Well, that depends on the culture. You could have a society where burying your deceased elders in the ground to decompose is considered disrespectful.
There's a lot of room between "don't bury" and "re-animate a corpse to use for slave labor."
Yet both and everything in between are still possible. There are a lot of things in real human history that are considered immoral that were once a normal part of some cultures. Cannibalism for example fits well in this discussion.
I would argue they are considered immoral, or unethical as the OP’s question puts it, because they are immoral.
Its a pretty slippery slope to say that because some culture or another once found something acceptable, that we just have to accept it as ok, because well, it was a cultural norm.. Those cultures were wrong to do those things, and the people living in them should have known better. There are lines that should never be crossed, the fact that some societies have crossed those lines doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
So I’m going to stick with it is unethical. And if a given society has fooled themselves into believing it’s not unethical, that society is wrong.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Morality is defined by what is acceptable by Society. As society changes, so do morals.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Morality is defined by what is acceptable by Society. As society changes, so do morals.
Incorrect. Society determines what is ethical, morality is down to personal conscience.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Well I would go even further to say that whether something is moral is determined by objective standards. What is considered moral by any given person, whether they are involved in a situation directly or merely an observer, may or may not be objectively moral.
And who sets those “objective standards?” Who? Who is in charge of determining what is right or wrong for me? I dare say it isn’t you. So who?
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Morality is defined by what is acceptable by Society. As society changes, so do morals.
Incorrect. Society determines what is ethical, morality is down to personal conscience.
What the individual deems ethical or moral is down to personal conscience, but that does not preclude there being objective realities. Otherwise, at some point, it becomes a semantics game, the old 'I can't be doing bad things because I believe I am not' argument.
I've created a homebrew adventure where the undead are hunted, neutralized, and turned into a mining labor force.
Considering they have no souls and are otherwise harmful to the living, is it really unethical to use them in this way?
Several factors in play here:
As the undead are a constant danger to the living and will express that danger unless constantly stopped, this is morally very similar to uranium in the real world, which has heavily restrictive laws in every country on the planet to avoid misuse. This is exacerbated with infectious and/or hard to contain undead.
As the corpses were once people, even after being raised as undead they should remain rightful property of their inheritors (which is why in most countries family of the deceased can and will sue you if you tamper with a body without consent).
D&D, unlike Earth, has deities which are willing and able to prove their existence. If a religion is opposed to undead, that means there really is a deity who's opposed to undead, and that's a powerful enemy to make in exchange for efficient miners.
If you get around all three problems - you get the consent of the owner of the corpse (if any), you 100% guarantee the undead will remain contained, and you somehow overcome deific resistance (perhaps via a custom pantheon) - I suppose all of your bases are covered.
The above is only for non-sapient undead. Sapient undead, such as vampires or liches, would qualify as slaves under such a regime, and slavery is widely regarded as immoral.
There is no possible “objective” good Vs evil scale. It’s all subjective. If there is an “objective” line of good & evil, go get it and bring it here and show us.
And “moral impulse” is not “objective” it is entirely subjective. That’s why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
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.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Morality is defined by what is acceptable by Society. As society changes, so do morals.
Incorrect. Society determines what is ethical, morality is down to personal conscience.
What the individual deems ethical or moral is down to personal conscience, but that does not preclude there being objective realities. Otherwise, at some point, it becomes a semantics game, the old 'I can't be doing bad things because I believe I am not' argument.
This article really highlights some of the points I was making in my previous response. In both examples which I provided in that post, there were clear sets of rules governing the use of undead as labor. I.e. each was an ethical system. I am not claiming that these are what most folks would consider "right" - i.e. they are not moral. I merely claim that there are rules and these rules are agreed to by the parties involved - although in the Jergal example, it is rules for the priests and not necessarily for the brigands who ran afoul of one such priest.
Another example of an ethical system in D&D that one might argue is inherently immoral is infernal bargaining. A contract is drawn up by a devil granting favors to a mortal in exchange for deeds, or the mortal's very soul. Such a contract is definitely wrong, since the deeds the devil stipulates would be harmful, evil, nefarious, and otherwise undesirable from a moral standpoint, or since the mortal would become fodder in the Blood War upon expiring - an inherently evil undertaking. Nevertheless, it is an ethical agreement. One thing is provided in exchange for another, and all parties involved agree to the transaction. Moreover, regardless of the mortal's awareness of them, there is a clear set of rules outlining how devils and mortals may enter into such agreements.
Following this logic, the use of undead as labor following some form of agreement is in a similar vein. It may not be moral, and one of the agreeing parties might not even be fully unaware, or in the case of Jergal's skeleton squad in my earlier campaign, party for agreement to some of the rules. However, if it follows an agreed upon set of rules and concessions, it is ethical.
It is also worth noting that in this article, the example of Omerta is the Mafia's solution to Thomas Hobbes' prisoner's dilemma - i.e. the "sovereign" to which mobsters answer. Thomas Hobbes proposed this classic game theory problem as an ethical problem. Sadly, I was unable to find which work it was in with a quick Google search, but I would gamble it was Leviathan. That is the one that talks most about "sovereigns."
My previous reply in this thread was removed by a mod who felt it was not constructive, so I'll try again with more nuance.
It is good that as a society we can discuss morality, and hopefully come to way of life that hurts the least number of people. That said, without some source of objective morality (which we don't have) morality is subjective.
I was surprised to see this thread at all, though, because it seems odd to me to try to get to some objective moral determination for something that is taking place in a game, in a make-believe world.
With a productive session 0, we can as a group decide what we agree to be moral, or not, in our particular game, but why are we trying to find an objective morality in the real world to apply in a make-believe world?
I personally would (and plan) to run a game where the dead are used for their labour. I will do this because; 1. I know my players are okay with this in our game; and 2. because I want their characters to be faced with moral quandaries in the game. THAT is what makes for a good story, in my humble opinion.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
My previous reply in this thread was removed by a mod who felt it was not constructive, so I'll try again with more nuance.
It is good that as a society we can discuss morality, and hopefully come to way of life that hurts the least number of people. That said, without some source of objective morality (which we don't have) morality is subjective.
I was surprised to see this threat at all, though, because it seems odd to me to try to get to some objective moral determination for something that is taking place in a game, in a make-believe world.
With a productive session 0, we can as a group decide what we agree to be moral, or not, in our particular game, but why are we trying to find an objective morality in the real world to apply in a make-believe world?
I personally would (and plan) to run a game where the dead are used for their labour. I will do this because; 1. I know my players are okay with this in our game; and 2. because I want their characters to be faced with moral quandaries in the game. THAT is what makes for a good story, in my humble opinion.
I kinda think your conclusions are right but your claim of being perplexed that this discussion exists is a bit off base. I think in DM's terms, rather than the sorta meta-philosophical tangent that's erupted into the past two pages, the answer goes back to my response. The question "are utility undead ethical?" is a world building question, not a question that can be objectively answered by a pool of respondent DMs. I don't think anyone on this thread really thinks otherwise. Rather, the thread advances the question, are undead simply a "resource" used in the world or is their existence and use in this regard a source of in game conflict? And folks put out their game world premises regarding undead and ask the OP to articulate theirs.
Now, the OP seems pretty set in their conceit with some sort of entrepreneurial necromancer who seems to really believe they're (and by DM decree evidently "is") doing a public good and the public sincerely believes in the entrepreneur. And if that's the world they built, that's fine, and does make one wonder why they asked the question. Still, there's plenty of space in a DM subforum to pressure test a world element, and DMs before this thread went off on a "what is ethics or morality?" tangent (it's not clear whether the OP is aware of or cares to abide by the distinction) were asking questions and comparing it to their own use of undead as well as the presence of undead in other D&D worlds to provide further food for though. I mean really by the sort of dismissive argument you seem to be framing there's no space in the DM sub-forum for asking world building questions.
Real logics often inform fictional verisimilitude, including the aspects of a fictional world that challenge real logics. I guess I'm saying I consider the OP a fair question, and it's unfair to discount the question because some folks are maybe reaching too far afield in philosophical disciplines to settle their side arguments, if that's to what you're objecting.
EDIT: Just realized we're not in the DM subforum, but I still don't see how this question can seem any less relevant in a D&D discussion space than any other world building question.
The question "are utility undead ethical?" is a world building question, not a question that can be objectively answered by a pool of respondent DMs. I don't think anyone on this thread really thinks otherwise. Rather, the thread advances the question, are undead simply a "resource" used in the world or is their existence and use in this regard a source of in game conflict?
Here you phrase it as a question that has an answer, and maybe I didn't explain it well enough, but I guess I feel like the way the OP's question was phrased, and they way your question was phrased, seems to imply that there is a correct answer.
Instead of asking "are utility undead ethical" I would have asked "How do you/how should one approach this subject in game?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The question "are utility undead ethical?" is a world building question, not a question that can be objectively answered by a pool of respondent DMs. I don't think anyone on this thread really thinks otherwise. Rather, the thread advances the question, are undead simply a "resource" used in the world or is their existence and use in this regard a source of in game conflict?
Here you phrase it as a question that has an answer, and maybe I didn't explain it well enough, but I guess I feel like the way the OP's question was phrased, and they way your question was phrased, seems to imply that there is a correct answer.
Instead of asking "are utility undead ethical" I would have asked "How do you/how should one approach this subject in game?"
I see what you're saying, but I think the quibble is a bit pedantic. Sure, the OP setting up the question with a poll raises questions as to what sort of absolute answer the OP might have been trying to get at (especially since, reading the OP's response the OP seems to feel they're very much in the right at least for their world construction ... though other posters quibble at how well thought the world may be), but the bulk of the thread until recently has been a discussion of the OP's world building premises in comparison to other world building approaches ... which is sort of how world builders talk about world building. I think any question asked that's clearly reflective of world building is implicitly asking "what do you think of my approach, what is your approach?" since, as I think you recognize, we're talking about fictional worlds.
There's a sort of player, akin the to rule lawyers, who's a sort of world logic interrogator. I think the various fun uprising names floated in the thread are just the sort of things with which such a player may hijinks hijack the game unless the OP's premises are clearly laid out. These sorts of threads, however they are titled at the onset, are useful for that.
Things that were moral then may not be moral now. But as the years go by things that you find perfectly acceptable and ethical may be considered barbaric. Morality and Ethics are not a universal constant. They change as society changes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Whether an action is moral is defined by the observer, not by the person taking the action.
Morality is defined by what is acceptable by Society. As society changes, so do morals.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Incorrect. Society determines what is ethical, morality is down to personal conscience.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And who sets those “objective standards?” Who? Who is in charge of determining what is right or wrong for me? I dare say it isn’t you. So who?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I invite you to educate yourself on the actual differences between morals & ethics before continuing this conversation: (https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Self Deleted: Getting way off topic and into dangerous territory for forum discussion.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Several factors in play here:
If you get around all three problems - you get the consent of the owner of the corpse (if any), you 100% guarantee the undead will remain contained, and you somehow overcome deific resistance (perhaps via a custom pantheon) - I suppose all of your bases are covered.
The above is only for non-sapient undead. Sapient undead, such as vampires or liches, would qualify as slaves under such a regime, and slavery is widely regarded as immoral.
There is no possible “objective” good Vs evil scale. It’s all subjective. If there is an “objective” line of good & evil, go get it and bring it here and show us.
And “moral impulse” is not “objective” it is entirely subjective. That’s why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The issue of ethical objectivism is not one we're likely to resolve on these forums.and seems a bit out of scope.
Now you’re starting to get it. Since the OP asked if it was unethical (not immoral), all that matters is what we agree to as a society.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I thought that’s what we were doing for the past 4 pages & change.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I do it all the time so I'd say it's fine. But I do have a question, are you talking about in game or irl cause either way my answer applies
People are quite capable of using those words with different definitions. Ethical debate generally comes in two categories:
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.
Either way, having the labor force is useful. And yea I guess it depends on the person
This article really highlights some of the points I was making in my previous response. In both examples which I provided in that post, there were clear sets of rules governing the use of undead as labor. I.e. each was an ethical system. I am not claiming that these are what most folks would consider "right" - i.e. they are not moral. I merely claim that there are rules and these rules are agreed to by the parties involved - although in the Jergal example, it is rules for the priests and not necessarily for the brigands who ran afoul of one such priest.
Another example of an ethical system in D&D that one might argue is inherently immoral is infernal bargaining. A contract is drawn up by a devil granting favors to a mortal in exchange for deeds, or the mortal's very soul. Such a contract is definitely wrong, since the deeds the devil stipulates would be harmful, evil, nefarious, and otherwise undesirable from a moral standpoint, or since the mortal would become fodder in the Blood War upon expiring - an inherently evil undertaking. Nevertheless, it is an ethical agreement. One thing is provided in exchange for another, and all parties involved agree to the transaction. Moreover, regardless of the mortal's awareness of them, there is a clear set of rules outlining how devils and mortals may enter into such agreements.
Following this logic, the use of undead as labor following some form of agreement is in a similar vein. It may not be moral, and one of the agreeing parties might not even be fully unaware, or in the case of Jergal's skeleton squad in my earlier campaign, party for agreement to some of the rules. However, if it follows an agreed upon set of rules and concessions, it is ethical.
It is also worth noting that in this article, the example of Omerta is the Mafia's solution to Thomas Hobbes' prisoner's dilemma - i.e. the "sovereign" to which mobsters answer. Thomas Hobbes proposed this classic game theory problem as an ethical problem. Sadly, I was unable to find which work it was in with a quick Google search, but I would gamble it was Leviathan. That is the one that talks most about "sovereigns."
My previous reply in this thread was removed by a mod who felt it was not constructive, so I'll try again with more nuance.
It is good that as a society we can discuss morality, and hopefully come to way of life that hurts the least number of people. That said, without some source of objective morality (which we don't have) morality is subjective.
I was surprised to see this thread at all, though, because it seems odd to me to try to get to some objective moral determination for something that is taking place in a game, in a make-believe world.
With a productive session 0, we can as a group decide what we agree to be moral, or not, in our particular game, but why are we trying to find an objective morality in the real world to apply in a make-believe world?
I personally would (and plan) to run a game where the dead are used for their labour. I will do this because; 1. I know my players are okay with this in our game; and 2. because I want their characters to be faced with moral quandaries in the game. THAT is what makes for a good story, in my humble opinion.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I kinda think your conclusions are right but your claim of being perplexed that this discussion exists is a bit off base. I think in DM's terms, rather than the sorta meta-philosophical tangent that's erupted into the past two pages, the answer goes back to my response. The question "are utility undead ethical?" is a world building question, not a question that can be objectively answered by a pool of respondent DMs. I don't think anyone on this thread really thinks otherwise. Rather, the thread advances the question, are undead simply a "resource" used in the world or is their existence and use in this regard a source of in game conflict? And folks put out their game world premises regarding undead and ask the OP to articulate theirs.
Now, the OP seems pretty set in their conceit with some sort of entrepreneurial necromancer who seems to really believe they're (and by DM decree evidently "is") doing a public good and the public sincerely believes in the entrepreneur. And if that's the world they built, that's fine, and does make one wonder why they asked the question. Still, there's plenty of space in a DM subforum to pressure test a world element, and DMs before this thread went off on a "what is ethics or morality?" tangent (it's not clear whether the OP is aware of or cares to abide by the distinction) were asking questions and comparing it to their own use of undead as well as the presence of undead in other D&D worlds to provide further food for though. I mean really by the sort of dismissive argument you seem to be framing there's no space in the DM sub-forum for asking world building questions.
Real logics often inform fictional verisimilitude, including the aspects of a fictional world that challenge real logics. I guess I'm saying I consider the OP a fair question, and it's unfair to discount the question because some folks are maybe reaching too far afield in philosophical disciplines to settle their side arguments, if that's to what you're objecting.
EDIT: Just realized we're not in the DM subforum, but I still don't see how this question can seem any less relevant in a D&D discussion space than any other world building question.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Here you phrase it as a question that has an answer, and maybe I didn't explain it well enough, but I guess I feel like the way the OP's question was phrased, and they way your question was phrased, seems to imply that there is a correct answer.
Instead of asking "are utility undead ethical" I would have asked "How do you/how should one approach this subject in game?"
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I see what you're saying, but I think the quibble is a bit pedantic. Sure, the OP setting up the question with a poll raises questions as to what sort of absolute answer the OP might have been trying to get at (especially since, reading the OP's response the OP seems to feel they're very much in the right at least for their world construction ... though other posters quibble at how well thought the world may be), but the bulk of the thread until recently has been a discussion of the OP's world building premises in comparison to other world building approaches ... which is sort of how world builders talk about world building. I think any question asked that's clearly reflective of world building is implicitly asking "what do you think of my approach, what is your approach?" since, as I think you recognize, we're talking about fictional worlds.
There's a sort of player, akin the to rule lawyers, who's a sort of world logic interrogator. I think the various fun uprising names floated in the thread are just the sort of things with which such a player may hijinks hijack the game unless the OP's premises are clearly laid out. These sorts of threads, however they are titled at the onset, are useful for that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.