Like others have said, it depends. It depends on the views around death and corpses in whatever society said labor would be taking place in. In our world people donate their corpses for scientific research and education, this is done with consent before death. Others view the corpse as sacred and view organ donation as unethical. Some cultures practice sky buriel where they chop a fresh corpse up so it can be fed to animals as a last act of generosity to the world. I can imagine a culture that reveres nature that considers the spirit a separate entity that animates a body and regards the body as only being borrowed from the world. So when its dead it is as much a part of the natural world as a fallen tree and free for anyone to use.
How is the practice of necromancy seen in your world? Is it seen as a perversion of the natural world or is it a utilitarian tool? Do necromancers need or get consent prior to the person dying so that their bodies can be used to do dangerous work so the living don't have to? Or maybe a powerful conglomeration of necromancers sell or rent out undead labor as a business and have sold the populace on its value?
The land was recovered from a powerful lich who had used the undead to subjugate the living in the area. Once the tide was turned, they were used to rebuild and replenish the land and used for good. Considering people still turn to zombies etc when they die in the area (to them for an unknown reason) people will now donate themselves to avoid turning on their own and harming others before they die.
Why bother shoring anything up? The cave-in will only crush zombies, just send in more to dig out the cave-in and keep going. If there’s one thing there will never be a shortage of, it’s the dead.
Why identify anything in the dangerous mine? Wait until the zombies haul it out and then sort the rocks from the riches in the daylight. It’s not like the dead will be wasting energy, they can work 24/7 until the next cave-in, and then rinse & repeat.
You’re right, zombies couldn’t work a mine like people can, but fortunately they wouldn’t have to. They’re dead, which makes them expendable and inexhaustible. Eventually, they’ll work the whole mountain to gravel, and even that’s salable.
Because for a number of reasons, collapsed tunnels and shafts are actually harder to clear out than tunnel in the first place. I mean if this lich really has nothing but time to extract whatever it is they're looking for, I guess it's ok.
Now I could see a sort of process where the undead basically provide the energy to an excavator as well as some sort of sieve filter to sort things out, if we give up all geology on this (where's W1ldb!ll this is like totally his zone) and just pretend we're at "magic scale". You don't really have a mine anymore, you have a quarry and I want to say there's a reason beyond "human, all to human" IRL ore extraction isn't always done quarry style but through more old school mining techniques.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you didn't get the implication of Anton's post, by nearly any moral standard it would be wrong to use addictive potions or "other means" to get a sentient creature to do your bidding. It clearly implies that they would choose to do otherwise if they had a say in it. I can't see any truly Good characters not actively wanting to put a stop to that.
In a more general sense, in addition to the other campaign-specific stuff already mentioned, this question can also depend on how exactly dying (and undying) work on a metaphysical level.
Where does the soul (or whatever you call a creature's consciousness and personality) go when you die? Does undeath affect that process? If so, how?
In one world, the body is simply a husk and on a spiritual level animating would literally be no different than animating any other object. In another, animated undead might require the soul to remain attached to its remains, or the souls of the undead might end up forever wandering and restless in the Shadowfell. What even are incorporeal undead if not a mental and spiritual aspect of the person they once were, and did they consent to their current state?
In other words, are you causing suffering to the person your undead used to be without their consent? Cause that sounds evil to me.
no matter what you can just make a character that sees it as fine if you playing, or if ur a dm make a character or civilisation that sees it fine, it just come to the rules of what world its in really. whether there souls are pulled back to their body, or its just moving the corpse while the souls free, changes from world to world, and dm to dm.
It always comes down to individual viewpoints. From my experience in such threads, I conclude that there is no answer for everyone to agree.
You'll just have to decide for yourself by whatever justification works for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Like others have said, it depends. It depends on the views around death and corpses in whatever society said labor would be taking place in. In our world people donate their corpses for scientific research and education, this is done with consent before death. Others view the corpse as sacred and view organ donation as unethical. Some cultures practice sky buriel where they chop a fresh corpse up so it can be fed to animals as a last act of generosity to the world. I can imagine a culture that reveres nature that considers the spirit a separate entity that animates a body and regards the body as only being borrowed from the world. So when its dead it is as much a part of the natural world as a fallen tree and free for anyone to use.
How is the practice of necromancy seen in your world? Is it seen as a perversion of the natural world or is it a utilitarian tool? Do necromancers need or get consent prior to the person dying so that their bodies can be used to do dangerous work so the living don't have to? Or maybe a powerful conglomeration of necromancers sell or rent out undead labor as a business and have sold the populace on its value?
The land was recovered from a powerful lich who had used the undead to subjugate the living in the area. Once the tide was turned, they were used to rebuild and replenish the land and used for good. Considering people still turn to zombies etc when they die in the area (to them for an unknown reason) people will now donate themselves to avoid turning on their own and harming others before they die.
I think this is sort of how cultural attitudes are often created. Things happen and out of necessity beliefs are formed to justify practical concerns. I'd imagine the culture of the area is beginning to develop a positive attitude towards use of the undead. I think it could be interesting to have people with more standard views about necromancy pass through and find it abhorrant.
I mean, to be honest I would think it's not really that unethical.
BUT, does it matter? A campaign shouldn't be a railroad where the party is forced to use undead as a labor force. An ethical scenario like this provides a perfect opportunity for role play. Unless there are triggers you want to avoid (in which case it doesn't matter if it's ethical or not, don't have the scenario), just present the party with a scenario where it might be useful or even potentially necessary for them to use the dead as a labor force. Then the players can role play it out and decide for themselves and the party. You can have NPCs that justify or not, but either way let the players decide if they want to control the undead.
I think this is sort of how cultural attitudes are often created. Things happen and out of necessity beliefs are formed to justify practical concerns. I'd imagine the culture of the area is beginning to develop a positive attitude towards use of the undead. I think it could be interesting to have people with more standard views about necromancy pass through and find it abhorrant.
My current campaign world has had a total prohibition on necromancy in just about any form, but only because the people who wrote the laws centuries ago had just fled their homeland to escape a conquering undead army *. (Needless to say, the party is now chasing down necromancers introducing the world to a type of monster that was basically just a myth until now)
Depending on how things spin out with the current arc though, I may well introduce a political faction pushing to "exploit this new resource" and trying to overturn those laws
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Like others have said, it depends. It depends on the views around death and corpses in whatever society said labor would be taking place in. In our world people donate their corpses for scientific research and education, this is done with consent before death. Others view the corpse as sacred and view organ donation as unethical. Some cultures practice sky buriel where they chop a fresh corpse up so it can be fed to animals as a last act of generosity to the world. I can imagine a culture that reveres nature that considers the spirit a separate entity that animates a body and regards the body as only being borrowed from the world. So when its dead it is as much a part of the natural world as a fallen tree and free for anyone to use.
How is the practice of necromancy seen in your world? Is it seen as a perversion of the natural world or is it a utilitarian tool? Do necromancers need or get consent prior to the person dying so that their bodies can be used to do dangerous work so the living don't have to? Or maybe a powerful conglomeration of necromancers sell or rent out undead labor as a business and have sold the populace on its value?
The land was recovered from a powerful lich who had used the undead to subjugate the living in the area. Once the tide was turned, they were used to rebuild and replenish the land and used for good. Considering people still turn to zombies etc when they die in the area (to them for an unknown reason) people will now donate themselves to avoid turning on their own and harming others before they die.
I think this is sort of how cultural attitudes are often created. Things happen and out of necessity beliefs are formed to justify practical concerns. I'd imagine the culture of the area is beginning to develop a positive attitude towards use of the undead. I think it could be interesting to have people with more standard views about necromancy pass through and find it abhorrant.
You just described the central conflict of Jakandor.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
Do they automatically rerise? Is that a thing OP confirmed that I missed?
Sounds like a society that will adopt cremation as their postmortem service of choice rather than one that just chains grandpa to a wheel (I can't find what they were called) and puts him back to work. Unless cremation doesn't work either.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
Do they automatically rerise? Is that a thing OP confirmed that I missed?
Sounds like a society that will adopt cremation as their postmortem service of choice rather than one that just chains grandpa to a wheel (I can't find what they were called) and puts him back to work. Unless cremation doesn't work either.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
Do they automatically rerise? Is that a thing OP confirmed that I missed?
Sounds like a society that will adopt cremation as their postmortem service of choice rather than one that just chains grandpa to a wheel (I can't find what they were called) and puts him back to work. Unless cremation doesn't work either.
Then rekill them, use sturdier coffins, or cremation.
I could see using the undead becoming a natural thing for that culture if it has always been that way or they never knew another way. But any culture not acustomed to it (like ours) would find it distasteful and prefer the above options.
The majority from our world in that situation would find it unethical. If your world has different ethics, then asking us is irrelevant.
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
Do they automatically rerise? Is that a thing OP confirmed that I missed?
Sounds like a society that will adopt cremation as their postmortem service of choice rather than one that just chains grandpa to a wheel (I can't find what they were called) and puts him back to work. Unless cremation doesn't work either.
Then rekill them, use sturdier coffins, or cremation.
I could see using the undead becoming a natural thing for that culture if it has always been that way or they never knew another way. But any culture not acustomed to it (like ours) would find it distasteful and prefer the above options.
The majority from our world in that situation would find it unethical. If your world has different ethics, then asking us is irrelevant.
I imagine that after the lich was defeated there was such a labor shortage that pressing the dead into service became a distasteful necessity that became normalized over time until evolving into a peculiar cultural norm.
That’s how the Charonti rationalized it on Jakandor, and it seems to be what the OP is going for here too. Hence why I suggested checking that setting out since they already did a lot of the work for the OP. Of course it would seem abhorrent to outsiders looking in, which reflects the central conflict of that setting as the Charonti civilization had to deal with those attitudes from the rivaling Knorr population. The setting overall was meh-okay, and the way the Knorr were written was kinda 💩, but the concept of how the Charonti society evolved around the concept of “positive necromancy” was actually pretty interesting. That’s why it stuck out in my mind after all these years.
I’m not saying that you are incorrect, but I can see an argument for the OP’s general concept as well. I think it actually rather interesting as a cultural point and potential central tension.
Then rekill them, use sturdier coffins, or cremation.
I could see using the undead becoming a natural thing for that culture if it has always been that way or they never knew another way. But any culture not acustomed to it (like ours) would find it distasteful and prefer the above options.
The majority from our world in that situation would find it unethical. If your world has different ethics, then asking us is irrelevant.
I imagine that after the lich was defeated there was such a labor shortage that pressing the dead into service became a distasteful necessity that became normalized over time until evolving into a peculiar cultural norm.
That’s how the Charonti rationalized it on Jakandor, and it seems to be what the OP is going for here too. Hence why I suggested checking that setting out since they already did a lot of the work for the OP. Of course it would seem abhorrent to outsiders looking in, which reflects the central conflict of that setting as the Charonti civilization had to deal with those attitudes from the rivaling Knorr population. The setting overall was meh-okay, and the way the Knorr were written was kinda 💩, but the concept of how the Charonti society evolved around the concept of “positive necromancy” was actually pretty interesting. That’s why it stuck out in my mind after all these years.
I’m not saying that you are incorrect, but I can see an argument for the OP’s general concept as well. I think it actually rather interesting as a cultural point and potential central tension.
So basically "it isn't unethical in my setting so your arguments as to why it would be unethical IRL are invalid." Why even ask then?
I dont have a problem with the concept, I think it is cool, but I think our society would consider it unethical. That is what was asked, so I answered the question.
I believe it was more of a stress test, or trying to find a way to make their concept seem plausible enough for verisimilitude. Less “it isn’t unethical in my setting” and more “I want it to not be unethical, how do I make that realistic for people who live in the real world playing in my setting?” If that makes sense.
The land was recovered from a powerful lich who had used the undead to subjugate the living in the area. Once the tide was turned, they were used to rebuild and replenish the land and used for good. Considering people still turn to zombies etc when they die in the area (to them for an unknown reason) people will now donate themselves to avoid turning on their own and harming others before they die.
This is the one you want:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because for a number of reasons, collapsed tunnels and shafts are actually harder to clear out than tunnel in the first place. I mean if this lich really has nothing but time to extract whatever it is they're looking for, I guess it's ok.
Now I could see a sort of process where the undead basically provide the energy to an excavator as well as some sort of sieve filter to sort things out, if we give up all geology on this (where's W1ldb!ll this is like totally his zone) and just pretend we're at "magic scale". You don't really have a mine anymore, you have a quarry and I want to say there's a reason beyond "human, all to human" IRL ore extraction isn't always done quarry style but through more old school mining techniques.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you didn't get the implication of Anton's post, by nearly any moral standard it would be wrong to use addictive potions or "other means" to get a sentient creature to do your bidding. It clearly implies that they would choose to do otherwise if they had a say in it. I can't see any truly Good characters not actively wanting to put a stop to that.
In a more general sense, in addition to the other campaign-specific stuff already mentioned, this question can also depend on how exactly dying (and undying) work on a metaphysical level.
Where does the soul (or whatever you call a creature's consciousness and personality) go when you die? Does undeath affect that process? If so, how?
In one world, the body is simply a husk and on a spiritual level animating would literally be no different than animating any other object. In another, animated undead might require the soul to remain attached to its remains, or the souls of the undead might end up forever wandering and restless in the Shadowfell. What even are incorporeal undead if not a mental and spiritual aspect of the person they once were, and did they consent to their current state?
In other words, are you causing suffering to the person your undead used to be without their consent? Cause that sounds evil to me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
no matter what you can just make a character that sees it as fine if you playing, or if ur a dm make a character or civilisation that sees it fine, it just come to the rules of what world its in really. whether there souls are pulled back to their body, or its just moving the corpse while the souls free, changes from world to world, and dm to dm.
She/They/it
Keep in mind I'm in the UK so my time zone's GMT.
Definitely not an undead.
We've done this dance before.
It always comes down to individual viewpoints. From my experience in such threads, I conclude that there is no answer for everyone to agree.
You'll just have to decide for yourself by whatever justification works for you.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
In my opinion it depends
Were they paid to do a job and died before completing
Are they criminals who died before finishing their sentence then go for it
If not then probably unethical without their prior permission
If the undead in question are mindless automatons, then no, it's not unethical.
I think this is sort of how cultural attitudes are often created. Things happen and out of necessity beliefs are formed to justify practical concerns. I'd imagine the culture of the area is beginning to develop a positive attitude towards use of the undead. I think it could be interesting to have people with more standard views about necromancy pass through and find it abhorrant.
I mean, to be honest I would think it's not really that unethical.
BUT, does it matter? A campaign shouldn't be a railroad where the party is forced to use undead as a labor force. An ethical scenario like this provides a perfect opportunity for role play. Unless there are triggers you want to avoid (in which case it doesn't matter if it's ethical or not, don't have the scenario), just present the party with a scenario where it might be useful or even potentially necessary for them to use the dead as a labor force. Then the players can role play it out and decide for themselves and the party. You can have NPCs that justify or not, but either way let the players decide if they want to control the undead.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
My current campaign world has had a total prohibition on necromancy in just about any form, but only because the people who wrote the laws centuries ago had just fled their homeland to escape a conquering undead army *. (Needless to say, the party is now chasing down necromancers introducing the world to a type of monster that was basically just a myth until now)
Depending on how things spin out with the current arc though, I may well introduce a political faction pushing to "exploit this new resource" and trying to overturn those laws
* - At least, that's what the history books say
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You just described the central conflict of Jakandor.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
IRL corpses have no mind at all, yet digging up graves to put the bodies to use is frowned upon.
Regardless of the circumstances of the undead, I beleve that a civilization with ethics similar to ours would find using humanoid undead for labor to be unethical. Unless the undead are not reanimated corpses but something more akin to a mindless necromantic elementals.
In the context of this thread, the dead always automatically rise anyway, it’s more a question of what to do with them, re-kill them outright or put them to use.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Do they automatically rerise? Is that a thing OP confirmed that I missed?
Sounds like a society that will adopt cremation as their postmortem service of choice rather than one that just chains grandpa to a wheel (I can't find what they were called) and puts him back to work. Unless cremation doesn't work either.
Post #21: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/136693-is-it-unethical-to-use-the-dead-and-undead-as-a?comment=21)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then rekill them, use sturdier coffins, or cremation.
I could see using the undead becoming a natural thing for that culture if it has always been that way or they never knew another way. But any culture not acustomed to it (like ours) would find it distasteful and prefer the above options.
The majority from our world in that situation would find it unethical. If your world has different ethics, then asking us is irrelevant.
I imagine that after the lich was defeated there was such a labor shortage that pressing the dead into service became a distasteful necessity that became normalized over time until evolving into a peculiar cultural norm.
That’s how the Charonti rationalized it on Jakandor, and it seems to be what the OP is going for here too. Hence why I suggested checking that setting out since they already did a lot of the work for the OP. Of course it would seem abhorrent to outsiders looking in, which reflects the central conflict of that setting as the Charonti civilization had to deal with those attitudes from the rivaling Knorr population. The setting overall was meh-okay, and the way the Knorr were written was kinda 💩, but the concept of how the Charonti society evolved around the concept of “positive necromancy” was actually pretty interesting. That’s why it stuck out in my mind after all these years.
I’m not saying that you are incorrect, but I can see an argument for the OP’s general concept as well. I think it actually rather interesting as a cultural point and potential central tension.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So basically "it isn't unethical in my setting so your arguments as to why it would be unethical IRL are invalid." Why even ask then?
I dont have a problem with the concept, I think it is cool, but I think our society would consider it unethical. That is what was asked, so I answered the question.
I believe it was more of a stress test, or trying to find a way to make their concept seem plausible enough for verisimilitude. Less “it isn’t unethical in my setting” and more “I want it to not be unethical, how do I make that realistic for people who live in the real world playing in my setting?” If that makes sense.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting