Why are Undead so hated?

[littha]

It is also odd that it is evocation not conjuration or necromancy but yknow...

[whitetyger009]

why is it called desecration when you dig up bodies if its not a bad thing to do?

Desecrate has a very specific meaning in D&D, and it has nothing to do with digging up bodies.  It gives bonuses to undead because it gives a location a stronger tie to the Negative Energy Plane, which is what fuels their un-life force.

 
you totally missed the point here. 
desecrate
verb (used with object), des·e·crat·ed, des·e·crat·ing.
1.
to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.

2.
to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.

3.
to treat with sacrilege; profane.

the meaning of the original word doesn't change just because you add another meaning.  just because you can use the word in several different ways doesn't make any of the other uses less correct.  but then again it goes back to my earlier point.  those of you who wish to justify based on nothing more than what you want it to say will just ignore anything that doesn't give you what you want.

[Bozwevial]

Odd that a spell imbuing an area with negative energy has the [Evil] tag if negative energy is not associated with evil...

The negative energy plane doesn't have an alignment trait. Also, Deathwatch is technically an [Evil] spell even though it's a glorified heart-rate monitor while neutral clerics can rebuke undead without being Evil themselves. So a healer who uses that spell on a regular basis to perform triage is performing more evil acts than the guy who goes out and borrows his necromancer neighbor's shambling undead servants because he needs his couch moved.

you totally missed the point here. 

*snip*

the meaning of the original word doesn't change just because you add another meaning.  just because you can use the word in several different ways doesn't make any of the other uses less correct.  but then again it goes back to my earlier point.  those of you who wish to justify based on nothing more than what you want it to say will just ignore anything that doesn't give you what you want.

I'm confused. How do definitions that don't include "digging up bodies" prove that the word desecration means "digging up bodies"?

If the bodies are treated as sacrosanct, then digging them up is desecration. If you run across a tribe that attaches no significance to the body after death, then digging them up isn't desecration, but casting Soul Bind and gluing googly eyes to the black sapphire is. The matter is entirely context dependent, which is one of the reasons this thread is full of arguing.

I don't think anyone's going to dispute that according to the standards outlined in practically every sourcebook, things like bestiality and sadomasochism and creating undead and doing certain things that use negative energy (but not others) are what D&D's rules define as Evil. It's just that those rules produce unsatisfying behavior and bizarre contradictions. The stipulation that undead creatures must be inherently evil has been dying out for over twenty years now.

[whitetyger009]

 

yup i am totally done with this.  its an evil act to make undead, ANY kind of undead.  the rare good or neutral undead are the only exception that undead are evil and do not invalidate that undead are evil as a rule.  those of you who wish to proclaim otherwise are diverting from RAW/RAI and off into your own little world.  as far as i care thats fine have your own game.  however, it doesn't change that the RAW/RAI for the game make this behavior an evil act. 

there have been plenty of reasons given as to why this is so.  those of you who wish to play by different rules have constantly tried to twist the reasons to suit your own ends.  this comes back to my earlier point 'the ends do not justify the means'.  just because you view your actions as neutral or good does not change the fact that you are committing an evil act to do it.   to be honest most 'bad guys' don't see their actions as evil.  they see themselves as justified in doing whatever they are involved in by any number of arguments.  'bad guys' rarely ever set out to kill hundreads of unarmed pesants just because.  they normally have a reason that by their own logic is fully justified.    now it doesn't change that these people (or whatever) are evil at all.  however by much of the 'logic' i have seen tossed around we should be using the alignment that they view themselves rather than the alignment that their actions proves them to be. 

mindless undead are evil because the process that creates them is evil.  you have taken a corpse from whatever resting place it was in for the pourpose of using it to your own ends.  you have then energized this corpse with a form of energy that is selfish, greedy and seeks nothing more than to destroy (negative energy).  regardless of your motives why would you think that this evil act would NOT taint the animated corpse with evil?  ofcourse the justifiers will make an argument about intent or something else to justify it.  however, it doesn't change that the act is evil and therefore the product is evil.  it doesn't matter what you go on to use it for you have committed an evil act.  you can not justify an evil act by your intentions, because it doesn't change that you have comitted an evil act.

[Bozwevial]

yup i am totally done with this.  its an evil act to make undead, ANY kind of undead.  the rare good or neutral undead are the only exception that undead are evil and do not invalidate that undead are evil as a rule.  those of you who wish to proclaim otherwise are diverting from RAW/RAI and off into your own little world.  as far as i care thats fine have your own game.  however, it doesn't change that the RAW/RAI for the game make this behavior an evil act.

I don't think anyone's going to dispute that according to the standards outlined in practically every sourcebook, things like bestiality and sadomasochism and creating undead and doing certain things that use negative energy (but not others) are what D&D's rules define as Evil. It's just that those rules produce unsatisfying behavior and bizarre contradictions. The stipulation that undead creatures must be inherently evil has been dying out for over twenty years now.

I'm not really sure where you take issue with what I said at all.

[skydragonknight]

I've only seen arguments that some undead (mostly mindless) shouldn't be evil, but I've seen no one state that undead in general aren't evil according to the rules. It's been more of a gripefest than a debate on what is or isn't true.

All in all, it depends on the setting whether undead are hated as evil beings or considered nothing more than disgusting tools of war (Eberron!).  The generic/Greyhawk setting though i pretty clear on the matter. Blame Pelor worshipers and their pro-positive energy propaganda if you must, undead apologists.

[betrayor]

I've only seen arguments that some undead (mostly mindless) shouldn't be evil, but I've seen no one state that undead in general aren't evil according to the rules. It's been more of a gripefest than a debate on what is or isn't true.

All in all, it depends on the setting whether undead are hated as evil beings or considered nothing more than disgusting tools of war (Eberron!).  The generic/Greyhawk setting though i pretty clear on the matter. Blame Pelor worshipers and their pro-positive energy propaganda if you must, undead apologists.

Pelor,he spreads the burning hate,the great pretender.........

[linklord231]

Whitetyger, I don't think anyone here is saying undead in general aren't evil.  It says, right on the label, that they are.  I'm pretty sure every single spell that creates an undead creature has the [Evil] tag. 
What people are saying is that certain types of undead (eg mindless ones) shouldn't be Always Evil.  Other than "to give low-level Paladins something to Smite," there is no reason for it.  "Because they run on negative energy" isn't a valid argument, as this thread has gone over several times. 
As I said before, it all comes down to what you consider to be more important because the rules conflict with each other.  On the one hand, you have Skeletons and Zombies that are "Always Neutral Evil" and Animate Dead with the [Evil] tag.  This obviously means that animating dead is Evil.  On the other hand, you have the idea that all other mindless creatures are True Neutral, and that Negative Energy isn't inherently Evil.  This means that animating dead shouldn't be Evil if you agree with the D&D cosmology as a whole.

Also, I shouldn't have made the comment about Desecrate.  I knew what you meant, I was just being facetious.  I apologize.

[Pencil]

On the other hand, you have the idea that all other mindless creatures are True Neutral, and that Negative Energy isn't inherently Evil.  This means that animating dead shouldn't be Evil if you agree with the D&D cosmology as a whole.

Imo mindless creatures should have no alignment and not true neutral just btw.It is a common missconception to put true neutral equal to no alignment.

And furthermore:I dont think this argument works that way.You KNOW that mindless creatures shouldnt be evil.You KNOW negative energy isnt evil.But you dont state that creating mindless creatures via negative energy is not evil.So you basically lack 1 premise.

I am not saying that this isnt the case just you should include this one to make it more sound.

[oslecamo]

As I said before, it all comes down to what you consider to be more important because the rules conflict with each other.  On the one hand, you have Skeletons and Zombies that are "Always Neutral Evil" and Animate Dead with the [Evil] tag.  This obviously means that animating dead is Evil.  On the other hand, you have the idea that all other mindless creatures are True Neutral, and that Negative Energy isn't inherently Evil.  This means that animating dead shouldn't be Evil if you agree with the D&D cosmology as a whole.

What makes Animate Dead Evil is not the fact that it uses negative energy, but that it seriously messes up the cycle of life and death by locking souls into inanimate shells.

When you turn somebody into an undead, they can't be brought back to life by any means while said undead lasts. Even stuff that creates a whole new body for you from new materials like reincarnate won't work if you've been turned into an undead. Even the top magic like true ressurection demands you to destroy the undead first.

So yes, animate dead being Evil does perfectly fits the D&D cosmology as a whole.

[Captnq]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with morality or philosophy at all. It has a purely gameist reasoning.

Please read book of vile darkness.

Captnq I think you're missing what people are discussing.  They are asking, "why did WotC make the rules so that mindless undead are evil?  does that make sense?  how should it be?"  And you are answering with, "undead are evil because WotC made the rules so that they are evil."

What people are discussing? Seriously?

Look at the subject line. What's it say? Let me copy and paste for you: Why are Undead so hated?

Somewhere along the line it turned into an argument as to if Mindless undead should be evil and if that's a mistake and making undead isn't evil it's just animating a corpse.

Mindless undead are Evil because they NEED to be. If they are neutral, then necromancy isn't evil. It disrupts game balance. It goes in directions that disrupts PrC game balance, reasoning for opinions about undead, a whole lot of shit.

It's why these sickos are arguing for mindless undead being neutral. Because once you rule mindless undead aren't evil, you can rule that not all necromancy is evil, and then before you know it, my daughter is having sex with a lich.

UNDEAD AREN'T REAL.

Okay? Suck that part up, chummers. So, since they are 'created' in the game. The game has to follow rules. To make sure the rules and theme are supported, certain things need to be certain ways. Mindless undead cannot be neutral without throwing the game out of balance. They need to be evil. Certain classes are Alignment: Evil only. They are meant to be NPC classes. Good PCs aren't supposed to be raising armies of skeletons to defeat the Big Bad Guy. It's not the point of D&D. It's not the creators vision. And like it or not, it's Their Game. You want to play in their game, you follow their rules. That Means Undead Are Evil.

So Yes, undead are evil because there were created evil by the game designers. You cannot make Mindless Undead neutral and still be playing D&D. The cascade of changes required by that little alteration could change the alignment of several gods alone. It's not the same story. It's not the same message. It's a game mechanic. Like Armor Class, Hit Points, and BAB. You cannot change it without changing the entire alignment system.

So Yes, they are evil because the rules REQUIRE them to be evil. Nothing else fits.

[sirpercival]

So... the fact that this is in Talespinning, which is kind of an alternate Homebrew board, means nothing?  We're not allowed to discuss ways that someone might houserule things to be more consistent?

Also, not all necromancy is evil.  Many good clerics use Speak With Dead, for example, with no alignment problems.

[Wrex]

I think it odd that animate dead, which does not use the soul of the creature in question, still prohibits rezing, Create Undead, sure. It binds the soul into a corpse and creates a hideous monster. But animate dead is no more than a grotesque puppet.

[Pencil]

yada yada yada one should not discuss things that are not relevant yada yada yada

just for clarification: are you trolling?

[Captnq]

yada yada yada one should not discuss things that are not relevant yada yada yada

just for clarification: are you trolling?

Am I trolling? I'm not the one misquoting people, am I? I never typed that. I never meant that. I just know an endrun when I see one.

Rule number four for winning an argument: If you can't prove your point by the way things are, change the way things are. That's all this is about. Can't prove that Undead are lovable, so change what undead are by the rules to make them loveable.

Undead are hated Because...

[sirpercival]

yada yada yada one should not discuss things that are not relevant yada yada yada

just for clarification: are you trolling?

Am I trolling? I'm not the one misquoting people, am I? I never typed that. I never meant that. I just know an endrun when I see one.

Rule number four for winning an argument: If you can't prove your point by the way things are, change the way things are. That's all this is about. Can't prove that Undead are lovable, so change what undead are by the rules to make them loveable.

Undead are hated Because...

Sigh.  Captnq, there are two kinds of discussions that this could be.  It could either be, "what do the rules say about whether undead are evil", which you, whytetiger, and others keep going back to.  This is not a useful discussion because the rules are relatively clear and so it is what it is (which is what the people trying to have that discussion keep saying).

However, it could also be: "let's get into the nitty gritty of the game's cosmology and religion.  in our homebrew game worlds, should mindless undead be unequivocally evil, or should we houserule it some other way?"  This is a completely valid discussion, and is worthwhile because it breaks new ground -- every homebrew campaign world is different, and virtually none of them cleave exactly to the rules.  So saying "this is what the rules say and you're wrong if you say anything else" is missing the point of the discussion.

If you want to get into a discussion about the game balance of having mindless undead not automatically be evil, that's also worthwhile.  However, at the moment your argument was "it would be unbalanced because the rules say all undead are evil", which is silly because the point of that discussion is to figure out the consequences of changing the rules.

Remember, the most basic rule is Rule Zero.

[Pencil]

Am I trolling? I'm not the one misquoting people, am I? I never typed that. I never meant that. I just know an endrun when I see one.

Well I was joking obviously... but ok why do I think your point is stupid.

It pretty much boils down to a violation of the naturalistic fallacy:Just because something is the case does not mean it should be the case.You can never come to an normative conclusion by taking descriptive premises.
(This kinda sounds borked, but i am no native speaker so i am sry )

And obv the creators make mistakes aswell.So no one should take the rules as a dogma and everyone should work on critical thinking withing the system(the coherent logical system) of D&D lore.

[linklord231]

Mindless undead are Evil because they NEED to be. If they are neutral, then necromancy isn't evil. It disrupts game balance. It goes in directions that disrupts PrC game balance, reasoning for opinions about undead, a whole lot of shit.

It's why these sickos are arguing for mindless undead being neutral. Because once you rule mindless undead aren't evil, you can rule that not all necromancy is evil, and then before you know it, my daughter is having sex with a lich.

UNDEAD AREN'T REAL.

Okay? Suck that part up, chummers. So, since they are 'created' in the game. The game has to follow rules. To make sure the rules and theme are supported, certain things need to be certain ways. Mindless undead cannot be neutral without throwing the game out of balance. They need to be evil. Certain classes are Alignment: Evil only. They are meant to be NPC classes. Good PCs aren't supposed to be raising armies of skeletons to defeat the Big Bad Guy. It's not the point of D&D. It's not the creators vision. And like it or not, it's Their Game. You want to play in their game, you follow their rules. That Means Undead Are Evil.

So Yes, they are evil because the rules REQUIRE them to be evil. Nothing else fits.

Whoa there, that's a heck of a slippery slope fallacy you're committing.  First off, you're assuming that all necromancy is Evil.  It isn't.  In fact, the majority of Necromancy spells that are evil are the ones that create Undead.  You then jump to the idea that, if not all Necromancy is Evil, it will lead to other things that should be Evil to be Not Evil.  So not only is that a Slippery Slope fallacy, but it's based on an untrue premise. 

Also, you're assuming that PCs shouldn't ever be Evil, because "that's not what the designers intended."  That may be true, but it certainly isn't the only way to play.  The designers themselves admitted this, in the very same sentence in which they said PCs should be Good or Neutral (PHB, 103).  Based on this assumption, you argue that classes that require an Evil alignment are supposed to be NPC-only, and furthermore that a PC with access to such a class would "disrupt game balance."  Seriously?  I'll freely admit that there are some classes meant for Evil characters that can be abused, but certainly not all of them, and they are certainly not any more abusable than their non-Evil counterparts. 
You also claim that creating undead armies is solely the purview of Evil characters, and "PCs aren't supposed to be raising armies of skeletons."  What about Clerics of Wee Jas?  or Dread Necromancers?  Or Bone Knights?  All of these are classes that were intended for PC use, and have the ability to create and/or control undead.  Speaking as the current player of a Dread Necromancer, I can testify that having an army of undead does not disrupt game balance in the slightest. 

That being said, if you would like to discuss why and how the game would change if mindless undead weren't Evil, I'd totally be up for that.  I think that could be a very interesting discussion. 

(click to show/hide)

Slightly off topic (and probably controversial), but what is inherently Evil about having sex with a Lich?  Sure the Lich-loved feat has the Vile tag, but I disagree that having sex with undead is inherently Evil for the same reason that having sex with a Nymph is inherently Good.  If it's consensual sex between 2 beings, what's the problem?  The exception would be sex with mindless undead, because they don't have the intellectual capacity to give consent so it's basically rape.  Which is 100% Evil, no exceptions.

[whitetyger009]

yada yada yada one should not discuss things that are not relevant yada yada yada

just for clarification: are you trolling?

Am I trolling? I'm not the one misquoting people, am I? I never typed that. I never meant that. I just know an endrun when I see one.

Rule number four for winning an argument: If you can't prove your point by the way things are, change the way things are. That's all this is about. Can't prove that Undead are lovable, so change what undead are by the rules to make them loveable.

Undead are hated Because...

Sigh.  Captnq, there are two kinds of discussions that this could be.  It could either be, "what do the rules say about whether undead are evil", which you, whytetiger, and others keep going back to.  This is not a useful discussion because the rules are relatively clear and so it is what it is (which is what the people trying to have that discussion keep saying).

However, it could also be: "let's get into the nitty gritty of the game's cosmology and religion.  in our homebrew game worlds, should mindless undead be unequivocally evil, or should we houserule it some other way?"  This is a completely valid discussion, and is worthwhile because it breaks new ground -- every homebrew campaign world is different, and virtually none of them cleave exactly to the rules.  So saying "this is what the rules say and you're wrong if you say anything else" is missing the point of the discussion.

If you want to get into a discussion about the game balance of having mindless undead not automatically be evil, that's also worthwhile.  However, at the moment your argument was "it would be unbalanced because the rules say all undead are evil", which is silly because the point of that discussion is to figure out the consequences of changing the rules.

Remember, the most basic rule is Rule Zero.

sirpercival
if this is the discussion then it should be on a new thread.  this thread is about why it IS not about what it should be in a homebrew.  i have stated several times that if this is how anyone wants to run their homebrew this way it is up to them and just fine by me and the rules.  it was my understanding that this thread was devoted to why the undead were hated not weather it was correct.  if you really want to discuss the changes said homebrew would have upon the game 'enviroment' then you need to start a different thread, and those of you who wish to justify away it being evil need your own thread.  this thread was started about what IS not about changing the RAW or homebrew or anything else.

so honestly anything said on this thread that is not about the why's of undead being evil is off topic and needs to be moved to a new thread.

[sirpercival]

sirpercival
if this is the discussion then it should be on a new thread.  this thread is about why it IS not about what it should be in a homebrew.  i have stated several times that if this is how anyone wants to run their homebrew this way it is up to them and just fine by me and the rules.  it was my understanding that this thread was devoted to why the undead were hated not weather it was correct.  if you really want to discuss the changes said homebrew would have upon the game 'enviroment' then you need to start a different thread, and those of you who wish to justify away it being evil need your own thread.  this thread was started about what IS not about changing the RAW or homebrew or anything else.

so honestly anything said on this thread that is not about the why's of undead being evil is off topic and needs to be moved to a new thread.

The thread was moved to Talespinning to reflect the evolution of its discussion.  The discussion of whether or not undead are evil in the rules is kind of useless, because it's very easy to see that they are.  If you only keep those posts, it degenerates into a very short thread with a few people saying the same things over and over again.  Would it be worthwhile to give such a thread an independent existence?

If you read Endarire's original post, even though he doesn't say it in as many words, the implicit question is "why did the designers decide to make all undead evil?"  If your answer to that is "because it was the only way to be consistent with the rest of their rules such as the BoVD" then you missed the point of the question.