Questionable ethics to be sure, but it'll be more interesting to see what the party decides about the situation no matter how your NPCs would justify it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
That depends on whether they're sentient or not. In previous editions, zombies and skeletons were generally lacking in consciousness, they followed their creator's directions but couldn't think for themselves. Nothing unethical about putting them to drudge work in that case. If they possess intelligence then yes, it would be unethical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In 2e there was a setting called Jakandor and one of the two societies there, the Charonti had it as part of their culture that the dead would be labor for the living to free the living up for more noble pursuits. It was part of their culture, and a way for zombie grandpa to stick around and continue to take care of the family. To them, not doing it would have been immoral.
There is no objective answer to this, as the metaphysics of the game world can change from setting to setting. At the very least, necromancy is likely to be "inconsiderate". The dead person represents someone's father, mother, child, or sibling, so watching their desecrated body slowly rot as it performs manual labor will be somewhere on the spectrum of unsettling to traumatizing. No one is directly hurt, but psychological damage may still be done.
Aside from that, Negative energy is generally considered "hostile to life". It is fundamentally "wrong" from the perspective of those who care to have an opinion. However, conflict is not necessarily a moral issue. A civilization of sentient undead would likely find positive energy to be equivalently unpleasant.
Compared to slavery, necromancy could certainly be considered a "lesser evil".
A more palatable option might be animating corpses as objects, rather than raising them as undead. They would be automatons, rather than a "mockery of life". The mechanical distinction may be minor, but constructs typically don't raise the question of corrupted souls and suffering. Also, constructs tend not to suffer from bloodlust.
Do whatever makes sense for the game. It's easy to justify it later.
This is more a world building question than a question with a definitive answer within "canonical D&D morality" because "canonical D&D morality" is actually not a thing and right and wrong is largely something adjudicated at specific tables than codified within rules or lore.
That said, undeath is usually not seen in D&D as a utilitarian resource, but as an affront to what we would call in 5e the Life Domain. That's why the default Clerical Channel Divnity is "Turn Undead," not "Negotiate Labor Agreement with Undead." That's not to say a culture or many cultures in a game world may see some sort of symbiotic, utilitarian, or existentially desperate rationale to use undead as labor. So like I said, it's a world building thing. It's sort of on the DM and players to determine the bright lines of right and wrong in the game world, how the game world responds to right and wrong, and particularly how the metaphysics of the game world (inclusive of the Weave or other magical equivalent as well as the pantheon) responds to actions within the right or wrong.
Also besides Wights, I'm not sure which undead would actually have the "vitality" so to speak to really work in a mine. I see zombies and skeletons breaking down quick, mining isn't "brute labor" but actually requires some mindfulness, especially in terms of the individual miners survival. I could see zombies and skeletons basically doing the work of draft beasts or motors, but while the imagery of undead miners is sorta cool, the way undead with corporeal bodies actually function in game sorta stretches the plausibility, except for Wights but they tend to come from warrior lineages who probably wouldn't think so kindly on being enslaved.
Now I could see some sort of Reborn being put to work in mines....
It depends on the setting. There is no absolute morality.
If it is considered the same as machine labor, then it is fine. If it is considered corpse desecration, then is probably frowned upon.
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
This is more a world building question than a question with a definitive answer within "canonical D&D morality" because "canonical D&D morality" is actually not a thing and right and wrong is largely something adjudicated at specific tables than codified within rules or lore.
That said, undeath is usually not seen in D&D as a utilitarian resource, but as an affront to what we would call in 5e the Life Domain. That's why the default Clerical Channel Divnity is "Turn Undead," not "Negotiate Labor Agreement with Undead." That's not to say a culture or many cultures in a game world may see some sort of symbiotic, utilitarian, or existentially desperate rationale to use undead as labor. So like I said, it's a world building thing. It's sort of on the DM and players to determine the bright lines of right and wrong in the game world, how the game world responds to right and wrong, and particularly how the metaphysics of the game world (inclusive of the Weave or other magical equivalent as well as the pantheon) responds to actions within the right or wrong.
Also besides Wights, I'm not sure which undead would actually have the "vitality" so to speak to really work in a mine. I see zombies and skeletons breaking down quick, mining isn't "brute labor" but actually requires some mindfulness, especially in terms of the individual miners survival. I could see zombies and skeletons basically doing the work of draft beasts or motors, but while the imagery of undead miners is sorta cool, the way undead with corporeal bodies actually function in game sorta stretches the plausibility, except for Wights but they tend to come from warrior lineages who probably wouldn't think so kindly on being enslaved.
Now I could see some sort of Reborn being put to work in mines....
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
It depends on the setting. There is no absolute morality.
If it is considered the same as machine labor, then it is fine. If it is considered corpse desecration, then is probably frowned upon.
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
A little of both. But I don't want to give away my subplots. ;)
Depends on your game setting. If this were true in reality, it would be inconsistent with some very common ethical systems. Consider that we have laws and taboo that forbid us from doing many things with corpses after death even if they would be tremendously helpful. In the U.S., posthumous organ donation, for example, is illegal without consent of the individual in life. Same with scientific or medical experimentation or even medical instruction. It's not necessarily true that illegal==unethical, but these are precedents that many would consider to be ethically sound.
Obviously, if the predominant ethical system is purely utilitarian then a corpse, being unable to experience pleasure nor pain, would receive no consideration. But there are many intuitive reasons that pure utilitarianism is not a commonly-held set of ethics.
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
I think you miss the point, my objection to non-intelligent undead as part of a mining enterprise aside from hauling has nothing to do with states of decay as it objects to your presumption that mining is mindless work. The actual identification and extraction of ore, even the manual labor part isn't. And maintaining the mine through shoring supports and digging safely is further not mindless. The amount of intelligent supervision you'd need "mindless undead" would be almost literal handholding to the point that staffing with undead would almost be moot. I mean you can pretend it is, and your players may be none the wiser, but if anyone actually thinks about what you're setting up beyond atmospherics, implausibility blows the atmospherics.
Really if undead were so controllable they'd more likely serve as army fodder and border agents and the like. Or agricultural work above ground where there are less confined space hazards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
Given this, it's now possible to answer your question
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
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?
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
I think you miss the point, my objection to non-intelligent undead as part of a mining enterprise aside from hauling has nothing to do with states of decay as it objects to your presumption that mining is mindless work. The actual identification and extraction of ore, even the manual labor part isn't. And maintaining the mine through shoring supports and digging safely is further not mindless. The amount of intelligent supervision you'd need "mindless undead" would be almost literal handholding to the point that staffing with undead would almost be moot. I mean you can pretend it is, and your players may be none the wiser, but if anyone actually thinks about what you're setting up beyond atmospherics, implausibility blows the atmospherics.
Really if undead were so controllable they'd more likely serve as army fodder and border agents and the like. Or agricultural work above ground where there are less confined space hazards.
Considering what they are mining, the bbeg has taken those factors into consideration. This is also why there is a plan to create and/or find more dead from other areas. Good points though. Glad i wasn't the only one thinking about that.
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
I think you miss the point, my objection to non-intelligent undead as part of a mining enterprise aside from hauling has nothing to do with states of decay as it objects to your presumption that mining is mindless work. The actual identification and extraction of ore, even the manual labor part isn't. And maintaining the mine through shoring supports and digging safely is further not mindless. The amount of intelligent supervision you'd need "mindless undead" would be almost literal handholding to the point that staffing with undead would almost be moot. I mean you can pretend it is, and your players may be none the wiser, but if anyone actually thinks about what you're setting up beyond atmospherics, implausibility blows the atmospherics.
Really if undead were so controllable they'd more likely serve as army fodder and border agents and the like. Or agricultural work above ground where there are less confined space hazards.
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.
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?
To quote my cleric when this issue came up, “Even the flesh deserves its rest.”
Questionable ethics to be sure, but it'll be more interesting to see what the party decides about the situation no matter how your NPCs would justify it.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
That depends on whether they're sentient or not. In previous editions, zombies and skeletons were generally lacking in consciousness, they followed their creator's directions but couldn't think for themselves. Nothing unethical about putting them to drudge work in that case. If they possess intelligence then yes, it would be unethical.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In 2e there was a setting called Jakandor and one of the two societies there, the Charonti had it as part of their culture that the dead would be labor for the living to free the living up for more noble pursuits. It was part of their culture, and a way for zombie grandpa to stick around and continue to take care of the family. To them, not doing it would have been immoral.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is no objective answer to this, as the metaphysics of the game world can change from setting to setting. At the very least, necromancy is likely to be "inconsiderate". The dead person represents someone's father, mother, child, or sibling, so watching their desecrated body slowly rot as it performs manual labor will be somewhere on the spectrum of unsettling to traumatizing. No one is directly hurt, but psychological damage may still be done.
Aside from that, Negative energy is generally considered "hostile to life". It is fundamentally "wrong" from the perspective of those who care to have an opinion. However, conflict is not necessarily a moral issue. A civilization of sentient undead would likely find positive energy to be equivalently unpleasant.
Compared to slavery, necromancy could certainly be considered a "lesser evil".
A more palatable option might be animating corpses as objects, rather than raising them as undead. They would be automatons, rather than a "mockery of life". The mechanical distinction may be minor, but constructs typically don't raise the question of corrupted souls and suffering. Also, constructs tend not to suffer from bloodlust.
Do whatever makes sense for the game. It's easy to justify it later.
If you think about it, it's combining the concepts of both voodoo zombies and zombie monsters...
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
This is more a world building question than a question with a definitive answer within "canonical D&D morality" because "canonical D&D morality" is actually not a thing and right and wrong is largely something adjudicated at specific tables than codified within rules or lore.
That said, undeath is usually not seen in D&D as a utilitarian resource, but as an affront to what we would call in 5e the Life Domain. That's why the default Clerical Channel Divnity is "Turn Undead," not "Negotiate Labor Agreement with Undead." That's not to say a culture or many cultures in a game world may see some sort of symbiotic, utilitarian, or existentially desperate rationale to use undead as labor. So like I said, it's a world building thing. It's sort of on the DM and players to determine the bright lines of right and wrong in the game world, how the game world responds to right and wrong, and particularly how the metaphysics of the game world (inclusive of the Weave or other magical equivalent as well as the pantheon) responds to actions within the right or wrong.
Also besides Wights, I'm not sure which undead would actually have the "vitality" so to speak to really work in a mine. I see zombies and skeletons breaking down quick, mining isn't "brute labor" but actually requires some mindfulness, especially in terms of the individual miners survival. I could see zombies and skeletons basically doing the work of draft beasts or motors, but while the imagery of undead miners is sorta cool, the way undead with corporeal bodies actually function in game sorta stretches the plausibility, except for Wights but they tend to come from warrior lineages who probably wouldn't think so kindly on being enslaved.
Now I could see some sort of Reborn being put to work in mines....
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It depends on the setting. There is no absolute morality.
If it is considered the same as machine labor, then it is fine. If it is considered corpse desecration, then is probably frowned upon.
Are the undead of your setting just monsters that pop out of the ground or did they used to be people? Most humans with the ethics of modern civilization would not be happy to know that their dead grandparents are being used to make someone else money.
I'm going to have to look that one up. Thanks
I've created a 'potion' that deals with the decay issue and to also handle their hunger for flesh. More sentient ones like wights are controlled by the addictive quality of the potion or by other means
Reborn are being used for a different function.
A little of both. But I don't want to give away my subplots. ;)
The fun part about this one is that golems are actually bound elementals. An equally controversial topic.
Depends on your game setting. If this were true in reality, it would be inconsistent with some very common ethical systems. Consider that we have laws and taboo that forbid us from doing many things with corpses after death even if they would be tremendously helpful. In the U.S., posthumous organ donation, for example, is illegal without consent of the individual in life. Same with scientific or medical experimentation or even medical instruction. It's not necessarily true that illegal==unethical, but these are precedents that many would consider to be ethically sound.
Obviously, if the predominant ethical system is purely utilitarian then a corpse, being unable to experience pleasure nor pain, would receive no consideration. But there are many intuitive reasons that pure utilitarianism is not a commonly-held set of ethics.
I think you miss the point, my objection to non-intelligent undead as part of a mining enterprise aside from hauling has nothing to do with states of decay as it objects to your presumption that mining is mindless work. The actual identification and extraction of ore, even the manual labor part isn't. And maintaining the mine through shoring supports and digging safely is further not mindless. The amount of intelligent supervision you'd need "mindless undead" would be almost literal handholding to the point that staffing with undead would almost be moot. I mean you can pretend it is, and your players may be none the wiser, but if anyone actually thinks about what you're setting up beyond atmospherics, implausibility blows the atmospherics.
Really if undead were so controllable they'd more likely serve as army fodder and border agents and the like. Or agricultural work above ground where there are less confined space hazards.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Given this, it's now possible to answer your question
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)
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?
Considering what they are mining, the bbeg has taken those factors into consideration. This is also why there is a plan to create and/or find more dead from other areas. Good points though. Glad i wasn't the only one thinking about that.
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.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting