Necromancy: Evil?

[Sindri]

The way I see it, the rules as currently written make no sense, and you have a few options as to how to fix things:

1) Negative energy is a natural, though destructive, force of the universe, copses are just objects, the body and soul are disconnected after death, uncontrolled undead take no action, etc. This results in spells to create undead having no alignment (along with the majority of other [evil] spells), uncontrolled undead being true neutral, etc. If you want easier smiting, make controlled undead take on the alignment of their controller; this means that the majority of undead, including all those doing evil deeds, evil aligned. While you're at it, make healing spells Necromancy instead of Conjuration, because that one makes no sense. Also, any resurrection magic that doesn't require the body ignores the fact that the body is walking around at the time.

2) Negative energy is inherently evil. This makes the majority of necromancy spells [evil], and requires you to put alignment descriptors on a couple of planes, but everything else stays the same. This even gives an explanation for the Deathwatch spell. You might want to make undead homicidal when uncontrolled, but that's up to you; if you do then they should be given the [evil] subtype because the alignment is due to their material rather than their actions.

3) Creating undead binds the soul to the animated corpse. This makes the creation of undead a decidedly evil act, and prevents resurrection. Undead are either evil and malevolent due to the tortured soul bound withing them, or mindless and passive like constructs; in the latter case the undead themselves are no more inherently evil than the child or a rapist.

4) Undead are naturally malevolent and violent, unless held in check by a controller. The creation of undead is classified as evil simply because it creates an inherently evil creature.

Any of these, a combination thereof, or something I haven't thought of would be valid means of solving the discrepancy in the rules as written; I prefer the first option in my own campaigns, but which is most appropriate depends on the nature of undeath, negative energy, the soul, etc. and upon the definitions of evil in your campaign.

In any case, I believe that something can only be made evil by it's intentions (requires intelligence) or it's material (like the lemure; requires negative energy to be classified as evil, and thus all undead to gain the [evil] subtype). Something without the ability to comprehend it's own actions that is not literally "made of evil" is always true neutral.

[hamishspence]

I figure a mix of these might be closest to the way the rules currently handle it- negative energy may not be inherently evil, but it skirts very close to it, and some uses (Rebuke/Command Undead) are considered Evil in the PHB.

Pathfinder had, for zombies, a hint of "Mindless undead are naturally malevolent and violent"- though it removed the [Evil] tag from Deathwatch.

It also fixed the "all undead, even good ones, Detect as evil" rules that 3.5 has.

If playing 3.5, an element of "Made Of Evil" probably should apply- even if Undead don't have the Evil subtype, they always detect as Evil, almost as if they did have the subtype.

[Rutskarn]

I hope you don't mind me sigging this. Now on to business...

By all means.

[JBento]

Actually, Create (Greater) Undead, Ghoul Gauntlet, etc., retain the Evil tag. Shadows, ghouls, vampires, wraiths, and company are all murderous, hate-filled bastards.

[hamishspence]

Except when you're using Libris Mortis- and can have the occasional nonevil undead.

There's a certain amount of precedent- at least in the fiction, for exceptions to "Always X Evil" in the case of undead. Might be them overcoming their normal nature, or a fluke in the spell that created them or the process that spawned them (in the case of vampires).

[Sindri]

It specifies in the MM that "Always X" means that they're all born/created as that alignment, and typically have little incentive to change, but any sentient creature can be any alignment they choose (see succubus paladin). This means that ghouls, wights, vampires, liches, etc. can be of any alignment, but they generally start as Evil and very few ever change. However, a vampire paladin or something of that nature would have difficulty, given the fact that they require blood/souls to function, and go into a murderous rage if they go too long without...

Edit: now I really want to play a ghoul paladin...
The paralytic touch would be perfect for bringing criminals back to face justice, and it never specifically states that I need to eat decaying human flesh...

Edit-Edit: okay, apparently they are diet dependent on "flesh" according to the book of bad latin, but it never specifies that it has to be from a sentient creature...

Edit-Edit-Edit: I end too many of my posts with "..."

[Milo v3]

Read this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_(DnD_Other)/Morality. In my game negative energy is an element like fire, earth, wind, water and positive energy. Also check out the Thanaturge Class in the homebrew section of the forum.

[Peregrine]

1) mindless undead attacking when left unattended is not "refluffing." It's "recrunching" - just because it doesn't have numbers doesn't make it fluff.

Didn't you make this point on page 7? :smalltongue:

But let's assume you're right. So be it. It's a crunch change that would have less (or at least, no greater) impact than the alternative crunch change, moving their alignment (back) to Neutral.

Unless of course we're using your suggestion of changing them to "Neutral with the [Evil] subtype". That's actually a very plausible solution... to the problem of mindless undead, anyway. It still only really makes sense if animating the dead remains an evil act.

[JBento]

I did - Hamishspence missed it, and brought back refluffing on page 8, so I though I'd reiterate :smallsmile:

I know - Animate Dead is the only point of contention on the animating thing, though. Obviously, animating mhorgs (who kill people), vampires (who eat people), and ghouls (who kill and then - if you're lucky - eat people) is just bringing realllly bad stuff into the world. Same for shadows and wraiths (who hate and kill people) is always going to be a big no-no on the Good guys list of options.

[gnomas]

I once played in a one-shot adventure that involved an interesting view of necromancy.

We got shipwrecked on an island, where the natives used necromancy as a key part of their day-to-day lives. Every person accepted that while you were alive you got to just hang around and enjoy life, but when you died your family used zombie-you as a servant. ('course the town's medicine man turned out to be a very ambitious lich or something so we had to kill a lot of undead but in theory it seemed fine :smalltongue:)

Just thought I'd put that out there for the whole 'not evil if the person consents' school of thought.

[Drakevarg]

I play that raising mindless undead is kosher in the cosmic sense; that is, the gods don't really care one way or the other, since the corpse is just an object. Socially is a different matter altogether. The local theocracy gets rather pissy when you start using the undead for cheap labor.

Sentient undead, which in my setting only includes Vampires, Ghouls, Mummies, and Liches, are another matter entirely. Vampires and Ghouls, while not inherently evil (though their Horror Hunger (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HorrorHunger) tends to make them so anyway), are considered evil to create, since the subject's soul is bound willingly or not. Mummies and Liches (in my setting anyway) can only be created out of willing subjects, so they're also kosher.

There's a third category of undead which are essentially Nerull's equivalent of fiends or celestials, but that involves a whole bunch of cosmic mumbo-jumbo that I haven't bothered thinking too hard about yet.