PDA

View Full Version : How is necromancy handled in your campaigns?



hushblade
2011-12-27, 10:32 AM
For the purposes of this thread, necromancy will be defined as the creation and manipulation of the undead.

I generally see it viewed as a whole in one of three ways.

1. Necromancy is inherently evil, all undead, mindless or not are invariably evil.(ghosts are a possible exception) And anyone utilizing necromancy is an evil individual.

2. Necromancy is essentially playing with fire. You summon dark forces to accomplish your goals and open the door to evil when you do this. Most undead are evil. Most people who utilize necromancy are evil, sometimes neutral, but good exceptions aren't anything unheard of.

3. Necromancy is simply another form of magic, mindless undead are simply tools, undead with intelligence are sometimes evil, sometimes good, just like anything else.

Which system do you tend to use and prefer? What do you see as the pros and cons of these views?

hamishspence
2011-12-27, 10:36 AM
I see number 2 as the closest version to the books (Heroes of Horror especially)- and I'd probably handle it that way if I got the chance.

Daer
2011-12-27, 11:08 AM
I would say it is like nuclear power.

Those who do not know much about it would fear it thus react it as number 1.


Then wizards who knew more about necromance would be more into number 3.


and then ofcourse people between and religious sights and local culture would dictate how people react to them.

And of course depensing on what the spells are used. Like raising people to be undeads would propably be evil thing for most while raising something like ox to do work day and night might be more tolerable.

Eldan
2011-12-27, 11:11 AM
Necromancy is often closely working together with evil, there's a lot of taboos against it and many undead are very, very evil. That said, mindless undead really aren't, and they are widely used as tools by the dustmen.

Gensh
2011-12-27, 11:21 AM
Generally speaking, I run my alignment system on two levels: the actual goodness/badness that results from the action and divine alignment, which uses capital levels. Raising a horde of undead to serve as an army during a war wherein both sides are just fighting for survival is purely a neutral act, because it helps just as much as it harms. It's also, however, an Evil act because back in the day, the gods decided raising hordes of undead was creepy and wrong; likewise, the views of the majority of people follow this. The mortal and divine view of undead is inherently negative just because Nerull or Vecna or some campaign-specific god was kind of a jerk back in the day. The reactionary labeling of such spells is why, for example, deathwatch is Evil. :smalltongue:

Psyren
2011-12-27, 12:32 PM
Those three scenarios explain neutral and evil necromancy, but there's little discussion of good necromancy. D&D does have examples of this, e.g. the Vivicarnate.

DoctorGlock
2011-12-27, 12:39 PM
Generally number 3

Necromancy, like all other magic, is the application o' mystical forces towards an end, in this case making a corpse get up and walk. It can be used to directly effect life force, but so can anyone with magic. Fireball and enervation will both kill ya just as dead.

The nobs seem to like the corpse mages, they can preserve a body 'till the god botherers make it walk the right way. The street people love 'em, they can sell their corpse rights for quick cash. The merchants can buy emselves free corpse labor.

Me? I think they are up to no good, them and all other mages, messin' wit' what they don't understand. One day they might be messing with grave dust, messing with the dead. In my day we'd never have brooked that, we'd have 'em up in town square by the neck. The next day they're rippin' a hole to somewhere else. You can't tell me that's right

But... it works. The dead do the mining, they maintain the sewers, and yeah, we're richer for it. You can't tell me it's right, seeing those smug black robed twerps, them we'd burned not long ago, walking around getting rich off our corpses. It ain't right, but so help me it works.

AmberVael
2011-12-27, 12:48 PM
In my own campaign setting, to reject the necromancers would be to reject your rulers, advisers, and ancestors. The ruling god, the god of nobility, is also the god of the underworld. Every ruler and noble is fated to serve as they once ruled, coming back from death to serve as one of the thousand undead advisers to the current nobles and rulers. Necromancers guide the newly dead to the underworld and ensure they are treated with respect, and further, draw upon the power of ancestors to empower and guide the living, suspending their own lives to briefly walk in the underworld.

I think hand waving necromancy as just flat out evil is boring and lacking creativity. Could it be used for very evil purposes? Sure. But the territory of necromancy could be seen with as much reverence as fear depending on how it is popularly used, and I think that should be acknowledged. If it is evil, there needs to be a better explanation as to why it is unquestionably evil.

Fiery Diamond
2011-12-27, 01:04 PM
In my own campaign setting, to reject the necromancers would be to reject your rulers, advisers, and ancestors. The ruling god, the god of nobility, is also the god of the underworld. Every ruler and noble is fated to serve as they once ruled, coming back from death to serve as one of the thousand undead advisers to the current nobles and rulers. Necromancers guide the newly dead to the underworld and ensure they are treated with respect, and further, draw upon the power of ancestors to empower and guide the living, suspending their own lives to briefly walk in the underworld.

I think hand waving necromancy as just flat out evil is boring and lacking creativity. Could it be used for very evil purposes? Sure. But the territory of necromancy could be seen with as much reverence as fear depending on how it is popularly used, and I think that should be acknowledged. If it is evil, there needs to be a better explanation as to why it is unquestionably evil.

While I think that how you handle it setting-wise can indeed vary a lot, including dealing with it the way you just mentioned, I don't really agree with your first and last sentences in your final paragraph. Just treating it as unquestionably evil without bothering to delve into it further is akin to treating premeditated murder as flat out evil. There really isn't any need to delve into the reasons why premeditated murder is evil, but if you think about it, actions that fit that description can certainly be viewed positively - certain assassinations, for example, would be well received by the population at large. But that doesn't make a setting wherein all premeditated murder (including all assassinations) is treated as straight-up evil lazy, and whether it is boring is highly dependent on your point of view.

My 2cp.

DoctorGlock
2011-12-27, 01:10 PM
While I think that how you handle it setting-wise can indeed vary a lot, including dealing with it the way you just mentioned, I don't really agree with your first and last sentences in your final paragraph. Just treating it as unquestionably evil without bothering to delve into it further is akin to treating premeditated murder as flat out evil. There really isn't any need to delve into the reasons why premeditated murder is evil, but if you think about it, actions that fit that description can certainly be viewed positively - certain assassinations, for example, would be well received by the population at large. But that doesn't make a setting wherein all premeditated murder (including all assassinations) is treated as straight-up evil lazy, and whether it is boring is highly dependent on your point of view.

My 2cp.

Murder actively harms another. Unless your setting necromancy specifically binds the soul then animating a dead body harms no one. The two are not really comparable.

Sergeantbrother
2011-12-27, 02:00 PM
I generally have necromancy be evil. Below is a description of how it works from one of my setting:

"Animating a creature as the undead doesn't just enslave the body, it enslaves the soul. The soul of the unfortunate victim is wrenched out of the afterlife and imprisoned in their rotting body. Trapped in their fetid corpse, they exist in a fog of agonizing cold, mental anguish over their state, and horrific nightmare-like visions of the worst parts of their former lives. They do not display any intellect because the torment of their undead state is so consuming that they cannot think clearly on their own. Because their soul is utterly enslaved by necromantic power, they are compelled to obey every order of their necromancer master even if it involves killing people whom they once loved - actions which will repeat themselves in their mind over and over again. The only release from this tormented state is total destruction of their corpse which breaks the chains of evil magic and releases the soul. Should a necromancer be destroyed, his zombie slaves will be free from his control but still imprisoned inside its corpse, they will have been driven mad by so much suffering and will attack any living thing that they see."

Fiery Diamond
2011-12-27, 02:07 PM
Murder actively harms another. Unless your setting necromancy specifically binds the soul then animating a dead body harms no one. The two are not really comparable.

Incorrect. Harm =/= bad, and there are countless examples of this. I'm always somewhat amazed whenever people act as though there is no such thing as objective morality, except that harming someone else is bad. Either there is no such thing as objective morality, or there is. You can't cherry-pick what things you think are objectively bad and then also claim objective morality doesn't exist.

Furthermore, physical harm is not the only form of harm. Go read the short story 'Liar, liar' in the book "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov. Emotional and mental harm is just as much harm as (and in fact can be /more/ harm than, depending on circumstances) physical harm. And yes, animating the corpse of someone else's loved one in a vile mockery of life for use as slave labor could indeed cause severe emotional harm. If IRL there were a necromancer and a pyromancer, I would be wary of the pyromancer and possibly frightened of him depending on how he used his power, but I would want the necromancer dead even if he used his undead puppets to do things like defend countries in war or helping out at orphanages.

hushblade
2011-12-27, 02:15 PM
If its only "evil" because people are uncomfortable, even disgusted with it, find it horrifically disrespectful to the dead, it is certainly unlawful, but not evil.

If somebody is upset with their actions that aren't hurting anyone, thats on them.

DoctorGlock
2011-12-27, 02:18 PM
Incorrect. Harm =/= bad, and there are countless examples of this. I'm always somewhat amazed whenever people act as though there is no such thing as objective morality, except that harming someone else is bad. Either there is no such thing as objective morality, or there is. You can't cherry-pick what things you think are objectively bad and then also claim objective morality doesn't exist.

Furthermore, physical harm is not the only form of harm. Go read the short story 'Liar, liar' in the book "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov. Emotional and mental harm is just as much harm as (and in fact can be /more/ harm than, depending on circumstances) physical harm. And yes, animating the corpse of someone else's loved one in a vile mockery of life for use as slave labor could indeed cause severe emotional harm. If IRL there were a necromancer and a pyromancer, I would be wary of the pyromancer and possibly frightened of him depending on how he used his power, but I would want the necromancer dead even if he used his undead puppets to do things like defend countries in war or helping out at orphanages.

Where did I mention subjective morality? You argue that necromancy is evil "just because" whereas all conventionally evil acts are evil because they cause harm. Saying something is objectively evil without explaining how is utterly inane. I can decide to label anything "objectively" evil, and unless I can justify that there is no argument. See, objective truths can be proven, and "because I said so" is not proof. Emotional harm can be caused, yes, but that depends on how the event occurs. Bob the necromancer rips my granny out of the ground? Yeah, i get my rifle. Granny sells her body for nice pre mortem benefits, well then she chose, and so long as the soul aint home while a decaying sack of meat runs errands, i couldn't give a crap. That case is not evil. No harm is done. Unless you can prove that there is actually evil "I said so" is not gonna fly. Nothing was cherry picked so do not presume to put words in my mouth.

Sergeantbrother
2011-12-27, 02:20 PM
If IRL there were a necromancer and a pyromancer, I would be wary of the pyromancer and possibly frightened of him depending on how he used his power, but I would want the necromancer dead even if he used his undead puppets to do things like defend countries in war or helping out at orphanages.

Assuming that creating zombies causes no harm, doesn't enslave the soul, then why want the necromancer dead? Modern people benefit from dissecting corpses, though for a loved one to see the body of a loved one dissected would be very distressing. Are medical students objectively evil for desecrating bodies? Not that necromancy shouldn't necessarily be evil, but I think that calling I evil needs some kind of justification.

bloodtide
2011-12-27, 03:21 PM
I go for the second one. I play with a more 2E style so my game has Black, Gray, and White necromancy.

I hate the view of number one where a whole category is evil, or good or such. But the third one is just way to nice and easy, and very much in mind with the modern safety nerf game.

hushblade
2011-12-27, 03:47 PM
Care to elaborate on these shades of necromancy?

gkathellar
2011-12-27, 04:17 PM
My game world takes a mostly religious and social view of necromancy. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, or with any form of magic - but it's distasteful for a variety of cultural reasons.

Foremost among these is that the Sun, the top dog god and source of all life, despises necromancy and the undead as crude mockeries of its work. Negative energy belongs to the Shadow, a mindless, infinite mass of everything that is like the Sun and not the Sun. Both of the major religions acknowledge this prohibition for different reasons and to different degrees.

Second, there's the fact that when the undead are created from a body, that hasn't had proper death rites performed, it traps the soul in said body. A necromancer who raises a corpse before it receives the Rite of Release has trapped an unwilling soul and denied it the fruits of humanity's bargain with death. Raising a post-Rites corpse is a little hazier, but people tend to err on the side of "it's an abomination!"

Finally, necromancy is a really powerful tool for political revolt. When you can raise an army that doesn't eat or sleep, you can undermine the advantages of established power players. As a result, those power players often take poorly to necromancers, and even devotees of the new religion are sometimes all-too-ready to support the old faith in casting necromancers as Heretics.

hangedman1984
2011-12-27, 04:57 PM
number 3, but with the reputation as if number 2 or sometimes even number 1

Calmar
2011-12-27, 04:58 PM
In my game, necromancy is evil. It originates from the demonic realms and is a tool for the demons to bring ruin to the mortal world and all that is good. The powers it apparently bestows upon those who lust for power or fear death ultimately only serve the purpose of dragging the souls of these necromancers and demon-worshipers into the lower sphere.

At least that's how it's supposed to be handled. I'm afraid that to my players it's just some school of magic. :smallfrown:

Hopefully I can improve the situation...

Mastikator
2011-12-27, 05:10 PM
I always go with 1. Not only are all undead (except maybe ghosts) evil, but the creation of undead involves desecration of bodies and enslavement of souls. Making yourself into an undead always demands some kind of sacrifice and always twists the mind into something that can only derive pleasure from sadism.

SowZ
2011-12-27, 05:57 PM
Necromancy is a school of magic that mortals do not have domain to regularly. To gain access to necromancy a mortal has to bargain with a creature that does have domain over the dead or a powerful dead spirit itself. This involves binding their soul to said being. The goal of a necromancer is to eventually become a vampire, (which is only achieved through powerful necromancy,) and the goal of a vampire is to eventually become a lich, (which there usually isn't one of at any given time.) The higher up on this food chain you go, the more control the binded spirit has over your body.

To become a Vampire requires willing souls to be devoured by the Necromancer who is to ascend and a Vampire to complete the ritual. Usually, a coven of Necromancers worships a Vampire with the hopes that the Vampire will eventually choose one of the Necromancers to turn into a Vampire, (of course, the head Vampire would also have to choose a few Necromancers as soul sacrifices. Necromancers agree to be cooperative if they are unlucky and sign a blood oath to that effect.)

Necromancy is explicitly forbidden by almost all religous institutions, most cultures, and by the head diety, (the land is almost monotheistic.) Zombies do not have their own soul or will. While they can be telepathically controlled by their creator, (if nearby,) they cannot be given orders if unattended and will simply attack any living thing they see without venturing far from the area they were left in. Creation of wraiths, (sentient undead,) costs some of the necromancers soul to create. Certain necromantic spells always cost a bit of the Necromancers life force, (remaining time alive,) to cast. I don't play with alignments, but otherwise 2 fits best.

Coidzor
2011-12-27, 06:38 PM
Animation is 2, everything else is 3.

Not really playing with fire to drain a charging orc of his strength so that he's as weak as a kitten. It is playing with fire to make any formerly alive person into one of the free-willed undead that have a predisposition towards being twisted to immorality by hunger or some other flaw that the creation process introduces or exacerbates, but exceptions to the foulness of sapient undead exist, and mindless undead are just extensions of their master's will.

Energy Drain may or may not be rather unpleasant, I still haven't made up my mind whether it's anything more tortuous than just feeling weaker and weaker until one's body gives out.

bloodtide
2011-12-27, 06:44 PM
Care to elaborate on these shades of necromancy?


1.White-Healing spells and such are white necromancy, as are most positive energy type effects and anything that is helpful and does not harm.

2.Gray-are the spells that simply do an effect, yet have no horrible evil to them. Magic Jar for example is not evil.

3.Black-are the evil spells. They have the [evil] tag and do things like harm souls or deal with undead and unlife. So animate dead and energy drain.

Roxxy
2011-12-27, 07:04 PM
I like version 2 for animation and 3 for everything else. Undead are by far my favorite monster, and I very much love using evil undead, and I almost always consider creating them evil, but I do like to leave a tiny bit of wriggle room in the morality. I also prefer for healing magic to be necromancy.

Cerlis
2011-12-27, 07:16 PM
i think a society would have to completely staunch many of their survival instincts (as that what revulshion of death, decay, corpses, blood, and all that good stuff really are) in order to have necromancy as a standard source of power....

but it would be interesting to brainstorm how they would do it.

If a society did get to that point, for example, i think one thing would that most undead would be skeletons. Not only would this prevent a complete stench of rot, but it would prevent corpses from being identified, thus getting rid of the negative instinct people have when they see their loved ones all dead and being raped by magic and stuff.

of course ample use of Gentle Repose could prevent that same rotting and allow for "clean" zombies, opening up for (in a highly magical) society stuff like Intelligent zombie citizens(or rulers, staff, ect)

Seharvepernfan
2011-12-27, 07:20 PM
In my campaign world, it's most like #2.

Good and evil are actual forces, not just concepts, and are often tied to, but still separate from, positive and negative energy.

Necromancy is often the use of negative (anti-life) energy, so it is often tied to evil, but isn't necessarily evil. If you are simply using negative energy, then that's not evil. If you are using an unwilling soul to create an evil undead creature, well, don't think too hard about what that would be.

As such, necromancers aren't necessarily evil, but often are, because you can't access a good chuck of your school without committing an evil act.

An unintelligent undead is simply a tool, no more evil than a battleaxe, so as long as the animator isn't using souls to create them, merely negative energy, their creation isn't an evil act (so animate undead isn't an [evil] spell in most cases).

Cerlis
2011-12-27, 07:29 PM
I think if we/yall are going to discuss Necromancy and evil, it needs to be stated what your view on good and evil are.

As it seems most people tend to view them as metaphysical concepts that exist only in the mind of those who can judge,

while a stock few (such as myself) see Mental good and evil as different from physical good and evil (such as "Summon Ball of Pure Evil II" spell).

The reason i Like the idea of number 1, deemed the most unoriginal and boring version of the view of necromancy, is because i use the second view of good and evil. In that Simply casting a necromancy spell is seen as a evil act (debatable how great) in the grand scheme of the war between infernal and angelic, but that doesnt have an effect on the mental reason for it.

Over the past few months i've loved the idea of a necromancer who willingly subjects himself to the stigma of being a necromancer, as well as the literal physical fact that playing with those energies that actually harm and scare his soul and life energy, in order to find out information about magic that Good people who never use necromancy could ever discover, to help the world even if he might go to the abyss for it.

To extend the metaphor of the "playing with fire" it would be not like wielding fire, but wielding destruction and getting burnt repeatedly on accident or on purpose in order to find out how that destruction can be applied in the right way to do something good.

Fiery Diamond
2011-12-27, 07:33 PM
Where did I mention subjective morality? You argue that necromancy is evil "just because" whereas all conventionally evil acts are evil because they cause harm. Saying something is objectively evil without explaining how is utterly inane. I can decide to label anything "objectively" evil, and unless I can justify that there is no argument. See, objective truths can be proven, and "because I said so" is not proof. Emotional harm can be caused, yes, but that depends on how the event occurs. Bob the necromancer rips my granny out of the ground? Yeah, i get my rifle. Granny sells her body for nice pre mortem benefits, well then she chose, and so long as the soul aint home while a decaying sack of meat runs errands, i couldn't give a crap. That case is not evil. No harm is done. Unless you can prove that there is actually evil "I said so" is not gonna fly. Nothing was cherry picked so do not presume to put words in my mouth.

You seem to have missed the part where "evil because they cause harm" includes the same "just because" aspect to it: why is causing harm evil? Either evil is merely a social term to describe what we find deplorable, or there is some form of objective morality. There is no possible in-between. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The problem with saying that "morality derives from concrete provable reasons" or similar is that you must have an axiom with which to analyze the specific concepts and acts. And what axiom you choose is still an axiom, there is no actual reason behind it; it's an axiom! My point is that there is no real reason for you to have one axiom over another unless you believe in an objective morality or you think social determination is valid for choosing an axiom. If you believe in an objective morality, you must realize that it is certainly possible that someone else believes in an objective morality as well that contains different axioms than what you adhere to, and at that point arguing over whether theirs is somehow inferior to yours is not that different from arguing about religion. If you think that social determination is valid, why do you posit that a different setting with different social standards is somehow inferior for having different axioms than yours? They could act the same way about yours, if they exist, and if they are fictional, why are you so judgmental about it?

TLDR: I disagree that "causes harm is the basis for determining the morality of a behavior" is a valid axiom.

Shadowleaf
2011-12-27, 07:39 PM
Third option, mostly. Necromancy is fueled by negative energies, which are neutral alignment-wise. Undeads are mindless and never commit evil acts unless instructed to do so (unless you count defending your creator/yourself evil).
Some necromancy spells are good, some are neutral and some are evil. Undeads themselves are neutral, as are most other spells.
We tend to slap on [evil] descriptors on usage rather than the spells themselves. If you Energy Drain a child it's almost certainly evil, but then again so is Fireball - both would get the [evil] descriptor (making some casters unable to cast it without falling - which is intended).

Some IC arguments can be had, though. A Cleric of Kelemvor might see animation as evil/wrong, a Druid might see it as unnatural, etc. It all depends on the (N)PC's' view on morals.

Morithias
2011-12-27, 07:52 PM
In my world necromancy is unholy in nature. However due to the nature of the alignment charts now being "holy versus unholy" instead of "good versus evil" it doesn't mean much. It's basically just another form of magic. However certain problems come up that most people don't think of in my setting.

Undead are EXCELLENT workers even the mindless ones. So jobs are often lost cause of them.

Also necromancer powers are often used to search for immortality, so far a lot of it has downsides, such as vampires not being able to exist in sunlight, or a necropolitan having a rotting corpse, or a lich not being able to drink coffee.

Necromancy is basically the search for true immortality in my setting. The search to become like the gods...which is why it is unholy.

Sergeantbrother
2011-12-27, 08:36 PM
TLDR: I disagree that "causes harm is the basis for determining the morality of a behavior" is a valid axiom.

But the problem is that "don't harm" isnt arbitrary, it is universally part of moral codes because people don't like to be harmed and don't want their friends and loved ones harmed. So moral codes all have prohibitions or conditions about harming others because harm, is well, harmful.

So you can't claim that not causing harm is arbitrary and then say that any other moral code is equally meaningful even if it's arbitrarily made up.

Vknight
2011-12-27, 09:17 PM
1. Necromancy is inherently evil, all undead, mindless or not are invariably evil.(ghosts are a possible exception) And anyone utilizing necromancy is an evil individual.

2. Necromancy is essentially playing with fire. You summon dark forces to accomplish your goals and open the door to evil when you do this. Most undead are evil. Most people who utilize necromancy are evil, sometimes neutral, but good exceptions aren't anything unheard of.

3. Necromancy is simply another form of magic, mindless undead are simply tools, undead with intelligence are sometimes evil, sometimes good, just like anything else.

Which system do you tend to use and prefer? What do you see as the pros and cons of these views?

Only the Ivory in my setting see Necromancy as 1. Considering they are the biggest Nation, half the party if from there and ones worships a good aligned god fuels this idea.
The prevailing opinion is number 2. There is two locations were this is not the case, 1is a small island the other a major clan to the far west, they treat Necromancy as #3
In the setting Necromancy is #3 because how magic works.

#1 Pro's
Easy to say he's evil and should be killed
Can easily moralize everything
Con's
No good Necromancy means not much wiggle room for PC's to be masters of undeath
No endless workforce that never grows tired
Easy morality makes no grey options

#2 Pro's
Grey options for PC's to explore
Enemies may not met expectations
Clerics that use Undead for good without being evil or having death hang over them like a shadow
Con's
Still not very grey
Can lead to Zerg Rushing enemies with your army then raising the dead to fill vacancies

#3 Pro's
Makes the most sense considering that other types of magic are treated neutral so why should one type specifically be evil
Blurs the lines to a grey on grey scale
Makes for better multi dimensional villains
Con's
If you want a game were things are clear cut this won't work
People tend to think of Undead as evil from popular culture so this can color there interpretation of NPC's and each other
The Zerg Rushing becomes an even greater problem because the Necromancy is no longer tainting them

bloodtide
2011-12-27, 09:35 PM
But the problem is that "don't harm" isnt arbitrary, it is universally part of moral codes because people don't like to be harmed and don't want their friends and loved ones harmed. So moral codes all have prohibitions or conditions about harming others because harm, is well, harmful.

So you can't claim that not causing harm is arbitrary and then say that any other moral code is equally meaningful even if it's arbitrarily made up.

This is only true of modern western moral codes.


But for Necromancy it's more for how the extreme the harm is to a creature. Vampiric touch is not all that different from shocking grasp as they both do damage. But if the spell effects life forces, souls or has the [death] descriptor then it's evil.

Ninja_Grand
2011-12-27, 09:43 PM
For me, Its always location, location, location. One town is 1 (EEEEEEEVIl) next is 2 (I like this most. When a Noob trys it and destroys a town) and next may have lichs walking the streets!

Then you have to look at Arcane vs Divine Undead. Is that zombie a gift from Pelor to help the town? Or some Sorcerer who needs his own work force?



Now to smart undead. Its a big old mess here. Its mostly 2 for these guys. Free will but evil minds? I treat them like tiflleing's. Can be good but favors evil.

Anecronwashere
2011-12-27, 09:53 PM
In the 4E game I'm a part of (I'm an Immortal (due to Homebrew Race and backstory not necromancy) Necromancer who dabbles in other schools of magic (I'm the resident Ritualist and have my own library of Magical books) Necromancy is Anti-Life but isn't Evil.
There is a line:
High HP Necro
Low HP Necro
Dead
Low HP Life
High HP Life

Positive and Negative Energy are two opposite but equally viable ways of life to begin. Necromancy isn't necessarily Evil except in the case of "Power Corrupts"

Intelligent Positive life (non-undead) have souls, as do Intelligent Negative life (Undead) but not Unintelligent Positive (Animals), and Unintelligent Negative life (Mindless Undead).

The only difference between them is that Mindless Undead have a higher natural Dependency Aura that makes binding them to Masters easier than Animals (though they can be bound as well, it just takes more power)

Aura magic deals with a beings Radiating Soul, where their energy and lifeforce surrounds a being. Aura magic is a mental art that involves manipulating the practitioner's own Radiating Soul to affect others, usually by implanting aversions and compulsions or establishing Telepathic Communications.
a Dependency Aura is a Radiating Soul that has little or no barriers to stop Aura Magicians (usually Necromancers on Mindless Undead or Beast tamers on Animals) and very base instincts (no higher intelligence or complex wants/needs/phobias).

When a person dies their soul is sent off to the afterlife leaving their corpse and a copy of their memories.
Necromancers imbue the corpse with Negative Energy making them Mindless Undead (with no soul or memories).
There are Rituals to restore memories and Skills (Class levels) while still remaining mindless, Rituals to Create a Negative Soul to make an Intelligent Undead from a Mindless and Rituals to do both together (making a Negative copy of the departed Soul that is completely identical while the original stays in the afterlife).

Tl;Dr: Undead are the opposite of Life and are as Evil as normal Life. They have no Souls unless given one in a ritual which makes one rather than binding the original. They are Animal-Like until they have a Soul and can be Bound easier than Animals by a school of magic.

horseboy
2011-12-27, 10:01 PM
In my campaign the animation of undead is done primarily by "demons." They do it because they're stuck where they are and are lonely, they're colossal *****, and/or they feed off of suffering.
Generally, they (the Undead) they're not "inherently" evil and how much of their "mind" there is depends on the skill and desires of the animator. Especially skilled demons can recreate someone perfectly, except for all the rotting and filth. They then send them out into human society, feeding off the fear and loathing the the Uncanny Valley automatically trigger in everyone they meet. The people (generally) turn into torch wielding mobs and run them out of town where they get all emo and mopey, feeding the demon even more.
The esoteric trick has been learned by magicians with huge persecution complexes and obnoxious personality disorders, though they are much less skilled than the demons.

Nobody really uses undead for much, since:
1) Owning living slaves is just cheaper. Table scraps are free, making spells permanent is quite costly.
2) The world just fought off a demonic invasion.
3) The diseases having zombies walking around would spread.
4) The Uncanny Valley.

Nethermancers are tolerated, though not necessarily embraced, by society since they're really useful in protecting people during the invasion. They'd be better accepted if they'd stop being a bunch of mopey, emo bitches who intentionally scare people because they can, then laugh at how stupid they are.

Pokonic
2011-12-27, 10:06 PM
Mostly type three, but the a general idea in worlds I make is that magic of all kinds have there extremes. The idea that a the local magi are dealing with outside sources is treated with as much concern with a outsider wishing to supply cheap "night labor". A person attempting to achive a mastery of trasmutation is treated with as much care as one who has a pack of ghouls roming around, and most would far prefer to deal with a Mummy or another sort more than a illisionist.

Necroticplague
2011-12-28, 12:51 AM
I think of necromancery as type 3. Unintelligent undead are computers, without orders, they merely stand their and rot. Creating intelligent undead is no more evil then reincarnating them, since the two are very comparable (you bring them back to life in a body different from their original). Being a wight/waight is annoying, because physics causes you to energy drain things you touch that are alive (you have less positive energy than negative energy, so your body tries to take in positive, but also expels it due to being harmful to your body), but you are no more inclined to start eating your neighbors than before (although you will prefer fresher food than before, because it has more energy in it). Ghosts are a special case:You don't need some grand purpose. You just have to really not want to die and get lucky (in mechanical terms, dc30 will save when you should die that you can skip). Thus, services that accommodate the incorporeal (and defenses against them) aren't to uncommon (since one in 20 people who want to make it due to sheer luck of rolling nat 20). The closest thing to inherently evil undead are some wraiths, who were ghost twisted by their desire for revenge. However, they usually do this peacefully, by helping the authorities find their murderer. It is actually viewed as a good things by some, since it gives people their second chance many wished they could, though finding living space to accommodate both the living and undead is an issue. Slavery is practically nonexistant because zombies are better than them in almost all way (and really, as long as the master is careful with his wording, their inability to understand figurative expressions is a relative non-issue). Some religious nutbags strongly oppose the undead, but that is akin to somebody thinking elctricity should be abolished in our society.

Knaight
2011-12-28, 01:21 AM
I usually don't use necromancy at all. However, in the setting it features heavily in it is an evil action - though the intelligent undead may be good. In the one other game I play which features undead, they aren't really created, but just are.

DoctorGlock
2011-12-28, 01:27 AM
You seem to have missed the part where "evil because they cause harm" includes the same "just because" aspect to it: why is causing harm evil? Either evil is merely a social term to describe what we find deplorable, or there is some form of objective morality. There is no possible in-between. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The problem with saying that "morality derives from concrete provable reasons" or similar is that you must have an axiom with which to analyze the specific concepts and acts. And what axiom you choose is still an axiom, there is no actual reason behind it; it's an axiom! My point is that there is no real reason for you to have one axiom over another unless you believe in an objective morality or you think social determination is valid for choosing an axiom. If you believe in an objective morality, you must realize that it is certainly possible that someone else believes in an objective morality as well that contains different axioms than what you adhere to, and at that point arguing over whether theirs is somehow inferior to yours is not that different from arguing about religion. If you think that social determination is valid, why do you posit that a different setting with different social standards is somehow inferior for having different axioms than yours? They could act the same way about yours, if they exist, and if they are fictional, why are you so judgmental about it?

TLDR: I disagree that "causes harm is the basis for determining the morality of a behavior" is a valid axiom.

Then give a bloody reason for your definition of evil being objective! Objective truths can be observed an analyzed, a statement with no basis is not objective. Evil because I said so is not objective. Did I say evil was a contrived societal device? No I use the harm principle because that is objective-there are observable negative effects. "Because I said so" is subjective. I can say "The color green is evil because I said so which is objective truth" and bring no proof or argument and my statement would be no more than so much garbage, much like yours. What is objective truth? I exists, this behavior causes harm, fire is hot- all things that can be observed. The subject matter in question is fictional and thus not observable, the only basis for objectivity is a setting by setting basis where we can examine the effects or "word of god" saying evil (often with as little justification as you bring). However the general concept, ie a corpse does not move to a corpse now moves has caused no harm nor done anything that is observably evil. So, how then is necromancy objectively evil, beyond a self imposed fiat?

Knaight
2011-12-28, 02:01 AM
This is only true of modern western moral codes.
I'd recommend looking into Mohism if you actually believe this. Then there are the religious codes on top of that, which I'd go into if not for the boards.

Cerlis
2011-12-28, 03:11 AM
Third option, mostly. Necromancy is fueled by negative energies, which are neutral alignment-wise. Undeads are mindless and never commit evil acts unless instructed to do so (unless you count defending your creator/yourself evil).
Some necromancy spells are good, some are neutral and some are evil. Undeads themselves are neutral, as are most other spells.
We tend to slap on [evil] descriptors on usage rather than the spells themselves. If you Energy Drain a child it's almost certainly evil, but then again so is Fireball - both would get the [evil] descriptor (making some casters unable to cast it without falling - which is intended).

Some IC arguments can be had, though. A Cleric of Kelemvor might see animation as evil/wrong, a Druid might see it as unnatural, etc. It all depends on the (N)PC's' view on morals.

question. By Evil descriptor do you mean that its an evil act or that the spell itself, cast with evil intent, is evil?

I think you meant the former, but it would be intriguing if it was the latter.


------

As to fiery diamond's discussion.

He is saying that harm is arbitrary because you are just deciding "harm is bad"

The only feasible reason that harm is bad is that it destroys life or existance. And if you dont think that destroying either of those is bad then harm is not bad. We value exsisting, life, and having rights. So we decide harm is bad. its subjective.

And hes saying that you cant say this form of Subjectivity is right, while saying another subjective is wrong. Or something to that effect.

As to the second person replying (i should have quoted)

His point is not saying "thats not a good enough objective reason". He probably has no objective form of good or evil to give you. Thats not his point. What he is pointing out is a double standard.

In other words if you say "Its evil because it harms stuff and harming stuff is bad , just because" then you cant dis or look down upon "its evil just because", because they are both arbitrary decisions. Decisions made off our natural instincts of survival and emotional attatchments so JUSTIFIABLE arbitrary rules....but arbitrary none the less.


-------------

P.S. my point is not to preach. my point is to point out that i believe yall are missing his point. No point in having a pointed arguement over the wrong point.

Shadowleaf
2011-12-28, 04:34 AM
question. By Evil descriptor do you mean that its an evil act or that the spell itself, cast with evil intent, is evil?

I think you meant the former, but it would be intriguing if it was the latter.
Both, I guess. A Fireball used to kill a child is both an evil act and an [evil] spell. If the child happens to somehow be immune to spells with the [evil] descriptor, the Fireball would have no offect on him/her.


There are some IC justifications to the spells turning evil, but mostly it's because otherwise no spells would have the [evil] descriptor. In other systems where alignment isn't an issue, magic is simply a tool like another other, and has as much moral concentrated around it as a hammer.

Anecronwashere
2011-12-28, 04:37 AM
Of course we value Life.

The question here is, What makes Necromancy Evil using the social norms and is that social norm going to apply with most campaign settings.

Someone has used the Social Norm of Harm.
Is Binding a Soul Harmful to it? If no then Necromancy is not Evil using the Norm of Harm. If yes then Necromancy is Evil (depending on the severity of the Harm though)

Social Norm of Free Will: Easily answered in 2 questions
1. Do the Mindless Undead have Souls and thus rights?
2. If so can they exercise those rights when free of any influence in a way that is not inherently destructive to all living and unliving beings?

Can anyone come up with any other Social Norms to claim Necromancy is Evil or Not-Evil?

MukkTB
2011-12-28, 05:29 AM
#2 Necromancy uses negative energy. Negative energy is dangerous and evil to some degree. For the most part there are no game mechanics that associate negative energy with evil. Using it doesn't force you to kill people or commit acts of evil. It does generally stop you from selecting a good alignment. I would assume that for that reason its difficult to do truly altruistic things with negative energy. So kind of Dark Side Light. Of course wizards don't have to deal with any alignment restrictions.

As for the morality of it. Stealing someones soul is kidnapping and enslavement. That's really bad. But if you don't mess with the soul all you're doing is upsetting social norms. Social norms are subjective. Breaking a social norm isn't automatically evil. And that's before you get wired societies that like to use the dead for labor. At worst you're committing theft and causing emotional harm.

I don't know what goes on with the soul. But there is one other thing. An undead that isn't properly directed is a big danger to any living people around. An undead that creates more of itself from its victims is really bad news. Zombie apocalypse bad news unless adventurers stop it. So proper disposal of your undead is an important part of the moral equation.

Yora
2011-12-28, 05:55 AM
In my homebrew setting, necromancy generally isn't that big a deal. The two nasty kinds of magic are conjuration and blood magic (which includes most necromancy spells not related to undead).
Undead are really not that different from spirits, just that their bodies are not made from the elements or plants, but from humanoid or animal corpses. Zombies, skeletons, ghouls, and wights are ugly, but in most regards not that different from other bloothirsty spirits.

Summoning or calling outsiders (which all lack alignment types) is where the big dangers lie. They are difficult to control and when set lose, most will cause lots of damage.

Manipulating bodies and destroying enemies from the inside and stealing their life energy is the domain of blood magic. It's ugly and messy, and so most spellcasters avoid it and blood mages are widely hated, but it's not really unnatural or affecting the world in ways different from a fireball or dominate monster spell.

Cerlis
2011-12-28, 06:14 AM
Both, I guess. A Fireball used to kill a child is both an evil act and an [evil] spell. If the child happens to somehow be immune to spells with the [evil] descriptor, the Fireball would have no offect on him/her.


There are some IC justifications to the spells turning evil, but mostly it's because otherwise no spells would have the [evil] descriptor. In other systems where alignment isn't an issue, magic is simply a tool like another other, and has as much moral concentrated around it as a hammer.


Nice,makes me think of a Deathnote-ish plotline where there is utopia where a great enchantment is on the city that makes everyone immune to evil spells (and thus any spell made with the intent to kill). And someone uses others ignorance about magic in order for someone to accidentally kill someone with no intent on harming them (such as scrying their brain, not realizing they could fry it)

Might not be possible in your rules (since we havent gone in depth about it) but i just like the inspiration.

Vknight
2011-12-28, 08:41 AM
In my homebrew setting, necromancy generally isn't that big a deal. The two nasty kinds of magic are conjuration and blood magic (which includes most necromancy spells not related to undead).
Undead are really not that different from spirits, just that their bodies are not made from the elements or plants, but from humanoid or animal corpses. Zombies, skeletons, ghouls, and wights are ugly, but in most regards not that different from other bloothirsty spirits.

Summoning or calling outsiders (which all lack alignment types) is where the big dangers lie. They are difficult to control and when set lose, most will cause lots of damage.

Manipulating bodies and destroying enemies from the inside and stealing their life energy is the domain of blood magic. It's ugly and messy, and so most spellcasters avoid it and blood mages are widely hated, but it's not really unnatural or affecting the world in ways different from a fireball or dominate monster spell.

Yora I would love to play with you because of some of the stories and ideas like this

bloodtide
2011-12-28, 02:20 PM
Of course we value Life.

The question here is, What makes Necromancy Evil using the social norms and is that social norm going to apply with most campaign settings.

Someone has used the Social Norm of Harm.
Is Binding a Soul Harmful to it? If no then Necromancy is not Evil using the Norm of Harm. If yes then Necromancy is Evil (depending on the severity of the Harm though)

Social Norm of Free Will: Easily answered in 2 questions
1. Do the Mindless Undead have Souls and thus rights?
2. If so can they exercise those rights when free of any influence in a way that is not inherently destructive to all living and unliving beings?

Can anyone come up with any other Social Norms to claim Necromancy is Evil or Not-Evil?

I don't see Necromacy as being evil by social norms, as that is more of a case by case basis. I see (some) necromancy as cosmic evil because it effects and harms souls, life forces and such. It is simply pure evil to destroy a soul or destroy someone with [Death] magic. In any setting where the soul of a dead person 'goes somewhere for some reason', then it's [Evil] to destroy that soul forever.

Animating undead is a gray area. To force a person to become undead is Evil, but just creating undead is not. The value of a corpse depends on the Social Norms, some societies don't care about dead bodies. And while some societies will be fine with undead labor, no society will tolerate something like 'destroying a person soul forever to make a magic item'.

havocfett
2011-12-28, 06:10 PM
Number 3, basically. Necromancy isn't good, or evil, necromancy just is. In my campaigns, no Undead is made with the soul of its former inhabitant (Well, there was one where Necromancy was ingerently good and being bound to a zombie was a pleasant experience compared to all of the possible afterlives) in mines, so you are not harming the soul to make your horde of zombies. Creating sentient undead is akin to creating AI, they're independent sentient beings and they will act like it, no matter what your preconceptions of them were.
<br>

FatJose
2011-12-28, 06:45 PM
All the above depending on the cultures of the setting. Most of the humanish races are in 1 or 2. Biggest change is that all Rez spells count as Necromancy and are actually even more controversial, with some mages claiming the divine healing and necromantic powers are just two ends of the same hidden school of magic. This makes things complicated when someone's character takes a dirt nap. Hiding the body so that the people won't know the PC ever died to begin with, alibis, finding someone who can and will do it on top of payment.

Pokonic
2011-12-29, 12:32 AM
On Rezing: Its seen as less bringing back someone to life as ripping a soul from out of the afterlife into the living world. Most try to go back to that incorpral state. Hence, most end up as ghosts when they die again.

Yora
2011-12-29, 06:43 AM
Yora I would love to play with you because of some of the stories and ideas like this
There's a link in my signature. :smallamused:

hushblade
2011-12-29, 07:42 AM
People saying it binds the original soul to the corpse: Is this supported by anything, or is it simply something you add to your settings?

hamishspence
2011-12-29, 08:10 AM
Closest thing to rules support- is that while the undead is present- the person cannot be ressurrected. Even if the corpse was animated as a skeleton or zombie years after they died.

Acanous
2011-12-29, 08:34 AM
Assuming that creating zombies causes no harm, doesn't enslave the soul, then why want the necromancer dead? Modern people benefit from dissecting corpses, though for a loved one to see the body of a loved one dissected would be very distressing. Are medical students objectively evil for desecrating bodies? Not that necromancy shouldn't necessarily be evil, but I think that calling I evil needs some kind of justification.

Oh yes. Medical students are very evil, especially by the DnD alignment system.

Let's see here:

Medical professionals make very good money. Traditionally, Doctor, Lawyer, and Entrepreneur make the most money. The last is the most risky, the first is the least.

Greed wise, medical professionals make the most money with the least risk, something that would entice L/E people into the field. This alone does not MAKE them evil, it's merely establishing motive. So let's look at what they cause;

Medical studies have demonstratably:
Desicrated the dead, caused pain, loss of sleep, and other things that could be viewed as torture (Usually with a small sum for the subject), horrible birth defects, weakened our resistance to infection, strengthened certain diseases.(Usually while helping a small percentage of the populace, true, but this is for profit. Neutral at best unless done Pro Bono, with long-lasting evil side effects.)

Further, from a darwinistic standpoint, medical science is allowing people with genetic defects or superdiseases to procreate and pass them on to the rest of society, thereby causing harm to *the entire human race*.

So, we have a motive for Evil people to work as medical professionals, and Evil results demonstrated by the field. On a case-by-case basis, we may have good or neutral people who are medical students, but I'm sure if there was a monster manual, their entry would read "Usually Lawful Evil".

hamishspence
2011-12-29, 08:43 AM
Isn't "First, cause no harm" a big part of the medical credo, that might mitigate against that perspective?

"Risking yourself for others" is traditionally a good act- and by working at "ground zero" during any disease outbreak- that's what medical professionals do.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-12-29, 09:46 AM
It varies by setting, but my personal preference is option three. That doesn't stop some people from having biases against it, but the same also applies to Enchantment and Evocation, for example. There will always be people opposing raising the dead and messing with life forces, just as there are anti-mind control groups and organisations against the use of purely destructive spells. The non-magic-using public usually has a standard reaction to any kind of magic, with specific schools being singled out only with specific reasons for that (cultural or religious influences, or local legends and folktales). Magic users tend to understand that magic is magic, regardless of what purpose it is used for, and oppose schools or spells by personal preference. That doesn't mean they sit down and accept uses of magic that they find disturbing or wrong, anymore than the same could happen through mundane means.

Biases against schools that could pop up in my games (using D&D schools of magic, but could be translated fairly easily):Abjuration: Makes people reliant on magic for protection, rather than just being careful in the first place. Among magic users it gets a bad reputation for being annoying, and a crutch - it allows a user to wear down their opponent with constant counterspells and wards and chipping away slowly with their own spells, and may therefore be considered dishonourable or cowardly.

Conjuration: Much the same as Abjuration, with less of the protection focus. It can also be seen as haughty or just narcissistic to bind a creature to your will, and indeed the school does attract those who feel they deserve to be served.

Divination: The magic school for the paranoid, the voyueristic, the cowardly and the puppetmaster. Often associated with one or more unpleasant character traits, and the school's practitioners often act the part perfectly.

Enchantment: Take the Conjurer's narcissism and turn it up to elevent, then add a twist of the Diviner's poor social image. Often reviled in places where such magic is taboo or uncommon, but specific Enchanters are surprisingly well-liked for some reason.

Evocation: Considered destructive, simple and generally vulgar. This is slightly unfair, since Evokers of all people are likely to be capable of almost-perfect mental calculations on areas and damage potentials, but the stereotype of the wizard too stupid to learn magic other than explosions remains. One of the more likely to be disliked by common non-magic-users, since its effects are so obvious and destructive.

Illusion: Cowardly, childish or sadistic, pick any two. The Illusionist relies on tricks and exploitation of weaknesses, not to mention making their opponent look like a fool. May be looked down on by other magicians because of the existence of True Seeing, regardless of how expensive said spell is to keep up.

Necromancy: This thread provides plenty of examples. I tend to put healing spells here, so it can be seen as a crutch in the same manner as Abjuration. Has some elements of Conjuration and Enchantment with the minionmancer aspect. Another likely candidate for public opposition, whether they resent the Necromancer quietly for offering to buy the family corpses for more than the cost of their house or openly because you just saw your granny beat the door down, despite having been dead for twenty years.

Transmutation: Mad scientist vibes out the wazoo with the more flashy spells in the school - inspiring appropriate fear and disgust amongst commoners if they go this way. Otherwise fairly well-liked. Might be seen as a crutch, but Transmutation is more likely to add new capabilities entirely than other spell schools with this stigma - and the others that add things like flight tend to do it through outside means, which comes with its own set of prejudices.

horseboy
2011-12-29, 01:52 PM
People saying it binds the original soul to the corpse: Is this supported by anything, or is it simply something you add to your settings?

In my system yes. There's an entire underground "kingdom" of free willed Undead that remember what it's like to be alive. They basically live apart from the rest of the world, because well, yeah. The queen seeks to be able to return to life, this time as a human. Too bad the system doesn't have reincarnate.

Masaioh
2011-12-29, 02:15 PM
In my setting, animating undead would be type 1 because it involves forcibly binding a soul to its body in order to animate it, which causes the soul incredible agony. Ergo, it would be evil to raise undead even if you command them to save children from a burning orphanage.

killem2
2011-12-29, 02:38 PM
One could say, that necromancer just has an unhealthy affinity with the dead and spiritual world, but doesn't exactly feel empowered to embrace it for personal gain.

Now, I could see some uncomfortable scenes if you were a necro mancer, regardless the intentions, next to an L/G cleric haha.

SowZ
2011-12-29, 04:42 PM
In my setting, animating undead would be type 1 because it involves forcibly binding a soul to its body in order to animate it, which causes the soul incredible agony. Ergo, it would be evil to raise undead even if you command them to save children from a burning orphanage.

In such a case, if the person was willing to go through that incredible agony for a good cause I would say it isn't evil.

Leon
2011-12-29, 08:50 PM
Number Two is what i see it as but all three are used in most games depending on who/what has the opinion.

Lord Raziere
2011-12-30, 03:12 AM
Well I prefer to have necromancers who are True Necromancers and aren't evil and use their powers to help deal with ghosts and the spirit world.

Then there are the Corrupt Necromancers who twisted necromancy away from its intended purpose and bends it towards their own ends.

No magic is inherently unnatural or evil, but it can be twisted to become so towards such ends.

Captain Six
2011-12-30, 09:27 PM
The magic of my setting is divided into two styles, Ancestor Magic or Animist Magic. All necromancy falls under the blanket of Ancestor Magic which, as one would expect, enlists the power of the ancestors (of the family the caster serves) to perform magic. The problem with necromancy is that the line between enlisting and enslaving the ancestors is very, very blurry. Some families who utilize necromancy as a weapon live knowing that when they die and join the ancestors their body and soul will be used the same way and have no problem with it. Some members of that sort of family might resent it. Some families might ban certain spells altogether.

So the morality of necromancy is treated more like an issue of respect for the dead mixed with the ethics of conscripted solders than an 'evilness' inherent in the magic itself. At best necromancers are treated like one would treat a mortician. A legitimate and accepted career that benefits society as a whole, but no one wants to hear you talk about your workday.

Adindra
2011-12-31, 06:17 AM
I usually run necromancy as a means to an end (it was always my favorite brand of magic so im slightly biased). It all depends on how you use it, zombies and skeletons must be given basic orders when raised or they remain motionless.

In my previous game i actually had a town full of necromancers and the various types of undead that was set out in the desert specifically to keep away from the living (other than the pcs who visited them and the occasional radical group who tried to destroy them). Unfortunately undead have shifted to a more evil roll thanks to the pcs previous actions in my last game (i run a continuous world).A tyrannical leader gained control and now they are the driving force of evil in the world.

But in the end i like to run them as a grey area, yes they can and are used for evil but they dont have to be only used for evil.

Zale
2011-12-31, 07:35 PM
I have to ask, why does everyone focus on the "Zombie making" Aspect of Necromancy?

There's also the "Bugging Ghosts for Info" part and the "Sucking Your Soul Out" part and of course the "Blowing Up Undead Things" part.

Some Necromanctic spells would be lovely. Gentle Repose and Clone at least. Outside of DnD, plenty of people would want to be able to talk to their deceased relatives, even if only for a little while.

And if you're being attacked by undead things, who better to deal with it than someone who knows Necromancy?


Sorry If anything I say is grammatically incorrect. Sleep deprivation has turned my brain into pudding. Tired... :smallsigh:

Wyntonian
2012-01-01, 03:13 AM
Eh, in my world it's like anything else. Bad necros drag spirits from beyond the Veil to animate a corpse to do something bad. Good ones request the aid of long-dead heroes, or offer souls suffering from regret a chance at redemption. Neutral ones trade experience in the real world for work. Pretty simple.

Vitruviansquid
2012-01-01, 07:44 AM
In my setting where this is dealt with most explicitly, what we'd call "necromancy" isn't considered its own school of magic, but an offshoot of biomancy, the magic of directly manipulating life force (as opposed to Conjuration, the magic of creating something from nothing, or Enchantment, the magic of imparting will to objects.)

Biomancy as a whole is considered a tool, like in option 3 in that there are no religious sanctions against it and it's largely seen as a kind of tool. However, it's usually considered a very unethical kind of tool, like a nuclear or biological weapon. At best, its practice is considered highly ungentlemanly and unchivalrous.

Gensuru
2012-01-01, 07:35 PM
I think the problem is really that most people instantly think of zombies when they hear Necromancy. And frankly that's kinda like thinking of fireballs when hearing evocation or mind control when you hear Enchantment. Technically correct and even understandable but pathetically stereotypical and superficial. More to the point most people instantly assume HUMAN zombies. Is there some rule I am unfamiliar with or could one not just as easily create undead orcs? oô If so, my mistake.

As for Necromancy being unlawful...tell that to the Red Wizards of Thay. I hear they have (or had if you will) a Necromancer in their government. In Thay Necromancy is perfectly lawful and I would assume there is at least one public school for it. True, Thay also has lawful slavery but I am not talking about good or evil here...just lawful or unlawful.

If you have not guessed by now, I am a type 3. Necromancy is a tool just like any other school of magic. It just makes for good villains when you can throw hordes of generic mindless enemies at your heroes. Dehumanizes the drones they slaughter and even saves on some logistics such as food-supply, loyalty and superior numbers. If you had, say, and Enchanter as a villain your heroes would always face the moral dilemma of facing innocent people under magical control. Do you try to free them? Or do you kill them? Difficult. Much easier to give the heroes mindless corpses to knock down. Hence the reason goblins and orcs are generally written off as mere beasts that deserve extinction oô

Someone else already pointed out that Necromancy has a number of uses besides creating smelly zombies. The sheer number of types of undead beings should have clued people in on this as early as page 1 but ok -_-

Let's say we do have a race that is proven to be evil. Each and every member of that race is evil beyond any hope. How do you combat them? Recruit soldiers and face them? Throw fireballs at them? How about using the corpses of THAT race for your undead hordes? No need to desecrate your own dead, no need to send yound men and women to their gruesome deaths. Want to avoid the disgusting sight of rotting corpses as well as the stench? Create skelletons instead. Develope methods to better preserve the ugly blighters. Store your zombies in formaldehyd (sp?) when you don't need them.

Honestly the problem is that Necromancy has a bad reputation. And it has that for 1. the ugly results that Necromancers can produce easily (any two bit moron can create a zombie or two, it takes skill to create a comparably good looking vampire) and 2. It's convenience for villains in stories. A big bad that defiles the dead and has hordes of evil minions that we don't have to feel bad about killing no matter what? Hell yeah! No pesky moral questions to bother with, just bash the thing's head in. Easy to write, too. Why do the evil minions follow they nasty, rude maniac of a master? They are undead drones. Not living minions that can feel fear or get disloyal out of greed or something.

People might argue that having power over life and death can easily tempt any person. To give or take life at a whim MUST corrupt any soul. I counter that to have power over the very will of the people around you can be equaly tempting, to be able to summon up the very elements at a whim. To enslave sentient beings from other planes or to be able to see and thus mold the future...And if you follow that path of thinking all magic must be evil. And if you push it to it's logical conclusion ANY kind of power is evil thus either all must have swords...or none shall have them. It would be no challange at all to portray ANY school of magic (hm Abjuration maybe) as evil but I shall leave the details to your imagination for now. Can it be frustrating for an immortal to watch mortals repeat the same mistakes generation after generation? Probably, but thus far the gods have not killed every living thing either, have they?

By the way: wouldn't conjuration also be able to provide a path to immortality by turning the user into a devil or demon or something? They don't die of old age, do they?


Also...has anyone ever encountered an undead utopia? No more dying citizens, a workforce that never tires and never complains, A council of rulers that have centuries if not millenia of experience and patience to draw upon... Even with Golems you couldn't get that far. You'd get the unpaid workforce but that's about it. Conjuration? Hell is hell no matter what plane you drag it on.

Set
2012-01-01, 08:58 PM
I generally have necromancy be evil. Below is a description of how it works from one of my setting:

"Animating a creature as the undead doesn't just enslave the body, it enslaves the soul. The soul of the unfortunate victim is wrenched out of the afterlife and imprisoned in their rotting body."

The problem I have with this sort of notion is that the animate dead spell is now more powerful than the gods. Pelor, Asmodeus, etc. *cannot stop* a necromancer from tearing a soul of their greatest saint (or most heavily contracted deal-maker) out of their possession.

Further, in the D&D cosmology, souls can go on to become petitioners, angels, devils, *even gods,* which means that a necromancer capable of casting a 3rd or 4th level animate dead spell can destroy an outsider by digging up the corpse of who they were as a mortal and casting a spell, utterly destroying whatever outsider they've become (solar, pit fiend, *god of love,* whatever).

Even better, that animated dead is both mindless and evil, which means, if that soul is indeed trapped inside the corpse, it has now become mindless and evil, so that, even if the zombie is killed six seconds later, the soul of that 20th level Paladin or Monadic Deva or whatever has now been totally lobotomized, turned evil and will now be sent to some evil underworld to be turned into a larva or something.

Heaven, Elysium, etc. would be empty, echoing ghost-towns, as evil clerics of evil gods would wander around the world, casting animate dead on any ancient skeleton or dead body they find, tearing people out of the upper planes willy-nilly and consigning them to the lower planes, decreasing the power of the gods of good and increasing the power of the gods of evil.

It's a terrible can of worms to open. Speak with dead has specific flavor text making it impossible to actually *communicate* with those who have passed on.

Animate dead, per the text, creates disposable minions out of dead bodies. Giving it the power of Soul Bind (a *9th* level spell), but increasing the range from 'close' to 'extraplanar,' increasing the targets from 'one' to 'up to one / level,' and even making it able to break soul-contracts with fiends, to lobotomize and evil-ize angels, etc. seems a bit out of line.

Gavinfoxx
2012-01-01, 11:30 PM
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality

This is discussed there... there are repercussions to each choice...

Yes, I know, D&Dwiki, but this is part of Frank and K's tome, and D&DWiki happens to be a place where it happens to also be posted.

bloodtide
2012-01-02, 01:45 AM
The problem I have with this sort of notion is that the animate dead spell is now more powerful than the gods. Pelor, Asmodeus, etc. *cannot stop* a necromancer from tearing a soul of their greatest saint (or most heavily contracted deal-maker) out of their possession.

Further, in the D&D cosmology, souls can go on to become petitioners, angels, devils, *even gods,* which means that a necromancer capable of casting a 3rd or 4th level animate dead spell can destroy an outsider by digging up the corpse of who they were as a mortal and casting a spell, utterly destroying whatever outsider they've become (solar, pit fiend, *god of love,* whatever).


This is the reason why Undead are Evil. They break the natural order of things. Beings should be born, then live and then die and then move on to another plane. Undead break the chain. And even the evil folks don't like undead for this reason(as other evil folks can do it to them).

Shadowleaf
2012-01-02, 11:21 AM
This is the reason why Undead are Evil. They break the natural order of things. Beings should be born, then live and then die and then move on to another plane. Undead break the chain. And even the evil folks don't like undead for this reason(as other evil folks can do it to them).This is also why Resurrection is evil. :smallbiggrin:

Captain Six
2012-01-02, 11:42 AM
This is also why Resurrection is evil. :smallbiggrin:

In pre-3e D&D resurrection and healing spells were both necromancy as they are spells that alter the forces of life and death directly. Make of that what you will.

The setting I mentioned in my above post uses the GURPS system. In GURPS many upper end Healing spells have Necromancy prerequisites and high Necromancy spells had Healing prerequisites, making the two schools intertwined. I had planned on making necromancy straight up Bad with a capital B but because all the healers needed to learn it and the healing style of magic (Ancestor Magic) already had close relations with the dead I had to make it a bit more complicated than that. GURPS' lack of a karma detector makes this much easier I must admit.

Agrippa
2012-01-02, 04:01 PM
In pre-3e D&D resurrection and healing spells were both necromancy AS they are spells that alter the forces of life and death directly. Make of that what you will.

That necromancy is neither good nor evil, only its use or misuse is.

Gnoman
2012-01-04, 08:11 PM
In my settings, manipulating negative energy is inherently evil, as it is the domain of True God that seeks to enslave all worlds and exterminate all lesser gods, and all True Gods other than her own spawn. (Literally, all negative energy in the universe is residue from the first time she was killed.)

Set
2012-01-04, 09:10 PM
This is the reason why Undead are Evil. They break the natural order of things.

So they're 'evil' because they're chaotic and violate natural law?

That makes sense. I guess.

Then again, negative energy is as much a natural part of a fantasy universe as positive energy, which means that undead, given existence through negative energy, are only exactly as 'unnatural' as living creatures, whose existences are sustained by positive energy, which is yet another unnatural energy form from another dimension entirely (and, like negative energy, neither evil, good, malevolent or benign)...

Indeed, positive energy sustained life-forms (unlike skeletons and liches, which can get by for centuries without taking anything from the environment), appear to be *less* natural to the material plane than negative energy empowered creatures, as living creatures have to feed to survive, maintaining a constant cycle of killing and butchering and devouring other living creatures to fuel their fragile and killing/devouring-dependent life-cycles, before their mortal bodies finally break down and release their unnatural immortal spirits back into the outer planes, where they are in fact, actually natives, and no longer trapped in an unsustainable otherplanar existence that requires constant death and destruction to keep ahead of entropy, the natural resistance of the materiial plane to these unnatural extraplanar intruders.

For a game setting in which 'negative energy is unnatural/evil,' it's interesting that the material plane is far more resistant to and hostile to positive energy-empowered living creatures, than to negative energy-animated undead...

HunterOfJello
2012-01-05, 07:35 AM
4. Necromancy is simply a school of magic that utilizes negative energy and manipulates life forces in an unnatural manner. Wizards understand this and generally don't make a big deal about necromancy spells unless they are used to create undead or start plagues. Ordinary folk don't understand the concept and think all necromancy is evil. It's a rare wizard who refuses to use necromancy spells while not having it as a banned school. Vampiric Touch, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Command Undead are still likely to be popular spells among wizards, they just have to be secretive when they use them.

Cirrylius
2012-01-05, 12:53 PM
The problem I have with this sort of notion is that the animate dead spell is now more powerful than the gods. Pelor, Asmodeus, etc. *cannot stop* a necromancer from tearing a soul of their greatest saint (or most heavily contracted deal-maker) out of their possession.

Further, in the D&D cosmology, souls can go on to become petitioners, angels, devils, *even gods,* which means that a necromancer capable of casting a 3rd or 4th level animate dead spell can destroy an outsider by digging up the corpse of who they were as a mortal and casting a spell, utterly destroying whatever outsider they've become (solar, pit fiend, *god of love,* whatever).

Even better, that animated dead is both mindless and evil, which means, if that soul is indeed trapped inside the corpse, it has now become mindless and evil, so that, even if the zombie is killed six seconds later, the soul of that 20th level Paladin or Monadic Deva or whatever has now been totally lobotomized, turned evil and will now be sent to some evil underworld to be turned into a larva or something.

Heaven, Elysium, etc. would be empty, echoing ghost-towns, as evil clerics of evil gods would wander around the world, casting animate dead on any ancient skeleton or dead body they find, tearing people out of the upper planes willy-nilly and consigning them to the lower planes, decreasing the power of the gods of good and increasing the power of the gods of evil.

It's a terrible can of worms to open. Speak with dead has specific flavor text making it impossible to actually *communicate* with those who have passed on.

Animate dead, per the text, creates disposable minions out of dead bodies. Giving it the power of Soul Bind (a *9th* level spell), but increasing the range from 'close' to 'extraplanar,' increasing the targets from 'one' to 'up to one / level,' and even making it able to break soul-contracts with fiends, to lobotomize and evil-ize angels, etc. seems a bit out of line.
You're reading too much into this. No DM would allow the setting to ricochet out of control like you're suggesting over a bit of fluff text.

TheCountAlucard
2012-01-05, 01:11 PM
How is necromancy handled in my games?

Depends on the game, really. :smalltongue:

Let's take Exalted, for instance. There, necromancy is a specific subset of knowledge, a dark mirror of sorcery that was ripped from the tombs of the Neverborn when the Black Nadir Concordat used their powerful magics to coerce the spectral Primordials. From there, it was shared with the Solar Deliberative, though its greatest advancements ocurred after the Usurpation, following the rise of the Deathlords.

Where sorcery allows for a great many effects, necromancy has a much narrower focus, primarily that of death, reanimation, and manipulating ghosts and the Underworld. Even the Solar Deliberative, though, was unsure as to whether this meant it was a malign force, or merely a dangerous one.

zlefin
2012-01-05, 04:38 PM
Mostly I lean towards type 3,
though it's certainly feasible to change the fluff of the spells to justify any of the settings.

Certainly the source material leaves a lot of open questions and inconsistencies in regards to necromancy. As the article mentioned a few posts ago covers.

Why can't you just use animate object type spells and golem creation stuff with a corpse? it's inanimate after all.
Why can't you animate a body with positive energy? Given the powers of positive energy, animating one with it should work just fine. Not trying to resurrect it or anything; just animating it like a zombie but with positive energy.

If negative energy can support the existence of a sentient being, like the smart undead; why aren't there naturally occurring negative energy beings on the material plane? As most life seems to be positive oriented, but negative is capable of surviving, it should be more commonplace.
Why can't you make a self-replicating negative energy being? (one that doens't use corpses of others for its duplication).

Creating a consistent cosmology would be a lot of work (and mean modding a lot of monsters and spells)

it's easier to just handwave it all, say it works mostly like in the books; and tweak evilness of necromancy to suit taste.

Strormer
2012-01-06, 12:39 AM
I suppose I mostly fall into number 2, as I treat necromancy as a tool. Sorta the whole, guns don't kill people except that after you do kill someone you can use their body to kill a bunch more people.

I will instead offer my personal favorite experience with necromancy as an enjoyable anecdote.

I created a Human LN Cleric of WeeJas in a 3.5 campaign. I caught a lot of flack for summoning undead creatures, using the Summon Undead spells mostly, to fight the villains of the game, but in the end my character could never be accused of evil, especially in that game.
Faust (my Cleric) become a count in the game and set up a rather fun selection of policies in his lands. He enjoyed unprecedented peace and his people had some of the highest standards of living in the realm, all because he set up schools for practicing medicine and pushed education to the front of all issues. He also kept military power balance without any trouble because of one simple law, all citizens were required to serve in the county standing military for a term not to exceed one hundred years which would commence no more than one week after the citizen was pronounced deceased. The citizenry were used to their undead loved ones adorned with county emblazoned shields and armor patrolling the lands and no one caused a great deal of trouble about it, save of course for the occasional Pelorian, because the county was very lax about immigration. If you wanted to leave the county because you didn't want to be around the undead, that's your business, if you don't want to leave, then you have no more right to complain than someone living in America has the right to complain about democracy. It all worked perfectly until the campaign came to the event where all the PCs were supposed to lose their lands, though I still contest that the way I lost my lands was the least plausible. My people promptly entered a dark age and the grand center of learning died with my rule. Go figure.
So yes, that's how I see necromancy. Mind you, one of my favorite villains was a completely villainous necromancer who loved using the bodies of his opponents' families as soldiers in order to break their spirits in battle. Grade A villain stuff there... :smallsmile:

Knaight
2012-01-06, 09:58 AM
The problem I have with this sort of notion is that the animate dead spell is now more powerful than the gods. Pelor, Asmodeus, etc. *cannot stop* a necromancer from tearing a soul of their greatest saint (or most heavily contracted deal-maker) out of their possession.
A few things.
1) That isn't necessarily a problem. It gives the gods a weakness, and provides a venue for attack against them, however they do have indirect methods to prevent this. If a necromancer is causing trouble, they can have a minion of some sort interfere in a very violent and final fashion.
2) We don't actually know whether or not there are gods, or is an afterlife. It was never revealed that we were looking at a specific flavor of D&D, so this might not be an issue at all. We might have gods that don't possess the souls of the dead and as such are irrelevant. We might have souls and an afterlife, or maybe several afterlives, but no gods.


Further, in the D&D cosmology, souls can go on to become petitioners, angels, devils, *even gods,* which means that a necromancer capable of casting a 3rd or 4th level animate dead spell can destroy an outsider by digging up the corpse of who they were as a mortal and casting a spell, utterly destroying whatever outsider they've become (solar, pit fiend, *god of love,* whatever).
Either that or animate dead doesn't work on those creatures. For all we know, the bodies may go away, be reformed, and join the soul once it becomes something else. Plus, this still assumes D&D, as does the rest of the post.


Even better, that animated dead is both mindless and evil, which means, if that soul is indeed trapped inside the corpse, it has now become mindless and evil, so that, even if the zombie is killed six seconds later, the soul of that 20th level Paladin or Monadic Deva or whatever has now been totally lobotomized, turned evil and will now be sent to some evil underworld to be turned into a larva or something.
Either that or the soul isn't actually controlling the animated dead, but is simply a component of it.


Heaven, Elysium, etc. would be empty, echoing ghost-towns, as evil clerics of evil gods would wander around the world, casting animate dead on any ancient skeleton or dead body they find, tearing people out of the upper planes willy-nilly and consigning them to the lower planes, decreasing the power of the gods of good and increasing the power of the gods of evil.
This fits into the whole "agents of the divine can deal with this sort of stuff" paradigm. Also, under most conditions bodies, skeletons included, will decompose fully. As such, most of the souls in the upper planes are effectively immune to this.


It's a terrible can of worms to open. Speak with dead has specific flavor text making it impossible to actually *communicate* with those who have passed on.
This is still predicated on the assumption that the soul is somehow forever altered.


Animate dead, per the text, creates disposable minions out of dead bodies. Giving it the power of Soul Bind (a *9th* level spell), but increasing the range from 'close' to 'extraplanar,' increasing the targets from 'one' to 'up to one / level,' and even making it able to break soul-contracts with fiends, to lobotomize and evil-ize angels, etc. seems a bit out of line.
Either that or it doesn't do much of what has been said. Moreover, for some settings, having it do all that is just fine.

Libertad
2012-01-08, 04:37 PM
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality

This is discussed there... there are repercussions to each choice...

Yes, I know, D&Dwiki, but this is part of Frank and K's tome, and D&DWiki happens to be a place where it happens to also be posted.

I usually use suggestions in the Tome of Necromancy when I DM. I usually go for "playing with fire," given that it's a lot less work (ghosts can be of any alignment, negative energy plane is mildly neutral-aligned, etc.)

In my Ravenloft games, I make negative energy inherently evil. Even vampires which try to struggle against their taint inevitably succumb to fell urgings and cravings that warp their mind. I think that this adds to the horror: you know that there's a person inside there somewhere.

Kenneth
2012-01-09, 02:50 AM
I am going to go off on alimb here and actually answer teh OP question in teh correct context.


as he specified an exact definition of necromancy and just about every other single poster in here has anwred necromancy in gnerelal, id thought id toos him/her a bone nad do a faovr and actually answer the quetsion the was posed..

Option 1) Necromancy is inherently evil, all undead, mindless or not are invariably evil.(ghosts are a possible exception) And anyone utilizing necromancy is an evil individual.

again I am using teh definiotn of necromancy the OP posted which is
defined as the creation and manipulation of the undead.

messing with souls and manipulating them to animate teh long dead is in no way shape or form ever considered an good act in any campaign ive ever played in, let alone my own.

Gnoman
2012-01-09, 06:14 PM
T-H-E

It is not difficult, and keeps you from looking like an idiot.

Kenneth
2012-01-09, 07:06 PM
Answering the Original Poster's question as he or she posed it

Something else that is not difficult to do. and keeps you from looking like somebody who loves to answer questions that were not even asked.

Hint: I'm too nice to say the exact word :)

Knaight
2012-01-09, 07:32 PM
T-H-E

It is not difficult, and keeps you from looking like an idiot.


I am going to go off on alimb here and actually answer teh OP question in teh correct context.


as he specified an exact definition of necromancy and just about every other single poster in here has anwred necromancy in gnerelal, id thought id toos him/her a bone nad do a faovr and actually answer the quetsion the was posed..

...

again I am using teh definiotn of necromancy the OP posted which is

messing with souls and manipulating them to animate teh long dead is in no way shape or form ever considered an good act in any campaign ive ever played in, let alone my own.
The bold is mine.
When a post looks like that, picking out the misspelling of "the" in particular is pretty arbitrary. Moreover "like an idiot" is somewhat rude phrasing by the standards of the forum.

Sergeantbrother
2012-01-10, 04:08 AM
The problem I have with this sort of notion is that the animate dead spell is now more powerful than the gods. Pelor, Asmodeus, etc. *cannot stop* a necromancer from tearing a soul of their greatest saint (or most heavily contracted deal-maker) out of their possession.

Further, in the D&D cosmology, souls can go on to become petitioners, angels, devils, *even gods,* which means that a necromancer capable of casting a 3rd or 4th level animate dead spell can destroy an outsider by digging up the corpse of who they were as a mortal and casting a spell, utterly destroying whatever outsider they've become (solar, pit fiend, *god of love,* whatever).

Even better, that animated dead is both mindless and evil, which means, if that soul is indeed trapped inside the corpse, it has now become mindless and evil, so that, even if the zombie is killed six seconds later, the soul of that 20th level Paladin or Monadic Deva or whatever has now been totally lobotomized, turned evil and will now be sent to some evil underworld to be turned into a larva or something.

Heaven, Elysium, etc. would be empty, echoing ghost-towns, as evil clerics of evil gods would wander around the world, casting animate dead on any ancient skeleton or dead body they find, tearing people out of the upper planes willy-nilly and consigning them to the lower planes, decreasing the power of the gods of good and increasing the power of the gods of evil.

It's a terrible can of worms to open. Speak with dead has specific flavor text making it impossible to actually *communicate* with those who have passed on.

Animate dead, per the text, creates disposable minions out of dead bodies. Giving it the power of Soul Bind (a *9th* level spell), but increasing the range from 'close' to 'extraplanar,' increasing the targets from 'one' to 'up to one / level,' and even making it able to break soul-contracts with fiends, to lobotomize and evil-ize angels, etc. seems a bit out of line.

I don't stick to D&D cosmology that closely and I definitely don't let the opinion of gods become part of the game. I wanted necromancy to be evil and an abomination and for there to be a reason. I came up with a reason.