Undead always EVUL?

[Phelix-Mu]

Then why is it that, again, flat-out summoning xeg-yi, creatures entirely of negative energy, isn't evil? Either way, you're willingly bringing a permanent source of negative energy to the prime. It seems like if summoning something fueled by negative energy is evil, summoning something made of negative energy should be worse.

I'd say that summoning a creature works by different rules than creating an entirely new creature type by mixing forces that were never supposed to be mixed on the Prime. A creature's ability to affect the world around it during the duration of the average summoning is quite small compared to the unlimited duration of even the simplest skeleton.

Furthermore, I believe that most of the descriptions for outsiders consider those beings in their natural state. Yes, the Prime Material Plane is not going to react well to the xeg-yi, but in its natural habitat, it is actually a pretty benign force, possibly even being "helpful" to undead resident to the NEP. They try neither to harm or help people, but rather wander about and follow manifestations of energy to which they are aligned.

Furthermore, they are quite intelligent and free-willed, which makes any analogy between them and mindless undead that act only under the control of other forces suspect at best.

EDIT: Psyren, I don't know if you read about energons, but they don't really seem like undead at all. They are attracted to life and death stuff, but don't do anything when they get there. People fear them, but largely because people know that they can do harm, not because the creatures actively seek to do harm (contact with an incorporeal being made of negative energy is, unsurprisingly, bad for the living).

[Divayth Fyr]

Furthermore, they are quite intelligent and free-willed, which makes any analogy between them and mindless undead that act only under the control of other forces suspect at best.

The general claim is that some side effects of the negative energy responsible for the animation are the basis for undead being evil (because a mindless creature which only acts under the control of other forces has the morality and alignment of a rock - ie. none).

People fear them, but largely because people know that they can do harm, not because the creatures actively seek to do harm (contact with an incorporeal being made of negative energy is, unsurprisingly, bad for the living).

Which is different in what way from skeletons which do not actively seek to harm anyone?

[Phelix-Mu]

The general claim is that some side effects of the negative energy responsible for the animation are the basis for undead being evil (because a mindless creature which only acts under the control of other forces has the morality and alignment of a rock - ie. none).


Which is different in what way from skeletons which do not actively seek to harm anyone?

Except that the emphasized part is untrue as per Libris Mortis, which basically says that any undead not controlled attracts malignant entities or whatever, and those entities constitute the "natural" state of the skeleton, which then goes about doing evil. That is, in fact, not supported by MM, but I would consider (and I believe LM states) that LM is the primary source for information about undead.

The fact that uncontrolled undead do nothing does not at all support that such undead ever naturally exist. On the Prime, it seems, such empty vessels become tools for evil, and perhaps it is there perfect facility for this that is the real problem.

Again, my view is that they should be neutral, but that the game says they aren't and that it isn't completely unfounded.

[Psyren]

EDIT: Psyren, I don't know if you read about energons, but they don't really seem like undead at all.

By "thematically similar" I simply meant "connected to negative energy in some way." I didn't mean to imply they were physically or conceptually similar beyond that.

[Divayth Fyr]

Except that the emphasized part is untrue as per Libris Mortis, which basically says that any undead not controlled attracts malignant entities or whatever, and those entities constitute the "natural" state of the skeleton, which then goes about doing evil. That is, in fact, not supported by MM, but I would consider (and I believe LM states) that LM is the primary source for information about undead.

No, it says that many attract them - not all, not even most.

[Phelix-Mu]

By "thematically similar" I simply meant "connected to negative energy in some way." I didn't mean to imply they were physically or conceptually similar beyond that.

I entirely agree with you, and the energons are a natural inhabitant of the neutral NEP anyway, which makes their neutral outlook seem more logical.

I'd be interested if we can dredge up any reference to undead being natural inhabitants of the NEP anywhere. I know that some live there, but I think they have all migrated there or been created when outsiders died and were animated by the negative energy. Undead don't seem to naturally be created by negative energy, but from an unnatural interaction between life and negative energy that creates something entirely different.

EDIT: "Many" can cover "most." English is vague like that. If you mean 99%, it's not incorrect to say "many." Many just means "more than a few," and is more about counting the number, not comparing to a ratio (as in the case of "most").

Hence it's true to say "many mindless undead are evil." This is less specific than what MM says, but since MM builds in its own exclusion to "always," it's definitely covered by "many."

And if many of the mindless undead are basically on timers until they become evil (since at some point they will almost certainly be uncontrolled...that's how eternity works), that seems like a good argument for evil.

[Leviting]

...
I'd be interested if we can dredge up any reference to undead being natural inhabitants of the NEP anywhere. I know that some live there, but I think they have all migrated there or been created when outsiders died and were animated by the negative energy. Undead don't seem to naturally be created by negative energy, but from an unnatural interaction between life and negative energy that creates something entirely different...

Well, I know that there is a variety of extraplanar undeads, but many of them look so different than anything else I've seen that they may have well just been "born" undead. Kind of like an atropal scion.

[RedMage125]

Wouldn't that make the necromancer Evil, not the undead? After all, the most undead do not choose to be animated.

Undead are Evil because Evil Magicks are used in the animation of their bodies. Much like how Fiends are literally made of evil, the evil magicks that keep them ambulatory are a part of their physical makeup.

The point I replied to was that every single act of creating undead is an Evil thing and because of that, the Evil magicks required taint the resulting creatures with Evil. Which isn't the case for Necropolitans.

Necropolitans, however, are not mindlessly controlled by someone who used Evil magicks to make them, nor are they filled with a hatred for the living or a hunger to destroy life. Willingly participating in an Evil ritual is certainly an Evil act, but it doesn't change one's alignment.

You will note, however, that ANY undead creature -regardless of alignment- detects as evil through a Detect Evil spell. Even a LG necropolitan or ghost. The Detect Evil spell has a separate row detailing the strength of an evil aura by creature type "Undead", not "Evil Undead", as opposed to how it denotes "Evil Outsiders".

So...yes, the Evil of the ritual does taint the necropolitan, as they will detect as evil from then on. However, they -unlike other undead creatures- retain their previous mindset and free will. Although one would wonder at the kind of person who willingly undergoes the RoC, being as it is an explicitly Evil act. And of, course, as undead, they can now be rebuked or commanded as any other undead by an evil cleric.

Separate class feature - notice how I mentioned said channeling falls under the Command undead thing.

So? It's still a Cleric Class Feature that is "channeling Negative Energy".

The general claim is that some side effects of the negative energy responsible for the animation are the basis for undead being evil (because a mindless creature which only acts under the control of other forces has the morality and alignment of a rock - ie. none).


Which is different in what way from skeletons which do not actively seek to harm anyone?

Again, skeletons and zombies are infused with Evil. It is Evil magicks that keep them up and moving around. Evil is a part of their physical composition, much like how it is for fiends.

And just like fiends, an undead creature who becomes non-evil still radiates evil under a Detect Evil spell.

Some people on this thread seem to be missing the point of the default D&D ruleset regarding Evil. "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." (PHB, page 103). Evil is a very real force with a very real presence. The general rule regarding mindless or otherwise non-self-aware creatures (constructs and animals, for example), is that creatures who lack intelligence or self-awareness cannot be anything but Neutral, as they lack moral/ethical framework in which to make decisions. HOWEVER, in the case of mindless undead, this is superseded by the objective nature of Evil in the D&D cosmos, and the presence of such evil in the physical composition of such creatures. Some creatures are not Evil because of conscious choice and free will, but because of an inherent condition of their creature type/subtype/race.

As Snails has said though, this is simply the default for the system. This is what is RAW. A DM should, of course, feel free to "Rule 0" what they like for their home campaigns, if they feel strongly that the rules should work another way. But the personal preference of those people reflects only upon their opinions, and does NOT reflect some kind of "flaw" in the RAW.

[Phelix-Mu]

A DM should, of course, feel free to "Rule 0" what they like for their home campaigns, if they feel strongly that the rules should work another way. But the personal preference of those people reflects only upon their opinions, and does NOT reflect some kind of "flaw" in the RAW.

Because flaw is not what the RAW "flaw" means when it says flaw. Not that RAW doesn't have flaws, but it is flawed in that it has no self-awareness of its flawed nature. RAW took two flaws, one is Self-Ignorance and the other is Internal Inconsistency. It bought Toughness and Skill Focus: Speak Language with the resulting feats.

In short, ALL HAIL RULE ZERO!

[Vogonjeltz]

It doesn't give it an alignement, so it definately can't be evil (unlike the Abyss which is evil-aligned).

The plane isn't aligned (note alignment in terms of planes only dictates who takes penalties, and so the apparent intent is that nobody takes penalties by virtue of alignment.), that says absolutely nothing about negative energy itself.

Which rule states that?

The only spells that can summon a ghost are tagged evil (create undead/greater undead). It really doesn't matter what alignment they are/were/will be.

There is no "channel negative energy" class feature for the cleric, is there?

Or maybe because using negative energy isn't evil?

Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

Nope, couldn't possibly exist as part of that class feature. Yeah....

So prison doctors are not evil, just naïve? A prison doctor who learns about recidivism rates, however, becomes evil.

If this is D&D prison doctors (and they happen to be good, and their presumed rationale is a good-aligned one) then they heal the evil prisoners in order to try and assist in reforming them. If they don't try, they can't succeed.

This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

And heck, created undead are perfectly safe,

No, they aren't.

Created undead are not automatically under the control of their animator.

Perhaps you're thinking of animate dead, which only creates skeletons and zombies, but still has this clause:

If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled.

Which means they are free to act as their standard evil dangerous selves.

[Rubik]

Undead are Evil because Evil Magicks are used in the animation of their bodies. Much like how Fiends are literally made of evil, the evil magicks that keep them ambulatory are a part of their physical makeup.


Necropolitans, however, are not mindlessly controlled by someone who used Evil magicks to make them, nor are they filled with a hatred for the living or a hunger to destroy life. Willingly participating in an Evil ritual is certainly an Evil act, but it doesn't change one's alignment.

You will note, however, that ANY undead creature -regardless of alignment- detects as evil through a Detect Evil spell. Even a LG necropolitan or ghost. The Detect Evil spell has a separate row detailing the strength of an evil aura by creature type "Undead", not "Evil Undead", as opposed to how it denotes "Evil Outsiders".

So...yes, the Evil of the ritual does taint the necropolitan, as they will detect as evil from then on. However, they -unlike other undead creatures- retain their previous mindset and free will. Although one would wonder at the kind of person who willingly undergoes the RoC, being as it is an explicitly Evil act. And of, course, as undead, they can now be rebuked or commanded as any other undead by an evil cleric.


So? It's still a Cleric Class Feature that is "channeling Negative Energy".



Again, skeletons and zombies are infused with Evil. It is Evil magicks that keep them up and moving around. Evil is a part of their physical composition, much like how it is for fiends.

And just like fiends, an undead creature who becomes non-evil still radiates evil under a Detect Evil spell.

Some people on this thread seem to be missing the point of the default D&D ruleset regarding Evil. "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." (PHB, page 103). Evil is a very real force with a very real presence. The general rule regarding mindless or otherwise non-self-aware creatures (constructs and animals, for example), is that creatures who lack intelligence or self-awareness cannot be anything but Neutral, as they lack moral/ethical framework in which to make decisions. HOWEVER, in the case of mindless undead, this is superseded by the objective nature of Evil in the D&D cosmos, and the presence of such evil in the physical composition of such creatures. Some creatures are not Evil because of conscious choice and free will, but because of an inherent condition of their creature type/subtype/race.

As Snails has said though, this is simply the default for the system. This is what is RAW. A DM should, of course, feel free to "Rule 0" what they like for their home campaigns, if they feel strongly that the rules should work another way. But the personal preference of those people reflects only upon their opinions, and does NOT reflect some kind of "flaw" in the RAW.

This does make a lot of sense, and I actually agree somewhat with the argument. However, mindless undead alignments should still be True Neutral -- but undead in general (with some exceptions, such as ghosts) should have the [Evil] subtype in such a case.

[otakumick]

Perhaps you're thinking of animate dead, which only creates skeletons and zombies, but still has this clause:



Which means they are free to act as their standard evil dangerous selves.

Their standard action as their standard evil uncontrolled selves being to either stand there or continue with their last order.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The key there is that a creature's alignment is not always a judgment on their philosophical or moral outlook. In D&D, Good and Evil are literal forces of the cosmos (PHB 103); Skeletons therefore always register as evil even if they are not committing evil acts due to their power source and method of creation. LM explains this with the "draining" concept.

Hmmm. I guess I don't really understand how the alignment of a creature can be based off the energy that animates them (in this case, that alignment being Evil because of that draining effect), while at the same PHB pg. 103 also says "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment...".

I don't own LM, so I can't really get a good sense of how the alignment of undead works in that book.

[Psyren]

Hmmm. I guess I don't really understand how the alignment of a creature can be based off the energy that animates them (in this case, that alignment being Evil because of that draining effect), while at the same PHB pg. 103 also says "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment...".

That is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. Alignment can indeed represent moral and personal attitudes, but it can and does represent other things as well, such as physical makeup in the case of a subtype. A succubus paladin will count as Evil for many pertinent effects, and similarly an undead will detect as evil regardless of their actual moral outlook (for the few that are capable of having a non-evil one.)

The PHB quote I shared with you about good and evil being cosmic forces is repeated in BoVD, right before they describe D&D's approach to this topic (i.e. black and white.)

I don't own LM, so I can't really get a good sense of how the alignment of undead works in that book.

In a nutshell, LM presents a number of theories that (individually or in tandem) justify the preponderance of evil-aligned undead in the D&D game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Their standard action as their standard evil uncontrolled selves being to either stand there or continue with their last order.

Problem is when their standing orders have to be along the lines of "kill anyone who enters this chamber".

[ryu]

Problem is when their standing orders have to be along the lines of "kill anyone who enters this chamber".

That's not an evil order. That's just enthusiastic guard duty. The party breaking and entering is not a victim.

[Rubik]

Problem is when their standing orders have to be along the lines of "kill anyone who enters this chamber".

Or they could just as easily be, "assist anyone wearing the royal army colors, use nonlethal force unless commanded to by an officer, and do not harm civilians unless commanded to by an officer."

You know, for civilizations who recycle post-consumer corporeal husks to assist with lawful and just endeavors.

That's not an evil order. That's just enthusiastic guard duty. The party breaking and entering is not a victim.

True, dat.

[Optimator]

Non-Intelligence does not preclude alignment. For example, retrievers are non-Intelligent Constructs crafted by demons, but they are always Chaotic-Evil, like their creators.

Remember that in D&D, the alignments are cosmic forces, not just different moral or ethical outlooks. If a thing is Evil, it may be simply for cosmic reasons. It may be Evil for the same reason as a compass needle points toward Magnetic North.

Well put. It would be weird if holy weapons didn't do their damage to mindless undead.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's not an evil order. That's just enthusiastic guard duty. The party breaking and entering is not a victim.

The point is that they aren't controlled. They could easily kill someone who is supposed to be there.

Or they could just as easily be, "assist anyone wearing the royal army colors, use nonlethal force unless commanded to by an officer, and do not harm civilians unless commanded to by an officer."

You know, for civilizations who recycle post-consumer corporeal husks to assist with lawful and just endeavors.

True, dat.

An overly complicated order.

[ryu]

The point is that they aren't controlled. They could easily kill someone who is supposed to be there.



An overly complicated order.

If they were supposed to be there they were warned ahead of time and given access to a free casting of command undead.

[Svata]

Fine. How about "Defend this room, but don't kill enemies. Knock them out and drag them away."

[Brookshw]

Also, gods of death are not typically neutral. In Deities and Demigods, 2 of the 4 Death gods are NE, one is LN, one is CG (ignoring of course the fact that WotC has no idea whatsoever about all the mythological pantheons, what with making Zeus CG and the like...)

It might be worth noting that the only gods with the undeath domain are evil.

[RedMage125]

Because flaw is not what the RAW "flaw" means when it says flaw. Not that RAW doesn't have flaws, but it is flawed in that it has no self-awareness of its flawed nature. RAW took two flaws, one is Self-Ignorance and the other is Internal Inconsistency. It bought Toughness and Skill Focus: Speak Language with the resulting feats.

In short, ALL HAIL RULE ZERO!

The RAW regarding this are internally consistent, provided you understand that General Rules exist, and that RAW supports Specific Exceptions to those rules.

For example:
Negative Energy in it's native state is non-evil.

Some specific uses of Negative Energy are Evil (note the capital "E").

This is consistent with any number of potentially harmful things, as well as with magic. A Fireball spell, or a sword, for example, is not evil, but someone could use it to DO evil. A more accurate analogy is Summoning spells. When used to summon a non-evil creature, the spell is not [Evil]. But when used to summon a fiend, the spell becomes [Evil].

This does make a lot of sense, and I actually agree somewhat with the argument. However, mindless undead alignments should still be True Neutral -- but undead in general (with some exceptions, such as ghosts) should have the [Evil] subtype in such a case.

I'm glad I could at least show you some of what I am coming from, however, 2 things:

1-I understand your stance on mindless undead being Neutral. You are citing the reference that creatures that lack sentience cannot be anything but Neutral, right? That is the General Rule of RAW regarding mindless creatures.

HOWEVER, there is also a general rule regarding creatures that have alignment because Evil is "inherent" to their natures, such as demons. You are on board with this, yes? A Succubus Paladin is still an outsider with the Evil subtype, and will still take damage from a Holy Smite, be banished by a Holy Word, and radiate an aura of evil under a Detect Evil spell, like any other Evil Outsider with the same HD. Interestingly enough, due to the Paladin's Aura of Good class feature, she will radiate an equally powerful aura of Good under Detect Good, and will suffer under an Unholy Blight, Blasphemy, etc. Also, if she is killed, the Evil energies of her body will return to the Abyss and make a whole new succubus (likely a CE one). There are rituals in Savage Species she could go through to fix all tis, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that, no matter what she does or how she thinks, Evil is a part of the fiber of her being.

Given that the intentional creation of undead is an objectively evil act, regardless of how it is accomplished (BoVD, page 8), it follows that all undead-creating spells have the [Evil] descriptor, yes? Because that objectively Evil act is the sole outcome of a casting of those spells. Ok, so now we have a zombie. This zombie was animated with an [Evil] spell, in an act of Evil. It is this Evil magick that is keeping it ambulatory. Yes, Negative Energy is involved, but it's not like a zombie can be animated by simply pumping pure Negative Energy into a corpse. So clearly, something about the spell is what's keeping it moving, not just the Negative Energy. And the spell was [Evil]. So the zombie, much like a fiend, has Evil energy inherent in the very fibers of its being.

Thus you have seemingly conflicted rules regarding the alignment of a zombie. On the one hand, it is mindless. On the other, it is infused with Evil energy as an inherent part of its nature. So either way, what is called for is a ruling of Specific Overrides General.

I point this out, because you seem to be saying -with absolute conviction- that mindless undead "should" be Neutral, as if to claim that there is no RAW support for them to be Evil. I show you what the RAW say on this matter, and how it all falls together in the case of mindless undead.

2-On adding the [Evil] subtype to undead...
The only creatures with alignment subtypes are Outsiders. This is because they originate from planes with (usually Strong) alignment-dominant traits. The Prime Material has no such dominance. Even though Evil magicks permeate an undead creature's form, it is still not quite as thorough as that of a fiend. After all, look at the HD requirements for Moderate, Strong, and Overwhelming auras under the Detect Evil spell, comparing Undead to Evi Outsiders. Even undead formed from Evil outsiders (Nightshades come to mind) typically are Undead with the [Extraplanar] subtype. This because of the "creature type pyramid", that once a creature becomes Undead, it pretty much ceases to be an Outsider. And only Outsiders have alignment subtypes.

So I have to disagree with you, there, that such a subtype "should" be added to Undead.

Mind you, even a NG Ghost will radiate Evil on a Detect Evil spell. Something about the very existence of undeath is foul and evil to the universe.

Fine. How about "Defend this room, but don't kill enemies. Knock them out and drag them away."

Still too complicated for a zombie or skeleton. "Attack anyone but me who enters this room" is about as complicated as they can handle.

[Twilightwyrm]

Well that is the whole inherently evil thing (in the cosmic sense) that the books reference. In terms of a more moral/ethical explanation, there's strictly speaking no RAW explanation. Sure, you could make an arguement about the process of creating them being evil, but quenching a sword in the blood of a thousand innocents doesn't (necessarily) make the sword itself evil.
So to address this discrepancy, I've always played mindless undead as, while mindless, needlessly cruel in the way they go about doing things. If you tell them to kill something, they won't just kill it in the quickest and most painless manner possible (unless you specifically tell them to), they will claw and rip and the creature until it does from shock and blood loss. If you tell them to bring someone down, they are more likely to try and take a piece out of their leg or beat them into submission than tackle or restrain them (unless specifically told to do so). If told to follow a path, they will specifically trample ant hills and any small animals that happen to be in the way, rather than stepping over or going around them. If told to guard an area, they will chase down and kill offenders, rather than fighting them until they flee. My logic being that, although they are mindless, the animating force of their existence (the "core programming" as it were) is negative energy, a force that fundamentally tends towards death, affliction and suffering, and this fact colors the actions of the creatures animated by it, even if they strictly speaking have no will of their own. Not quite "corrupt a wish" levels, but it "colors" their actions. Note, however, that this is purely my own interpretation, as it not supported by the RAW in any specific manner I know of. It is merely a suggestion if you want a plausible explanation.

[Raven777]

I'll chime in to say that RedMage's latest explanation is both eloquent and, to me, satisfactory. The things he says seem consistent with the rules and make sense in fluff and crunch. I think he nailed the answer to the thread's question.

[Brookshw]

Frankly, I just don't get this argument.

By raw, evil, done. By rai, evil, done. It's like there's a minority that wants some kind of Disney "they're just misunderstood" friendship is magic bit to overrule the rest of it. This talk of "the edition got it wrong", well, in older editions they were neutral but the act of creating them was evil. There's a whole chapter of the complete necromancer dedicated to this.

I simply don't get this nonsense, stick a fork in it, its done. Change it for a houserule, sure, fine by me, but its still done as far as raw is concerned.

[Rubik]

Frankly, I just don't get this argument.

By raw, evil, done. By rai, evil, done. It's like there's a minority that wants some kind of Disney "they're just misunderstood" friendship is magic bit to overrule the rest of it.

That's Hasbrony, not Disney.

[Brookshw]

That's Hasbrony, not Disney.

Great, that changes exactly nothing. Actually I'm really thinking about bronies so there is that.

[ryu]

Frankly, I just don't get this argument.

By raw, evil, done. By rai, evil, done. It's like there's a minority that wants some kind of Disney "they're just misunderstood" friendship is magic bit to overrule the rest of it. This talk of "the edition got it wrong", well, in older editions they were neutral but the act of creating them was evil. There's a whole chapter of the complete necromancer dedicated to this.

I simply don't get this nonsense, stick a fork in it, its done. Change it for a houserule, sure, fine by me, but its still done as far as raw is concerned.

The contention comes from the fact that both the RAW and the RAI don't make even a small amount of sense when examined. This isn't standard fluff/crunch conflict. This is crunch conflicting with other crunch and fluff conflicting with other fluff. It's like what would happen if there was just a rule about standard paladins being required to kick puppies that was later confirmed as intended by the developers. The rules would say the paladin is required to kick the puppies. Everything the developers would say confirms they intended it. It still wouldn't make a bit of sense and conflicts completely with the basic nature of everything else on the subject. I'm fine with villain creatures and other such nonsense. There existence should still have basic internal consistency and logic.

[Phelix-Mu]

Specific Trumps General seems a nice way to resolve it as well. Sorry, RedMage, if my earlier quoting of you seemed aggressive; I left my [blue] tags at home again.

Thus, mindless undead end up where they started for me. The world can tolerate them in small doses, just like any other small evil; they are mindless, after all, and only a real threat in substantial numbers (or when made from really large creatures). But, even if the world can tolerate a few of them from a balance perspective, the forces of good probably shouldn't.