How can you use either word 'good' or 'evil' without definitions?
People are quite capable of using those words with different definitions. Ethical debate generally comes in two categories:
What does it mean for an action to be good (or evil).
Given that we agree on the definition, does a particular action conform to that definition?
Debates of the second type can have objective answers. Debates of the first type can only be resolved if you can find a more fundamental agreed on set of principles.
My definitions:
Good: Providing the best total benefit to the greatest number of people overall.
Evil : Providing the most total harm to the greatest number of people overall.
Then get off the internet as it serves only you and requires fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and metals, and unfair labor practices globally.
We are discussing the ethics and morality of using undead as a labour force. If they are literally mindless and the souls are no longer connected to the bodies, then the undead could potentially simply run on treadmills or in hamster wheels, reducing the need to use less environmentally friendly means of energy production
And, of course, the souls issue speaks to unfair labour practice concerns.
Even in the real world, crematoriums can actually use the heat from their furnaces to generate energy. Over a long enough time, sufficiently large graveyards become oil patches, replacing fossil fuels. Our existing society here in the real world arguably runs at least partially on undead.
Wha? Uh, fossil fuels come from the dead, not the undead. I'm mean you can say the petrochemical industry is a variety of zombie capitalism, but those are metaphors. Though some critiques of the OP's benevolent undead industry may fit the criteria of that phenomenon, as well as literal application.
Its not ethical to commit any outrage to a corpse, defile it or make it endure things after its death that it cannot oppose etc both for the body and soul. Imagine seeing a beloved one working as forced labor in undeath.....
If in the setting its not a concern then i guess it may not be unethical. But in many settings the use or undead and necromancy is not well regarded. Plus dealing with half rotten corpse may be unhealthy as well, carrying diseases, insects, maggotes, rot grubs and other nuisances.
But there could be places where undead labor is more structured, regulated with people permission signed while alive agreeing to give or sell their corpse when dead, magic keeping undead clean and free of diseases and insects and contract for X Gears if service before being retourned to family, or permanent ownership, type of labor accepted or refused etc
I dont known for souls in the Afterlife, but for those in the living world, acts preventing a corpse from resting properly, either by digging its tomb or animating it before it can be interred, can be seen as evil by breaking moral codes and laws, by hurting people that can witness it or learn that their beloved ones are undeads etc
And not because no one knows about it or never discover it that it makes it any more ethical or okay and normally accepted.
How i see it, animating the deads is an abuse unless its prearranged, sort of like organ donation is.
Public health has very little to do with it. In the U.S. it is considered taboo (and illegal) to harvest organs from a corpse, or to perform medical experiments on a corpse without the consent of the individual to whom that corpse belonged. None of those functions present a hazard to public health, and each could arguably provide a great deal of benefit to the public. The fundamental issue is that modern ethical systems are consistent with bodily autonomy extending past death.
Good: Providing the best total benefit to the greatest number of people overall.
Evil : Providing the most total harm to the greatest number of people overall.
Suppose murdering an innocent person provides some measure of satisfaction to a group of people. How large would that group of people need to be before the murder is justifiable on the grounds of providing a net benefit? Utilitarianism is not consistent with most modern ethical systems.
You seem to be ignoring the question of whether that satisfaction is really good for those people, or if a society with such ethics would be good them or for their descendants. There is more to that situation than just the murder itself.
You're making my point for me. We can't calculate net benefit because some things are qualitatively evil, but utilitarianism supposes that there are degrees for everything. Back to the example, suppose we knew for certain that the innocent person would ultimately contribute nothing to society. Maybe they would die tomorrow due to a health problem.
You seem to be ignoring the question of whether that satisfaction is really good for those people, or if a society with such ethics would be good them or for their descendants. There is more to that situation than just the murder itself.
You're making my point for me. We can't calculate net benefit because some things are qualitatively evil, but utilitarianism supposes that there are degrees for everything. Back to the example, suppose we knew for certain that the innocent person would ultimately contribute nothing to society. Maybe they would die tomorrow due to a health problem.
I would counter that we cannot calculate net benefit because it is impossible to know all the variables. Knowing for certain that the innocent person would ultimately contribute nothing to society assumes predestination. If there is that level of predestination, then all is moot. There is no free will, none of us are actually sentient and morality and ethics do not apply to our decisions, since we make no actual decisions.
Plus living in a society where its okay to murder people for the benefit of others creates a general atmosphere that is negative. A clearer example would be if you made a narrow utilitarian argument that killing one person to distribute their organs to 10 people is for the greatest good. Just looking at that it seems true, but living in a society where going to the doctor comes with the chance that they'll kill you and harvest your organs makes for a worse overall world.
Plus living in a society where its okay to murder people for the benefit of others creates a general atmosphere that is negative.
One of the interesting features of utilitarian theories is that there's arguments for them being self-deleting (in that the expected outcome of people using utilitarian calculations to choose their actions may be inferior to people following some other ethical theory).
In my game world, I've said that raising a corpse as an undead rips part the soul back from the decesead person, forever denying them access to any afterlife, and for this reason raising undead is always an evil act.
I can certainly imagine a fantasy region might decide that an uncomplaining labour force is more important that the eternal souls of those people. Perhaps the ruling class considers "those people" to not actually be people? Perhaps the ruling class don't actually believe that lower classes have an afterlife? Perhaps they just don't care?
It is a common trope for an individual or group to find out that something society is doing is horribly harmful, and then try to warn society only to get the response, "yes, we know, we just don't care."
We can't ascribe modern morals to a D&D question of morality. We must reason it out for ourselves, and each group and each society in a setting may have their own twist on it.
Modern situations of being reverent to the dead arise differently because when religion comes into play it is most often a monotheistic religion and we do not concern ourselves with reanimated dead but simply with the treatment of human remains after death.
In D&D, their polytheistic view would necessitate many interpretations of the sanctity of human remains, whether reanimation was involved or not, and then the question of what really happens when reanimation occurs would have to play into those discussions. For example, regardless of what the spell description says, if an individual believes reanimation causes the soul to be trapped, then that will impact their view of reanimation.
I believe there would be societies that would not tolerate reanimation under any circumstances, other societies that would tolerate it under tightly constrained circumstances, societies that would consider it as acceptable as picking your favorite football club, and some societies that might even be built upon the regular use of reanimated bodies. As for the players, the characters may have whatever attitude they wish so long as if the DM needs them to explain their attitude it is supported by the overall background and moral foundation of the character.
I have a society that considers using dead criminals as zombie labor for a short time as acceptable, and then they must be laid to rest, often in a grave they dug themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The only way having a bunch of skeletons in farmer clothes with farmer tools that also were once loved ones is 'wrong' is if the person controlling them forgets to reassert control every 24hrs. Said skeletons were given to the necromancer by loved ones as mandate of the state because " to continue serving their nation and its wonderful people, all the while their soul may rest peacefully in the afterlife." There is also nothing preventing a character from being a Lawful Good Necromancer with a workforce composed of skeletons aside from RP reasons.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
A skeleton that is actually a bone golem. Its unaligned. Now its only risk is going berserk when it reaches 30 hp.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
In this edition ''Undeads are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse.''
They're evil in nature and ''Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act'''
Animate Dead says ''Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature."'
After being animated ''The zombie advances, driven to kill anyone too slow to escape its grasp.''
And finally ''The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.''
Yeah its for sure a non-natural thing to do and most places will frown on it.
Eberron is cool though as they have the Blood of Vol and an entire nation who was ok with using the dead and strived to maintain sentience through undeath. It was an interesting take.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
In this edition ''Undeads are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse.''
They're evil in nature and ''Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act'''
Animate Dead says ''Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature."'
After being animated ''The zombie advances, driven to kill anyone too slow to escape its grasp.''
And finally ''The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.''
It is this kind of thing that is driving WotC to separate the lore of Forgotten Realms from the rules. People like to use it to mandate how other worlds and settings should be.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
In this edition ''Undeads are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse.''
They're evil in nature and ''Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act'''
Animate Dead says ''Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature."'
After being animated ''The zombie advances, driven to kill anyone too slow to escape its grasp.''
And finally ''The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.''
It is this kind of thing that is driving WotC to separate the lore of Forgotten Realms from the rules. People like to use it to mandate how other worlds and settings should be.
Its not new D&D generic lore rules have baselines for monsters or magic which are often changed in some worlds and settings to be handled differently. EBERRON and DARKSUN are prime exemples.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then get off the internet as it serves only you and requires fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and metals, and unfair labor practices globally.
(Its a li’l less simple now, isn’t it?)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wha? Uh, fossil fuels come from the dead, not the undead. I'm mean you can say the petrochemical industry is a variety of zombie capitalism, but those are metaphors. Though some critiques of the OP's benevolent undead industry may fit the criteria of that phenomenon, as well as literal application.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Its not ethical to commit any outrage to a corpse, defile it or make it endure things after its death that it cannot oppose etc both for the body and soul. Imagine seeing a beloved one working as forced labor in undeath.....
If in the setting its not a concern then i guess it may not be unethical. But in many settings the use or undead and necromancy is not well regarded. Plus dealing with half rotten corpse may be unhealthy as well, carrying diseases, insects, maggotes, rot grubs and other nuisances.
But there could be places where undead labor is more structured, regulated with people permission signed while alive agreeing to give or sell their corpse when dead, magic keeping undead clean and free of diseases and insects and contract for X Gears if service before being retourned to family, or permanent ownership, type of labor accepted or refused etc
I dont known for souls in the Afterlife, but for those in the living world, acts preventing a corpse from resting properly, either by digging its tomb or animating it before it can be interred, can be seen as evil by breaking moral codes and laws, by hurting people that can witness it or learn that their beloved ones are undeads etc
And not because no one knows about it or never discover it that it makes it any more ethical or okay and normally accepted.
How i see it, animating the deads is an abuse unless its prearranged, sort of like organ donation is.
Its all about people's dignity.
Public health has very little to do with it. In the U.S. it is considered taboo (and illegal) to harvest organs from a corpse, or to perform medical experiments on a corpse without the consent of the individual to whom that corpse belonged. None of those functions present a hazard to public health, and each could arguably provide a great deal of benefit to the public. The fundamental issue is that modern ethical systems are consistent with bodily autonomy extending past death.
Suppose murdering an innocent person provides some measure of satisfaction to a group of people. How large would that group of people need to be before the murder is justifiable on the grounds of providing a net benefit? Utilitarianism is not consistent with most modern ethical systems.
You're making my point for me. We can't calculate net benefit because some things are qualitatively evil, but utilitarianism supposes that there are degrees for everything. Back to the example, suppose we knew for certain that the innocent person would ultimately contribute nothing to society. Maybe they would die tomorrow due to a health problem.
See the MtG setting Amonkhet where they have a thriving mummy/zombie workforce.
Plus living in a society where its okay to murder people for the benefit of others creates a general atmosphere that is negative. A clearer example would be if you made a narrow utilitarian argument that killing one person to distribute their organs to 10 people is for the greatest good. Just looking at that it seems true, but living in a society where going to the doctor comes with the chance that they'll kill you and harvest your organs makes for a worse overall world.
One of the interesting features of utilitarian theories is that there's arguments for them being self-deleting (in that the expected outcome of people using utilitarian calculations to choose their actions may be inferior to people following some other ethical theory).
In my game world, I've said that raising a corpse as an undead rips part the soul back from the decesead person, forever denying them access to any afterlife, and for this reason raising undead is always an evil act.
I can certainly imagine a fantasy region might decide that an uncomplaining labour force is more important that the eternal souls of those people. Perhaps the ruling class considers "those people" to not actually be people? Perhaps the ruling class don't actually believe that lower classes have an afterlife? Perhaps they just don't care?
It is a common trope for an individual or group to find out that something society is doing is horribly harmful, and then try to warn society only to get the response, "yes, we know, we just don't care."
We can't ascribe modern morals to a D&D question of morality. We must reason it out for ourselves, and each group and each society in a setting may have their own twist on it.
Modern situations of being reverent to the dead arise differently because when religion comes into play it is most often a monotheistic religion and we do not concern ourselves with reanimated dead but simply with the treatment of human remains after death.
In D&D, their polytheistic view would necessitate many interpretations of the sanctity of human remains, whether reanimation was involved or not, and then the question of what really happens when reanimation occurs would have to play into those discussions. For example, regardless of what the spell description says, if an individual believes reanimation causes the soul to be trapped, then that will impact their view of reanimation.
I believe there would be societies that would not tolerate reanimation under any circumstances, other societies that would tolerate it under tightly constrained circumstances, societies that would consider it as acceptable as picking your favorite football club, and some societies that might even be built upon the regular use of reanimated bodies. As for the players, the characters may have whatever attitude they wish so long as if the DM needs them to explain their attitude it is supported by the overall background and moral foundation of the character.
I have a society that considers using dead criminals as zombie labor for a short time as acceptable, and then they must be laid to rest, often in a grave they dug themselves.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The only way having a bunch of skeletons in farmer clothes with farmer tools that also were once loved ones is 'wrong' is if the person controlling them forgets to reassert control every 24hrs. Said skeletons were given to the necromancer by loved ones as mandate of the state because " to continue serving their nation and its wonderful people, all the while their soul may rest peacefully in the afterlife." There is also nothing preventing a character from being a Lawful Good Necromancer with a workforce composed of skeletons aside from RP reasons.
Something else worth mentioning is that in 5E the vast majority or undeads are of evil alignment, even mindless ones such as skeletons and zombies.
So animating corpses even as work labor involve creating more evil creature to this world, not something many laws or rulers may be tolerant with.
This is another reason why alignment is a silly mechanic. Undead without intelligence should be treated as "unaligned" just like constructs and beasts.
A skeleton that is actually a bone golem. Its unaligned. Now its only risk is going berserk when it reaches 30 hp.
In this edition ''Undeads are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse.''
They're evil in nature and ''Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act'''
Animate Dead says ''Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature."'
After being animated ''The zombie advances, driven to kill anyone too slow to escape its grasp.''
And finally ''The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.''
Yeah its for sure a non-natural thing to do and most places will frown on it.
Eberron is cool though as they have the Blood of Vol and an entire nation who was ok with using the dead and strived to maintain sentience through undeath. It was an interesting take.
It is this kind of thing that is driving WotC to separate the lore of Forgotten Realms from the rules. People like to use it to mandate how other worlds and settings should be.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Its not new D&D generic lore rules have baselines for monsters or magic which are often changed in some worlds and settings to be handled differently. EBERRON and DARKSUN are prime exemples.