good aligned necromancer?

[SpamandEggs]

Hey all,

I'm making a necromancer-sorcerer with the infernal bloodline (pathfinder) but would really like to stay away from making him evil-aligned. Can anyone think of a solid moral justification a good person could use to explain raising corpses from the dead to do his bidding, and having the blood of fiends, at that.

[wiimanclassic]

Only brings back murderers, monsters, rapists, and other such horrible people who no one will care if they become undead to do good? Only using it people who agree after a speak with dead spell?

[Kane0]

With the blood of Devils? Bringing forth the dead with their consent.

Otherwise, practice "White" Necromancy. The AD&D book Complete Necromancer covers it very well, but it is essentially using the more benign side of necromancy as opposed to the clearly shady and evil parts.
Mind you as a necromancer 'The end justifies the means' may be a perfectly valid outlook on doing good in the world. You may not be afraid to get your hands dirty to keep others clean (which could possibly apply to the outlook of some Devils also).

[Cespenar]

Look at it this way: it's much, much better than throwing actual, living soldiers into fray to die. Which is what every other kingdom/army/leader does.

[Siosilvar]

There's the interpretation of necromancy that doesn't involve twisting the soul and/or powering the body with energies antithetical to the Material Plane itself. Go with that. Of course, the [Evil] descriptor on the spells works against you here, so you'll probably have to go with "the methods are worth the benefit they can provide", or, more succinctly, "the ends justify the means". This does depend on your DM, however. Some will take it as Good, others Neutral, and some as still Evil but not a villain.

"Blood of fiends" is probably the least of your problems, since fighting against your heritage is a classic. Every (okay, not every, but close enough to feel like it) half-monster or tiefling or poorly-done Drizzt clone or whatever fights the insidious power of their blood to do right in the world, some angstier than others about it.

[Loth17]

I would consult with your DM to have him remove the evil descriptor from necromancy spells. From there you can use the exuse that most adventurers tend to desecrate corpses more than most necromancers do.

[Manly Man]

You could focus more on the spells that are more with the management of undead, whether it's to destroy them or bolster them, rather than narrowing your focus to just raising them. As others have said, asking permission to use the bodies, or to use the bodies of rather villainous sorts would also do well and suit a necromancer who happens to be good. You could even emphasize your good intentions with your style of clothing, something like wearing lots of white that has black and gold trim, for example.

[Kitten Champion]

My first thought was of the protagonist of Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, who took all manner of ghostly apparitions and eldrich figures as a matter of course due to his unconventional upbringing among the dead. He even acquires some of their characteristics and magical affinities. Regardless, he is, if somewhat odd naturally, a perfectly respectable young man of integrity. The titular protagonist of Johnny and the Dead by Terry Pratchett has a similar outlook, death and the dead are not terrifying spectres but the inevitable reality of being mortal.

If you're raised with or are surrounded by the monstrous it becomes the mundane. A necromancer sorcerer wouldn't have sought out how to control life, it would simply be apparent that s/he could. S/he wouldn't fear death in the same way the muggles do, and would likely have a greatly differing perspective from a wizard who comes by necromancy by some personal obsession in their later life. The dead are your friends, not really different from the living but their pain is over, no reason not to ask them to help for the greater good. And really, is cursing with necromancy any worse than blowing people to pieces with evocation or controlling people's very minds with enchantments?

If anything using creatures which can't really come to harm to protect you and yours is far more morally justified than letting your friends take the brunt of assaults or summoning a living creature to do your dirty work.

[supermonkeyjoe]

How about only raising non-intelligent creatures as undead? Animals and giant vermin and such? Otherwise go the route of the dustmen from planescape, get people to sign a contract and pay them a small amount of money to allow you to raise them as undead when they die.

You could possibly only animate undead for a specific task and then destroy them when you're done, raising the bugbear you just killed to wander down the hallway to set off any traps doesn't seem any more evil than a barbarian throwing it down the hallway for the same purpose :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Of course, the [Evil] descriptor on the spells works against you here, so you'll probably have to go with "the methods are worth the benefit they can provide", or, more succinctly, "the ends justify the means". This does depend on your DM, however. Some will take it as Good, others Neutral, and some as still Evil but not a villain.

Casting an [Evil] spell is not a very evil act- it must be said. In Fiendish Codex 2 it's right at the bottom of the "corrupt acts" list.

Heroes of Horror suggests that, up to a point "ends justify means" can work for a Neutral character- including a Dread Necromancer.

[Learuis]

You could just make the people of your world not have a concept of "sacredness" of body - they could believe that the body is just a temporary holding place for the soul and once it's moved on, the body is not important. Most forms of necromancy don't mess with the soul - the body is more or less a material component. Using that body after a soul has departed from it would be similar to driving a used car.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Can anyone think of a solid moral justification a good person could use to explain raising corpses from the dead to do his bidding,

Sure.

All you're doing is using the body; their soul is unaffected, and you just get a tool.
You're punishing the wicked and forcing them to attone for their sins (animate evil people ).
Why stop using a mule just because it's dead?


It's homebrew, and 3.5, but I really like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) PrC, the Redeemer of Regrets. The concept being "I bring people back so they can complete their unfinished business in this world, and fight the good fight at the same time.


and having the blood of fiends, at that.

You can pick your nose, but you can't pick your family.

[MukkTB]

RAW makes good necromancy pretty hard to be good but fairly easy to be neutral. Raising dead is an inherently evil act. Supposedly it screws with the victim's soul. Touching negative energy in game pretty much bars you from the good alignments. Just declare yourself neutral (not c/n because this sets off red flags for DMs) and then do what you feel like. 'Yeah I use evil magic that corrupts anyone who comes in contact with it but I don't slaughter innocents or anything like that with it.' At best you can be a mild sort of anti-hero, fairly inoffensive to the good guys. Only religious zealots are really going to care about the evil's of necromancy if you use the zombies to safely rescue orphans from a burning building.

As for demonic heritage? It doesn't matter. A full demon is stuck with a specific alignment being an outsider. You're mostly human/elf/dwarf/whatever. Non outsiders have the free will to choose moral alignment.

There's probably no mechanical need for you to be good. You can roleplay however you want with any alignment. A while back I ran a c/e hexblade. He was a pretty typical adventurer, evil because he was a bit greedy and found himself killing a lot of sentients over the course of normal adventure. He didn't go out of his way to steal things or break contracts. He didn't slaughter innocents. He also wasn't very helpful when he wasn't getting paid. The people he killed were evil aligned or directly threatening the party. But on the other hand he didn't spend much effort negotiating or trying to avoid conflict. My point is the alignment didn't force him to go around eating babies and stabbing anyone with a good descriptor on their character sheet. Don't worry overmuch about alignment. Its a really ambiguous system.

[Tengu_temp]

The only good reason necromancy is evil in DND is because all undead-creating spells have the [evil] tag, which if I recall correctly is justified by the fact that creating undead brings more negative energy to the world or something like that. Remove that, and necromancy can be very good from an utilitarian perspective - you make free labour to help out people, and expendable soldiers that can be used for dangerous battles without remorse. Some people will not like the fact that you're defiling corpses, but defiling corpses is an evil act only when done for selfish reasons.

[Morithias]

The only good reason necromancy is evil in DND is because all undead-creating spells have the [evil] tag, which if I recall correctly is justified by the fact that creating undead brings more negative energy to the world or something like that. Remove that, and necromancy can be very good from an utilitarian perspective - you make free labour to help out people, and expendable soldiers that can be used for dangerous battles without remorse. Some people will not like the fact that you're defiling corpses, but defiling corpses is an evil act only when done for selfish reasons.

For some reason, I can't find a good equivalent spell in the BOED. There's no "animate Deathless" spell.

Ask your DM if you can invent one of those. That way you'll be bringing in good energy and therefore animating the dead will become a good act.

[Hylas]

(not c/n because this sets off red flags for DMs)

I agree and if I were DMing and someone went up to me and was all "I'm a CN necromancer with a fiendish heritage that uses undead for nice things!" I'd have more than one red flag up. But I have players that keep wanting to make characters that explode in sunlight.

However from a discussion standpoint CN probably is the proper alignment, if not CG. Chaotic fits because "the end justifies the means" is a very general description of a chaotic person, who cares little for societal values. A lawful person wouldn't defile a corpse to help an old lady cross the street, but a chaotic person might steal a car to help her out. Either Neutral or Good could work because he is doing this "for the greater good" and as long as his evil acts are limited to raising dead I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. However I'd still keep a close eye on him and ding him if he ever starts doing evil beyond that, after all he's walking a thin line between having a goal of good and deeds of evil.

[Water_Bear]

For some reason, I can't find a good equivalent spell in the BOED. There's no "animate Deathless" spell.

Ask your DM if you can invent one of those. That way you'll be bringing in good energy and therefore animating the dead will become a good act.

That's because there is no Deathless equivalent to Skeletons and Zombies.

There is a Create Deathless/Create Greater Deathless, but since only a handful of Deathless have been stated out and, unlike Undead, there are no buff spells made for them specifically.

[Giegue]

If you want deathless versions of skeletons and zombies, I made a homebrew base class a LONG time ago that can take an ability which allows it to cast animate dead as a [good] spell that raises deathless skeletons and zombies, which are basically identical to normal skeletons and zombies expect that their alignment is neutral good and they are healed by positive energy rather then negative energy. If your interested in it, feel free to shoot me a PM. However, be warned, the class is divine, not arcane, so it MAY not be exactly what your looking for.

/end plug

Anyway...if you want to be a good-aligned necromancer it is fully possible. How? Just don't focus on undead animation. Raising the dead, while the most iconic aspect of necromancy is not the only aspect. Debuff and curse-based necromancy is also a very fun thing to play with and it's best spells, such as enervation, lack the [evil] descriptor that stuff like Animate Dead has. If your going as a sorcerer, debuff necromancy will actually be BETTER then undead animating for you anyway, since most of the good undead animating stuff is divine-exclusive while the wiz/sorc list gets the better share of the debuff and curse necromancy spells. Necromancy is more then summoning undead, and playing a good necromancer allows you to play with the parts of Necromancy that are less explored.

[Roguenewb]

I've never liked the "bringing more negative energy into the world" argument. All the undead creating spells that grab the soul from the afterlife and start using it for your own ends: obviously evil.

I hate that making the corpse stand up and walk is evil, but cutting it up and assembling it into a body of a flesh golem is goody two-shoes.

/rant

Just tell your DM you hate the neg-eng argument, and go from there. Also, don't make Vamps and Mummies.

[graeylin]

Look at it this way: it's much, much better than throwing actual, living soldiers into fray to die. Which is what every other kingdom/army/leader does.

My thought too. It is morally better to sacrifice these dead creatures, these objects: they are no longer alive, their soul is gone, they are just useless bags of chemicals, so.. why not use them? Sure beats using living people, with lives and families and such. It is an untapped resource, a wasted market of power. It's practically criminal NOT to do so.

[Dragonborn]

It really depends on what explanation your campaign world uses for how undead work. Imo, the explanation that best fits the 3.5 mechanics is that animating one damages the victims soul and/or uses all or part of it as part of the animating force of the undead. That's ... pretty evil. If it's just negative energy, there's no real reason it has to be evil that I can see.

[Morithias]

It really depends on what explanation your campaign world uses for how undead work. Imo, the explanation that best fits the 3.5 mechanics is that animating one damages the victims soul and/or uses all or part of it as part of the animating force of the undead. That's ... pretty evil. If it's just negative energy, there's no real reason it has to be evil that I can see.

Yeah but then you get all kinds of plot holes like. "Say Bel was a lemure once, meaning he once was a human, I wonder if I could use an epic spell to find the corpse of the person he once was, animate the corpse, which by that logic should make Bel vanish so long as the zombie in intact. Bam, I just killed an archdevil."

Or if you're against the demons winning the blood war, doesn't the demon lord Orcus have a similar backstory? Yeah, destroy Orcus by animating his once corpse. Any DM who argues that is evil due to it using undead, deserves a book to the face for having no clue how morality works.

[Dragonborn]

Yeah but then you get all kinds of plot holes like. "Say Bel was a lemure once, meaning he once was a human, I wonder if I could use an epic spell to find the corpse of the person he once was, animate the corpse, which by that logic should make Bel vanish so long as the zombie in intact. Bam, I just killed an archdevil."

True, hadn't considered that. But if animating undead doesn't effect the creature's soul, you get plot holes with Resurrection and Reincarnation spells.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The utilitarian argument: The relative moral "good" and "evil" of an action is determined by how much pleasure the act causes, vs. how much harm. If you accept that the desecration of corpses and controlling of their souls causes undue suffering, then it is inherently harmful (and thus the [evil] descriptor fits); however, it is still possible to do an act that causes some level of harm to others, as long as the good that it creates is both quantitatively and qualitatively better. For instance, manipulating the dead to do menial labor and drag you around is definitely Evil, but if you are, say, using the undead to save lives and eliminate oppression and tyranny (if chaotic) or root out chaos and disorder (if lawful).

Basically: if doing a little evil causes a LOT of good, it's still good, right?

[Psyren]

Necrocarnate from Magic of Incarnum has a goody-goody version - the Vivicarnate, which raises zombies as "Reborn." This is fluffed as infusing the dead with the purest of unborn souls.

[AmberVael]

Have you read Guilded Age? (http://guildedage.net/)

The current page, actually, is a really good demonstration of the character I want to point out. Gravedust very clearly delves into what D&D would call necromancy, but the way he does it and uses it is never something I would call evil.


I've never thought necromancy has to be evil. It can certainly (and quite easily) be misused. But so can any number of things that D&D characters use and rely on daily. Can't the rogue be an assassin or thief, the fighter a murderer, and the beguiler a tyrant? But they don't have to be. In fact, there is very good reason to think every one of those skill sets can be used heroically.

A necromancer can be a hero too. They just have to do it right, like everyone else.

[Sutremaine]

True, hadn't considered that. But if animating undead doesn't effect the creature's soul, you get plot holes with Resurrection and Reincarnation spells.
I figure that the act of stuffing a corpse full of animating energy renders it useless for the Reincarnate / Raise Dead (which is probably the one you meant) process. Resurrection, capable of regenerating the creature from dust or a chunk, doesn't have this limitation, and True Res bypasses the physical remains altogether.

[Dragonborn]

I figure that the act of stuffing a corpse full of animating energy renders it useless for the Reincarnate / Raise Dead (which is probably the one you meant) process. Resurrection, capable of regenerating the creature from dust or a chunk, doesn't have this limitation, and True Res bypasses the physical remains altogether.

Reincarnate (http://www.pathfinder-srd.nl/wiki/Reincarnate_(Spell)) can't bring creatures turned into udead back at all, Resurrection (http://www.pathfinder-srd.nl/wiki/Resurrection_(Spell)) and True Resurrection (http://www.pathfinder-srd.nl/wiki/True_Resurrection_(Spell)) both specifically require the undead to be destroyed first. If I had meant Raise Dead I would have typed Raise Dead.

Edit: Added links.

[Sutremaine]

Yes, I looked those spells up. I don't see how those restrictions are related to the creature's soul in any way, so I don't see how you get plot holes if they don't affect the soul.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Here's an idea--why not be a scientist? Someone interested in anatomy? I don't think it's good-aligned to have a living human's skin flayed off and then make them walk around so you can see how the muscles and bones interact with each other. But if they willingly donate their bodies...

[CoffeeIncluded]

Here's an idea--why not be a scientist? Someone interested in anatomy? I don't think it's good-aligned to have a living human's skin flayed off and then make them walk around so you can see how the muscles and bones interact with each other. But if they willingly donate their bodies...

[The Glyphstone]

Because if being undead doesn't affect the soul, how can it impede True Resurrection? The spell creates an entirely new body for the target from scratch, no intact corpse or fragments of such needed - but it can't be performed if the previous owner's body is walking around as an animated undead, which implicitly means the existence of that undead is impeding the return of the person's soul to the material plane. You could explain it away by some cosmic 'There Can Be Only One' rule meant to stop people from populating an entire country with their own reanimated bodies, but the simplest answer is that undead creation does something with or to the soul.

[Dragonborn]

Because if being undead doesn't affect the soul, how can it impede True Resurrection? The spell creates an entirely new body for the target from scratch, no intact corpse or fragments of such needed - but it can't be performed if the previous owner's body is walking around as an animated undead, which implicitly means the existence of that undead is impeding the return of the person's soul to the material plane. You could explain it away by some cosmic 'There Can Be Only One' rule meant to stop people from populating an entire country with their own reanimated bodies, but the simplest answer is that undead creation does something with or to the soul.

This. The 'There Can Be Only One' rule was never satisfying to me, and I haven't heard anything better yet. The same applies to Resurrection and the Reincarnation line if you remove part of the body before they are animated as undead.

[Wise Green Bean]

Skeletons and zombies are mindless. You aren't hurting the soul, just the lump of meat left behind. At that point, you have made a robot. Doesn't seem to evil to me.

[Dragonborn]

Skeletons and zombies are mindless. You aren't hurting the soul, just the lump of meat left behind. At that point, you have made a robot. Doesn't seem to evil to me.

That probably should be the case, but it still blocks resurrection.

Edit:
But then, if zombies are just a mindless lump of meat animated by negative energy, they really shouldn't be neutral evil either

[Theoboldi]

I think the standard fluff explanation for this is that undead are specifically animated by negative energie, which is essentially anti-life force. The idea is probably that the body is corrupted by this, making it unsuitable as a vessel for a living soul unless you use powerful magic (true ressurection, wish), or necromancy to make it an intelligent undead.

[umbergod]

If this was already mentioned, I apologize, didn't read the entire thread. OP, there is a Dragon magazine that addresses your exact concerns. It covers how non evil necromancers would behave, how they treat their minions etc etc. It was quite good

[Dragonborn]

I think the standard fluff explanation for this is that undead are specifically animated by negative energie, which is essentially anti-life force. The idea is probably that the body is corrupted by this, making it unsuitable as a vessel for a living soul unless you use powerful magic (true ressurection, wish), or necromancy to make it an intelligent undead.

That works for Raise Dead, but Reincarnation and Resurrection spells both make an entirely new body, so shouldn't care about their previous body as long as there's enough available to cast the spell. Since even True Resurrection (which doesn't even need the body at all) can't animate someone who's been turned into a zombie, you either need fluff that fits the mechanics, mechanics that fit the fluff, or to just ignore/accept that none of it makes any sense anyway.

[Theoboldi]

Actually, resurrection can restore someone who has been turned into an undead and then destroyed, so it works with this fluff. Of course, that still leaves a problem with reincarnate. Maybe it's because that's a druid spell and nature just doesn't want to bring someone back who was a zombie once? Meh, I've got nothing. :smallfrown:

[Dragonborn]

Actually, resurrection can restore someone who has been turned into an undead and then destroyed, so it works with this fluff. Of course, that still leaves a problem with reincarnate. Maybe it's because that's a druid spell and nature just doesn't want to bring someone back who was a zombie once? Meh, I've got nothing. :smallfrown:

If you have, say, their hand, why should it matter to resurrection what the rest of their corpse is doing as long as their soul is available? The fact that even with True Resurrection you have to destroy the undead first is exactly my point.

[Theoboldi]

I hadn't actually thought about that scenario, but yeah, it makes no sense in that case. Of course, the spell only says undead creatures can't be affected by it, and it could be interpreted that, as long as it is not animated itself, the hand is not undead, and thus suspectible to resurrection.

Edit: Perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. I think the reason that ressurection and true ressurection don't work on a creature that is undead is that the spell can't recognize an undead as something that once lived, because the energies that animate it are essentially the opposite of life.

[QuidEst]

If you are playing a good-aligned Necromancer, that requires a bit of GM interaction in and of itself. Making it so a body being used for mindless undead does not block True Resurrection is a reasonable adjustment to make in the whole process.

Perhaps you can support the families of people who were willing to donate their bodies to the cause on their death? One sp/day for a year is a day's meager wages (in addition to whatever they're earning) and it doesn't put you back much.

[umbergod]

I once played a "good" necromancer back when 3.5 was only a year or so old. I put good in quotations b/c I was a good person, I was just using foul energies to do it. I think I was Lawful Neutral, with my good actions cancelling out raising undead (only used monsters that attacked me, and criminals as necromancy was a sanctioned art in the campaign I was in)

It makes for interesting campaigns, moreso if necromancy isn't generally accepted. You essentially become an antihero, like a malconvoker. People see you at first glance and think you're evil, but you're just using evil to kill itself. Would be neat to make a necromancy based PrC somewhat like Malconvoker, in that you could ignore the [evil] tags from necromancy spells and raising undead.

[Dragonborn]

Edit: Perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. I think the reason that ressurection and true ressurection don't work on a creature that is undead is that the spell can't recognize an undead as something that once lived, because the energies that animate it are essentially the opposite of life.

My question is more about why the state of their former body matters if you're not bringing them back into it, and their soul isn't harmed in any way (assuming any necessary body part was removed before the animate dead). I don't mind changing the mechanics or fluff to suit each other or the setting better, it just bugs me when they don't match.

[Theoboldi]

What I was essentially saying is that the spell can't bring an undead back because the divine energies involved in the spell can't recognize the body as dead, because it is animated, soul or no soul. However, I know that this makes very little sense, and I'm mainly grasping at straws right now. :smalltongue:

[Straybow]

If you want deathless versions of skeletons and zombies, I made a homebrew base class a LONG time ago that can take an ability which allows it to cast animate dead as a [good] spell that raises deathless skeletons and zombies, which are basically identical to normal skeletons and zombies expect that their alignment is neutral good and they are healed by positive energy rather then negative energy. If your interested in it, feel free to shoot me a PM. However, be warned, the class is divine, not arcane, so it MAY not be exactly what your looking for.

/end plug

Anyway...if you want to be a good-aligned necromancer it is fully possible. How? Just don't focus on undead animation. Raising the dead, while the most iconic aspect of necromancy is not the only aspect. Debuff and curse-based necromancy is also a very fun thing to play with and it's best spells, such as enervation, lack the [evil] descriptor that stuff like Animate Dead has. If your going as a sorcerer, debuff necromancy will actually be BETTER then undead animating for you anyway, since most of the good undead animating stuff is divine-exclusive while the wiz/sorc list gets the better share of the debuff and curse necromancy spells. Necromancy is more then summoning undead, and playing a good necromancer allows you to play with the parts of Necromancy that are less explored.


Necrocarnate from Magic of Incarnum has a goody-goody version - the Vivicarnate, which raises zombies as "Reborn." This is fluffed as infusing the dead with the purest of unborn souls.

The idea of a good-aligned undead is odd. I would use construct animation instead, for example, animated clothing equivalent to a skeleton, animated armor equivalent to zombie. Some might inspire fear, but no diseases, curses, etc.

[hamishspence]

I once played a "good" necromancer back when 3.5 was only a year or so old. I put good in quotations b/c I was a good person, I was just using foul energies to do it. I think I was Lawful Neutral, with my good actions cancelling out raising undead (only used monsters that attacked me, and criminals as necromancy was a sanctioned art in the campaign I was in)

Which is pretty much what Heroes of Horror seems to go with.

On "Good undead" ghosts are a possible example- a good hero, come back to right a terrible wrong. They can have any alignment, after all.

[Daer]

Might be worth checking inspiration from eberron campaign.. there elves are worshipping their undead ancestors.

[Twilightwyrm]

Well explaining the whole blood of fiends thing is as easy as convincing people that a person's actions define their ethical virtue, rather than their bloodline. You had no control over your bloodline, so why should you be held accountable for it?
As to necromancy...that is less ethically sound. You could do, as has been suggested, just bring back the most evil of people in the world, but that is ethically grey at best. The reason for this is that for the most part, bringing undead into the world is always an evil action, since you aren't just perverting the cycle of life and death, but you are messing with a person's soul, which while not necessarily the same as torturing said soul (always an evil action), is morally unsound. There are a few ways I can see circumventing this:
1) Don't raise the dead. I know that a necromancers are (in)famous for their ability to summon undead legions, but necromancy as a school has a number of other, highly effective, spells that do not raise the dead on their behalf. Fear spells, instant kill spells, spells that speak with the dead or preserve their corpses, all are highly effective, and even potentially helpful (letting a person talk with their loved one one more time before letting go, solving conflicts by making the offending party so afraid they don't come back, etc.) and therefore good. If you want to use actual undead, the Summon Undead spells let you temporarily summon undead to your presence to acomplish whatever you were wanting to acomplish, and since you are merely summoning preexisting undead to do your bidding, especially if that is towards a good end, it is about as morally dubious as summoning a fiendish centipede to rescue someone from a burning building, kill an evil person, etc..
2) Take the Wee Jas method. That is to say, you rarely raise dead, finding the practice reprehensible when it is not being used for experimentation and study, or pure utility (setting off a trap, undertaking a suicidal charge, or something otherwise guaranteed to make their time as an undead creature very...brief). Feel free to combine this with point #3 for minimum dubiousness.
3) Only raise the willing. In the same way that people might willingly devote their bodies to science as part of their will, you would only raise people who have done likewise. To make this as minimally dubious as possible, I would only take those who come to you offering to do so willingly, without any incentive. Offering, say, a financial incentive for devoting one's body, is likely to get you the bodies of the poor and desperate, which is rather exploitative, and thus not really "good". The same goes for starting your own personal cult, or other organization where you manipulate people's faith in other to get bodies for your work. One way to do this would be (and you'll need to be good at diplomacy to do this, given the understandable prejudices against necromancy that exist within rational societies (especially given the whole fiend bloodline thing)) would be arranging with the local authorities to give this offer to any criminals that are going to be executed anyways. This is a bit dubious, but I wouldn't really call it manipulative or exploitative, since they don't actually have an incentive to say yes or no. Note that you should not be using magical compulsion at any stage of this process, in case this was not obvious.
Other than these three options, you are going to have to talk to your DM. I'm not sure what the setting's mechanics are with respect to the undead, and if raising undead as such does not actually mess with the creature's afterlife, then the whole thing becomes less morally dubious, and raising random bandits that attacked you is only actually a bit more morally dubious than stealing all their gear (you're just going a bit...further). Hope this helps.

P.S. Bonus points if you explain to them exactly what the process entails, and the possible effects on their afterlife before letting them devote their bodies to your work.