Remember that the undead are not dead, by definition. They are UN-dead. Death is a natural process. Most creatures live and die and never become undead. What defines the undead is not death, but anti-life. The fact that some of them look dead really just confuses the issue.
HobbitByNature kind of hits on this above, but whatever the negative plane is (and it is not well understood, perhaps even in-fiction), it is destructive, antithetical to life, and evil. This isn't propaganda -- radiant and necrotic energy are not passive in any conception of the D&D cosmology. They may not be sapient, exactly, but they definitely have purpose. In a lot of ways, this active oppositional balance replaces the real world's laws of physics. D&D doesn't function on the laws of thermodynamics -- here, both "negative entropy" and "positive entropy" are active magical forces, resisting each other.
A possible interpretation of this fact is that all living things are the "undead" of the positive plane, which would mean that undead aren't simply taboo, or gross, or just plain rude, but are actually the antithesis of living things. Their very existence and propagation represents an existential threat to living things. Their purpose is to reduce the amount of radiant energy in the multiverse, just as it is the purpose of the living to reduce the amount of necrotic energy in the universe.
The real answer, I'm afraid, is probably that D&D avoids getting specific on the nature of undead because no matter how you dissect the problem, you find yourself asking some uncomfortable questions about the nature of existence and the soul that are a fast track to creating the kind of negative religious perception to which D&D has always been particularly sensitive.
Does it negatively impact worldbuilding? Sure. But the ambiguity might even be intentional, in this regard. Leaving the detail up to individual dungeon masters frees D&D from a lot of potential social liability. Fortunately it is also good practice, because these sorts of sensitive cosmological questions really ought to be specific to each dungeon master's table and group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Remember that the undead are not dead, by definition. They are UN-dead. Death is a natural process. Most creatures live and die and never become undead. What defines the undead is not death, but anti-life. The fact that some of them look dead really just confuses the issue.
HobbitByNature kind of hits on this above, but whatever the negative plane is (and it is not well understood, perhaps even in-fiction), it is destructive, antithetical to life, and evil. This isn't propaganda -- radiant and necrotic energy are not passive in any conception of the D&D cosmology. They may not be sapient, exactly, but they definitely have purpose. In a lot of ways, this active oppositional balance replaces the real world's laws of physics. D&D doesn't function on the laws of thermodynamics -- here, both "negative entropy" and "positive entropy" are active magical forces, resisting each other.
A possible interpretation of this fact is that all living things are the "undead" of the positive plane, which would mean that undead aren't simply taboo, or gross, or just plain rude, but are actually the antithesis of living things. Their very existence and propagation represents an existential threat to living things. Their purpose is to reduce the amount of radiant energy in the multiverse, just as it is the purpose of the living to reduce the amount of necrotic energy in the universe.
The real answer, I'm afraid, is probably that D&D avoids getting specific on the nature of undead because no matter how you dissect the problem, you find yourself asking some uncomfortable questions about the nature of existence and the soul that are a fast track to creating the kind of negative religious perception to which D&D has always been particularly sensitive.
Does it negatively impact worldbuilding? Sure. But the ambiguity might even be intentional, in this regard. Leaving the detail up to individual dungeon masters frees D&D from a lot of potential social liability. Fortunately it is also good practice, because these sorts of sensitive cosmological questions really ought to be specific to each dungeon master's table and group.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you