Practical Neutral Necromancy

[nolongerchaos]

I have been pondering the prospect of playing a neutral (non-evil) necromancer for some time, and I am curious as to what sort of ideas the Playground has in terms of practical necromancy to facilitate such a character. I have seen it suggested that Marvelous Pigments could be used to create bodies for a necromancer, though they probably would not qualify as "dead bodies" or "corpses," as can be required for some of their spells. Do you members of the Playground have any ideas or stories to help facilitate a neutral necromancer?

(And just as a gentle note, I am not looking for further discussion of the casting spells with alignment descriptors, there are more than enough of those threads already)

[Grinner]

I think a statue (easily made with a Stone Shape spell) exposed to a Stone to Flesh becomes a corpse by RAW.

There was another thread on this a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

[OldTrees1]

Good Necromancy:
There are those the wish their bodies to continue to promote their causes even after they pass on.

There are those that realize that Positive Energy spells should be Necromancy spells.


Neutral Necromancy:
Animals tend to not care what happens to their remains.

Some people are willing to sell the rights to their corpses. (With an anti-murder clause)

[Blackhawk748]

Being a neutral Necro is pretty easy;

1. dont dig up graves
2. dont make intelligent undead (with unintelligent minions you can just call them corpse or skeleton golems and actually have an argument to support yourself)
3. Leave your minions outside of town, they scare the villagers.

Honestly just animate goblins, orcs, orges and other creatures most kingdoms hate and you should be fine.

[tyckspoon]

It's an annoyingly high-level way to do it, but you can Polymorph Any Object a corpse into any other kind of corpse. Stone To Fleshing statues into corpses should also work, and the Instantaneous duration would help head off arguments about what happens when your POA'd dracozombie gets Dispelled. Can't use Stone Shape to make your subjects, tho- Stone Shape can't do 'fine detail' and any moving parts have a 30% chance to be non-functional, which are both pretty stiff restrictions on getting your soon-to-be-undead to turn out properly. Hire a sculptor or put some ranks in an appropriate Craft and Fabricate your statues.

[Grinner]

...any moving parts have a 30% chance to be non-functional...

I don't think that should be a problem, since statues don't typically have moving parts.

Fabricate's a good idea. It's hard to argue with, though it's also less efficient than a fully magically-produced statue, given the Craft check requirement.

[tyckspoon]

I don't think that should be a problem, since statues don't typically have moving parts.

I was making an assumption/extension of the moving parts/fine detail rule there; if you create a statue that would have problems moving (if it could move), then it seems reasonable to me to say that when you turn it into flesh and animate it, it'll still have those problems. So if you screwed up your statue's jaw or claws or wings or whatever when you Stone Shape, then the resultant undead creature might have trouble attacking or flying or walking.

[Coidzor]

Well, there's vegan necromancy, and there's the Redeemer of Regrets (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) homebrew.

Me, I find that taking the corpses of monsters you slay and converting them into undead is the most neutral option. And much better than a bunch of nigh-useless 1 HD humanoid skeletons. I mean, 1 tiger versus 6 humans? No contest, I'll take the tiger.

[Eonir]

Complete Arcane (or it might be Complete Mage) talks about this. Necromancy is a dark art. It takes a certain of depravity to practice it, which is why most necromancers are evil. However, a necromancer who uses this dark power for good purposes would land pretty squarely neutral.

[Rebel7284]

Animate dead still has an evil descriptor no matter what you target..

Edit: basically I agree with Eonir

[OldTrees1]

Animate dead still has an evil descriptor no matter what you target..

Edit: basically I agree with Eonir

Note: Your DM might be wise enough to ignore ^this^ fact.

[Phelix-Mu]

Note: Your DM might be wise enough to ignore ^this^ fact.

I don't think irl wisdom has much to do with it. It's more of a matter of opinion on how a given setting views the matter.

For the OP: One view that I've been working on for a while is that there is a certain level of negative energy phenomena that is "natural." Some ghosts spontaneously come into being, and it makes sense that some graveyards or other concentrations of dead beings might create small pools of negative energy sufficient to randomly animate zombies or skeletons. These creatures are obviously bad and may engage in evil acts, but they are no more unnatural than tornadoes that lay waste to whole cities or rabid animals that maul travelers.

If you can sell a DM on this theory, you can spend time as more of a "shepherd" archetype, searching the world for existing undead and keeping them in line/directing them toward some cause. This is in contrast to the "creator" archetype, which goes about making undead from the dead, something that is much harder to justify.

The major opposition I have to animating creatures being neutral is that you create an independent being that is basically a nonparticipant in any natural cycle. If the undead creature does anything, it probably kills the living. As a necromancer, of course, you can control them, but guaranteeing this is problematic.

As a nice counterpoint, imagine someone takes a bunch of the living and brainwashes them into being psychotic murdering machines. This person has control over them, and can channel their murdering to non-evil ends. But the control isn't guaranteed (especially if the person is knocked unconscious or killed), and essentially creating murderers where none existed before is really hard to color as anything besides evil.

There is some difference between this and creating undead, but not a whole lot.

[Deophaun]

The major opposition I have to animating creatures being neutral is that you create an independent being that is basically a nonparticipant in any natural cycle. If the undead creature does anything, it probably kills the living. As a necromancer, of course, you can control them, but guaranteeing this is problematic.
But the main issue is that the creatures created with animate dead aren't instinctual killing machines. If you don't issue them commands, they do nothing. If you tell them to pick flowers, they will go around picking flowers until you tell them to stop (or someone commands them and tells them to do something else). If you die, the skeletons/zombies continue on with whatever you told them to do. From this perspective, they're actually less evil than an animated object.

[Phelix-Mu]

But the main issue is that the creatures created with animate dead aren't instinctual killing machines. If you don't issue them commands, they do nothing. If you tell them to pick flowers, they will go around picking flowers until you tell them to stop (or someone commands them and tells them to do something else). If you die, the skeletons/zombies continue on with whatever you told them to do. From this perspective, they're actually less evil than an animated object.

Can I get RAW on uncommanded undead never engaging in any activity on their own? I don't doubt that it may exist, I just want a reference point as I develop my own views on the matter.

The other problem, less serious, is if they are just weapons, they are easily abused toward evil ends. But so are powerful magical swords.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think irl wisdom has much to do with it. It's more of a matter of opinion on how a given setting views the matter.

Wisdom was in reference to DM & PC cooperation. The PC has a character concept and a wise DM would try to accommodate it especially since it is rather easy to do in this case.

[Phelix-Mu]

Upon looking at the MM, it seems clear to me that someone over at WotC wasn't even paying attention to themselves, let alone others working on undead.

1.) Non-sentient undead templates miraculously create evil creatures. That's impressive, considering the description makes it clear that they are mindless and only follow orders.

2.) Orders of their evil masters. Clearly, only evil people use undead as minions.

3.) How do we know the necromancer is evil. Probably because he is using undead, which are inexplicably evil. Or because he is using an evil spell that is evil because it creates inexplicably evil undead (assuming animate dead).

Right, well, a very nice example of circular logic there, kids.

If you can find a way not to abuse the bodies of the dead by stealing them and using them as tools (a bit of a perversion of the actual purpose of a body), then I'd say go with the neutral thing. Beware that good people with prejudice on this matter are probably also justified, so the neutral necromancer doesn't really hold the high ground.

[Zale]

You can do a whole lot of necromancy without actually making corpse puppets.

I mean if there's a place where, due to something terrible happening in the past, corpses tend to get up an walk, then people are going to start wanting someone to convince them to stop.

Necromancy is pretty good at that.

[Phelix-Mu]

You can do a whole lot of necromancy without actually making corpse puppets.

I mean if there's a place where, due to something terrible happening in the past, corpses tend to get up an walk, then people are going to start wanting someone to convince them to stop.

Necromancy is pretty good at that.

Hence my shepherd idea. It will be much easier to sell beneficent-undead-tamer than animator-of-only-legitimate-corpses or makes-faux-corpses-into-real-zombies.

They really do seem to equate the creation of undead with evil. Not just the use of corpses. If corpse issue could be got around, then you wouldn't have an evil master, and teh skeleton/zombie wouldn't be evil by default (regardless, seemingly, of the origin of the corpse).

[Deophaun]

Can I get RAW on uncommanded undead never engaging in any activity on their own? I don't doubt that it may exist, I just want a reference point as I develop my own views on the matter.
You probably saw it based on your last post, but just to make it explicit:

A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative.
Zombies... are less defined, but still not rules for their default behavior:

Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple.
The PHB just adds some more about "doing their master's bidding."

[BWR]

Read "The Complete Book of Necromancers" for all your Necromancy needs, especially discussing the moral aspects of it.
Alternatively, "Encyclopedia Arcane: Necromancy - beyond the grave" is a bit too focused on the undead but worth a look.

[MrNobody]

I'm currenti playing a LN necromancer/cleric/true necromacer, so i give you the solution i found for this problem.

The char concept is this: he is the servant of a particular LN god of death(the lord of the gate, my invention) that guards "the gate", a demiplane from which all souls of the dead have to pass before reaching the plane of their gods. Being cursed, having the body rasied as undead are things that prevents souls to cross the gate, causing problem to the soul itself, to the Lord of the gate and to multiverse's balance. My mission is to help this god to bring back balance and allow the souls to cross the gate.

How do I do this? Turning necromancy against those who break this balance.
I even raise undeads, but only in two situation.
1) The body of the resurrected undead is from one of those who broke the balance: by resurrecting them i prevent their soul to pass the gate and find refuge at their god's court. I resurrect them as sentient undeads, so they can realize they are being punished. In addition, i usually tatoo their bones/flesh with apologies for their crimes, so that everyone can see their are being punished. When my gods tell me that this punishment it's over, i personally destroy the undead, burning the corpse so it can't be raised again.
2) If a huge group of people has been cursed and i'm trying to break this curse, i raise one of them as a sentient undead so he can help me in my quest and gain eternal freedom both for himself and his community. Once the curse is broken, i destroy the undead as said in the previous point.
In both case, i give them a worthy burial.

I NEVER raise other undeads.

[Coidzor]

The major opposition I have to animating creatures being neutral is that you create an independent being that is basically a nonparticipant in any natural cycle.

Since when is "the natural" good? It's perfectly natural for animals to use poison, but it's also capital E Evil, for starters. It's generally presented as being entirely neutral(see, druids, animals, alignment) for another. :smallconfused:


Animate dead still has an evil descriptor no matter what you target..

Edit: basically I agree with Eonir

We disregard Multiclass XP Penalties. Why not another bad rule (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248)? I mean, I suppose you could fix the bad rule so that it's actually EVIL, but, why on earth would one want to do that?


Hence my shepherd idea. It will be much easier to sell beneficent-undead-tamer than animator-of-only-legitimate-corpses or makes-faux-corpses-into-real-zombies.

That requires you to only use command undead and rebuking or homebrewing up a spell that allows you to take control of uncontrolled undead and add them to your animate dead control pool. Seems much simpler to say, eh, that evil tag on animate dead, let's just take that off.

I mean, sure, your mileage will vary based upon DMs, because if there's one thing DMs are, it's a vagarious and contentious lot. But there's jumping through hoops and then there's using less than a cent's worth of whiteout.

[Psyren]

A neutral Incarnate with Necrocarnum Acolyte can make zombies. You'll never be good enough at it to be more than a dabbler but you can do plenty of other things as well. Combine with a PrC like Sapphire Hierarch or Soul Manifester to boost your repertoire further.

[Nihilarian]

I like the idea of a necromancer who only uses bodies that were donated to him in exchange for services rendered. You make a contract with the guy, then come back after he dies and animate his body.

[Coidzor]

I like the idea of a necromancer who only uses bodies that were donated to him in exchange for services rendered. You make a contract with the guy, then come back after he dies and animate his body.

Except unless you're making Dread Warriors and the person is a high level non-Int dependent character, you don't want the bodies of people.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Since when is "the natural" good? It's perfectly natural for animals to use poison, but it's also capital E Evil, for starters. It's generally presented as being entirely neutral(see, druids, animals, alignment) for another. :smallconfused:

This is mostly true except the poison bit. The actual rule is that -manufactured- poisons that deal ability damage are evil. [/pedantic]

[awa]

A neutral Incarnate with Necrocarnum Acolyte can make zombies. You'll never be good enough at it to be more than a dabbler but you can do plenty of other things as well. Combine with a PrC like Sapphire Hierarch or Soul Manifester to boost your repertoire further.
wow i got all set up to tell you this is wrong then find out it's right talk about stupid Necrocarnum is the torture of souls of the unborn (becuase it does not remove the necarnium descriptor) but it's not evil now becuase um reasons.

[Darkuwa]

I had a TN cleric of Fallagharn(sp?) who raised the dead so they could travel with him. Laying in the ground doing nothing is boring, going on adventure and seeing new places is fun.

[Slipperychicken]

Since when is "the natural" good? It's perfectly natural for animals to use poison, but it's also capital E Evil, for starters. It's generally presented as being entirely neutral(see, druids, animals, alignment) for another. :smallconfused:


According to D&D, animals are neutral creatures (I prefer to think of it as "unaligned", but w/e) because they are incapable of moral choice. Even if they use poison and torture their victims, they didn't (and can't) make a conscious moral decision about it, so such actions don't count against their alignment.

Also, the general idea on druids and nature is that they're neutral. I think Druids need at least one neutral component to their alignment because nature itself is neutral.

The undead and negative energy, however, are not natural. I imagine that ghosts and such arise partly from negative energy corrputing the material plane and twisting souls and bodies into horrible shambling mockeries of life.

[Yawgmoth]

Good to see this thread got absolutely destroyed by alignment pedantry on the first page. Wouldn't want to have any sort of interesting discussion about necromancy when we can throw around the same useless words about a system no one in their right mind uses to begin with!

To contribute to the original topic: I had a neutral necromancer in a (sadly failed-to-launch) game. He was a jeweler by day who had a standing contract with a nearby town: He got to keep the bodies of their dead and in return he gave them a discount on unrefined ore. The townsfolk smelted the ore and made a profit, everyone was happy.

[Raven777]

Good to see this thread got absolutely destroyed by alignment pedantry on the first page. Wouldn't want to have any sort of interesting discussion about necromancy when we can throw around the same useless words about a system no one in their right mind uses to begin with!

Bah. Necromancy is misunderstood. Some people just can't let it go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOGoDfhP6p8). :smalltongue:

[Phelix-Mu]

The undead and negative energy, however, are not natural. I imagine that ghosts and such arise partly from negative energy corrputing the material plane and twisting souls and bodies into horrible shambling mockeries of life.

I agree with the other points, but this last part has started to bug me over the past few years. No one ever complains about the corrupting effects of Positive Energy Plane influences. How is it that negative energy=bad, but positive energy=good/no opinion.

It seems to me that there is a natural amount of both on the Prime. They are, in fact, Inner Planes, which I think defines them as the building blocks of the Prime. I'd say that the normal influence of negative energy, death and entropy, are obviously natural. More concentrated degrees, such as isolated undead and haunted areas, are rarer and problematic, but might still pass as natural in a big world full of strange stuff.

Certainly, the common manifestations of positive energy, life and healing, are not seen as bad, and even flagrant use of positive energy for things like mass heal and bolt of glory never seem to get red-flagged. I think if one is going to be neutral about it, there can't be too much anti-undead hatred (hatred isn't very neutral in the first place).

Anyway, like I said, I have a very big setting with lots of space for weirdness. My last druid only minded undead in concentration, or the sentient kind that are basically driven to screw with the natural order. A more recent npc was a cursed vampire druid who opposed an ancient cabal of other druids, but was himself CN (in slight variance from RAW).

[Slipperychicken]

Good to see this thread got absolutely destroyed by alignment pedantry on the first page. Wouldn't want to have any sort of interesting discussion about necromancy when we can throw around the same useless words about a system no one in their right mind uses to begin with!

It started as an alignment thread. I regret nothing.


Also, in accordance with the OP's wishes, we did avoid talking about alignment descriptiors! :smallbiggrin:


I agree with the other points, but this last part has started to bug me over the past few years. No one ever complains about the corrupting effects of Positive Energy Plane influences. How is it that negative energy=bad, but positive energy=good/no opinion.


Positive energy doesn't taint the land or create evil shambling mockeries of life (I don't count Deathless, because they're so obscure and rarely used), while it does heal people without corrupting them. Negative energy, however, is inimical to life and desolates the land.

[Blackhawk748]

The undead and negative energy, however, are not natural. I imagine that ghosts and such arise partly from negative energy corrputing the material plane and twisting souls and bodies into horrible shambling mockeries of life.

Wait a minute wait a minute, how is negative energy NOT natural? Its a fundamental force of the universe. I mean its the Elemental Force of Death isnt it? Also lets compare making unitelligent undead with making a golem.

How to make a skeleton
1. Get a corpse with a skeleton
2. Put onyx gems in it
3. Cast animate dead
4. Get a minion

How to make a golem
1. Create the body with materials of your choice
2. prepare all arcane materials
3. Summon an elemental and enslave it to the body
4. Get a minion

Now we know that when you create a vampire or most any other intelligent undead you are taking their soul and stuffing it into a corpse. Thats definitely evil, unless your punishing them, then it may be acceptable. But how is making a golem not evil as you are enslaving an intelligent being, whereas with an unintelligent you are simply taking negative energy and stuffing it into a corpse, thus animating it.

Also yes you can also have undead do anything that you want, from slaughtering innocents to fetching your tea.

[Phelix-Mu]

Positive energy doesn't taint the land or create evil shambling mockeries of life (I don't count Deathless, because they're so obscure and rarely used), while it does heal people without corrupting them. Negative energy, however, is inimical to life and desolates the land.

Life=good, death=bad is some pretty stilted logic, though, especially to a neutral person concerned with balance. Death is a necessary part of the equation.

I think part of the bias in the rulebooks is about perversion of purpose. Dead bodies are supposed to be dead and behave like such. Making them get up and walk around is contrary to that purpose, and treats these remains as tools, failing to respect them. This is unlike making a golem, which is a purpose-designed tool (even though I, too, am outraged by the elemental enslavement bit, which really could just have been positive energy, already established to animate objects in the case of ravids).

That is a terribly idiosyncratic view, and involving no small amount of faux-medieval morality to boot, which is irritating.

[Blackhawk748]

Also, just remembered this, Negative Energy can heal. If you have Tomb Tainted Soul your body now runs on distilled essence of death, and IIRC it doesnt have an alignment pre req, so you can have good people who are healed by negative energy.

And as for the Body being perverted in purpose kinda depends on the society. I cite both the Klingons and the Tiste Andii as races that dont care about the body after death. In the case of Klingons they simply get rid of the body with little ceremony, in the case of the Tiste Andii they dont even do that as they dont care about the corpse after the soul moves on.

[Phelix-Mu]

And as for the Body being perverted in purpose kinda depends on the society. I cite both the Klingons and the Tiste Andii as races that dont care about the body after death. In the case of Klingons they simply get rid of the body with little ceremony, in the case of the Tiste Andii they dont even do that as they dont care about the corpse after the soul moves on.

Yeah, it pretty much goes back to the faux-medieval quasi-European theme of the game (which is spotty and downright ignored at times). Back then, people spent huge amounts of time and effort guaranteeing baptism and burial in consecrated ground, all in hopes that the soul would rest easy until reaching the afterlife. That mindless undead don't disturb the soul of the corpse used doesn't jive with this setting flavor, and the setting flavor doesn't much jive with itself, either.

I think you do have to be non-good to get Tomb-Tainted Soul. I could be wrong, though.

[Blackhawk748]

Just checked, Non-good alignment required, but even so most people could take this feat. And ya, core setting DnD doesnt make sense with itself but in most other settings i could see unintelligent undead as being acceptable as long as you didnt desecrate a grave to get it.

Hell i once played a Dread Necro that made sure that his undead always had clothes and armor and when they were destroyed he made sure to bury them. Also he only animated outlaws, bandits, orcs and other beings that were outside the law, basically he used their bodies to undo the harm their spirits caused in life.

[therakishrogue]

Yeah, the idea of negative energy bad, positive energy good always bugged me. Healing magic, which in most games is used constantly by everyone, is effectively dumping positive energy into the prime material over and over and over. IMO, it's not too squirrely to declare necromancy as the necessary re balancing of the world's natural energy state to avoid everyone exploding from too many hit points, or summoning Ragnorra Mother of Monsters from the Elder Evils book.

Furthermore, the sheer verity of funeral rights and ideas about death in our own world suggests to me that in a world with many, many sentient species, there would be plenty of cultures that consider animating a corpse as the absolute most moral thing to do. In one of my current campaigns, there is a earth/protection/fertility god who's followers consider the bones of the dead to be divine gifts analogous to veins of metal and gems in mines. Among them, it would be a great insult to their god to throw them back into the ground after a persons "living clay" has sloughed off.

[therakishrogue]

Also, is their slavery or serfdom anywhere in your campaign world? A necromancer abolitionist trying to replace bonded servitude with ubiquitous skeleton servants would be an interesting take on the Good necromancer.

[Blackhawk748]

I love that culture lol I just remembered a conversation with a buddy the other day and we both agreed that the cure chain should be Necromancy (healing) as Necromancy in its original context was the manipulation of the body and speaking with spirits. I believe that 2e took this stance

[123456789blaaa]

From the first APQT:



To go along with this, why is it considered an Evil act to animate the dead?

Because WotC is lazy on notions of morality.

But I suppose you want me to conjecture a better, less meta answer. Very well. Creating undead draws forth a powerful amount of negative energy into a world, and I don't mean negative energy as in "bad vibes," I mean negative energy as in "entropy and antilife." Even if your intentions are good, the act of creating false life from negative energy disrupts nature and does damage to the world in small, often imperceptible but very cumulative ways. For instance, the creation of undead is indirectly responsible for the spontaneous creation of forms of sentient undead where filaments of unnatural negative energy pool together.

Like Black Mage's Hadouken, your intent is not necessary, because you know what you're harnessing and in what fashion. Ironically, it is less evil to direct negative energy against a living being (inflict wounds) than it is to call it forth as a manifestation of antilife, as life "grounds" the negative energy and prevents it from spreading out/filamenting.

So it's not that Negative Energy itself is Evil (the NEP is neutral after all). It's just that the specific way that Negative Energy is used when creating undead is Evil. Entropy and death are natural, neutral parts of DnD-land (heck, Ygorl is the Slaad Lord of Entropy) but using them in that particular way resonates with Evil. You are indirectly contributing to the creation of Allips (for example) when you animate a zombie. Allips are Evil and kill people horribly.

[nolongerchaos]

Some interesting ideas so far, the undead shepherd seems intriguing.
I also like the suggestion of animating animals, and for those who insist on discussing the philosophical implications of necromancy in a thread intended for the practical mechanical/roleplaying aspects, perhaps you've advice/ideas to share in regards to how to back up claims of "skeleton golems," or how to placate the druid cabal who isn't too happy about an army of undead animals, despite my claims I did it in the interests of, er, philosophical neutrality.
Also what sort of ideas are out there to gather the other less-than-savory non-corpse necromantic material components (i.e. bones for Black Lore of Moil)?

[Brookshw]

I love that culture lol I just remembered a conversation with a buddy the other day and we both agreed that the cure chain should be Necromancy (healing) as Necromancy in its original context was the manipulation of the body and speaking with spirits. I believe that 2e took this stance

2e also took the stance that animating dead was primarily in the domain of evil though not absolutely so. There is also an elder evil that's horribly positive energy dominant. Flipping through the libris mortis they keep referencing undead as unlife, animated by negative energy, but I'm getting the impression its the "unlife" is the evil bit. All gods with undeath in their portfolio are evil. I'm not so sure that negative energy is a factor in the evil tag, might simply be a common equivocation.

[Blackhawk748]

Take them from slain enemies, hell certain cultures may view this as you honoring the fallen as you are using those you have fought before to help you slay your enemies of the future

Also i believe unlife specifically means sentient undead, though that could be my interpretation. I am after all a vocal advocate of Neutral unintelligent undead.

[therakishrogue]

for those who insist on discussing the philosophical implications of necromancy in a thread intended for the practical mechanical/roleplaying aspects, perhaps you've advice/ideas to share in regards to how to back up claims of "skeleton golems.
Well, who is your character backing up these claims to? Other casters? Bands of peasants who think you eat babies? A crusade of paladins with 17th century Protestant ideas on the proper treatment of dead bodies? Your GM?

[Blackhawk748]

Wanna back up skeleton golem? Ask it a question, now ask a golem a question. You get the same answer............ silence

Also just dont talk to Clerics of Pelor, they are REALLY not understanding and can be quite hurtful

[MilesTiden]

In one of my setting ideas, there was a country run by a LN Necromancer. Basically, the area was overrun with extremely large amounts of undead, both intelligent and not. The king ended up destroying the evil intelligent undead, befriending some of the less evil ones, and controlling the unintelligent ones. He then used them as labor to build an empire and aid his people. It never quite got farther than that, but it was a fun idea.

[Slipperychicken]

Life=good, death=bad is some pretty stilted logic, though, especially to a neutral person concerned with balance. Death is a necessary part of the equation.

Nobody's saying that. Also, that's not quite how D&D handles it.It's somewhat more nuanced than that. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)


SRD

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.



Death is a necessary part of the equation.

This is true. Necromancy is evil partly because it interrupts the life cycle by suspending living things in undeath and stopping them from dying or otherwise contributing meaningfully to the ecosystem.

[Blackhawk748]

Wait a minute, how am i "suspending living things in undeath" when its a skeleton? Its already dead and had all its meat rot off im just using whats left over.

[Raven777]

Non-Good does not equal Evil.

[illyahr]

I had a lawful neutral halfling necromancer who worked as a gravekeeper and respected the natural cycle of souls. A body contains a soul, but once the soul passes on the body is an empty vessel. He viewed the creation of a zombie or skeleton as nothing more than putting a discarded tool to use and frequently did so in order to help him dig graves and bury other recently deceased. There was a pleasant symmetry to it. He even had a skeleton pony named Bony to pull his cart of gravetending equipment and necromantic supplies.

The only undead he had issues with were those sentient undead that had the state forced on them or those that used undeath to extend their life. He even took offense to those who used or were brought back by things like Raise Dead and Resurrection spells, considering those people already dead and refusing to have anything to do with them. They were people who forced themselves against the cycle of souls so were no better than a lich or vampire.

Interestingly enough, he had no issue with the druid's Reincarnation spell as it moved the soul forward instead of pulling it back.

He was last working on magical theory for a spell that forced Raise Dead and the like to kill another person for every one it brought back.

[Coidzor]

According to D&D, animals are neutral creatures (I prefer to think of it as "unaligned", but w/e) because they are incapable of moral choice. Even if they use poison and torture their victims, they didn't (and can't) make a conscious moral decision about it, so such actions don't count against their alignment.

Also, the general idea on druids and nature is that they're neutral. I think Druids need at least one neutral component to their alignment because nature itself is neutral.

Ah, good, so you agree with me completely then. Cool.


The undead and negative energy, however, are not natural. I imagine that ghosts and such arise partly from negative energy corrputing the material plane and twisting souls and bodies into horrible shambling mockeries of life.

Or you go completely out of left field and depart from what you've established.

If nature = neutral, then not natural =/= auto-evil. Besides, the material plane is *made* out of Positive & Negative Energy in addition to the 4 elements.


This is true. Necromancy is evil partly because it interrupts the life cycle by suspending living things in undeath and stopping them from dying or otherwise contributing meaningfully to the ecosystem.

Ah, but remember, Nature = Neutral. Not Neutral =/= auto-evil.

And then there's the whole thing where not-Nature =/= auto-evil...

[Blackhawk748]

I had a lawful neutral halfling necromancer who worked as a gravekeeper and respected the natural cycle of souls. A body contains a soul, but once the soul passes on the body is an empty vessel. He viewed the creation of a zombie or skeleton as nothing more than putting a discarded tool to use and frequently did so in order to help him dig graves and bury other recently deceased. There was a pleasant symmetry to it. He even had a skeleton pony named Bony to pull his cart of gravetending equipment and necromantic supplies.

The only undead he had issues with were those sentient undead that had the state forced on them or those that used undeath to extend their life. He even took offense to those who used or were brought back by things like Raise Dead and Resurrection spells, considering those people already dead and refusing to have anything to do with them. They were people who forced themselves against the cycle of souls so were no better than a lich or vampire.

Interestingly enough, he had no issue with the druid's Reincarnation spell as it moved the soul forward instead of pulling it back.

He was last working on magical theory for a spell that forced Raise Dead and the like to kill another person for every one it brought back.

I just need to say that this halfling is awesome

[Naanomi]

A campaign I played in had a prominent kingdom where NOT practicing necromancy was immoral. It was your civic duty to allow your body to be used for labor after you were done with it. If you were exceptionally wise or knowledgeable and resisted returning as an intelligent undead to share that gift with future generations, you were foolish for letting your contributions rot in some Outer Plane. They were constantly offended by the backwards funeral practices of other peoples. Their standard of living was very high for the living, who barely worked except to study or prepare their body for futue service.

I think the society was Lawful Neutral overall despite the death obsession.