash isn't.

That method of making undead may not have the descriptor, but creating undead is still an evil act per BoVD.

Well, you could Hallow those places. Or, frankly, just go kill the undead. Until you're willing to declare everyone who owns a car Evil, mitigating the impact of spontaneous undead by killing them (or even by doing something else that's Good) is a strategy that ends up non-Evil.

This is once again the Neverwinter Nights "logic" of thinking that helping 1000 old ladies cross the street negates committing a murder.

[Quertus]

1) Gravity is a theory too; and while you can yell that fact at the ground as you're plummeting towards it, that won't make the fall any softer.
2) None of the theories posited in that section of LM are contradictory in any way - they could ALL be true.

No argument on #2. I suspect #1 is the logical error that, back in my day was called "the fallacy of four parts".

While I, personally, suspect that they are all true, my point is simply that RAW does not explicitly say that they are true.

It is, actually, if you use it to generate wights. Creation of evil undead is explicitly an evil act.

Oh, how interesting. Citation?

Because what this means is, Fell Drain Acid Splash is evil ([evil]?} if used to create undead, but Animate Dead is [evil]/evil even if there are no dead bodies to animate. It makes for even more twisted logic than we had before.

[Segev]

How about Fell Animate? Does it get the "always evil" tag, either directly (I don't recall it being labeled as such, but could be mistaken) or indirectly (e.g. the way Fell Drain becomes evil if you make wights with it)?

[Psyren]

How about Fell Animate? Does it get the "always evil" tag, either directly (I don't recall it being labeled as such, but could be mistaken) or indirectly (e.g. the way Fell Drain becomes evil if you make wights with it)?

Oh, how interesting. Citation?

BoVD page 8 (Section: "Evil Acts") does not limit itself to spells that create undead - any means of making undead qualifies. (Notably, it describes it as "one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit" - far stronger language than it uses even for the casting of evil spells themselves.)

[Segev]

BoVD page 8 (Section: "Evil Acts") does not limit itself to spells that create undead - any means of making undead qualifies. (Notably, it describes it as "one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit" - far stronger language than it uses even for the casting of evil spells themselves.)

I'll grant the point about how vile BoVD says it is, because I actually like at least the idea that spells that do it are evil to use. But I will also stipulate that I find enough of BoVD to be laughably stupid that I don't hold it as being the definitive source on "evil" that it was intended to be by its writers. This is more a commentary on its failures than any defense of anything: I don't find citing it to be generally persuasive.

[Psyren]

I'll grant the point about how vile BoVD says it is, because I actually like at least the idea that spells that do it are evil to use. But I will also stipulate that I find enough of BoVD to be laughably stupid that I don't hold it as being the definitive source on "evil" that it was intended to be by its writers. This is more a commentary on its failures than any defense of anything: I don't find citing it to be generally persuasive.

And that's fine, my goal isn't to persuade you to like BoVD. I'm citing it because it is an official source.

[Quertus]

BoVD page 8 (Section: "Evil Acts") does not limit itself to spells that create undead - any means of making undead qualifies.

Cool, thanks. I figured that this would be stated rather straightforwardly somewhere.

-----

So, we've got a magical door, keyed to open to the casting of the Animate Dead spell. (Am I the only one who's seen things like this in modules?) Similar to how Prismatic Wall/Sphere spells can be taken down by very specific spells.

Somehow, casting Animate Dead a few times to open this door guarantees that your soul is bound for the lower planes. Yes, even if you are an otherwise saintly character who, having no ranks in Spellcraft, has no clue that they could be doing anything wrong casting the "open magic door" spell.

Does anything in RAW make this even remotely palatable / sensical?

Maybe if we poke enough at these edge cases, the truth will reveal itself, Holmes-style, as the only remaining possibility.

[NigelWalmsley]

The amount that arise is enough to make casting the spell [Evil]. I'm fine with the specific number varying from table to table as long as it fulfills that condition.

No. The [Evil] tag is a physical judgement, not a moral one. Asserting that it must be enough to satisfy your desires for the spell to be bad is a houserule. As, admittedly, is asserting that it is not. Don't like it? Demand rules that are properly specified.

This is once again the Neverwinter Nights "logic" of thinking that helping 1000 old ladies cross the street negates committing a murder.

No, that's the exact logic you use for why owning, driving, and manufacturing cars aren't all Evil. Either other stuff can mitigate Evil (and the Necromancer who saves enough lives is Good), or the vast majority of people are Evil. I understand that you don't want to commit to one of those, but there's not a third option.

How about Fell Animate? Does it get the "always evil" tag, either directly (I don't recall it being labeled as such, but could be mistaken) or indirectly (e.g. the way Fell Drain becomes evil if you make wights with it)?

No, it doesn't. Psyren wants it to, but the spell isn't Evil. It doesn't magically become Evil because of a rant in a different book, because that is a general claim, and the specific effect is not Evil.

[Troacctid]

No, it doesn't. Psyren wants it to, but the spell isn't Evil. It doesn't magically become Evil because of a rant in a different book, because that is a general claim, and the specific effect is not Evil.

Just because it doesn't have the evil descriptor doesn't mean it's not an evil act. Fireball doesn't have the evil descriptor. Hucking a fireball into a crowded market full of random bystanders? Still an evil act.

[Psyren]

It doesn't magically become Evil because of a rant in a different book, because that is a general claim, and the specific effect is not Evil.

Not how it works. The specific case says nothing one way or the other, therefore the general rule applies.

Your logic is like saying "If I use Create Water to fill a bucket and stick my head in it for 30 minutes, I'll be fine - the spell doesn't say anything about drowning, so specific trumps general."

[Segev]

To be fair, every book except the core ones are optional. If, for example, your table is using Libris Mortis but is not using BoVD, nothing in any of the rules to which you have access (perhaps nobody even knows BoVD exists in your group) stipulates Fell Animate to be [evil]. Unless I'm missing something.

[RedMage125]

I'm glad the BoVD section got mentioned, because there's been a lot of vacillating on this thread, and a lot of ridiculous claims about it not being explicitly Evil.

The BoVD has a lot of problems, mostly with the actual crunchy bits of the rules. They are either ridiculously overpowered, ridiculously underpowered, or unwieldy and awkward to use or incorporate into a game (sometimes more than one of those categories). And the art is fairly awful.

HOWEVER, most of Chapter 2 "The Nature of Evil" is solid gold. And it helps clarify what is already in the Core books about Evil. It clearly defines that for most acts, Intent and Context matter as well as the action itself (the paladin triggering a rockslide example). But also shows that some acts are Evil no matter what the Intent or Context. Creation of Undead among them.

Psyren pointed out that creating undead is Evil, not just with spells. This is correct. That means that when a wight or shadow creates spawn, that that was an Evil act (the undead creature presumably does not care). It also means that Nigel's incorrect assertion about Fell Drain Acid Splash is incorrect if it creates an undead creature. If you cause energy drain, it is not necessarily an Evil act, any more than any other combat effect or damaging spell. So a Fell Drain Acid Splash that doesn’t create undead isn’t automatically an Evil act. Nigel is also incorrect about if you Fell Animate a spell…if it doesn’t kill (and therefore not animate any undead), not necessarily an evil act. But if that Fell Animate Fireball you dropped in a crowded bazaar creates a bunch of zombies…yes, by the RAW that is an Evil (capital E) act

People often try and combat these points with semantics. Arguing things like "what if I raise an army of skeletons and zombies and use them to defend a village against a horde of orcs?", or other thigns like that. What is ignored is that you can have multiple acts. Raising an undead army = Evil. Saving a village = Good. You have committed both an Evil act and a Good one, that's how that works.

The 3.5e DMG (page 134) says that Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality. So someone who consistently uses acts of Evil to achieve ends that are Good is clearly Neutral on the Good/Evil axis, by the RAW*.

Segev, I'd like to address something you mentioned about the relation of this topic to the afterlife...because there is circumstantial evidence that undead bear some connection to the soul of the body used.
To wit: If a body has been used to make an undead creature, no mortal magic can bring them back. Not even True Resurrection. This, of course, leads to some odd rules dysfunction vis a vis the Clone spell. If a wizard with a Clone prepared dies, his spirit immediately occupies the Clone, right? What if the first body gets used to make an undead creature. Now his cloned body gets killed (and let's say the body is disintegrated), but the undead creature of his original body is still intact. Can his party use True Resurrection to raise him?

Less canon, but still of note is Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas in Dragon Magazine (Issue #350). It says:
"Wee Jas does not appreciate the use of Suel spirits for creating undead, and any arcane spellcaster bent on creating undead should be careful about what sort of spirit his spell draws to the Material Plane. In most cases, undead-creating spell (including animate dead) can be adjusted as they are cast to avoid contacting the remnant of a Suel spirit, and doing so does not alter their casting or effects in any way. A few spells, however, specifically draw on the soul that once inhabited the target body (often intended as a punishment for the dead person)..."

Dragon Magazine is the only place I have seen it explicitly mentioned, and some people reject the canonical status of it. But the circumstantial evidence I mentioned above is RAW.

*A few years ago, I made a Non-Evil Necromancer concept. It hinges a lot on the existence of the particular character's home nation. Other than that, it works by RAW, especially given the dogma of Wee Jas. Link is here. Now, even for that character, creating undead is an Evil act. This concept is just that of a staunchly Lawful Neutral character who only does so under rigidly adhered to prescribed circumstances.

[Segev]

Segev, I'd like to address something you mentioned about the relation of this topic to the afterlife...because there is circumstantial evidence that undead bear some connection to the soul of the body used.
To wit: If a body has been used to make an undead creature, no mortal magic can bring them back. Not even True Resurrection. This, of course, leads to some odd rules dysfunction vis a vis the Clone spell. If a wizard with a Clone prepared dies, his spirit immediately occupies the Clone, right? What if the first body gets used to make an undead creature. Now his cloned body gets killed (and let's say the body is disintegrated), but the undead creature of his original body is still intact. Can his party use True Resurrection to raise him?

The clone spell says that the original body becomes inert and cannot thereafter be restored to life. We could extend that to animation as an undead, or we could assume that corpses created via stone to flesh cast on statues (which have no provision to prevent becoming undead if animated) give us indication that "inert" doesn't mean "incapable of animation," but rather only "no longer specifically tied to the original soul that once breathed life into it."

On the one hand, I like the idea that animate dead isn't particularly choosy about the animus* it calls back to animate the body, so it's not necessarily that of the person it was in life. On the other, that makes the fact that your body being animated as a zombie or skeleton or other mindless undead keeps you from being even true resurrected harder to explain.

Maybe having your body up and about confuses the spell and you bounce? That's kind-of lame, though. It remains problematic because your lifeless corpse being left in the ground doesn't make true resurrection bring that back to life, so it isn't being confused by that. Or maybe it USUALLY uses the right animus for the right body, but if it's been a long time, it's not necessarily choosy... so the rule about "your body" being an undead is actually more of a guideline that's usually the case. It really is your animus that's the problem. Generally speaking, the animus gets into the wrong body only when the body is pretty ancient, so finding that you need to hunt down the zombie that has the animus of your great great grandfather before you can cast true resurrection on him isn't a give-away; you figure that if killing that skeleton lets you bring back great-great-grandpa, it must've been his body after all.

Still doesn't work that great when great-great-grandpa's corpse is in the ground and you know where it is, and he's not a zombie, though.

Like I said, all my ideas still have big holes in them. Working on hashing something out that seems coherent.


*I'm going to keep calling it that unless there's a better name; I don't want to use the two-soul structure from Exalted, but I don't mind breaking souls up with evil magic and giving various parts names.

[icefractal]

Possible explanation for animation blocking resurrection, which also may explain some other stuff. I'm sure that there's some spell or creature hiding somewhere that contradicts it, but if this thread has shown anything it's that you can either have a metaphysics that makes any sense, or treat everything official as canon, not both.

Truenames. They're an identifier, and they're also your ticket to existence. One existence per truename, and no real existence without one. That's why you need bodies to make undead. The animating force is a negative being, ranging from the equivalent of insects (skeletons, zombies), to much more sophisticated ones, but in order to exist in this reality it needs a truename, so you hijack that of a dead person. Effectively you steal their account, and now they can't log back in until the zombie stops using it (by being destroyed).

Also why nobody has been able to develop a version of the Clone spell where the clones wake up immediately - and don't tell me no Wizard would have tried! The closest thing is Mind Seed, which notably requires a victim to replace.


Incidentally, I've been thinking about where to locate the evil - on the act of creating undead, or on the existence of those undead? And I think I prefer the former. Benefits:
* You can have non-evil undead who aren't obligated to destroy themselves.
* Less possible to circumvent.
So I'd make the act of creating undead the thing that "pushes the door farther open". That does mean taking control of existing undead and using them is ok - which is maybe fine? Idk, you could always have both parts be bad.

As for whether pollution can "really" count as evil?
*looks around at extreme weather and wildfires around the world*
*considers the absolute ****storm that coastal flooding will produce*

Yeah, I think it's a "real" form of evil. Even having a car? Sure, it's a micro-evil. Most people do micro-evil stuff fairly frequently. Someone choosing to have an ultra-car that pollutes as much as a 747 and can't be shut off? Yes, that person is bad and should feel bad.

[Psyren]

To be fair, every book except the core ones are optional. If, for example, your table is using Libris Mortis but is not using BoVD, nothing in any of the rules to which you have access (perhaps nobody even knows BoVD exists in your group) stipulates Fell Animate to be [evil]. Unless I'm missing something.

What rules a given table chooses to use or not use, doesn't change what is first-party to the Dungeons & Dragons game as a whole.

Someone choosing to have an ultra-car that pollutes as much as a 747 and can't be shut off? Yes, that person is bad and should feel bad.

And actively manufacturing more besides.

Especially when their reason for doing so is presumably "but learning different magic is inconvenient!"

[noob]

True resurrection can explicitly resurrect people who have been turned into undead provided they have been destroyed at least once.

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

So some people made false statements: you can resurrect some undead such as liches for example(since they can be destroyed, then come back and since they have been destroyed you can resurrect them despite them being undead)

[Quertus]

What rules a given table chooses to use or not use, doesn't change what is first-party to the Dungeons & Dragons game as a whole.

Gotta agree with this. In a discussion of "what is RAW", what books people choose to use is irrelevant (with the *possible* exception of ways and places RAW is in conflict with RAW).

[RedMage125]

What rules a given table chooses to use or not use, doesn't change what is first-party to the Dungeons & Dragons game as a whole.

Gotta agree with this. In a discussion of "what is RAW", what books people choose to use is irrelevant (with the *possible* exception of ways and places RAW is in conflict with RAW).

Thank you both. This is a key distinction between "a RAW discussion" and "let's talk about opinions, preferences, and hypothetical changes".

The clone spell says that the original body becomes inert and cannot thereafter be restored to life. We could extend that to animation as an undead, or we could assume that corpses created via stone to flesh cast on statues (which have no provision to prevent becoming undead if animated) give us indication that "inert" doesn't mean "incapable of animation," but rather only "no longer specifically tied to the original soul that once breathed life into it."

Didn't know that about Clone.

Although, my personal ruling, as a DM, would be that Stone To Flesh cast on a statue creates a person-shaped blob of flesh and not an actual corpse, so it wouldn't be viable for animation. I recognize, however, that such is an opinion.

On the one hand, I like the idea that animate dead isn't particularly choosy about the animus* it calls back to animate the body, so it's not necessarily that of the person it was in life. On the other, that makes the fact that your body being animated as a zombie or skeleton or other mindless undead keeps you from being even true resurrected harder to explain.

Maybe having your body up and about confuses the spell and you bounce? That's kind-of lame, though. It remains problematic because your lifeless corpse being left in the ground doesn't make true resurrection bring that back to life, so it isn't being confused by that. Or maybe it USUALLY uses the right animus for the right body, but if it's been a long time, it's not necessarily choosy... so the rule about "your body" being an undead is actually more of a guideline that's usually the case. It really is your animus that's the problem. Generally speaking, the animus gets into the wrong body only when the body is pretty ancient, so finding that you need to hunt down the zombie that has the animus of your great great grandfather before you can cast true resurrection on him isn't a give-away; you figure that if killing that skeleton lets you bring back great-great-grandpa, it must've been his body after all.

Still doesn't work that great when great-great-grandpa's corpse is in the ground and you know where it is, and he's not a zombie, though.

Like I said, all my ideas still have big holes in them. Working on hashing something out that seems coherent.

I don't mean to be impolite, Segev, but you are missing something. True Resurrection says "As Raise Dead, except...". Which means that the spell targets a corpse and has a range of Touch. True Resurrection allows a new body to be created if the original body has been destroyed. Which means that if the corpse exists, you need to have it.

The rest of your reasoning and theorycrafting are pretty solid tho. Just that one detail was missing in your analysis. Don't feel bad, though. A lot of people forget that about True Resurrection. You can't leave your buddy's corpse behind in the dungeon because you're too lazy to bring it back to town for the True Rez.

*I'm going to keep calling it that unless there's a better name; I don't want to use the two-soul structure from Exalted, but I don't mind breaking souls up with evil magic and giving various parts names.

I like animus, myself.

Possible explanation for animation blocking resurrection, which also may explain some other stuff. I'm sure that there's some spell or creature hiding somewhere that contradicts it, but if this thread has shown anything it's that you can either have a metaphysics that makes any sense, or treat everything official as canon, not both.

Truenames. They're an identifier, and they're also your ticket to existence. One existence per truename, and no real existence without one. That's why you need bodies to make undead. The animating force is a negative being, ranging from the equivalent of insects (skeletons, zombies), to much more sophisticated ones, but in order to exist in this reality it needs a truename, so you hijack that of a dead person. Effectively you steal their account, and now they can't log back in until the zombie stops using it (by being destroyed).

I like it. Obviously not 100% RAW, but it fits neatly into the mold of RAW.

Also why nobody has been able to develop a version of the Clone spell where the clones wake up immediately - and don't tell me no Wizard would have tried! The closest thing is Mind Seed, which notably requires a victim to replace.

Manshoon did it by accident in Forgotten Realms.

Incidentally, I've been thinking about where to locate the evil - on the act of creating undead, or on the existence of those undead? And I think I prefer the former. Benefits:
* You can have non-evil undead who aren't obligated to destroy themselves.
* Less possible to circumvent.

Just because free-willed undead can be non-evil doesn't make the force that animates them "non-evil". A Chaotic Good vampire who srtives to hurt no one and maintain his morality still radiates as Evil though (don't believe it? Look at the table for Detect Evil). They may also detect as Good, if they are Good in alignment, but all undead radiate Evil according to their Hit Dice. Their very creation -and continued existence- is a crime against nature.

So I'd make the act of creating undead the thing that "pushes the door farther open". That does mean taking control of existing undead and using them is ok - which is maybe fine? Idk, you could always have both parts be bad.

Well, a cleric's use of turn/rebuke are explicitly good or evil acts, by the RAW...

[hamishspence]

you can resurrect some undead such as liches for example(since they can be destroyed, then come back and since they have been destroyed you can resurrect them despite them being undead)

True resurrection cannot resurrect people whose souls have been trapped.

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

And according to Complete Divine, for a lich, the soul is trapped in the body.

Unless the body is destroyed (in which case, it's trapped in the phylactery, until a new body is created, whereupon it's trapped in the body again).

So, until both the lich's body, and the lich's phylactery, are destroyed, True resurrection will not work.

[Zombimode]

Well, a cleric's use of turn/rebuke are explicitly good or evil acts, by the RAW...

True, but those abilities explicitly channel positive/negative energy.

Spells like Command Undead and Control Undead on the other hand lack the [Evil] tag.

[noob]

True resurrection cannot resurrect people whose souls have been trapped.

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

And according to Complete Divine, for a lich, the soul is trapped in the body.

Unless the body is destroyed (in which case, it's trapped in the phylactery, until a new body is created, whereupon it's trapped in the body again).

So, until both the lich's body, and the lich's phylactery, are destroyed, True resurrection will not work.

They specified only for liches?
So if I destroy a zombie then use the undead reanimation spell then I can still cast true resurrection on the zombified person with the rules as written?
Also the soul being trapped does not means it prevents resurrection: soul bind does not say the resurrection prevention is caused by the trapping of the soul only that once it is trapped it can not be ressurected(so as far as we know it is only due to the spell)

[hamishspence]

Liches are the most notable "undead with souls" but they aren't the only one - ghosts have souls too.

So if I destroy a zombie then use the undead reanimation spell then I can still cast true resurrection on the zombified person with the rules as written?

Regarding "destroyed" it should be fairly self-evident that a reanimated undead is no longer destroyed.

[Segev]

I had not considered that true resurrection might require a corpse of it exists. That’s an interesting limitation!

I will point out an alternate ruling that equally well fits the RAW, though: the target could simply appear at your fingertip, regardless of whether there remains a corpse elsewhere. That still is touch range, and does not require a corpse to touch.

Edit to add: how much of the corpse would have to remain to require you to go hunt it down? Enough for raise dead? Resurrection?

Biggest reason I’d rule against requiring the corpse if it exists is that it makes true resurrection less useful than resurrection in the case where you had to leave your fallen comrade’s body behind. Cutting off an ear or finger is easier than carrying a body. True resurrection taking it a step further so you need not take anything with you makes progressive sense.

[Quertus]

Thank you both. This is a key distinction between "a RAW discussion" and "let's talk about opinions, preferences, and hypothetical changes".

but all undead radiate Evil according to their Hit Dice. Their very creation -and continued existence- is a crime against nature.

Citation on "crime against nature" being associated with the [evil] team jersey? Afaict, as Inevitables harass those with "unnatural" lifespans, such acts would actually be associated with the [chaotic] team jersey.

Regarding "destroyed" it should be fairly self-evident that a reanimated undead is no longer destroyed.

For maximum pedantry, while clearly not RAI, a reanimated undead still technically "has been destroyed". Its current state is irrelevant to the truth of that statement.

I had not considered that true resurrection might require a corpse of it exists. That’s an interesting limitation!

I will point out an alternate ruling that equally well fits the RAW, though: the target could simply appear at your fingertip, regardless of whether there remains a corpse elsewhere. That still is touch range, and does not require a corpse to touch.

Edit to add: how much of the corpse would have to remain to require you to go hunt it down? Enough for raise dead? Resurrection?

Biggest reason I’d rule against requiring the corpse if it exists is that it makes true resurrection less useful than resurrection in the case where you had to leave your fallen comrade’s body behind. Cutting off an ear or finger is easier than carrying a body. True resurrection taking it a step further so you need not take anything with you makes progressive sense.

While I have always and will continue to run it that way, this sounds like one for the RAW dysfunction thread.

[ShurikVch]

Found one more "clear" way of Undead creation: Skeletal Guard spell (Spell Compendium)
Rather than the whole body, it takes just a fingerbone
Thus - Ring of Regeneration would grant you unlimited supply of "raw material"
Sure, it's not a low-level solution, but "Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below..."


Found this part in the very book which was used there to argue for "undead pollution":

Open Members: In some extraordinary settings, undead need not even hide their status, but may become open members of society. Where, you might ask, can undead openly walk the streets without be shunned and hunted? Probably not anywhere on the Material Plane, but some extraplanar cities are cosmopolitan enough to grant limited citizenship even to undead, presuming that those undead follow all the rules of polite society. The rules of such societies generally include, first and foremost, no predation on other members of that society. On the Outer Planes, Sigil (also called the City of Doors) is the most renowned of such tolerant locations.
Even in such open-minded cities, undead must often submit to a process of authorization in order to have unrestricted legal access to the metropolis. An undead with recognized feeding requirements (notably vampires, but also other undead) must obtain an authorization for a given length of time (which varies by locale or even precinct, but usually must be renewed at least once a year). This authorization requires the undead to show, in detail, how it will meet its feeding needs for the given period in a way that does not involve harm to other citizens, visitors to the locale, or citizens of other locations that could find fault with the city’s harboring the undead in question. Most such plans revolve around the purchase of livestock from which the undead obtains sustenance.
Living citizens are usually presumed innocent of predation until proven otherwise, but for undead, whose natures are often impossible to suppress, the presumption goes the other way. Undead that are openly part of societies that tolerate them must go a step farther than the average citizen to maintain their civilized nationality. They must be very careful not to break any rules or overstep any boundaries, or their citizenship may not be the only thing revoked.

So, apparently, Undead can co-exist with living creatures - without turning all the surrounding into lifeless death zone?

Liches are the most notable "undead with souls" but they aren't the only one - ghosts have souls too.

Not merely "have" souls - Ghost is one of forms of a soul.

Regarding "destroyed" it should be fairly self-evident that a reanimated undead is no longer destroyed.

Question: what if Undead was revived after the resurrection? Would it prevent any later resurrections?

On the other, that makes the fact that your body being animated as a zombie or skeleton or other mindless undead keeps you from being even true resurrected harder to explain.

I suspecting there incompetence of writers: their anthropomorphic biases - "All creatures are living Medium-sized Humanoids - two arms, two hands, one head, one soul" - prevented them to considering the situations when creature just don't have a soul.
Thus, when they said "Undead", they meant "Ghost or Vampire", not "Skeleton or Zombie".

Note: blanket inability to be raised or resurrected for Undead is relatively newfangled phenomenon: for example, 1E/2E description for Mummy directly says usage of Raise Dead (1E)/Resurrection (2E) on active Mummies would turn them into a living humans (Fighter 7)

Which brings us back to animate dead and being evil to cast it. I prefer there to be, like 3e's description of lichdom, some definitely-evil act that is a required part of casting the spell. Either as the ritual action, or as an effect of doing the animation.

The strait [evil] label was one of novelties in 3E
For comparison, 2E Player's Handbook says: "The casting of this spell is not a good act and only evil wizards use it frequently."
IMHO, "not a good" is a far cry from [evil], and "frequently" is undefined

If you want the really Evil use of Animate Dead, then Kurge undead (Dragon Annual 5) for its creation required a living creature to be killed with injection of Haramere poison (1500 gp, DC 18, 2d6 Con/2d6 Con, dead victim rots to the bones in 6 hours unless soaked in brine).
Kurge is very rotten anyway, and falls apart from any hit, but separated parts continue to fight as a swarm
This undead was invented by a cult of Tharizdun

Nightshades are...iffy on their classification as "undead." They're really more "negative energy elementals." They arise from the Negative Energy Plane.

Visages are the impossible undead that arise from outsiders (who shouldn't be able to be undead).

Why the "impossible"? Demonflesh Golem proves Outsider's bodies are real - thus, could be animated

For the role of "negative energy elementals" (IMHO) much better fitting Vasuthants from Monster Manual III (let alone the real Negative energy Elemental in the Ravenloft - darklord of Necropolis domain)

Correct. "Is it morally wrong to create undead?" is actually not the same question as "Is creating undead [Evil]?" System wise, the latter is true, and the former is often irrelevant as a result. The laws of the universe dictate that raising the undead is [Evil]. That supercedes the moral question, because the most ethically justified necromancer is still going to be surrounded by demons and/or devils when they die regardless of how morally right they were.

Yama's avatar is Necromancer, and he's worshiped by Necromancers
His priests are responsible for preparing dead bodies for cremation, and could fall if tarried too long before cremating someone
His realm is on Mechanus - thus, less "demons and/or devils", and more "formians and/or modrons"

Well, a cleric's use of turn/rebuke are explicitly good or evil acts, by the RAW...

But Planar Bubble or Precipitate Complete Breach are unaligned - even if connects directly to Mabar...

True resurrection cannot resurrect people whose souls have been trapped.

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

Note: soul captured by Devourer don't prevents resurrection by Limited Wish, Miracle, or Wish spell - even while the soul is still trapped

[Psyren]

So, apparently, Undead can co-exist with living creatures - without turning all the surrounding into lifeless death zone?

Sigil isn't on the Material Plane, and has its own rules. (You're welcome to try mass necromancy there, but I imagine the Lady wouldn't be too pleased.)

[hamishspence]

Note: soul captured by Devourer don't prevents resurrection by Limited Wish, Miracle, or Wish spell - even while the soul is still trapped

It just says that Limited Wish, Miracle, and Wish, will all free the trapped soul.

The trapped essence cannot be raised or resurrected, but a limited wish, miracle, or wish spell frees it, as does destroying the devourer.

Planar Bubble or Precipitate Complete Breach are unaligned - even if connects directly to Mabar...

Yup. Negative energy and unholy/profane power are related, but they're not quite the same thing, just as positive energy and holy/sacred power are related but not identical.

IMO, "Rebuke Undead" is a mixture of negative energy and unholy power - it's the unholy power component, that makes the act evil, rather than the negative energy alone.

The strait [evil] label was one of novelties in 3E
For comparison, 2E Player's Handbook says: "The casting of this spell is not a good act and only evil wizards use it frequently."
IMHO, "not a good" is a far cry from [evil], and "frequently" is undefined

Agreed. I think what Monte Cook wrote in BOVD about the extreme heinousness of the creation of any undead, overstated things somewhat - with many D&D authors both before and after him, taking a somewhat more nuanced view.

For that matter - I get the impression that "Evil clerics always use negative energy instead of positive energy" might be a 3e thing too. Did 2e or 1e have the same Turn Undead vs Rebuke Undead cleric dichotomy?

BECMI's Rules Cyclopaedia certainly didn't - Chaotic clerics turned undead exactly the same way that Lawful clerics did. It was only "Chaotic travelling fighters" (avengers, the paladin's Chaotic counterparts) that got a Command Undead option, regarding their Turning ability.

[RedMage125]

I had not considered that true resurrection might require a corpse of it exists. That’s an interesting limitation!

I will point out an alternate ruling that equally well fits the RAW, though: the target could simply appear at your fingertip, regardless of whether there remains a corpse elsewhere. That still is touch range, and does not require a corpse to touch.

That's not RAW. Raise Dead (and Res, True Res, by extension) require you to have a CORPSE within TOUCH range, exception noted for Res and True Res. Resurrection allows you to use a piece of the corpse, as long as it was a part of the whole body at time of death, and True Res allows you to create a new body if (and only if) the body was destroyed.

Edit to add: how much of the corpse would have to remain to require you to go hunt it down? Enough for raise dead? Resurrection?

Like I said. Resurrection, oddly allows you to use a piece of a corpse if the full corpse exists elsewhere. But True Res does not.

Biggest reason I’d rule against requiring the corpse if it exists is that it makes true resurrection less useful than resurrection in the case where you had to leave your fallen comrade’s body behind. Cutting off an ear or finger is easier than carrying a body. True resurrection taking it a step further so you need not take anything with you makes progressive sense.

I agree with you as far as what makes sense. But that's not what the RAW say. And if we're having a RAW discussion...

Citation on "crime against nature" being associated with the [evil] team jersey? Afaict, as Inevitables harass those with "unnatural" lifespans, such acts would actually be associated with the [chaotic] team jersey.

BoVD, Chapter 2. AFB, don't have page number.

Found this part in the very book which was used there to argue for "undead pollution":

So, apparently, Undead can co-exist with living creatures - without turning all the surrounding into lifeless death zone?

Is that in the section for ALTERNATE setting options? As in, DEVIATION from standard default RAW?

Question: what if Undead was revived after the resurrection? Would it prevent any later resurrections?

If the person has been resurrected, and is not a corpse, what are you using as the target for the Revive Undead?

I suspecting there incompetence of writers: their anthropomorphic biases - "All creatures are living Medium-sized Humanoids - two arms, two hands, one head, one soul" - prevented them to considering the situations when creature just don't have a soul.
Thus, when they said "Undead", they meant "Ghost or Vampire", not "Skeleton or Zombie".

OR, you know, the theory that doesn't require you to denigrate the creators of the game you're playing as "incompetent". That there is some connection between the soul of the person whose body was used and the skeleton/zombie.

Like I initially said, it's circumstantial evidence, and thus this is not 100% RAW, but the soul of the person may be somehow "trapped" in the zombie or skeleton.

The strait [evil] label was one of novelties in 3E
For comparison, 2E Player's Handbook says: "The casting of this spell is not a good act and only evil wizards use it frequently."
IMHO, "not a good" is a far cry from [evil], and "frequently" is undefined

Huh. Exact same wording in 5e.

[hamishspence]

Now that I've checked the 2e DMG - it appears to be that evil clerics (and only evil clerics, not some Neutral ones, like in 3e) replace Turn Undead with Rebuke/Command Undead.

The whole "Turning undead is a good act" (and Rebuking Undead, an evil act) idea, seems to be a 3e-ism though.

[RedMage125]

Yup. Negative energy and unholy/profane power are related, but they're not quite the same thing, just as positive energy and holy/sacred power are related but not identical.

IMO, "Rebuke Undead" is a mixture of negative energy and unholy power - it's the unholy power component, that makes the act evil, rather than the negative energy alone.

So much this.

It's a distinction people often fail to understand. Yes, Negative Energy by itself is neutral. The Negative Energy Plane is not aligned, nor are its native inhabitants (zag-yas or whatever). Inflict Wounds and Energy Drain spells do not have alignment tags. But Negative Energy can be used for profane purposes. Undead use negative energy, but in a profane manner.

Agreed. I think what Monte Cook wrote in BOVD about the extreme heinousness of the creation of any undead, overstated things somewhat - with many D&D authors both before and after him, taking a somewhat more nuanced view.

But for 3.x purposes (and this is a 3.x subforum), that ruling was consistent with the rest of 3e's RAW.

For that matter - I get the impression that "Evil clerics always use negative energy instead of positive energy" might be a 3e thing too. Did 2e or 1e have the same Turn Undead vs Rebuke Undead cleric dichotomy?

Now that I've checked the 2e DMG - it appears to be that evil clerics (and only evil clerics, not some Neutral ones, like in 3e) replace Turn Undead with Rebuke/Command Undead.

The whole "Turning undead is a good act" (and Rebuking Undead, an evil act) idea, seems to be a 3e-ism though.

Nice find. I did remember that 2e Evil Clerics Rebuked/Commanded undead, but didn't know that about Neutral ones.