if one where to imbue a corpse with a new soul(or artificial soul like that of the war forged), simply using the cadaver as a body for the soul, would it be evil and would they still be considered undead? would this be a way for clerics to use animate dead ethically? is it unethical due to the nature of creating a soul?
Well define soul, is a soul simply a collection of memories and energy harvested from true souls or is it made out of necrotic energy? What does the soul feel about its existence? If it’s made from necrotic energy, it’s absolutely unethical, as beings made from that energy are all devouring beings hell bent on destroying and devouring life.
This is one of those questions that really require the "As your DM" answer. RAW doesn't cover it and how any of us might house rule it does not apply beyond our personal games.
Yeah, within the scope of printed 5e abilities, PCs have a very limited pool of options to interact with souls directly and cannot create new ones via a feature.
With regards to the ethics, if you're just using the spell to get minions, I would say that creating souls just to serve you is fairly unethical.
It’s not just about the fake souls, but the use of someone else’s body as an unwilling host goes against respecting the dead. Even if you are using your opponent’s bodies, I’d say it’s still unethical. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a good necromancer necessarily, but a lawful one I’d say is out of the question.
I think this is something where consent comes into play. Basically where actionsparda is going with it. When these kinds of “good” necromancy conversations come up, my first thought is, would you be ok with it if the body was a loved one? Your grandmother’s body with a stranger’s soul in there?
If grandma said it was ok, then maybe, I guess. And, also, in fictional world building, you could always make a society where that kind of thing is expected and normal. Or even where it’s considered an honor to be chosen for your body to go on serving the nation, or faith or whatever.
But besides those kinds of situations, I’d think it would generally be unethical.
I think this is something where consent comes into play. Basically where actionsparda is going with it. When these kinds of “good” necromancy conversations come up, my first thought is, would you be ok with it if the body was a loved one? Your grandmother’s body with a stranger’s soul in there?
If grandma said it was ok, then maybe, I guess. And, also, in fictional world building, you could always make a society where that kind of thing is expected and normal. Or even where it’s considered an honor to be chosen for your body to go on serving the nation, or faith or whatever.
But besides those kinds of situations, I’d think it would generally be unethical.
Killing a person, animating them and having them possibly meet their loved ones is probably the most horrific thing they can possibly experience. You can smell and see the signs of decay on them and if your lucky, they act like a completely different person instead of eating you.
So I’d recommend chopping off their faces and anything that people can use to recognise them, before placing clean parts on them like wooden masks and body parts in order to prevent mentally scarring others.
if one where to imbue a corpse with a new soul(or artificial soul like that of the war forged), simply using the cadaver as a body for the soul, would it be evil and would they still be considered undead? would this be a way for clerics to use animate dead ethically? is it unethical due to the nature of creating a soul?
It's more evil. You're taking someone's soul from a presumably peaceful and happy afterlife, sticking them in a rotting corpse and making them your slave. That's torture on so many levels it beggars the mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Depending on exactly how you parse "Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small Humanoid within range." in the description of Animate Dead it's plausible to rule that Animate Dad can be cast on an assorted pile of miscellaneous animal bones. Whether the spell yanks back a soul or just some animating spirit is setting-dependent metaphysical, whether it's considered desecration of the corpse is setting-dependent cultural.
Outside of that, the ethical question on D&D's Animate Dead, for me, has been "What measures do you take that, in the situation where the spell expires before you can recast it, that the uncontrolled Skeleton (or Zombie) does not go forth and do unsanctioned harm?" Can't really expect that the Necromancer will always be nearby and capable of recasting when the clock runs out, or that the controlled, animated Undead can know when or if the spell duration is about to expire without assistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
It’s not just about the fake souls, but the use of someone else’s body as an unwilling host goes against respecting the dead. Even if you are using your opponent’s bodies, I’d say it’s still unethical. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a good necromancer necessarily, but a lawful one I’d say is out of the question.
although a good point, the other half of necromancy being evil are the ties to orcus
if one where to imbue a corpse with a new soul(or artificial soul like that of the war forged), simply using the cadaver as a body for the soul, would it be evil and would they still be considered undead? would this be a way for clerics to use animate dead ethically? is it unethical due to the nature of creating a soul?
It's more evil. You're taking someone's soul from a presumably peaceful and happy afterlife, sticking them in a rotting corpse and making them your slave. That's torture on so many levels it beggars the mind.
what about the instance that it's an artifical soul? previous comment was deleted due to not clearly being connected
Depending on exactly how you parse "Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small Humanoid within range." in the description of Animate Dead it's plausible to rule that Animate Dad can be cast on an assorted pile of miscellaneous animal bones. Whether the spell yanks back a soul or just some animating spirit is setting-dependent metaphysical, whether it's considered desecration of the corpse is setting-dependent cultural.
Outside of that, the ethical question on D&D's Animate Dead, for me, has been "What measures do you take that, in the situation where the spell expires before you can recast it, that the uncontrolled Skeleton (or Zombie) does not go forth and do unsanctioned harm?" Can't really expect that the Necromancer will always be nearby and capable of recasting when the clock runs out, or that the controlled, animated Undead can know when or if the spell duration is about to expire without assistance.
undead are assumed to be lawful evil, being another reason why necromancy is evil, if you create a neutral soul or a soul that is too unintelligent enough to have an alignment, having undead roaming willy nilly would be less of an issue
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
if one where to imbue a corpse with a new soul(or artificial soul like that of the war forged), simply using the cadaver as a body for the soul, would it be evil and would they still be considered undead? would this be a way for clerics to use animate dead ethically? is it unethical due to the nature of creating a soul?
Well define soul, is a soul simply a collection of memories and energy harvested from true souls or is it made out of necrotic energy? What does the soul feel about its existence? If it’s made from necrotic energy, it’s absolutely unethical, as beings made from that energy are all devouring beings hell bent on destroying and devouring life.
This is one of those questions that really require the "As your DM" answer. RAW doesn't cover it and how any of us might house rule it does not apply beyond our personal games.
Yeah, within the scope of printed 5e abilities, PCs have a very limited pool of options to interact with souls directly and cannot create new ones via a feature.
With regards to the ethics, if you're just using the spell to get minions, I would say that creating souls just to serve you is fairly unethical.
It’s not just about the fake souls, but the use of someone else’s body as an unwilling host goes against respecting the dead. Even if you are using your opponent’s bodies, I’d say it’s still unethical. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a good necromancer necessarily, but a lawful one I’d say is out of the question.
I think this is something where consent comes into play. Basically where actionsparda is going with it. When these kinds of “good” necromancy conversations come up, my first thought is, would you be ok with it if the body was a loved one? Your grandmother’s body with a stranger’s soul in there?
If grandma said it was ok, then maybe, I guess. And, also, in fictional world building, you could always make a society where that kind of thing is expected and normal. Or even where it’s considered an honor to be chosen for your body to go on serving the nation, or faith or whatever.
But besides those kinds of situations, I’d think it would generally be unethical.
Killing a person, animating them and having them possibly meet their loved ones is probably the most horrific thing they can possibly experience. You can smell and see the signs of decay on them and if your lucky, they act like a completely different person instead of eating you.
So I’d recommend chopping off their faces and anything that people can use to recognise them, before placing clean parts on them like wooden masks and body parts in order to prevent mentally scarring others.
It's more evil. You're taking someone's soul from a presumably peaceful and happy afterlife, sticking them in a rotting corpse and making them your slave. That's torture on so many levels it beggars the mind.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Depending on exactly how you parse "Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small Humanoid within range." in the description of Animate Dead it's plausible to rule that Animate Dad can be cast on an assorted pile of miscellaneous animal bones. Whether the spell yanks back a soul or just some animating spirit is setting-dependent metaphysical, whether it's considered desecration of the corpse is setting-dependent cultural.
Outside of that, the ethical question on D&D's Animate Dead, for me, has been "What measures do you take that, in the situation where the spell expires before you can recast it, that the uncontrolled Skeleton (or Zombie) does not go forth and do unsanctioned harm?" Can't really expect that the Necromancer will always be nearby and capable of recasting when the clock runs out, or that the controlled, animated Undead can know when or if the spell duration is about to expire without assistance.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
although a good point, the other half of necromancy being evil are the ties to orcus
what about the instance that it's an artifical soul? previous comment was deleted due to not clearly being connected
undead are assumed to be lawful evil, being another reason why necromancy is evil, if you create a neutral soul or a soul that is too unintelligent enough to have an alignment, having undead roaming willy nilly would be less of an issue