PDA

View Full Version : Non Evil Necromancy Poll.



Cerlis
2011-01-25, 06:27 PM
Hey, I usually toy with the idea of playing certian characters. Make sure the build will work, what spells I might choose, for the occasion in which i get to play taht character. Example. I find out we need a caster so I remember i've wanted to play this necromancer or that Diviner character concept. Need a skill monkey? Well i came up with this cool rogue idea i liked.

anyways. So i've been working on an idea for a Lawful Neutral Necromancer. The idea behind him of course that he hears stories and history of these old civilization or great people in the past that failed because of their pride. or because they had no knowledge of this evil and that. His main argument with, say, the LG fighter or something, would be that "What if we need that knowledge" "What if the doom machine requires a heart of darkness to stop" that kinda thing.

Anyways he masters Necromancy (Necromancer wizard specialist, possibly Master specialist) for this idea. But the thing is hes not all dark and brooding. Not a corpse slave monger. Mostly just a wizard with a scientific attitude to any situation. Now the issue is the eventual use of animate dead.

I thought of a possible loophole for him to exploit. and that is animal corpses. I imagine that when he thinks hes in danger, or the party needs it (i noticed animate dead is only a standard action. combat worthy) I have this image of him basically pulling 2 boar skeletons out of the ground, or using some zombie hounds to fight. No soul, no issue (and i think zombifying someone just keeps you from raising them). It would still creep out the characters. There is possibility where in a dire time he might be forced to animate a troll or enemy soldiers or whatnot. Which i'd hope would bring out a very interesting argument between PCs, resulting in character development. Maybe my character vows to never do such a thing again. and has to reconsider if losing his new friends trust is worth it and if he should try to find a new path to the power needed to save the world.

ANYWAYS. my question here, is to ask people about the variety characters they like to play, and would play. The idea here is to see how common a character is that would not tolerate this type of character would be. when the time comes i'd hate to get my hopes up and start an adventure and realize i need to reroll. Of course i know it will depend on the players i play with and their characters. I was just curious, since many here have played many characters and can actually empathatically figure out how their character would react.

Volos
2011-01-25, 06:54 PM
As a DM the very thought of this makes me cringe. If you want to animate the dead for your own means it is evil, even if they are animals. I once had to try and explain this to the player of a fairly high level LN wizard. He claimed that since they were not creatures with souls to begin with, it wasn't an evil act. So I explained to him, both in game and out of game, my view on necromancy. The necrotic arts are dark magics that make use of negative energy, animating corpses and draining the life out of your foes. All of life is positive energy, making new life and bringing change to the world as well as healing those who are injured. The material plane is neutral, it has no leaning toward positive or negative. The two are usually in some sort of ballance. When you animate a corspe, you are taking neutrients and a spark of life away from the whole of the collective life in the material plane. That piece can never return to the cycle, lessing the positive engergy that remains in the cycle. The more you do this, the more the cycle is thrown out of ballance. This is why it is always an evil act, because you are destroying something, not creating something.

So in short, no. I wouldn't allow this.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 06:57 PM
As a DM the very thought of this makes me cringe. If you want to animate the dead for your own means it is evil, even if they are animals. I once had to try and explain this to the player of a fairly high level LN wizard. He claimed that since they were not creatures with souls to begin with, it wasn't an evil act. So I explained to him, both in game and out of game, my view on necromancy. The necrotic arts are dark magics that make use of negative energy, animating corpses and draining the life out of your foes. All of life is positive energy, making new life and bringing change to the world as well as healing those who are injured. The material plane is neutral, it has no leaning toward positive or negative. The two are usually in some sort of ballance. When you animate a corspe, you are taking neutrients and a spark of life away from the whole of the collective life in the material plane. That piece can never return to the cycle, lessing the positive engergy that remains in the cycle. The more you do this, the more the cycle is thrown out of ballance. This is why it is always an evil act, because you are destroying something, not creating something.

So in short, no. I wouldn't allow this.

Two problems:

1. People that consent to their body being used as labor, after they've died.

2. Deathless/positive energy undead in Eberron.

Blackfang108
2011-01-25, 06:58 PM
Technically, casting any spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act, per RAW.

Czin
2011-01-25, 06:59 PM
If you were to rob a pet dog's grave, I'd still call it grave robbing and call the cops on you. Unless you're bringing something back to NATURAL life or the body was willingly given to you, using a corpse is kind of wrong, filling it with an sick parody of the spark of life is even more so. There is a reason why only evil (and neutral clerics, who typically lean towards evil any way) can use negative energy to rebuke Undead.

Volos
2011-01-25, 06:59 PM
Two problems:

1. People that consent to their body being used as labor, after they've died.

2. Deathless/positive energy undead in Eberron.

No problems.

1. In my campaign worlds this doesn't happen.

2. I don't run Eberron.

3. I did clearly state that this was 'my' view. I wouldn't allow a neutral necromancer. This is just the kind of DM I am. Evil, sure.

arguskos
2011-01-25, 07:00 PM
Two problems:

1. People that consent to their body being used as labor, after they've died.

2. Deathless/positive energy undead in Eberron.
A third one:
3. Nowhere does it state that souls are destroyed during animation, merely reused. Why is the reuse of a thing Evil? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Opinions are fine. I just want clarity on a stance I've never clearly understood.


Technically, casting any spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act, per RAW.
Yes, because RAW is suuuuuch a moral compass. Let's all join hands and sing the praises of Ravages, shall we? :smallyuk::smallwink: Yes this bit is entirely in a friendly joking fashion.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:00 PM
No problems.

1. In my campaign worlds this doesn't happen.

2. I don't run Eberron.

3. I did clearly state that this was 'my' view. I wouldn't allow a neutral necromancer. This is just the kind of DM I am. Evil, sure.

1. Wasn't speaking about your campaign world, but in general.

2. Nor do I, but I can crib material from it, same as any other D&D compatible book.

3. Fair enough.

Ashram
2011-01-25, 07:02 PM
Problem is, not every necromancer focuses on "herp derp UNDEAD EVERYWHAR". Necromancy is a very nice debuff school, and while yes, it does involve negative energy, most of those debuffs are not evil.

Protip: Positive and negative energy are not inherently good or evil.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:03 PM
Protip: Positive and negative energy are not inherently good or evil.

Yep. Too much positive energy causes things to pop, and the selective use of negative energy can kill harmful bacterium/viruses.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:04 PM
A third one:
3. Nowhere does it state that souls are destroyed during animation, merely reused. Why is the reuse of a thing Evil? :smallconfused:

Because environmentalism is the embodiement of all that is wrong in the world. Don't you know that recycling runs on the blood of puppies, the souls of orphans, and the tears of kittens? :smalltongue:

Ashram
2011-01-25, 07:06 PM
A third one:
3. Nowhere does it state that souls are destroyed during animation, merely reused. Why is the reuse of a thing Evil? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Opinions are fine. I just want clarity on a stance I've never clearly understood.


Yes, because RAW is suuuuuch a moral compass. Let's all join hands and sing the praises of Ravages, shall we? :smallyuk::smallwink: Yes this bit is entirely in a friendly joking fashion.

Depends on what you're animating. Skeletons and zombies are just the bodies of dead creatures with a mindless spark of unlife in them. Souls are not a factor.

Intelligent undead however still retain their souls, although they're heavily corrupted with negative energy.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:08 PM
Intelligent undead however still retain their souls, although they're heavily corrupted with negative energy.

Not all are "corrupted". See here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn_lich).

arguskos
2011-01-25, 07:08 PM
Depends on what you're animating. Skeletons and zombies are just the bodies of dead creatures with a mindless spark of unlife in them. Souls are not a factor.
Even better! That's just stuff, like dirt or rock or metal or whatever. How is *that* evil? Are constructs evil, on that basis? I've never understood this idea, and since Volos is a big proponent of it, I want to see what he has to say to these points, to help me understand his perspective.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:09 PM
Even better! That's just stuff, like dirt or rock or metal or whatever. How is *that* evil? Are constructs evil, on that basis? I've never understood this idea, and since Volos is a big proponent of it, I want to see what he has to say to these points, to help me understand his perspective.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some golems powered by the UNWILLING spirit of an earth elemental?

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:10 PM
Not all are "corrupted". See here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn_lich).

From what I understand, the ritual that makes Baelnorns had to be specially designed to avoid causing the recipient to become evil like the ritual that makes normal Liches does.

Ashram
2011-01-25, 07:10 PM
Not all are "corrupted". See here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn_lich).

Friggin' elves. :P

Volos
2011-01-25, 07:10 PM
RAW: Undead are evil, making them is evil, controling them is evil.

RAI: See RAW.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:11 PM
From what I understand, the ritual that makes Baelnorns had to be specially designed to avoid causing the recipient to become evil like the ritual that makes normal Liches does.

Still, otherwise, unless explicitly stated, undead use negative energy. I assume this also goes for Baelnorns.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:11 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some golems powered by the UNWILLING spirit of an earth elemental?

The present of an Earth Elemental's spirit is specifically what separates Golems from other constructs.

arguskos
2011-01-25, 07:11 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some golems powered by the UNWILLING spirit of an earth elemental?
Some, sure, but others have no indication of power source.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:12 PM
Still, otherwise, unless explicitly stated, undead use negative energy. I assume this also goes for Baelnorns.

Liches presumably become evil because of the sheer amount of Negative energy that flushes into their forms, which corrupts their souls. The Baelnorn ritual presumably shields the soul from Negative Energy, thus keeping it relatively pure.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:12 PM
Even if the golems are Neutral in allignment/creation, that seems pretty evil to me (dominating a spirit for one's ends).

Volos
2011-01-25, 07:13 PM
Even better! That's just stuff, like dirt or rock or metal or whatever. How is *that* evil? Are constructs evil, on that basis? I've never understood this idea, and since Volos is a big proponent of it, I want to see what he has to say to these points, to help me understand his perspective.

If the spell, feat, or actions involved are 'evil' or have 'evil' or 'vile' attached to them then yes, it is evil. If you make a contruct out of non evil materials, spells, using non evil feats, but then have it slaughter people then it is evil.

Ashram
2011-01-25, 07:13 PM
Actually, almost every golem is animated by the spirit of an unwilling earth elemental, until you get to the planar golems. Then things get silly.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:13 PM
Even if the golems are Neutral in allignment/creation, that seems pretty evil to me (dominating a spirit for one's ends).

The act of creating a Golem is probably evil, but the spirit is not and the creation itself is mindless, so the construct becomes neutral.

Saposhiente
2011-01-25, 07:13 PM
@volos: That would apply, except this is not destroying something (a la Energy Drain), it's powering something with energy normally used to destroy.
Everyone else: ...I don't really see the problem. A corpse is just a corpse. It's no more special than any other lump of carbon. There's nothing "sick" or "wrong" about necrolurgy (that is the right word). Not that your average LG would agree with me, but it really sounds like (not identical, not attacking you, please don't lynch me) the same sort of anti-difference prejudice gays receive: Not natural normal? Yes. Not in the standard cycle of life? Yes. Why we should care? Um...

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:14 PM
Actually, almost every golem is animated by the spirit of an unwilling earth elemental, until you get to the planar golems. Then things get silly.

Yeah, Planar Golems are silly.
MM3: "LOLOLOLOLOL EXTRAPLANAR DIRT IZ ALIVEZ!!!!"
Me: :smallannoyed:

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:14 PM
If the spell, feat, or actions involved are 'evil' or have 'evil' or 'vile' attached to them then yes, it is evil. If you make a contruct out of non evil materials, spells, using non evil feats, but then have it slaughter people then it is evil.

Deathwatch is "evil". Explain that.

Jallorn
2011-01-25, 07:17 PM
RAW: Undead are evil, making them is evil, controling them is evil.

RAI: See RAW.

RAW: You are encouraged to change things as you would like.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:17 PM
Liches presumably become evil because of the sheer amount of Negative energy that flushes into their forms, which corrupts their souls. The Baelnorn ritual presumably shields the soul from Negative Energy, thus keeping it relatively pure.

Don't see why'd they have to be shielded in order to keep their alignment.

There's also a monster/race in Libris Mortis (suitable for PCs, actually) that's undead, but actually "Neutral" by default. It specifically makes no mention of "corruption" after the process to undeath has been completed.

Hm...i'll have to find out their name, later. I *think* it's Deathlock, though.

Cespenar
2011-01-25, 07:20 PM
A sword, like negative energy, is a tool for killing/destroying. Yet animating undead is evil, while butchering bandits aren't.

I love D&D.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:20 PM
Don't see why'd they have to be shielded in order to keep their alignment.

There's also a monster/race in Libris Mortis (suitable for PCs, actually) that's undead, but actually "Neutral" by default. It specifically makes no mention of "corruption" after the process to undeath has been completed.

Hm...i'll have to find out their name, later. I *think* it's Deathlock, though.

Actually no, Deathlocks are very evil, the undead you are looking for is the Crypt Thing. The Libris Mortis says that not every evil intelligent undead actually has a soul (or was that Open Grave?) Some are intelligent, but still very much soulless, my theory is that they instead have a "negative" soul comprised of Negative Energy rather than the Positive Energy soul of normal life. The Crypt Thing is obviously an exception, an exception that was probably created through special rituals to keep the negative energy induced corruption down to a minimum, thus keeping it at true neutral.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 07:22 PM
A sword, like negative energy, is a tool for killing/destroying. Yet animating undead is evil, while butchering bandits aren't.

I love D&D.

Yep. This conflict of interpretations is what makes D&D threads a long, mostly fun, read.


Actually no, Deathlocks are very evil, the undead you are looking for is the Crypt Thing. The Libris Mortis says that not every evil undead actually has a soul (or was that Open Grave?) Some are intelligent, but still very much soulless, my theory is that they instead have a "negative" soul comprised of Negative Energy rather than the Positive Energy soul of normal life.

I haven't read it in a while. I just remembered an LA+0 undead "race" suitable for PCs, that doesn't necessarily make them evil.

Thanks for the correction!

Saposhiente
2011-01-25, 07:22 PM
A sword, like negative energy, is a tool for killing/destroying. Yet animating undead is evil, while butchering bandits aren't.

I love D&D.
This. Definitely sigged.
Except the aren't part. It's isn't you FOOOOOOOOL! :smallmad::smalltongue::smallwink:

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:23 PM
I haven't read it in a while. I just remembered an LA+0 undead "race" suitable for PCs, that doesn't necessarily make them evil.

Thanks for the correction!

The Crypt Thing is from the fiend folio and isn't a player character suitable creature. The only player character suited undead creature that regularly strays from evil in the Libris Mortis is the Mummy, who are specifically singled out as exceptions to the rule.

Telasi
2011-01-25, 07:55 PM
Well, as a DM I'd likely not let you animate any kind of dead and still not be evil. The rest of the school, sure. If you make a good pitch, though, I'd consider it.

As a PC, whether or not I care depends on the type of character I'm currently playing. Most of the time, though, yes, I would consider you evil and, yes, I would try to stop you. Necromancy, regardless of intent, is disturbing to most people.

Maho-Tsukai
2011-01-25, 07:57 PM
Maybe you meant the Necropolitian?(I know there is a high chance I spelled that wrong.) It's in Libris Mortis and is a template that PCs can obtain easily via a ritual. You can't start out as one(sans high level games), the ritual costs Gold and XP and you DO lose a level from the ritual but once you get the template your officially undead and you don't get any LA as far as I remember

Savannah
2011-01-25, 07:59 PM
As a DM, I have to take issue with your "loophole". Animals have souls, so you aren't getting out of anything by using animal rather than humanoid corpses. Now, I tend to be fine with zombie/skeleton/other mindless undead animation as a neutral act, as you're just using the body (I can't remember if it's my ruling or RAW that mindless undead don't use the original creature's soul, just animate the body with negative energy....probably mine, so check with your DM).

As a player, it totally depends on my character. I've had some that would be a fan of the method, some that wouldn't care one way or another, and some that would hate the very idea. I'd talk to the other players if I were you, and let them know what you want to do. Then you can know in advance if it's going to be an issue and how big of an issue it will be.

Czin
2011-01-25, 07:59 PM
Maybe you meant the Necropolitian? It's in Libris Mortis and is a template that PCs can obtain easily via a ritual. You can't start out as one(sans high level games), the ritual costs Gold and XP and you DO lose a level from the ritual but once you get the template your officially undead and you don't get any LA.

The Necropolitan ritual strikes me as an inherently evil thing, and the Necropolitan itself is listed as a usually (or was it always?) neutral evil entity.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 08:01 PM
The Necropolitan ritual strikes me as an inherently evil thing, and the Necropolitan itself is listed as a usually (or was it always?) neutral evil entity.

Actually, neither:



Alignment: Neutral


And the template itself lists nothing regarding alignment shifts.

Slipperychicken
2011-01-25, 08:04 PM
Hmm... someone I knew made a LN necromancer, worshipper of Wee-Jass, LN goddess of undeath.

But the point is that this guy believed that life was less orderly than undeath because undead follow orders and remain static while life runs around being unpredictable, constantly in flux. So his goal was to destroy all life (including himself) on the material plane to make it nice and orderly. And he convinced the DM that this made him wanting to become a Lich and destroy all life Lawful Neutral.



In character, you should talk to the party about this beforehand [undead being a touchy subject and all], and if they refuse, wait for a close call or player death to say: "this is getting too dangerous, we need assistance from beyond the grave to ensure our survival/victory against the Big Bad". But when they do accept, at the very least, a guy towing rotting corpses behind him should get an "eeeeewww" every so often.


Maybe you can use Prestidigitation to make the idea of Undead more... palatable to the party?

It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material

Not only are your undead not stinky, warm-feeling, and less disgusting overall, they taste like chicken! :smallbiggrin:

Czin
2011-01-25, 08:05 PM
Actually, neither:



And the template itself lists nothing regarding alignment shifts.

Huh, you know; I would think that having yourself crucified while zombies chanted blasphemous rituals to channel the negative energy plane would most definitely turn you into one eeeeeevil son of a gun.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-25, 08:07 PM
Huh, you know; I would think that having yourself crucified while zombies chanted blasphemous rituals to channel the negative energy plane would most definitely turn you into one eeeeeevil son of a gun.

That's okay, he can just go cast Deathwatch a few times to figure out of someone is alive or dead or a golem and he'll be eating kittens in no time. Ain't D&D alignment fun, as noted?

Czin
2011-01-25, 08:09 PM
That's okay, he can just go cast Deathwatch a few times to figure out of someone is alive or dead or a golem and he'll be eating kittens in no time. Ain't D&D alignment fun, as noted?

Don't you mean eat kittens, drink puppies, chew widows, and snort orphans? Because if we want to do it for the EVULZ we gotta go all the way. :smallbiggrin:

nolispe
2011-01-25, 08:16 PM
To answer the OP - No, I consider that there is no reason for necromancy to be evil. Any more than conjuration, which is (for a large part) taking sentinent creatures without they're permssion and forcing them to fight on your behalf. And it's a lot less evil than enchantment, which is basically mind rape. Evocation, abjuration, most of illusion, and transmutation, and Necromancy are the nicest schools, really.

Ragitsu
2011-01-25, 08:19 PM
Maybe you meant the Necropolitian?(I know there is a high chance I spelled that wrong.) It's in Libris Mortis and is a template that PCs can obtain easily via a ritual. You can't start out as one(sans high level games), the ritual costs Gold and XP and you DO lose a level from the ritual but once you get the template your officially undead and you don't get any LA as far as I remember

That is indeed what I meant.

begooler
2011-01-25, 08:31 PM
I think its a worthwhile character concept, and while more difficult to rule on, a lot more interesting than a stereotypical necromancer.

I'd say whenever you're channeling negative energy you're risking being corrupted by it, so it's a reckless thing to do for someone who doesn't intend on becoming evil.

I imagine the character would be using a whole lot more discretion with those types of spells than the necromancy spells without an alignment descriptor. Maybe to compensate he would try to find ways of channeling positive energy as much as possible as well. The character might even go out of the way to take every opportunity to do this, "Light up the dungeon with 'Light?' No, we need 'Light of Lunia!'"
The DM and player might even have a mechanical way of tracking this, which could either be fun or bog down the campaign.

Coidzor
2011-01-25, 08:31 PM
(I can't remember if it's my ruling or RAW that mindless undead don't use the original creature's soul, just animate the body with negative energy....probably mine, so check with your DM).

The rules are silent as far as I have managed to plumb their depths.


The act of creating a Golem is probably evil, but the spirit is not and the creation itself is mindless, so the construct becomes neutral.

Which leads to questions about mindless undead, since the most that's ever said is that it's a spirit of negative energy that provides their animus (and doesn't influence their actions being as they're mindless puppet-things) which is not actually called out as evil. Which are the only real source of contention since ghouls, vampires, and liches are, well, expletives.


Huh, you know; I would think that having yourself crucified while zombies chanted blasphemous rituals to channel the negative energy plane would most definitely turn you into one eeeeeevil son of a gun.

Zombies? Talking?! :smalleek: Getting pretty far into homebrew territory with that one.

Czin
2011-01-25, 08:33 PM
Zombies? Talking?! Getting pretty far into homebrew territory with that one.

The Libris Mortis's text for the Necropolitan template specifically say that the necromancer who carries out the ritual on the client only starts the chants, then leaves the rest to a choir of zombies.

Coidzor
2011-01-25, 08:36 PM
The Libris Mortis's text for the Necropolitan template specifically say that the necromancer who carries out the ritual on the client only starts the chants, then leaves the rest to a choir of zombies.

*facepalm* Oh devs.


OP: Probably be fine with it. For a certain value of fine, of course.

peacenlove
2011-01-25, 08:37 PM
The Libris Mortis's text for the Necropolitan template specifically say that the necromancer who carries out the ritual on the client only starts the chants, then leaves the rest to a choir of zombies.

That choir should be pretty monotonous ...
Also another (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm) undead who is non-evil by default.

Czin
2011-01-25, 08:40 PM
*facepalm* Oh devs.


OP: Probably be fine with it. For a certain value of fine, of course.

What? Do you seriously expect a busy Necromacner to do non-stop chanting for 24 hours? He's got other customers to attend to damnit!

Knaight
2011-01-25, 08:49 PM
OP: It depends on your GM, and the setting your GM is using. The opinions in those of us in the thread are irrelevant, except for as a gauge of probability.

Gauge of Probability: Assuming the D&D style spells where no souls are involved, my only issue with necromancy is the theft of something that belongs to someone else, which probably has sentimental value attached to it. Meaning that necromancy isn't inherently evil, but most uses would be. The obvious exceptions are wild animals, and using it in self defense. Assuming that pulling souls from their place of rest is involved, as in other settings, then its much closer to always evil.

Earl William
2011-01-25, 08:58 PM
Yes, go for it, make your LN nercomancer. I personally think the [Evil] and [Good] modifers only matter for divine casters anyway.

NichG
2011-01-25, 09:00 PM
So I'd ask: what does it matter what alignment you end up having on your sheet as a result of working with undead? Your character isn't necessarily going to be aware of their cosmic alignment, nor does casting an [Evil] descriptor spell change their personality, it just changes how the universe sees them. Just because he has an 'E' on his sheet doesn't mean he has to turn into a mustache-twirling villain who kills orphans for laughs. He can still be generous, help save people's lives, be self-sacrificing to help others, all of that stuff. It might cause his soul to have a tragic destination, but even that could be the seed of an interesting conflict.

That said, in my campaigns the creation of non-sentient undead is not evil, so it wouldn't be an issue for me.

Benly
2011-01-25, 09:07 PM
So what's the fundamental difference between a zombie and a flesh golem, morally speaking? Both are mindless masses of dead flesh animated by magic. One is animated by negative energy and one is animated by elemental magic. Is negative energy inherently morally wrong? If that were so, Inflict spells would be inherently evil, since they're a shot of direct negative energy.

For this reason, in my games animating the dead as mindless undead is only an evil act in circumstances where robbing the corpse would be - and I don't remember the last time I heard about a game where PCs were automatically marked evil for taking the orcs' gold after defeating them.

Fortuna
2011-01-25, 09:07 PM
Yeah, the whole 'undead = EEVUL!!' thing never really made sense to me. As nolispe said (and I hate to agree with him), enchantment and much of conjuration are both much, much worse. To be honest, I think it's just an outdated cliche that the designers kept on because when they first wrote D&D, they thought it was going to be just like the last couple of editions, with healbot clerics, blasty wizards and evil necromancers.

Although if I'm not mistaken, it used to be that good clerics had no issue with casting animate dead, so perhaps WotC is just mad.

nolispe
2011-01-25, 09:17 PM
Why should the creation of Sentinet undead be nessesarily evil?

Benly
2011-01-25, 09:30 PM
Why should the creation of Sentinet undead be nessesarily evil?

You can come up with a good argument for skeletons or zombies being neutral based on their monster descriptions: a skeleton "can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative", so it's essentially a robot with no moral stance. The book description of them supports a neutral interpretation if you choose to take one.

On the other hand, shadows and spectres "hate all living things", wraiths "despise all living things and the light that nurtures them", mohrgs are "tortured by an all-consuming hatred of living things", and the creation of ghouls and ghasts "warped their minds, making them cunning and feral" and giving them a hunger for the flesh of the living. To make any of those non-evil, you need to actually change what they are as the game describes them, and creating them would thus be an evil act. Mummies you might be able to argue as LN, and I would probably let a PC create mummies for an appropriate purpose without treating it as evil.

nolispe
2011-01-25, 09:38 PM
Yeah, those i'l give you. I still take issue with your declartion that all sentinent undead creation is evil, but those specific types... Yeah, I can't argue that.
V *Looks up list* hrm. Well, it seems you're right. Primarily to save my ego, I will remain with my 'not all creation of sentinent undead is evil' argument, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, I must concede the point.

Benly
2011-01-25, 09:41 PM
Yeah, those i'l give you. I still take issue with your declartion that all sentinent undead creation is evil, but those specific types... Yeah, I can't argue that.

The thing is, that's a complete list of the undead you can make with Create Undead and Create Greater Undead in core. :smallsmile: I can take a look at Libris Mortis later and see if there's anything more likely to work, but in general the non-evil sentient undead aren't the ones PCs get a chance to actually make.

Knaight
2011-01-25, 09:44 PM
Why should the creation of Sentinet undead be nessesarily evil?

Because as written it involves forcibly taking someone else's mind from the after life, sticking it in a slave body, and probably horribly damaging it in the process. All without their permission.

There are ways to create intelligent undead that don't involve this, but D&D largely avoids them. If one could be resurrected into ghost form, or even if a soul and mind were created by ritual with built in free will, it would be fine. That's simply not how it works within D&D.

Czin
2011-01-25, 09:46 PM
Because as written it involves forcibly taking someone else's mind from the after life, sticking it in a slave body, and probably horribly damaging it in the process. All without their permission.

There are ways to create intelligent undead that don't involve this, but D&D largely avoids them. If one could be resurrected into ghost form, or even if a soul and mind were created by ritual with built in free will, it would be fine. That's simply not how it works within D&D.

Not all intelligent undead have souls (if I read Open Grave correctly, only the undead that 3.5e would consider to be templated still maintain their souls), but those that do not have souls are almost invariably evil.

nolispe
2011-01-25, 09:49 PM
But what if the soul existed in the nine hells or similar? While I will grant you in many cases it would be evil, it is not nessesarily so. I can imagine an order of good clerics bringing back evil people 'for a second chance' if you will, and making them inteligent undead. The control would make them much easier to enforce the good actions, and bringing them back as inteligent undead would be far cheaper than a raise dead...

Czin
2011-01-25, 09:50 PM
But what if the soul existed in the nine hells or similar? While I will grant you in many cases it would be evil, it is not nessesarily so. I can imagine an order of good clerics bringing back evil people 'for a second chance' if you will, and making them inteligent undead. The control would make them much easier to enforce the good actions, and bringing them back as inteligent undead would be far cheaper than a raise dead...

Because bringing back evil souls in the form of a creature with an always (L, N, C) evil alignment is such a bright idea.

Yeah, you might want to start cranking that turn undead level up a few notches. :smallwink:

nolispe
2011-01-25, 09:51 PM
Oh, that's not a problem. They have a chance, don't they? And if all else fails - Sanctify the Wicked, which is apparently a 'good' spell.

ithildur
2011-01-25, 09:52 PM
Most run of the mill evils do not think of themselves as evil, just pragmatic, practical, sensible, 'can't be bothered' etc and a host of other rationalizations. The ones that embrace it are usually guys who are leaders of evil cabals, have contacts with fiends, etc.

DnD players generally fit into the former category. :smalltongue: So asking them for feedback on 'evil' in a general forum like this, well... take it with a BIG grain of salt. :smallwink:

What matters is that you ask your DM and the other players in your campaign.

Knaight
2011-01-25, 10:00 PM
The control would make them much easier to enforce the good actions, and bringing them back as inteligent undead would be far cheaper than a raise dead...
The control is still slavery, and bringing back horrible scum who earned a place in hell without control over them is a terrible idea. Its a no win situation, though intelligent undead is certainly an alternative to resurrection if one looks away from D&D and into fantasy as a whole.

Coidzor
2011-01-25, 10:13 PM
But what if the soul existed in the nine hells or similar? While I will grant you in many cases it would be evil, it is not nessesarily so. I can imagine an order of good clerics bringing back evil people 'for a second chance' if you will, and making them inteligent undead. The control would make them much easier to enforce the good actions, and bringing them back as inteligent undead would be far cheaper than a raise dead...

Someone went ahead and did a homebrew PRC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) for one of the contests here about that, actually.

Benly
2011-01-25, 10:18 PM
So I went through the Collection of Necromantic Oddities looking for Create Undead/Greater Undead subjects that might not be evil, checking each critter's book description. I found a few that you could perhaps make a case for being non-evil to create. Every other intelligent undead that can be created by Create Undead or Create Greater Undead has a description that makes it clearly evil in one way or another, frequently with an insatiable craving for murder.

Dread Ram (Ghostwalk): Supposedly "always evil", but the description comes off as being essentially like normal ornery animals. You could make a case for being able to make these as a non-evil act. But... who even makes Dread Rams?

Flameskull (Lost Empires of Faerun): Listed as "always lawful evil", but like mummies they're essentially tomb guardians with no other particularly evil traits. I would be willing to let a nonevil PC create these for appropriate purposes.

Crypt Thing (Fiend Folio): Free and clear! True neutral default alignment, they just hang out in a crypt and protect it. If your PCs have crypts that need protecting, they should be just fine between these, mummies and flameskulls. These are the only creatable undead that aren't evil by the book, too.


Some odd ones where you could make a case for the creature being nonevil but not the creator:

Baneguard (Lost Empires of Faerun): Another "tomb guard" type, but creating them is explicitly a secret of a few evil religions, so a nonevil caster would have to do some serious questing and research to get them.

Curst (Lost Empires of Faerun again): Chaotic neutral, but creating them explicitly curses the person becoming one to an eternity of suffering unless they can break the ritual making them undead - so creating them is an evil act even though the Curst itself isn't evil.

Undead Martyr (Ghostwalk): Like basically everything in Ghostwalk, this is weird. It's created from a creature that sacrificed its life for an evil being. So the creature itself could be nonevil, but the master by definition would have to be.

seraine
2011-01-25, 10:35 PM
Because environmentalism is the embodiment of all that is wrong in the world. Don't you know that recycling runs on the blood of puppies, the souls of orphans, and the tears of kittens? :smalltongue:

I will use this as my signature. I must.

Czin
2011-01-25, 10:45 PM
I will use this as my signature. I must.

Go ahead. I don't mind.

Cerlis
2011-01-26, 12:29 AM
actually, i do appreciate Volos' answer since he answered as a DM. My concern is not "If DnD where real, would you agree with the morality of this character" but "Would you see yourself playing characters who wouldnt be so opposed to it as cause PVP". and DMing is an extension of that, since i must face the DM before the players.

I would like to emphasis my pointing out this character is/would be a Necromancer in the sense that that is the school he chose, rather than a "Future lich, destroyer of life".
In other words i planned on playing him on fully aware of the evilness of necromancy .as in if he has to stop a guard from arresting him, he wouldnt use a necromancy spell, such a thing would be reserved for people who truely needed to be stopped.
So he'd probably go about to maybe if the dungeon or encounter is being trouble some of going to the nearest body and creating a meatshield. not "horde of zombies waiting in the forest for when we leave" necromancer.

and not sure if i gave the wrong impression, but i dont mean "LN Necromancer" as in he isnt good but he isnt sadistic. I mean more the "Person who uses E (minor) means for G ends is usually seen as neutral".
Essentially imagine if you put your average normal person in a party of adventurers. they'd be horrified at a party members first decision to deal with a goblin to be killing it outright and not capturing it. The Necromancer in question would be of a simular mind set. Essentially using Illusion, enchantment and diplomacy for delicate members, and pulling out evocation and highly enhanced (and he sees, superior) Necromancy when times are dire or necessary.
Essentially Necromancy would be his badass/berserk button.

Since this is about how you feel your characters would handle/feel about this character specifically (dont really care about morality of necromancy except how it applies to characters) this is important information

Expessially since the page grew by 3 pages in a few hours. going to go read page 2. Thanks for the commentary so far! :smallbiggrin:


As a DM, I have to take issue with your "loophole". Animals have souls, so you aren't getting out of anything by using animal rather than humanoid corpses. Now, I tend to be fine with zombie/skeleton/other mindless undead animation as a neutral act, as you're just using the body (I can't remember if it's my ruling or RAW that mindless undead don't use the original creature's soul, just animate the body with negative energy....probably mine, so check with your DM).

As a player, it totally depends on my character. I've had some that would be a fan of the method, some that wouldn't care one way or another, and some that would hate the very idea. I'd talk to the other players if I were you, and let them know what you want to do. Then you can know in advance if it's going to be an issue and how big of an issue it will be.


If animals in DnD have souls i was unaware or forgot. But now that i think of it, in book of exaulted deeds all those spirits where animal based and Totemists channel spirits of magical animals. Do they do the same with normal animals?

but yes, i always would plan to speak with the players and DM as well. I was A) curious about different dnd players, and B) if there was decent support here i could get my hopes up. If given the chance i'd use this character concept first, but it sounds like, despite alot of supporters on page 2, that I can still expect it to be a problem so will probably keep it as an option, rather than aim for this character specifically.


I think its a worthwhile character concept, and while more difficult to rule on, a lot more interesting than a stereotypical necromancer.

I'd say whenever you're channeling negative energy you're risking being corrupted by it, so it's a reckless thing to do for someone who doesn't intend on becoming evil.

I imagine the character would be using a whole lot more discretion with those types of spells than the necromancy spells without an alignment descriptor. Maybe to compensate he would try to find ways of channeling positive energy as much as possible as well. The character might even go out of the way to take every opportunity to do this, "Light up the dungeon with 'Light?' No, we need 'Light of Lunia!'"
The DM and player might even have a mechanical way of tracking this, which could either be fun or bog down the campaign.


actually you reminded me of a part of the character. I was actually thinking a fun dynamic would be this characters phylosiphy debates with the party cleric or paladin. I remember making a resounding speech about the Wizard being afraid of pushing himself as necessary but pushing himself to far. and to make a pact with said holy person to have faith in goodness and what is right as well as the holy man's judgement, if the Holyman will help keep him from falling into darkness.

Savannah
2011-01-26, 01:13 AM
If animals in DnD have souls i was unaware or forgot. But now that i think of it, in book of exaulted deeds all those spirits where animal based and Totemists channel spirits of magical animals. Do they do the same with normal animals?

I don't know the answer RAW to that for sure (I have ....."issues" with D&D's take on morality and the afterlife at times, so I don't tend to pay attention to it), but I definitely don't remember anything saying that animals don't have souls (and that's the sort of thing I would remember).

Knaight
2011-01-26, 01:37 AM
I don't know the answer RAW to that for sure (I have ....."issues" with D&D's take on morality and the afterlife at times, so I don't tend to pay attention to it), but I definitely don't remember anything saying that animals don't have souls (and that's the sort of thing I would remember).

It never explicitly specified it either way. Its irrelevant in any case, as the default tends to get overwritten with whatever the GM's setting is. Particularly for people who dislike the D&D cosmology and morality. There is a lot of dislike, which is understandable, though it might be particularly easy for me to understand it, given my position. Which boils down to "this is utterly moronic, even if I do GM D&D at some point all of it is being replaced."

SiuiS
2011-01-26, 04:25 AM
So I explained to him, both in game and out of game, my view on necromancy. The necrotic arts are dark magics that make use of negative energy, animating corpses and draining the life out of your foes.
man, you're missing out on SO MUCH with this stance. Just because the book says the spells are [Evil] doesn't mean the characters know it. and sometimes letting players think "that's just superstition" is fun.

I have my own wizard, "Black" Tomas. He's a focused specialist Necromancer, a rather swell guy. A skilled doctor, an excellent cook, and and an amateur explorer. He sports a big, well trimmed dwarf-esque beard and a pot belly from allhis gourmet food. He has a deep respect for dwarves and their work ethic, due to associating underground cultures and human funerary rituals.

When we last left Tomas, he had just been resurrected from being a ghost, his master (a lich) having returned his body now that the master's body had regrown. Tomas has the supernatural ability to possess the bodies of other people (via the Shape Soul feat, granting magic jar as a Su: ability), and a gnawing sensation that maybe, maybe every sage of the last few centuries was right; there is something inherently wrong with the practice of necromancy. Channeling that energy through you, numbing yourself to evils and the natural order in the name of power or science, it twists you.

Tomas fears for his humanity. When the time comes, and he gets old and Seth nears, will he fade as all must do? Or will he buckle and take the life of another so he may live? Sure, I could buy criminals, or pay people to let me clone their child... But eventually it wears on you.

How can you have several methods of immortality, the ability to FORCE others into compliance through threats or body puppetry, and keep your perspective? Your morals? How long until, like Frankenstein, you place your art above petty morality?

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-26, 01:23 PM
Definitive answer: it depends. :smallsmile:

There are multiple ways to look at the morality behind animating the bodies of the dead, but for your purposes the most important is how the GM interprets it, which may or may not match the book versions.

For instance, in my current campaign, Joraz Doombringer--the god of Entropy, Destruction, and Despair and darkest of the Dark Gods--literally IS the Negative Energy Plane. Further, all undead that are energized by negative energy (most of them) are wounds upon creation that funnel the life energy of the world into Joraz just by existing. Therefore, in my game the animation of the undead is inherently evil and an act of homage to an unspeakably evil deity, even if any specific animation is done for a good purpose.

However, it would be perfectly possible to have a game world in which the GM rules that animation of the dead was evil only when it involves the creation of evil undead or when it involves the desecration of graves. Or alternatively, as you had posited, when it involves tampering with souls.

I had a past campaign in which I utilized a concept from traditional Chinese belief of people having multiple souls (one of which was essentially the life force, one of which was what we normally call the soul, and one of which was the connection between the two) and in which the animation of mindless undead affected only the lower two souls. In that campaign only the perversion of the upper spiritual soul was inherently evil, although the average layman didn't understand the distinction and it was still quite possible for the animation of mindless undead to be evil if it involved wanton disrespect for the feelings of the living. But you could easily be a Good necromancer with mindless undead servants in that campaign.

So find out from your GM what the true state of affairs is in his game world, something a necromancer would probably know anyway due to their knowledge of necromancy and religion (I always assume all necromancers max out their ranks in Knowledge: Religion, as it pertains directly to their craft). The GM, at least, should always know why the [Evil] tag is applied to something in his or her world, if it is applied at all. If undead are completely out of the question, you can ask whether deathless exist in his world, and whether you'd be able to animate them instead of undead.

Necromancy has always been dominated by its dark side in D&D, but at least in theory (and this was far more obvious before 3rd Ed) it covers both life and death. For game balance reasons Necromancers have incredibly limited options for healing, so that light side of Necromancy should be represented somehow. See if you can make that case.

hamishspence
2011-01-26, 02:14 PM
Deathwatch is "evil". Explain that.

Possible error? Maybe it should have been Death Knell?

I know that at least one Good-aligned only class (the Healer) and one Exalted Good Only prestige class (the Slayer of Domiel) get it on their spell lists.

On creating undead- an act can be evil, without the caster being evil- a caster who does good acts most of the time, and evil acts "only when absolutely necessary" might be able to maintain a Neutral alignment.

Heroes of Horror seems to emphasis this, with Dread Necromancers that are "any nongood" rather than "any evil" and description of antiheroes who are a "flexible neutral" alignment- doing evil acts rarely, and only toward good ends.

The "Good Lich" variant in Libris Mortis, and the Archlich in Monsters of Faerun, show that there can be Good liches that aren't elves.