What makes a person choose Necromancy?

[tadkins]

This is a question with more of a focus on the actual RP and philosophy behind the idea of necromancy. What would make a character choose to follow such a path?

Think of it, you're a wizard or a cleric with near-limitless potential. You possess world-shattering power and the possibility of learning the secrets of the universe. Yet you decide to invest that energy into...raising skeletons.

I've RPed a couple of necromancer-type characters in the past, as well as another one right now, yet thinking on this I've started to wonder. With so many other options available, what would drive a person to become a necromancer?

[Inferno]

Perhaps your teacher/mentor was a focused necromancer and its simply what you learned.
Or you're a follower of an evil deity and it's a matter of peer-pressure among the clergy.
Maybe you're just a dedicated dragon slayer. (http://therafim.wikidot.com/shivering-touch):smallcool:

[Rogue Shadows]

Pretty simple, really: Eternal Life. No, you don't have to be a necromancer to become a lich, or ghost, or what have you, but it certainly helps. Also, Clone.

Necromancy is the best school for allowing you to simply not die. Ironically, as the magic with the most control over death, it's the most appealing school for those who want to live.

Oh, and this bit from Complete Mage might explain some of their psyche, too:


Necromancy spells hold dominion over life and death. Their effects can drain the stamina out of an opponent's body, exert control over the undead, or instill paralyzing fear in a creature's mind.

Specialists in this school call themselves necromancers, and they subscribe to the philosophy of waste not, want not. Detractors of the school condemn necromancers' practices as abhorrent and disrespectful to the dead, but necromancers defend their art on the premise that the dead care very little for their bodies, especially if they can be put to good use. Controlling such bodies, however, is secondary to controlling life.

To a necromancer, magic is based on the idea that life is an essential element in the universe—one that can be controlled and manipulated just as matter and energy can be. Necromancers believe that they hold the reins of life by surrounding themselves with undead creatures. People who challenge the necessity of this school claim that necromancy weakens the barriers between the dead and living realms, causing the two to encroach upon one another more each day.

Personality: Necromancers are introspective characters with a pragmatic approach to death. As a necromancer, you might exhibit any or all of the following personality traits.
You are heedless and insensitive toward the emotions of people about death.
You are hopeful and impatient as people die, seeing their bodies as useful material for your spells.
You are obsessed with your own mortality and crave immunity from death.
You brood instead of discussing or sharing your thoughts.
Undead are at the beck and call of a powerful necromancer

[Flickerdart]

Reduce, reuse, recycle - letting corpses rot in the ground is a waste of a perfectly good natural resource. Since adventurers spend their lives cutting through legions of hellish beasts, throwing away the bodies is like throwing away loot. Loot that, with proper motivation, can carry your other loot for you. Plus, what better humiliation than reviving your bitterest enemies as your eternal servants?

Undead make a great army - they never tire, they do not need pay, they will never disobey an order, and some of them can multiply. They also have tons of nice immunities. And while they're busy getting up in the enemy's grill, you can start casting your own spells, because it doesn't cost you any slots to keep them around once they're up and running. The opportunity cost of a beginner's necro-army is a single spell known that you prepare when the fancy strikes you.

Necromancy also grants you the power of eternal life (well, after a fashion), sap away the life of your foes, or even slay them on the spot. You have other schools when people start toting immunities, but Necromancy's ability damage and level drain spells are hard to beat.

[The-Mage-King]

A desire to gain knowledge from the dead, obviously.



OH. Wait. You mean the spell school that's poorly named.

Well, it depends. Some may see it as a tool to improve the lives of the living. Some may just see it as an efficient source of minions to throw at problems. Others, merely seek the knowledge of how to manipulate life force. Others still seek eternal life, or a large amount of life at bare minimum.

Some also might have an uncanny amount of talent at it, and merely build upon that.


It varies.

[Pokonic]

Well, some people might find the ability to use death itself as a tool. Something so often seen as sacred and untouchable, at your fingertips.

However, it seems that some people are simply suited for a life of raising corpses in a underground chamber and using there armies of undead fiends to carry out there whims.

[Feralventas]

Touch of Fatigue.
Ray of Enfeeblement.
Ray of Clumsyness.


Necromancy is D&D's stun-gun. It is quite possibly one of the most effective schools of magic for a gish focused on non-lethal take-downs. Wreck your enemy's ability to fight back, shackle them up, take 'em in for questioning or to face trial.

[Silva Stormrage]

Also one thing to note is that the school itself is actually remarkably varied. You can be a necromancer without animating a single undead creature. Enervation, necrotic cyst, fear. All of these are popular options.

Secondly, if undead is not evil in a setting (Mindless ones anyway) having undead as workers is incredibly useful. Forget soldiers as human zombies aren't the strongest warriors. But they do great construction work, any simple job can be completed with a team of zombies or skeletons. Dangerous work can likewise be replaced.

Also in the same light, people are usually TERRIFIED of dying. This might be less so in a setting with an afterlife but plenty of older people would not mind being animated and would pay a quite good deal for it. Bone creatures and corpse creatures are good options for a cheap free willed undead.

Necromancy could simply be for business as well as any of the other options.

[tadkins]

Thanks all. Very insightful answers. :)

It seems that there'd have to be something specific in a person's life to drive them toward a life dedicated to death. With all of the stigma, evil and general ickyness surrounding the art of necromancy, I had wondered why a new wizard simply wouldn't avoid all that, summon a construct/elemental, blast someone with a fireball, and call it a day.

[Daftendirekt]

Secondly, if undead is not evil in a setting (Mindless ones anyway) having undead as workers is incredibly useful. Forget soldiers as human zombies aren't the strongest warriors. But they do great construction work, any simple job can be completed with a team of zombies or skeletons. Dangerous work can likewise be replaced.


I've always disliked the whole "Necromancy is inherently evil" part of D&D. People fail to understand the viewpoint that dead people are dead, and neither care about nor have need for their bodies. A necromancer utilizes it as a tool. That is not inherently evil. Now, one could use said tool to perform evil things, but that is not the tool's fault; it is the wielder's.

[Rogue Shadows]

It seems that there'd have to be something specific in a person's life to drive them toward a life dedicated to death.

To be completely honest, the "living forever" thing is probably more than enough in and of itself to draw practitioners, with nary an angsty backstory to be found, especially seeing as in D&D actual results can be produced. For every Necromancer that had a loved one die that they want to drag back from the underworld, there's some geek Necromancer who mostly just wants more time to work on painting his Warhammer miniatures.

[Mystral]

An abjurant would ask, what is more powerfull then power over magic?
A Diviner would ask, what is more powerfull then knowledge?
An Evoker would ask, what is more powerfull then bending the elements to your will?
An Illusionist would ask, what is more powerfull then being able to create anything you can imagine?
A conjurer would ask, what is more powerfull then being able to call powerfull creatures to do your bidding?
A transmuter would ask, what is more powerfull then control over everythink physical?
An enchanter would ask, what is more powerfull then being to bend the mind itself to your whims?
A necromancer would ask, what is more powerfull then power over life and death itself?

Necromancy is, by the way, also a very good school for people who HUNT the undead.

[Flickerdart]

Thanks all. Very insightful answers. :)

It seems that there'd have to be something specific in a person's life to drive them toward a life dedicated to death. With all of the stigma, evil and general ickyness surrounding the art of necromancy, I had wondered why a new wizard simply wouldn't avoid all that, summon a construct/elemental, blast someone with a fireball, and call it a day.
Summoning is very short duration, and the most powerful summons are all fiends (which is even more evil than making undead). Building constructs is extremely expensive, as is repairing them. Undead are simply the best choice for long-lasting yet disposable minions.

Also, because of alignments, the evil reputation of necromancy makes it attractive for 33% of the population, and another 33% aren't particularly bothered by it.

[Zweanslord]

To bring back a loved one to life.

I once had a character whose background detailed how he had been a sickly boy, kept to his home, cared for by servants as his parents were busy as alchemist and librarian. When he one day managed to get out of the house in winter's time, the children mocked him for his frailty, except one girl who protected him. While he got a cold from his outdoor visit, he finally met somebody who cared for him.
Scolded by his parents for going outside and kept indoors, he eventually managed to persuade the servants to call for the girl. She came and there was a click between them, so they met day after day. Love blossomed between the two and the boy seemed to get healthier, spending less time ill. When they grew old enough, he asked for her hand in marriage and she accepted.

But one fateful day, she got terribly sick. The boy, now a man, sought for means to cure her in the books of the library, but he nor the doctors could save her, and she died. Hearthstruck, he sought for a means to bring her back to life and delved in the library's books, finding arcane books and in necromancy a potential means.
His efforts did not go unnoticed and eventually he was invited into a necromancer's cult worshipping a god of undeath. As he gave into obsession, he suffered physically and mentally, his illness returning, making him hate the weakness of the flesh. Eventually the day came that he had his preparations done, and with the corpse of his beloved ready and the aid of the cult, he performed a ritual. But it went horribly wrong and the corpse turned to dust, the ritual chamber ruined and those aiding him wounded. And he had become a Necropolitan, life having left him and with it, love. His heart had turned cold, but he had also lost the weakness of flesh and would never become ill anymore. For this, he was the god thankful. But the cult was not thankful for the damage, so he set out to garner knowledge and devote his life to the god.

[Flickerdart]

To bring back a loved one to life.

I once had a character whose background detailed how he had been a sickly boy, kept to his home, cared for by servants as his parents were busy as alchemist and librarian. When he one day managed to get out of the house in winter's time, the children mocked him for his frailty, except one girl who protected him. While he got a cold from his outdoor visit, he finally met somebody who cared for him.
Scolded by his parents for going outside and kept indoors, he eventually managed to persuade the servants to call for the girl. She came and there was a click between them, so they met day after day. Love blossomed between the two and the boy seemed to get healthier, spending less time ill. When they grew old enough, he asked for her hand in marriage and she accepted.

But one fateful day, she got terribly sick. The boy, now a man, sought for means to cure her in the books of the library, but he nor the doctors could save her, and she died. Hearthstruck, he sought for a means to bring her back to life and delved in the library's books, finding arcane books and in necromancy a potential means.
His efforts did not go unnoticed and eventually he was invited into a necromancer's cult worshipping a god of undeath. As he gave into obsession, he suffered physically and mentally, his illness returning, making him hate the weakness of the flesh. Eventually the day came that he had his preparations done, and with the corpse of his beloved ready and the aid of the cult, he performed a ritual. But it went horribly wrong and the corpse turned to dust, the ritual chamber ruined and those aiding him wounded. And he had become a Necropolitan, life having left him and with it, love. His heart had turned cold, but he had also lost the weakness of flesh and would never become ill anymore. For this, he was the god thankful. But the cult was not thankful for the damage, so he set out to garner knowledge and devote his life to the god.
Unfortunately, 3e moved the healing and resurrection spells out of Necromancy and into Conjuration, so "bringing loved ones back" is something a Conjurer (well, a Cleric using Conjurations) would be much better at.

[Xefas]

No one has mentioned the most plausible answer yet!

So, why choose to play D&D instead of trying out for the Soccer team? Why buy a Gamecube instead of an XBox? Why become an Orthodontist instead of an Oral Surgeon? Why wear a green shirt instead of an orange one? Why eat a salad instead of soup?

"Because I felt like it." is a perfectly human answer to any question. Why learn Necromancy instead of Evocation? Maybe the hand gestures for the somatic components make my hands cramp less, or I find the script that the incantations must be written in one's spellbook to be more aesthetically pleasing, or maybe I tried to learn Evocation, but the words one uses to invoke Evocation spells get me tongue-tied, while Necromancy ones feel more comfortable, or maybe the Necro101 classes at Sigil Prep start at 2pm and I like to sleep late, whereas Evo101 is 8am and there's no way I'm getting up for that.

Or maybe I just felt like it.

[ArcturusV]

Well... this is an "IC Answer" sort of question by how you phrased it, so I'll give an IC Example. Based on a character I ran.

The character was an "evil" Cleric. Evil in alignment, not how the party he was with view him (In fact they loved him more than the Lawful Stupid Paladin), and he didn't view himself as "Evil". He saw himself as the hero of his own story, a good person who was misunderstood as a more realistic portrayal than "Hurr hurr, I am evil for... EVIL!"

Anyway, he was focused as a Necromancer, much to the bitching of the Party as they wanted me to play a Healbot who did nothing but pass out Cure ____ Wounds after a fight, once they found out I WAS a Necromancer (DM had pity on the party and let me start off with some Wand of Cure Light Wounds to start out with so no one really noticed I was evil at first).

Now... his reason why was because he respected Necromancers ICily as he grew up. He never really knew the particulars of Necromancy when he was young, but he knew OF necromancy. It was practiced somewhat openly where he grew up. No one really LIKED it... but when you're in the middle of a genocidal conflict against an enemy that gives no quarter... you take what you can get and put up with whatever discomforts you might have about it.

What he knew ICily though was that Necromancer didn't hide in this city. They didn't have to. They were, grudging, heroes to the local populace. Local heroes were sometimes Necromancers, and these guys would walk around with clothing, armor, badges, mantles, etc, that clearly said "I am a Necromancer".

No one really liked the Necromancers... but everyone respected them. In a conflict where the majority of fighters involved on both sides were level 1-3, the guy who can call for Skeletons and Zombies of even just humans is still pretty effective. So it was this situation where this kid could clearly see no one LIKED these guys, due to the usual stuff about Necromancy, it's Evil, Defiling the life cycle, grave robbing, etc. But even the guys who may have had a past history which suffered at the hands of Necromancy still moved out of their way for the Necromancers. That bartender may not like the Necromancer, but he's still going to give him free drinks. That local Lord may think they are vermin that should be exterminated the moment the war is over... but for now they listen when the Necromancer says something.

So you have this kid who is at the bottom of the pecking order for a lot of reasons. People don't like him as he's growing up. He's an ass to people, doesn't have an easy going personality. Doesn't really jive with the people he was growing up with, has a much more grim and fatalistic view than the other kids growing up in the Safe Zone. Wasn't as fast or as strong as other kids so he was teased and bullied, usual stuff kids do to anyone who's the weak fish or the odd one.

So he looked up to the Necromancers. Because this is something he could do. It didn't require him to be fast, strong, etc. No one had to like him, he didn't have to have connections, etc (He had low physical stats, but high mental ones. The Charisma was offset by the fact that he was a prick to most everyone who had wronged him for being physical frail). But by being one he was innately useful, and people had to respect him and listen to him. They may hate him... sure. But they would give him what he wanted.

So he got into Necromancy for that reason. He got kinda squeamish about certain things at first. He preferred less "Undead Minion" routes due to some unsavory experiences with the first undead he really got up close and personal with, so he focused more on stuff like Enfeeblement, Energy Drain, etc. Eventually he got over it and created powerful Undead... after an event in the war pretty much broke his sanity. Once he recovered his sanity he had been changed enough that undead didn't bother him anymore.

[Zweanslord]

Unfortunately, 3e moved the healing and resurrection spells out of Necromancy and into Conjuration, so "bringing loved ones back" is something a Conjurer (well, a Cleric using Conjurations) would be much better at.

Oh, I totally agree there, but not all that is known to a low level character. Where ressurection would be seen as intervention of a god and necromancy is known for raising the dead, the latter may sure seem easier. Sure, raising the dead is usually as zombies, but you're desperate and you can do better than all those other smucks and get it right, you know? Ofcourse, when he got more knowledgeable and found out, no, he wouldn't have been able to do it better than all the others, he was not exactly happy.

Neat story there, ArcturusV, funny to see the character try and follow in the footsteps of such 'good examples'. :smalltongue:

[Hikarizu]

Another possible example from Dominic Deegan
http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2008-06-13
http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2008-06-14
And this guy is Rilan, the First Necromancer. He literally invented that field of magic

[FreakyCheeseMan]

My necromancer character (archivist) had a handful of motivations. First, he was just curious about cosmology, the nature of life and death, etc, and was willing to experiment to learn more.

Second, he'd spent a few of his younger years adventuring with Paelorites, so he ended up fighting a lot of necromancers, and he was the sort to read the bad guys notes, even after winning. He became disillusioned with the simplicity of Paelor's faith, so he started working with the church of Wes Gas, in order to learn what the other side had to say.

[Santra]

Currently playing a Dread Necromancer who was raised into necromancy by his father. His family had served the royal line for generations preserving the dead and working hand in hand with the priests. His family guarded the tomb of the kings and ensured that no one dared steal from their eternal resting place. Any who tried were killed and sentenced to waking undeath for their crime. They were forced to serve as guards for the tombs they had come to loot. After my DN was driven off by the servants of the man who overthrew the king he started adventuring across the land using his power to destroy intelligent undead and lay their souls to rest. He also punishes truly deplorable people by forcing them to serve him in death.

[CoffeeIncluded]

A lot of necromancers in my setting are actually biologists, physiologists, etcetera. They're reasponsible for much of the knowledge of anatomy in the setting, as they work with skeletons and zombies all day. It's highly unethical to remove the skin from a living human's hand and arm, then as them to make hand gestures as your remove muscle, tendon, nerves, and so forth to see what each piece is connected to and what it does. But you can do that to a zombie without worrying.

One character in particular that I really want to play did his thesis on the exact nature of the Horrid Wilting spell, analyzing the chemical composition of the water expelled during the spell and comparing it to various bodily fluids.

[lsfreak]

Because of all the schools, necromancy is the kindest.

Where you to be executed, which would you prefer, an axe to the neck, or a gentle, painless touch?
If you had to kill someone in combat, which would be less gruesome, stabbing, cutting, or crushing them until they die of trauma, or suppressing their lifeforce until it quietly ebbs away?
If you were a great warrior, wouldn't you rest easier knowing that in death, your body - if not your mind as well - would continue to do your life's work?
Faced with innocent soldiers who are under the command of someone evil, what better way to remove the threat without lasting harm than using fear to break the ranks?
Of course, all of these may require some refluffing from what they are generally assumed to be like (whether or not that fluff is ever actually written out).

On the other hand, necromancy can simply be brutally effective. Everywhere from more typical debuffs (ray of enfeeblement, mass curse of impending blades, waves of exhaustion) up to the truly impressive (channeled lifetheft, fleshshiver, blackfire). That they're in the Necromancy school is irrelevant; a character might simply go after what they feel is most effective.

[The Viscount]

A common question surrounding necromancy is why face all the opposition around what is commonly regarded as a rather taboo field of magic. A possible explanation is precisely because it is taboo. Humans are very contrary by their nature, and telling people "don't do this because it's bad" pushes some towards it.

Of course, there is also the Karrnath approach. Perhaps you are in dire need of soldiers, and recruitment is falling while casualties keep rising. Necromancy begins to look more and more tempting.

[Alefiend]

For whatever it's worth, somebody (me) should point out that some dead people do in fact care about what happens to their bodies. It's why the real world has such widely varied funerary practices—belief that the body must be [intact/prepared/buried/incinerated] in order to have a fruitful afterlife. It should be no different in a fantasy setting, especially because there's enough bleed-through from the gods and the afterlife for the living to know precisely what's up.

While this makes some acts of necromancy evil in the sense of corpse defilement, it also provides a simple and powerful way to defend those corpses. You wanna rob the pharaoh's tomb? Fine, go ahead. But he's not going to like it, and he will wake up and smite your ass with the magical grave goods he was buried with.

[lunar2]

it's also campaign/setting specific.

in the setting i'm working on, for example, creating undead is not an inherently evil act unless the undead is somehow inherently evil, like a vampire or a wight, who both reproduce themselves through the murder of sentient beings. mindless undead tend to be used for menial, repetitive labor, while many sentient creatures willingly become incorporeal undead to preserve their souls (in this setting, corporeal undead are typically made from the bodies of the dead, while incorporeal undead are created from the soul. some things, like liches, break the mold, in that they are mode from both the body and soul).

also, healing and resurrection magic were moved back to necromancy, where they belong, so the guy making the zombies is also the guy that fixes your broken arm or cures your filth fever.

[Gavinfoxx]

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Morality

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5996.0

Assume it's the "Playing with Fire" option. Also assume Kissed by the Ages exists. Also assume that Necropolitans can be neutral or even Good, even though the method of making a Necropolitan is hideously evil.

[Snowbluff]

Maybe he had no friends, so he decided to make some out of the dead?

[123456789blaaa]

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Morality

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5996.0

Assume it's the "Playing with Fire" option. Also assume Kissed by the Ages exists. Also assume that Necropolitans can be neutral or even Good, even though the method of making a Necropolitan is hideously evil.

Hmm? Where does it say the Necropolitan has to be evil? And why is the method "hideously evil"? The only part that's evil that I can see is when the chant leader calls upon evil gods and powers.

[ArcturusV]

Probably getting the Lich mixed up with the Necropolitan, as the Lich itself specifically states that it's some foul, evil ritual to leads to it's creation. Doesn't say what it is, just that it's a very evil ritual.

Love Dominic Deegan. :smallbiggrin: I should go back to reading that one again. Reminded me of the guy in my last homebrew setting, who also was the Inventor of Necromancy (As they knew it) in the setting. He had a... polarizing... view. Some players loved him, some hated him. Even in setting he was viewed as either the worst mortal who ever walked the face of the earth, or one of the greatest heroes to bless the world. He effectively ended the Succession Wars, which was undoubtedly a good thing. However he had to kill a lot of his own people to fuel his necromantic rites, and a lot of enemies. And due to how Necromancy worked in that setting it effectively destroyed all their Souls so the people in question couldn't ever have an afterlife, or be resurrected. They were gone, forever. But the power of Necromancy was, unheard of. No one knew how to counter it at the time. He brought a measure of peace to the world using it. And he entrusted the power to only a select few who were supposed to keep the secrets in good stead. Not that they DID... eventually it all got out. But not for lack of trying to keep Necromancy out of the hands of megalomaniac douchebags.

[Gavinfoxx]

Reread the Ritual of Crucimigration again... and you are telling me that isn't hideously evil??

[Gavinfoxx]

And Skeletons make great menial laborers... also, a bunch of Necromancy is actually Conjuration. Also, Skeletons and Zombies are a solid way to get one big bruiser to follow you around. You dont really wanna make an ARMY... except for, again, menial labor.

[tadkins]

So necromancy is a cheap, efficient way to amass an army for their own purposes? A somewhat permanent one as well, unlike most conjurations?

I could see how that'd be an advantage.

[theNater]

Death is one of the fundamental forces of the D&D world; how is its study not an attempt to unveil the secrets of the universe?

[123456789blaaa]

Reread the Ritual of Crucimigration again... and you are telling me that isn't hideously evil??

If it's done to willing people than what's the harm?

[The Viscount]

Probably getting the Lich mixed up with the Necropolitan, as the Lich itself specifically states that it's some foul, evil ritual to leads to it's creation. Doesn't say what it is, just that it's a very evil ritual.

I've always thought of liches to be evil because the process of becoming a lich removes your soul, your moral compass, even though I know D&D doesn't actually state that being soulless makes you evil. Then again, the existence of not one, but two good lich variants rather disproves that theory.

The other explanation for why liches are always evil, except for the variants, is more conceptual. Good liches are frequently called out as becoming liches to accomplish some purpose for the greater good. This is important, as it helps to explain why most liches are evil. If you are good being, you do not have much to fear of death. You know that you will spend your afterlife on one of several good-aligned planes. If you are evil, you know all you have to expect in the afterlife is torment and pain. If you are lucky, you will rise among the ranks of demons or devils (yugoloths have not been stated to be the souls of NE beings to my knowledge) to become more powerful and inflict pain and suffering among others. For the evil, eternal unlife as a lich seems a far better choice. It's not that being a lich makes you evil, it's that good people don't become liches. Granted, this is just how I fluff it to myself.

[Xzar]

I've always liked the idea of the good, or at least the self-justified alturistic necromancer.

In standard D&D world you could be forgiven for thinking that the Gods, even the good aligned ones are a little selfish, aloof and uncaring. Not everyone who can be healed is healed, there is still so much evil in the world, the rich adventurer might be raised from the dead, but the poor and godly peasent will be left to rot etc etc.

Someone might pursue necromancy because they seek to unlock life magic that the Gods so selfishly hoard.

[tiercel]

It's been mentioned, but the stereotype of the necromancer is the Master of the Undead raising an unholy army of skeletons and zombies and shadow city-bombs and whatever.

But when you look at the school itself... in Core there are 39 Sor/Wiz Necromancy spells, only 9 of which specifically target the dead or undead. Over 75% of the school doesn't directly deal with them at all!

You could just as easily call folks who concentrate on these spells "biomancers" -- those who manipulate the very ebb and flow of life itself, sapping and manipulating it or even creating a new spark of it (e.g. clone).

I mean, geez, all it takes is one mustache-twirling, graveyard-exhuming, scenery-chewing villain with freaking skull motifs all over his armor and castle and suddenly necromancers are all Lords of the Undead. It's about as true and relevant as saying "clerics are all heal-bots."

Look at it from a "biomancer" perspective and there all kinds of reasons to want to join up, from intellectual curiousity about life-force to wanting to be able to defeat foes nonlethally or at least without collateral damage.

[sabelo2000]

Wow Tiercel, you have just opened my mind to such an amazing opportunity. Suddenly I imagine a cabal of bio-theurges lording over a city-state, creating and splicing life-energies (omg omg omg Grafts! And Rituals!) to create "new and improved" life forms, some of which are masterpieces, some of which are cast out as rejects.

Unholy Crap, I just realized! The wizard that created the Owlbear? He was a bionecromancer!

[Snowbluff]

Unholy Crap, I just realized! The wizard that created the Owlbear? He was a bionecromancer!
I was agreeing with you until this part. We should be kicking these guys out of our towns as well.

[sabelo2000]

I never claimed it was a good idea to create said owlbear... I think this is an illustration of how those mages are as much a threat as a resource.

[CoffeeIncluded]

It's been mentioned, but the stereotype of the necromancer is the Master of the Undead raising an unholy army of skeletons and zombies and shadow city-bombs and whatever.

But when you look at the school itself... in Core there are 39 Sor/Wiz Necromancy spells, only 9 of which specifically target the dead or undead. Over 75% of the school doesn't directly deal with them at all!

You could just as easily call folks who concentrate on these spells "biomancers" -- those who manipulate the very ebb and flow of life itself, sapping and manipulating it or even creating a new spark of it (e.g. clone).

I mean, geez, all it takes is one mustache-twirling, graveyard-exhuming, scenery-chewing villain with freaking skull motifs all over his armor and castle and suddenly necromancers are all Lords of the Undead. It's about as true and relevant as saying "clerics are all heal-bots."

Look at it from a "biomancer" perspective and there all kinds of reasons to want to join up, from intellectual curiousity about life-force to wanting to be able to defeat foes nonlethally or at least without collateral damage.


Wow Tiercel, you have just opened my mind to such an amazing opportunity. Suddenly I imagine a cabal of bio-theurges lording over a city-state, creating and splicing life-energies (omg omg omg Grafts! And Rituals!) to create "new and improved" life forms, some of which are masterpieces, some of which are cast out as rejects.

Unholy Crap, I just realized! The wizard that created the Owlbear? He was a bionecromancer!

That's pretty much what I was saying! :smallbiggrin:

[Averis Vol]

why choose necromancy?

because you have more built up angst at a world that defines the dead as evil, then a teenager with parents who don't understand him of course :smalltongue:

but seriously, the way I see it necromancy is hardly even about bringing back the undead, because, personally it was never an attraction. The way I play my Necromancers, is the same way someone earlier in the thread put it, a beefed up stun gun. They practice the arts of debilitating their foes, and normally focus into the fear aspect coupled with nightmare spinner and dread witch.

[Kane0]

Cause it used to also cover healing. You know... the 'Life' part that 3rd ed kinda missed when describing necromancers as having power over 'The powers of life and death'.

So a necromancer is incredibly useful, and often has an answer that others will not come up with as they are typically less... morally constrained.

[Sception]

Most of my necromancers, it's just a matter of where their talents lie. Try Amanda Downum's Necromancer Chronicles books - the first two, 'Drowning City' and 'Bone Palace', are particularly good. They focus around Isyllt Iskaldur, necromancer and spy. Think of the books as James Bond adventures, if Bond were a woman, and a necromancer, and if they took place in a high fantasy setting.

Anyway, in the setting there are basically wizards of varying specialties, but what specialty a wizard follows is less a matter of simple choice or schooling than of the nature of the wizard's personal connection to magic. Isyllt didn't choose to be a necromancer, it's simply what she is.

So it is with most of my necromancers regardless of their personality or disposition, and this fits particularly well with the default fluff for spontaneous casters. In character, being a dread necromancer makes sense more as a manifestation of the character's personal connection to the magic of the world around them as much or more then as simply a profession they chose to take up. And while you may choose your sorcerer's spells out of character, that doesn't mean your in character sorcerer made a similar conscious choice.


Other then that, as already mentioned working with the undead may or may not be inherently evil in your setting, and the practicality of an undead army may drive neutral leaning characters to its use in defense of their homes and communities. And again, undeath is only one area of necromancy's focus. As mentioned, Necromancy is also one of the best schools for subduing or dispersing adversaries via non-lethal means. Which is the less evil means of dispersing the mob - fear, or fireball? Which is the less evil means of subduing the rampaging mother monster looking for her infant - shivering touch or power word: kill?

[Xzar]

So what level spells would you need to be chucking about to create things like the owlbear?

[Flickerdart]

Pretty high level. Origin of Species, which does it no questions asked, is an Epic spell. A Master Transmogrifist could transform into a part-bear part-owl creature using the capstone (ECL 17), but I'm not sure where he'd go from there.

[lunar2]

Pretty high level. Origin of Species, which does it no questions asked, is an Epic spell. A Master Transmogrifist could transform into a part-bear part-owl creature using the capstone (ECL 17), but I'm not sure where he'd go from there.

two master transmogrifists change into that form and have some kids?

[Silva Stormrage]

Pretty high level. Origin of Species, which does it no questions asked, is an Epic spell. A Master Transmogrifist could transform into a part-bear part-owl creature using the capstone (ECL 17), but I'm not sure where he'd go from there.

Hm, I am not sure on that. I mean you can already "Make life" through animate object and awaken construct correct? With permanency anyway. I don't think you can do it RAW but I don't think making a new creature would be out of range of a 17th level wizard or cleric. Might have to be like a standard humanoid race or a low cr monster though with little innate magic in it.

[Scow2]

I've always disliked the whole "Necromancy is inherently evil" part of D&D. People fail to understand the viewpoint that dead people are dead, and neither care about nor have need for their bodies. A necromancer utilizes it as a tool. That is not inherently evil. Now, one could use said tool to perform evil things, but that is not the tool's fault; it is the wielder's.
The actual corpses have nothing to do with why Necromancy is Evil in D&D. What makes Necromancy "Evil" is that it brings Negative Energy into the world, and Negative Energy is some seriously messed up ****. Evil acts bring negative energy into the world, and bringing negative energy into the world is an evil act - and with damn good reason. (It kinda helps to think of Negative and Positive Energies as 'heat', defining one as the presence and other as absence of such)

Negative energy is a corruptive, pervasive force. It causes disease to propagate swiftly, as well as amplifying the symptoms. It fills victims with hatred of the living - even things become plagued with sociopathy, depression, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other horrific mental diseases. It breaks down trust and social bonds. It drives people to destructive nihilism. It prevents the dead from finding rest, and fills them with a hatred of the living. And it only gets worse from there.

When you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, though you may not notice it immediately, somewhere, somehow, the world just became a worse place.

Fortunately, Good spells, actions, and channeling positive energy counter these effects.

[Gavinfoxx]

What makes Necromancy "Evil" is that it brings Negative Energy into the world, and Negative Energy is some seriously messed up ****.

Actually... read that morality link. The game has been ambiguous on whether this is universally messed up or not, and the implications thereof.

[Flickerdart]

Hm, I am not sure on that. I mean you can already "Make life" through animate object and awaken construct correct? With permanency anyway. I don't think you can do it RAW but I don't think making a new creature would be out of range of a 17th level wizard or cleric. Might have to be like a standard humanoid race or a low cr monster though with little innate magic in it.
Animate Object is not life, but magical animation - the spell is basically using the object as a skeleton for magic muscles. In an AMF, it would turn right back off. Awaken Construct is not making life either, since golems are basically just bodies powered by a captive elemental, and even if awakened, they're still not life because they don't eat or reproduce or even really have a will of their own.

[Scow2]

Actually... read that morality link. The game has been ambiguous on whether this is universally messed up or not, and the implications thereof.

I have, and D&D consistently treats Negative Energy (Or at least spells with the [Evil] descriptor) as The Crawling Darkness (Especially in The Book of Exalted Deeds,The Book of Vile Darkness, Libris Mortis, and Heroes of Horror.), NOT "Playing with Fire". However, it takes several assumptions way too far.

Negative energy abilities that don't carry the [Evil] descriptor, like Positive Energy abilities that don't carry the [Good] descriptor, are too "efficient" and controlled to have lasting adverse or benign effects on the world.

[hamishspence]

Heroes of Horror does acknowledge that a character casting [Evil] spells for Good ends can maintain a Neutral alignment- in the Dread Necromancer section, as well as elsewhere.

[tadkins]

Can always donate some of your earnings to orphans or the homeless. Then you can fling around evil spells like nobody's business and you'll be fine. :)

That said, I noticed much of what is being discussed regarding Necromancy being the "disabling" tree applies to wizards. On a different note, what if we're talking about clerics? Especially ones with the "Deathbound" and "Undeath" domains.

[Scow2]

Heroes of Horror does acknowledge that a character casting [Evil] spells for Good ends can maintain a Neutral alignment- in the Dread Necromancer section, as well as elsewhere.Note that it allows him to maintain a Neutral alignment if casting [Evil] spells to Good ends. Goodness begets goodness, counteracting (but not surpassing) the evil brought into the world by the spell - You whitewash the world as much as you darken it.

[ericgrau]

(a) Even if it's not any better than other schools, it's not any worse. More options are better than less options. Why do you choose any particular school?
(b) Not all necromancy is Evil. Even when it is, some creatures don't mind that at all.

Even if it were a little worse than the others, having extra options still doesn't hurt. You can raise undead on a previous day and still cast just as much as you did before. Or prepare a mix of necromancy and non-necromancy spells to get as many options as possible to best fit what you need.

[King Atticus]

As far as psychological reasons go, I kind of think of some kind of triggering event occurring. Such as...

A reclusive family (mom,dad,child) living deep in the woods. No friends or neighbors anywhere around. There is an especially brutal winter one year while the child is still young. Mom & Dad both die of exposure because they piled all the furs on juniors bed to keep him warm. Boy has no way of taking care of the corpses; too much snow and ice, he's too small to lift/drag them, etc. By the time spring roles around he's taken to talking to them out of sheer loneliness and a need to connect with something. So by the time the ground is soft enough that he could actually dig a grave he has grown attached to the, by now, skeletons (not just as his former parents but his sole confidants) and can't bring himself to get rid of them. Eventually his longing for companionship makes manifests of itself by infusing the skeletons with the ability to animate for short periods of time. Over time the duration of this "gift of life" increases. One day he decides that he's being selfish, sure he's got life-long friends now, but what about all the other little kids that have nobody else. So he chains up Mom & Dad like Michonne with her gimps (thank you Walking Dead for an awesome character) and hits the road. It is now his destiny too eliminate loneliness because 'Why should anyone be alone when a new friend is just 6 feet under?'

So there's my concept for a not-so-evil Necromancer. :smallbiggrin:

[TuggyNE]

As far as psychological reasons go, I kind of think of some kind of triggering event occurring. Such as...

A reclusive family (mom,dad,child) living deep in the woods. No friends or neighbors anywhere around. There is an especially brutal winter one year while the child is still young. Mom & Dad both die of exposure because they piled all the furs on juniors bed to keep him warm. Boy has no way of taking care of the corpses; too much snow and ice, he's too small to lift/drag them, etc. By the time spring roles around he's taken to talking to them out of sheer loneliness and a need to connect with something. So by the time the ground is soft enough that he could actually dig a grave he has grown attached to the, by now, skeletons (not just as his former parents but his sole confidants) and can't bring himself to get rid of them. Eventually his longing for companionship makes manifests of itself by infusing the skeletons with the ability to animate for short periods of time. Over time the duration of this "gift of life" increases. One day he decides that he's being selfish, sure he's got life-long friends now, but what about all the other little kids that have nobody else. So he chains up Mom & Dad like Michonne with her gimps (thank you Walking Dead for an awesome character) and hits the road. It is now his destiny too eliminate loneliness because 'Why should anyone be alone when a new friend is just 6 feet under?'

So there's my concept for a not-so-evil Necromancer. :smallbiggrin:

Trading "evil creepy" out for "insane creepy", I see?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The actual corpses have nothing to do with why Necromancy is Evil in D&D. What makes Necromancy "Evil" is that it brings Negative Energy into the world, and Negative Energy is some seriously messed up ****. Evil acts bring negative energy into the world, and bringing negative energy into the world is an evil act - and with damn good reason. (It kinda helps to think of Negative and Positive Energies as 'heat', defining one as the presence and other as absence of such)

Negative energy is a corruptive, pervasive force. It causes disease to propagate swiftly, as well as amplifying the symptoms. It fills victims with hatred of the living - even things become plagued with sociopathy, depression, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other horrific mental diseases. It breaks down trust and social bonds. It drives people to destructive nihilism. It prevents the dead from finding rest, and fills them with a hatred of the living. And it only gets worse from there.

When you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, though you may not notice it immediately, somewhere, somehow, the world just became a worse place.

Fortunately, Good spells, actions, and channeling positive energy counter these effects.

Necromancy itself is not inherently evil. A number of its uses are, but the school as a whole is not. The same is true of the negative energy the school utilizes.

Unless the spell does something needlessly cruel, corrodes the target's soul in some way, or creates an undead creature it's no more or less evil than torching the enemy with a fireball or ramming several feet of cold steel through his gut. Obviously, spells with the evil descriptor are evil.

Necromancy is generally seen as evil because a disproportionate number of the spells in the school -do- fall into one of the three categories listed. It's also frequently misconstrued as -only- useful for the creation and manipulation of undead.

The whole undead army thing is bunk. There are no class features for any necromanticly focused class and only a handful of spells, all of relatively high level and none of them in the PHB, that allow you to control more than a handful of undead at one time. Unless you consider 80 or so humanoid skeletons of laughable power an army, it just doesn't happen. The only exception is the chain of controlled spawn, by which a necromancer controls a creature capable of spawning more of its own or some other undead that it maintains control over; a most perilous course, to be sure, since losing control of that initial creature severs the necromancer's control over "his" army.

[mawexzon]

What makes a man turn Necromancer?
Lust for gold?
Power?
Or maybe just born with a heart full of necromancy?

[Gavinfoxx]

Maybe they like the look of Onyx?

[sambouchah]

I have a dwarven cleric who's family was killed by a dragon and he sought a way to bring them back by studying the darker side of the divine.

[Kinsmarck]

I'm running a character right now, actually, who first studied as a physician's apprentice before being sent to an arcane academy. Having found that the rudiments of life and death, and that each are a process, and not exclusive phenomena, were fascinating to him, he continued his studies with a medical mindset. Like most dedicated scholars, he seeks knowledge and understanding of these subjects for their own sake, not unlike a collector with little practical use for his collection. Class-wise, he's actually a (PF)Alchemist2/Necro5 so far, with the Vivisectionist archetype, and the other players have actually voiced their surprise at how likeable the fellow is, having come to the usual preconceived notions that necromancers are all skeleton-raising, ghoul-kissing, power mongers.

The assumption that, just because arcane magic can grant world-shattering power, anyone who studies the subject will seek it out, is, to me, indicative of a lack of understanding of sociology. People rarely seize their utmost potential, even if little stands in their way. The little things cloud their judgment, from daily inconveniences, to time-sapping vices that always seem to keep one busy enough to put off whatever doesn't have to be done right now. Or, as is the case for this character, that world-bending power just doesn't appeal to him. What would come of wielding it? Increased responsibility, the inevitable propagation of enemies, the risk of jealous rivals seeking to do him in so that they can beat him to the top of the pile? Why put himself in that situation when he is philosophically content to do what he loves, lending his aid and talents to an adventuring party of agreeable friends, so that he might earn enough coin to continue doing what he loves until such time that he buckles down in old age to pass on his wisdom?

That's just my two cents on the matter, anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[Darth Stabber]

When you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, though you may not notice it immediately, somewhere, somehow, the world just became a worse place.

Just reminded of 8bit theater

Redmage: so bm, what actually powers your hadouken spell?
Blackmage: promise you won't laugh?
Redmage: sure.
Blackmage: love.
Redmage: really?
Blackmage: yeah, everytime I use it, it siphons a little bit of love out of the universe.
Redmage: how much?
Blackmage: I am told the divorce rate goes up everytime I use it.

[ericgrau]

The way I figured [Evil] spells may or may not be used for good or evil ends, but casting the spell itself is evil. Like catapulting a flaming orphan into an orc keep to set their supplies on fire. Sure it may turn out well and a good person might even do it under extreme circumstances, but it is not without cost.

I'd guess animate dead is screwing with the original body owner's soul. Putting it in limbo or something. That's why he can't be ressurected. Even if it was an evil guy's soul, it's a bit demented to do to anybody.

[King Atticus]

Trading "evil creepy" out for "insane creepy", I see?

Yeah, I love insane creepy! So much more flavorful then some character who's only motivation is to be the worlds biggest d-bag. Complexity, to me, is what makes characters real.

[Darth Stabber]

In the game I am currently running, there is an entire necromancer kingdom, which has become an economic powerhouse thanks to the necro-industrial revolution. Most of the peasant class is extinct (worked to death, then reanimated, still working), so the merchant, noble, and magic classes are all that remained. Choosing necromancy in that country is the easy path of study, right into a good job after graduation ("foreman" at one of the many factories in the growing urban areas). The amount of necromancy used is so high that the negative energy plane almost touches at the largest temple of we jas. Most of the people who live in the country have tomb tainted soul.

[Sception]

The problem with the classical motivation for necromancy in fiction: seeking to bring a lost family member back to life by learning forbidden rituals which might go horribly wrong, is that in D&D land you can bring the dead back to life, and through more commonly known methods that aren't really any harder than creating undead, and undead are just a thing that more or less everyone knows about, so no spellcaster who wanted to bring back a loved one would ever study necromancy to begin with, or create an undead monster by accident. That would be like setting out to the hardware store to buy a lighting fixture, ending up at the grocery store by mistake, and somehow coming back with paper plates, then trying to mount those plates on the wall to light your living room. Just doesn't work that way.

The other classic motivation - seeking a means not of restoring life, but rather of preventing death permanently, still works though. Imagine an elf wizard studying necromancy in the hopes of extending their human lovers life indefinately so that they can spend the centuries together.

[Amphetryon]

In 3.5, Wizards are often Characters with low STR; Necromancers are not infrequently Characters with middling-to-low CON as well. Characters with bodies possessed of such obvious physical frailties may be drawn to the school of magic which explores the creation of such frailties in others, either from maliciousness, curiosity, or even a desire to find methods to overcome these weaknesses in future. The school of magic that does the most debuffing (creating frailties) as a percentage of its total spell number is Necromancy.