Character Concepts:Non-Evil Necromancer

[RedMage125]

Hello all, in a recent discussion with a buddy of mine, we were discussing Necromancy, and its moral applications.

Now, I have heard any number of people who defend the idea of a "non-evil necromancer" with such drivvel as "animating the dead isn't even what necromancy's about", and things like that.

Well, I call Shenanigans. The classic trope of a Necromancer is that of a caster who raises corpses to be his thralls.

But all undead-creating spells carry the Evil descriptor, right? So, by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act, yes? So, how to make a possible character who was not only able, but also willing to employ such methods, without being Evil (or turning to Evil) himself?

I came up with a character concept of a guy who comes from a society that is in many ways like Ancient Egypt, in terms of reverence for the afterlife, and obsession with death. Wee Jas is the primary patron of this culture, as so many of her tenets fit very well. Undead are used in this society as slave labor, arrow fodder in times of war, and more. Being turned into an undead creature is frequently used as a punishment for cirminals, as they are denied the afterlife and forced to serve the hierarchy whose laws they have violated. The character in question holds the position of State Necromancer, and he openly practices necromancy. His other obligations would include preparation of the bodies of those who are to be properly buried, and judgement of criminals. He would be Lawful Neutral, and very devoted to ideas of justice, in many ways behaving as one would expect from a Lawful Good character, excepting only that he considers use of Evil means on Evil creatures as acceptable. He would have no qualms about animating the corpses of orcs, monsters, or anything else the party defeated, as they are unburied corpses. The one restriction, however, is that this character would NEVER violate a properly buried corpse, such would be a major violation of his idiom.

It does create at least one bit of a story problem for DMs, though, in that this character would refuse to participate in any dungeon crawl that involved violating a tomb. And if doing so was absolutely necessary, he would do everything in his power to keep the party from looting anything from the tomb, unless a Speak With Dead with the Primary Resident of the tomb secured permission for taking anything.

That's the fluff for this character, and I wanted to share that with people here. The game I was going to get to run this guy in never got off the ground, so I'm offering the concept up to anyone who wants to cherry-pick some ideas off of it, or annex it wholesale is fine with me.

Mechanics aren't really important as far as why I posted this, but here's what I had...

When this was just in the planning stages, I envisioned him as a Dread Necromancer/Cleric multiclass going into True Necromancer(probably DN4/Clr3/TN13)...and then I actually gave that PrC a more than cursory glance. It sucks pretty hard. I mainly thought of him as arcane/divine because his position as State Necromancer in a culture that so prevalently worships Wee Jas seemed to indicate that he was a member of the clergy. MAD wasn't a big problem, since this DM uses rolled stats and I rolled a phenomenal stat array in front of him. Nothing below a 12, and 2 18s.

Looking back on it, I could have kept him straight Dread Necro (maybe taking a PrC), and had his position as a clergyman be flavor text. The Lich Body transformation could easily be re-flavored as gradual mummification. And the staright-DN level 20 full transformation could be flavored as a special kind of mummy lord. The phyalctery sort of making sense (conatining his baa or ka), but more likely being a box containing his 6 canopic jars.

Anyways, the mechanics are less relevant for what I wanted to share. I'm sure the optimizers on these boards could have a field day making that character work great mechanically. Even going Arcane/Divine could work, if one went Dread Necro 8/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8/Paragnostic Apostle 2, would have level 9 arcane/divine spells, would rebuke as a level 14 cleric (with Undead Mastery), and (with Practiced Spellcaster) would have a Caster Level of 20 for DN spells and cleric spells. Sadly, the DM is pretty fluff-mutable on a lot of things, but not on Ur-Priest, which would require him to explicitly NOT worship a deity. And this build would be pretty MAD for anyone who didn't roll crazy stats like I did (seriously, they were ridiculous, something like 18, 18, 16, 14, 15, 12).

Anyways...what do you all think? Once again, feel free (players and DMs) to cherry-pick from this or snag it wholesale. My stance on everything I creatively construct for D&D is "Plagarism is the Greatest Form of Flattery", so...enjoy.

Edit: Here's something I typed up regarding this character's homeland. I'm adding ti to the OP for anyone new to the thread:
My character's name is Sibuna-hotep, by the way.
Here’s what I’ve come up with for my character’s home nation. Text in brackets [] denotes metagame text or information. Text in double asterisks denotes details best left to the DM to decide, sometimes with placeholder names.
The nation of Khasim [home of Sibuna-hotep]
Current Ruler: Pharaoh Imra-hoten IV [Lawful Good male aasimar Aristocrat 10]

History/Geography: Khasim is a nation that sits in the middle of the **Lakhara** Desert, located in the **South/West/Whatever** of the **X** Continent. The wide, fertile valley of the **Calim** River runs through the otherwise arid desert, and almost all cities and towns that owe allegiance to Khasim are located in that valley. Legend has it that the nation was founded by Khasim Al-govrod, known now as the first pharaoh of Khasim, Potiphar I [Potiphar means something along the lines of “sent from Ra” in Egyptian, so I adapted that as meaning “sent from god/heaven”], who gave the nation his name and took another for himself. Khasim was a grand vizier and High Priest of Wee Jas in the ancient Empire of **insert name of ancient, destroyed empire in your world, although if you’re at all going with 4e influences, I’ll call it Nerath**. When Nerath fell, Khasim gathered as many followers and other refugees as he could and fled, the Army of Ruin hot on their heels. He led them deep into the **Lakhara** Desert, and the Army of Ruin, believing them to have gone to their deaths, did not follow. After wandering for weeks, and running out of water, the refugees were facing death. Khasim prayed to Wee Jas, and pleaded for assistance. She sent powerful divine emissaries to assist Khasim, and led them to the **Calim** River. The refugees, grateful for the divine aid that saved their lives, all pledged to honor and worship Wee Jas above all other gods. They built the town of Ankhetra, now the capital city of the nation of Khasim. It is said that Khasim fell in love with one of the celestial emissaries of Wee Jas [an archon, as they are Lawful Good, and could serve her; an angel in 4e], and she bore him a half-mortal child. This began a tradition of the Pharaohs of Khasim always being chosen for their “divine heritage”.

Government: Although Khasim himself was a powerful cleric, his child was not. Nonetheless, as a child with celestial blood, the priesthood held her in high regard, even reverence, a tradition that has continued down throughout the Potiphar Dynasty to this very day. Khasim, like any other nation, has its aristocracy and its commoners. The merchant class stands somewhere in between. The clergy stand somewhat apart from the rest of society, and although commoners chosen or called to serve in the priesthood are thus elevated above their station, there is a glass ceiling for their ascent, as only those of noble blood are permitted to rise to the higher seats of power, even within the Church. To outside nations, Khasim is viewed as a theocracy, because the clergy holds so many positions of power and authority in the nation. As a quick summation, this is close enough to be correct, but there is more to it than that. The aristocracy-commoner division is a secular one, and many nobles have little to no affiliation with the church, other than as lay worshippers (although a rich enough noble may have a personal chaplain in their home). The Pharaoh himself (or herself, but currently a man) is a secular ruler [male or female aasimar, may or may not have levels in PC classes], who has authority within (and over) the Church. For their part, the people of Khasim view their Pharaoh as both the leader of their nation and as a religious personage, as he has divine blood. Potiphar I laid down a series of laws when he formed his nation, many of which were based off the legal code of Ancient Nerath, but also in keeping with religious doctrine of Wee Jas. The laws have not changed significantly over the centuries and are known collectively as The Code of Potiphar. Slavery is legal in Khasim, but slaves occupy an unusual position in the legal code, as they are both people and property. While a master has a right to punish a slave for disobedience, excessive cruelty towards one’s slaves could be met with consequences. As such, slaves have some rights, but not many. Sometimes free Khasimites voluntarily enter into service as a slave to another, but such is a unique contractual scenario with a limited amount of time (typically 10 years), after which, the former slave is given a payment, agreed upon in the slave-contract. In order for such a contract to be legal, the slave-contract must be notarized by a magistrate (typically a magus), and is kept with local legal records. Slavery is not inherent, if a child is born to two slaves, that child is a free citizen, albeit usually of the lowest social caste.

Religion: Worship of Wee Jas is very widespread throughout Khasim. Officially, it is the only state religion. Worship of other deities is not exactly illegal, but a worshipper of a different deity would be very socially aberrant to the rest of society, and almost no native Khasimites worship anyone other than Wee Jas. There are no temples to other deities anywhere in Khasim, but wealthy foreigners may have a chapel in their homes. The Church itself is headed by the Grand High Magus [The Dragon article ascribed the title of “magus” to Wee Jas’ clergy, and “high magus” to be title of great respect. “Jasdrin” is, apparently, an appellation for any worshipper of Wee Jas], who supports and advises the Pharaoh (although historically, some weaker rulers have been controlled by the Grand High Magus from behind the throne). The Grand High Magus is responsible for the overall spiritual well-being of the people of Khasim, and has the authority to deal with all internal Church matters. The Church, however IS the government of Khasim, as far as government officials go. Almost all government officials at the very least hold the title of “magus” [Cleric of at least 5th level, although other classes may also be magi, see below], and they deal not only with religious duties, but also with government duties (judges, scribes, barristers, etc.). Everyday religious duties can be handled by lower-ranking clergy, and although any who can sufficiently demonstrate worthiness can be granted the title of “magus”, not every magus is a government official. Any clergyman granted the title of “high magus” [usually a cleric of 12th level or higher] is usually offered the opportunity to take on a position of more power and authority. The overall head of a town or city is almost always a high magus. As far as religious outlooks, Khasimite culture is very focused on the afterlife. The deeds of mortals in this life determine what fate they can expect in the next, which will be for eternity. For most law-abiding citizens, regardless of social caste, this will be an eternity of peaceful bliss.

Trade and Foreign Relations: Khasim is no longer as isolated as it once was, but potential trading partners still must send caravans through the **Lakhari** Desert to reach the **Calim** River Valley. Khasim’s most notable exports are textiles (to include Khasimite silk and cotton, both of which demand a high price among the wealthy of other nations), spices, paper, and, of course, a small but flourishing trade in magical goods. Khasim is largely self-sufficient enough that it does not depend on trade, but some foreign goods are very popular in Khasim. Beef is uncommon in Khasim and very expensive, as cows are not usually kept as herd animals due to the large amount of fertile land needed to sustain them. Dwarven ales and beers, for example, keep well along trade routes [like an IPA, they are both bitter and high in alcohol content]. Khasimite spellcasters (both magi and non-Church affiliated) always love to obtain some new magical spell, unique magic item, or construct from foreign lands. However, some of the peculiarities in Khasimite culture lead some other nations to prefer to not deal with them directly, as they feel ill at ease around them. This works well for those nations that do trade with Khasim, because they can charge import duties and levy extra charges on the Khasimite goods that their merchants deliver to other nations (hence the outrageous price of Khasmite silk in most lands).

Necromancy in Khasim: Necromancy, to include the creation of undead, is tolerated and even practiced openly in Khasim, making it unique among all the nations and peoples of **whatever the name of your world is**. In the past, this has led to conflict with other peoples, and misguided “heroes”. However, necromancy is exclusively the demesne of the Church, which polices the practice strictly. As the Church also holds all executive and judicial power in Khasim, this has given rise to the appellation “State Necromancer”, in reference to those magi whose duty it is to deal with the bodies of the dead. They may be members of any variety of classes, arcane or divine [frequently Cleric, Wizard (not always a necromancer), or Dread Necromancer]. Their duties include burial preparation (usually for mummification), and creation of undead. Even for a culture seemingly obsessed with death, this is a rather grim and unpleasant task. Wee Jas is a guardian of the spirits of the dead, and tolerates the loss of souls who volunteer for conversion to undeath (as their souls to not pass to her realm). As per the laws of Khasim, however, some crimes result in execution and summary conversion to undeath as a punishment (as these souls are denied the afterlife forever, and must now serve the very system whose laws they violated); Wee Jas accepts this as well. Such undead creatures are used in a variety of ways, such as simple slave labor or as warriors.

Ways to end up as an undead creature in Khasim:
• Murder (note that killing a slave is more “destruction of another’s property” than it is “murder”, and may result in the killer owing reparations to the slave’s master. However, killing one’s own slaves falls into “mistreatment of slaves” which is a separate crime, but still not murder).
• Treason (This would also apply to foreigners who attempt crimes against the Pharaoh or Grand High Magus, as well as a handful of other individuals of sufficient power and influence).
• Tomb Robbing (to include unsanctioned creation of undead).
• Trafficking with Fiends. [Although as a Lawful Neutral deity, Wee Jas’ clerics are able to cast Evil summoning spells in accordance with the rules, it is a crime in Khasim. It’s also a crime for arcane casters as well.]
• Voluntary Submission as a Guardian. More common among the servants of powerful individuals, such as nobles, a Grand High Magus, or Pharaoh; some of their servants volunteer to serve as mummies, eternally guarding the tomb. This self-sacrifice is viewed as a very honorable and noble act on the servant’s part, and is usually done out of love or devotion for their departed master.
• Selling One’s Body. Any free Khasimite may, at their option, contract their body to the Church (or, more correctly, the necromancers). After they die, their body is animated as an undead servant (usually either as labor or warrior), and their family receives a significant monetary payment [sort of like D&D life insurance, but it’s a sacrifice, as that family member is now denied the afterlife]. If a Khasimite dies in significant debt to another, the creditor may appeal to the magi to oversee his case. In which case, the deceased may be animated as an undead slave to serve a term determined by the magistrate as per the value of the debt. After such debt is paid off, the undead slave is destroyed and their spirit allowed to pass on.

The specific type of undead creature created depends on a number of factors, only the least of which is the spellcasting ability of the magi on hand (passing sentence can always be delayed until an appropriately powerful magi can be reached). A tomb robber found to be looting, for example, may be punished for his greed by being turned into a ghoul (and thus retaining his sentience), which is then rigidly controlled by the magi, and prohibited from ever feeding. Someone volunteering as a tomb guardian is usually a mummy, but other forms may be appropriate. Those that sell their bodies are usually turned into mindless forms of undead (such as zombies) and used as labor, this is viewed as the most merciful option because the undead creature retains almost no sentience and is little more than an automaton, forcing very little upon the soul of the deceased other than denial of afterlife. Incorporeal undead are infrequently used, unless the magi adjudicating a criminal offense deems it appropriate as a specific form of punishment. Khasim’s necromancers view incorporeal undead as an enslavement solely of the target’s ba and ka (aspects of one’s soul relating to individuality and life-force, respectively) outside of the body, leaving it to wander without ability to cease for eternity. This would be considered a more grievous form of punishment than simple zombification. Undead which pose an indiscriminate threat to those around them (such as bodaks, with their death gaze), are almost never used. Vampires are almost unheard of in Khasim, the almost omnipresent burning sun would make unlife as a vampire very difficult, and therefore unsuitable for the state to even get any use out of them. A Necromancer [of any class] may, at his or her own option, choose to enter a state of undeath. As this is voluntary, Khasimite law does not prohibit this, but most regular people still find undead unnerving. Some powerful magi (or other arcanists) do achieve lichdom. Such an individual’s condition is usually something of an “open secret”. No one has an actual objection to it, but out of respect for the living Khasimites around them, such liches usually either only go out in public disguised, or they sent servants out for whatever they may need. Their condition as an undead creature, however, is not usually discussed openly. This is both out of respect for someone who is technically “dead”, and because magic-users of the caliber necessary to achieve lichdom warrant enough respect as individuals that discussing their personal business is considered impolite.

Magic in Khasim: Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and as such, users of magic are greatly respected. There are Magic Colleges that train arcane casters. These Colleges are run by the state (read as: the Church of Wee Jas), and thus are overseen by a high magus[who may be an acane or divine caster, see below], although the masters at the school are almost always arcane casters themselves. Individual casters are also permitted to take apprentices. Talent for arcane magic is one of the ways that a person may improve their social class standing. Children recognized for a talent for wizardry (or, more likely, sorcery) can be taken in by the Colleges or individual arcanists and trained. Upon completion of their apprenticeship, arcane casters may choose to take positions working for the Church. Sorcerers, in particular, are almost always taken in to be trained by the state-run Colleges when their talent is recognized, as the potential dangers involved in their lack of training. Regardless of whether or not they choose to join the employ of the state, as users of arcane magic they are, at a minimum, considered to be of the merchant class as far as social standing. Very talented arcanists can sometimes amass enough power and wealth to “buy their way in” to nobility, and may be granted noble titles (especially if they have performed a great service to the crown). Those arcanists who choose to enter the employ of the Church are, in fact, entering the priesthood. They are, in almost all respects, priests as far as the view of society is concerned [they are expected to have ranks in Knowledge (religion), and are under the authority of the Church as priests. They may on may not take on the social/judicial duties of the magi, and may earn the titles of “magus” and “high magus”].

The Royal Family: The bloodline of Potiphar I has continued through the generations, but there can only be one Pharaoh. The many siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles and nephews/nieces of the Pharaoh still have some measure of the divine blood of the original emissary of Wee Jas that led Khasim's founders to the **Calim** River. Nepotism is not uncommon among many societies, and many noble families have some relation to the royal family [they may be aasimar, lesser aasimar, or human]. For those distant royal relations, well-to-do positions, cushy state jobs, or even relative autonomy are easy to come by.

Where Sibuna fits in: Sibuna-hotep is the Pharaoh's third cousin, twice removed. He is no danger of ever being in the line of succession. He is, however, still of royal blood [as such I am considering making him a lesser aasimar instead of human, but the fluff fits with either], and that comes with a few benefits. He's a Dread Necromancer, and a magus. He's worked in Khasim as a magus, and now wants to head out on his own. He's got the family connections to let him walk away from his job, but he's still considered a magus of Khasim. Which means he's been invested by divine authority to mete out judgment and sentencing of evildoers, and has the skill set to animate said evildoers as undead.

Character Classes in Khasim:
• Barbarian – Not frequently found in the larger cities, barbarians can be found in smaller communities and among desert-dwelling nomads (not all of whom are affiliated with the nation of Khasim). Some variants, such as Totem of desert animals, may be appropriate.
• Bard – Bards can, of course, be found everywhere, and Khasim is no exception. Harbinger variant may be acceptable.
• Cleric – The prevalence of Wee Jas’ worship means clerics are very common. Clerics of deities other than Wee Jas are almost unheard of unless they are foreigners. Clerics of Wee Jas are always part of the Church and may earn the title of magus. Some variant Cleric classes may be acceptable, such as: Ancestral Speaker, Arcane Disciple, and Cloistered.
• Druid – Less common in Khasim, but not so rare as to be unheard of. Urban druids may be found in the cities, and the desert-dwellers may be totem druids, avengers, or focused animal druids
• Fighter – Fighters can be found the world over.
• Monk – Khasim has its own monastic traditions, most of which are affiliated with the Church of Wee Jas. Holy Monk variants, especially, can be found among them, as well as Sacred Path of Wee Jas.
• Paladin – Wee Jas’ church in Khasim, like elsewhere, trains paladins. Paladins of Wee Jas dislike working with or fighting alongside undead, due to the evil magicks involved in their creation, but it is not against their Code of Conduct to tolerate them (indeed, since Wee Jas’ ethos focus so much on obedience to law and authority, they’re actually obliged to tolerate them).
• Ranger – Rangers can be found in Khasim. Some variant abilities may be appropriate, as there are few “woodlands” in the **Calim** River valley.
• Rogue – Like Fighters, Rogues can be anywhere.
• Sorcerer – Mentioned in Magic section, above, when a child with innate magical talent is discovered, the magi usually take the child in to be trained in one of the Magic Colleges in the cities. This is done without cost, as it is considered less costly to society than leaving such an individual to learn to control their powers on their own. Sorcerers may join the priesthood and become magi.
• Wizard – Wizards are trained in both Magic Colleges and on a one-on-one basis by individual master/apprentice relationships. Wizards may join the priesthood and become magi. Necromancy specialists in particular, often work for the Church. Necromancer variants such as Deathwalker, and Skeletal Minion are common in Khasim
• Dread Necromancer – It should be no surprise that Dread Necromancers are found in Khasim, they usually assist with the magi (if they are not magi themselves) in burial preparations and creation of undead. A Khasimite Dread Necromancer’s “lich transformation” is instead a transformation into a unique type of mummy lord. Their gradual changes are a result of them mummifying their own bodies over time, through application on unguents, oils, and other substances to toughen their flesh. A level 20 Dread Necromancer’s phylactery is usually a sealed box containing the character’s vital organs, preserved in their canopic jars. These are usually stored somewhere safe, such as a tomb that the character builds for the express purpose of a safe haven.
• Favored Soul – Like a combination of Sorcerer and Cleric, individuals found with an innate talent for divine magic are taken in by the Church of Wee Jas to be trained. Favored Souls, however, being blessed with the direct and overt grace of Wee Jas, do not face the “glass ceiling” to their advancement within the Church based on social caste.
• Other Complete Divine Classes –Spirit Shamans are uncommon in Khasim, but those that do exists usually communicate with the spirits of the dead, as opposed to fey. Shugenja are not usually found in Khasim, but if they were, Water focus would be almost unheard of.
• Complete Arcane Classes – Warlocks, due to the nature of the source of their power as a bargain with a fell or eldritch creature, may or may not be found in Khasim. Those that do exist would be sure to hide or disguise their abilities, and perhaps pass themselves off as a member of another class. Warmages fall into the same categories and follow the same rules as Wizards and Sorcerers. Wu Jen are not found in Khasim.
• Complete Adventurer Classes – Ninja would be very uncommon in Khasim, but may be found to be trained by some monasteries, or secret orders that do not reveal their presence to the world. Scouts would follow similar rules to Rangers. Spellthieves would certainly be found in Khasim, with that nation’s focus on magic. A Spellthief may have been trained as an anti-spellcaster operative by the Church, or may be operating independently. However, due to the great respect Khasim has for magic and its users, a Spellthief who continuously targets spellcasters and steals their secrets without sanction by the Church could find himself targeted for retribution (perhaps by other Spellthieves who work for the Church).
• Complete Warrior Classes – Samurai would be almost unheard of, but might be a variant warrior who fights with 2 weapons. Hexblades blend arcane training with martial prowess, and are often found as temple guards for the Church of Wee Jas. Swashbucklers would be very common. Khasim’s climate makes the development of fighting styles that do not rely on heavy armor sensible.
• PHB2 Classes – Dragon Shamans may be found in Khasim, but Brass and Blue varieties (based on terrain of those dragon types) would be the most common. Duskblades would share flavor text with Hexblades. Beguilers would be similar to Spellthieves in the same regard, but would be considered to have more of a focus on magic than stealth and guile. Knights could certainly be found among Khasim’s warriors. Khasim’s society is very ordered, and the Knight’s Code could mesh very well with such structure.
• Psionics – [Not sure how you, the DM, feel about psionics and how, or even if, they fit in your world. However, with a culture focused so much on death and magic (and mostly devoted to a goddess of magic), I think psionic classes in Khasim would be very rare indeed.]
• Incarnum Classes – [I know next to nothing about this book, or the classes contained therin, and cannot thus formulate a fit for them in Khasim. However, as I understand it, Incarnum is “magic of the soul”, which might make for interesting repercussions in this nation.]
• Tome of Battle Classes – Some styles may be more appropriate to Khasim (like Desert Wind) than others. The Warblade, like the Fighter, is a warrior, pure and simple. The Crusader shares a similar role with the Paladin. The Swordsage is more unique. Disciplined, like a Monk, but more of a warrior, and trained to sense magic. The Church of Wee Jas certainly trains Swordsages.
• Tome of Magic Classes – [No. Just…no.]
• Classes From Other Sources – Marshals may be found among Khasim’s military, especially those formally trained as officers and/or field commanders. Archivists could certainly be trained by the Church, sharing a similar flavor to the Cloistered Cleric.
• I think that covers all the base classes.

[qwertyu63]

But all undead-creating spells carry the Evil descriptor, right? So, by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act, yes? So, how to make a possible character who was not only able, but also willing to employ such methods, without being Evil (or turning to Evil) himself?

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

[Ellowryn]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment. In a previous post i offered the question "Is doing evil things to evil creatures an evil act?" which i believe is appropriate for this discussion cause you explicitly stated that reanimation was a punishment for a crime, which i assume would have carried the death penalty.

In reality there is nothing wrong with a neutral character casting evil spells as to the best of my knowledge there is no system in dnd that tracks how casting evil spells, or even good spells for that matter, directly changes your alignment.

My thoughts? To anybody trying to get such a character to fly, ask your gm. If they are okay with the whole casting evil spells for the good of the state without affecting your alignment then problem solved. Its that whole gm overrides all RAW material thing.

[qwertyu63]

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment.

And to that I say "screw that, any mindless creature is TN; who cares what the rules say".

[eggynack]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed.
Indeed. I'd actually go one step further than that and remove the good and evil descriptors from spells entirely, as well as the thing about poison being evil. Good and evil, at least by my reckoning, should have very little to do with what weapons you use, and a lot more to do with what you use them for. There are probably some cases where the evil descriptor is justified, but the whole system of aligned spells is one that I consider to be overwhelmingly a net negative for the game. It's just a big ol' headache. Even creating evil creatures shouldn't necessarily be evil if you then use those evil creatures to save an orphanage, and if no bad things come of the fact of the existence of those evil creatures.

[RedMage125]

The problem is, in MM its states that skeletons and zombies are ALWAYS neutral evil, so when a creature gets animated they take that alignment.
I went into an extended discussion of this sort on the WotC forums some months back. Short version is: according to all the RAW material we have on the subject (PHB, Libris Mortis, BoVD), which is both directly stated, and inferred from the way resurrection-type magic relates to undead, there is some sort of connection between the soul of the creature that supplied the corpse and the undead creature. Even True Resurrection (a 9th level spell that doesn't even require a smidgen of a body part), cannot bring back someone who was turned into a 2-HD zombie by a level 5 cleric. In this way it is the same as someone who was killed and then had a Trap The Soul effect.


In a previous post i offered the question "Is doing evil things to evil creatures an evil act?" which i believe is appropriate for this discussion cause you explicitly stated that reanimation was a punishment for a crime, which i assume would have carried the death penalty.
Right, that was for crimes carrying the death penalty. Stealing food won't get you turned into a zombie. Killing your neighbor would. As would tomb robbing. But that was the laws of this character's land. By the objective RAW of alignment and action in D&D, casting an Evil spell on an evil creature - even one that is "inherently evil" like a dragon or "iredeemably evil" like a demon - is an evil act. This character comes from a society that is more Neutral than Good, and believes that the punishment of being denied the afterlife, which to them is the greater evil of making someone undead, is a far greater punishment than simply death.


In reality there is nothing wrong with a neutral character casting evil spells as to the best of my knowledge there is no system in dnd that tracks how casting evil spells, or even good spells for that matter, directly changes your alignment.
Eh...arguable. 3.5e DMG, page 134 states that a continued trend of actions more in keeping with an alignment other than a character's own over a long period of time to be no less than one week of in-game time, may result in a change of alignment by one step closer towards the alignment being demonstrated. Which is why "evil deeds for a good cause" is considered a "slippery slope".
But no, one act could not change your alignment.


My thoughts? To anybody trying to get such a character to fly, ask your gm. If they are okay with the whole casting evil spells for the good of the state without affecting your alignment then problem solved. Its that whole gm overrides all RAW material thing.
That's the intent of this character, though, is to provide a concept for a character who could and would cast Evil spells, but have a strict discipline regarding the use of those spells (no animating buried corpses, respect for the properly honored dead), who would not fall victim to the "slippery slope".

By the way, this character's culture-imposed restrictions is not just limited to tombs and proper cemetaries. If the party comes across a bandit camp who has lost some members, and the bandits have a few graves on the outskirts of their camp, each grave marked with a simple pile of stones, then those bodies are off-limits to him. The bandits may not have had the means to bury with pomp or ceremony, but they were buried with respect and their grave marked. But any bandits the party kills whose bodies are now lying on the ground? Fair game.
If a bunch of soldiers who dies in a major battle were buried in a mass grave, and there is a single monument of plaque for all of them, those bodies are off-limits. If some evil necromancer animates a bunch of them, this character is within his rights to use Rebuke Undead to steal control of them and use them himself. He didn't violate the sanctity of the tomb, nor did he allow it to happen. But once they're already undead, they're fair game because they're already had that sancitity violated. And unless the undead in question is a corpse of one of HIS people, he is under no obligation to return it to rest and proper burial. Namely because he's only a member of the clergy of HIS culture, and it would be a gross impropriety to bury the faithful of another deity with the rites he is familiar with.
So if you had a situation where he chased down some tomb-robbers who violated one of his people's tombs and animated some zombies, he could take control over them and use them to kill the tomb robbers (he may actually be inclined to let the zombies have the killing blow, as poetic justice). But he would then be obligated to kill the zombies and return the bodies to their resting places and recite the prayers for the dead over them.
The way this character's position as State Necromancer works is that he's not only a religious personage, he's also a judicial one. His organization handles the dispensation of justice (like judges, not like police) for the living, as well as burial preparation for the dead. He's not the kind of clergyman who would deliver sermons to the masses in a worship services kind of way, but he could be called upon to officiate at a funeral. But his position as a judge means he's more or less invested (by "divine right") to judge the living and pass sentence. So even as an adventurer, he would be dedicated to stamping out evil for the sake of Good, and advancing the cause of Good, but would not be of Good alignment himself because he 1) doesn't really care about the "dignity of sentient beings" and 2) knows full well that animation into undeath is Evil, but views it as an appropriate punishment for the wicked. In that sense he's sort of a "I choose not to be purely Good so that others can be" kind of hero. But he's still opposed to Evil in the world. DOes that make sense? I know it was kind of a ramble.

[Rubik]

http://www.fimfiction.net/story/61802/foal-necromancer

[RedMage125]

And to that I say "screw that, any mindless creature is TN; who cares what the rules say".
Except that mindless undead are explicitly animated with Evil Magicks, and those magicks that keep it ambulatory infuse its awareness.

The difference is other mindless creatures. Vermin are mindless, but attack the living based purely off instinct to protect their hive and to obtain food. They are Neutral.

Golems, if given no standing orders and not under control by someone, will not do anything. They are also Neutral.

Zombies and Skeletons, if uncontrolled, are driven by a blind hatred of the living, and will attack any living thing they come across. They are Evil. I seem to remember one book saying that the presence of living creatures was an anethma to them.

Indeed. I'd actually go one step further than that and remove the good and evil descriptors from spells entirely, as well as the thing about poison being evil. Good and evil, at least by my reckoning, should have very little to do with what weapons you use, and a lot more to do with what you use them for. There are probably some cases where the evil descriptor is justified, but the whole system of aligned spells is one that I consider to be overwhelmingly a net negative for the game. It's just a big ol' headache. Even creating evil creatures shouldn't necessarily be evil if you then use those evil creatures to save an orphanage, and if no bad things come of the fact of the existence of those evil creatures.
Except for the potentially damaging effect on the soul of the person whose corpse you used? What about intelligent undead who retain memories of the person they once were? Even if they are commanded by a powerful cleric/necromancer, is that not Evil to create them?
Furthermore, the Book of Vile Darkness states that the creation of undead creates a "mockery of life". Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D. The designer's call when they made the game was that those objective forces consider the creation of such a mockery an objectively Evil act.

Granted, what you do with such tools once they exist is up to you. If you have absolute command of a host of zombies, and use those zombies to save an orphanage and harm no one, is that evil? No, it's clearly Good. A little gross and scary for those poor orphans, but Good. But the person who animated those zombies commited an evil act when he made them. I'm noo saying you couldn't use them for Good (hell, the character I described in the OP would use them for such), you can. Just making them is Evil.

And as an aside, because in my last alignment thread on the wizards boards I ended up recanting one of my points...can you point out where in the rules that it says poison use is objectively Evil? I know a lot of PrCs that get the Poison Use ability require evil alignment, but not all (Black Dog in Dragonmarked comes to mind). A lot of the stuff in BoVD talks about new poisons, and examples of people using poison to do evil things, but in the list of evil acts in the chapter "Defining Evil", poisoning someone is not mentioned. After all, using a tranquilizing poison to end a combat with minimal bloodshed isn't evil, is it? I believe that the RAI is that the use of poison is something that most Good people find distasteful, while evildoers have no compunctions against it. But by RAW use of poison in 3.5e is not an explicitly Evil act. As contrasted to creating undead, dealing with fiends, damaging someone's soul, etc.

[eggynack]

Except for the potentially damaging effect on the soul of the person whose corpse you used? What about intelligent undead who retain memories of the person they once were? Even if they are commanded by a powerful cleric/necromancer, is that not Evil to create them?
I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.


Furthermore, the Book of Vile Darkness states that the creation of undead creates a "mockery of life". Good and Evil are objective forces in D&D. The designer's call when they made the game was that those objective forces consider the creation of such a mockery an objectively Evil act.
These things are clearly evil by RAW. I mean, the game pretty much outright says that. I'm saying they shouldn't be.

Granted, what you do with such tools once they exist is up to you. If you have absolute command of a host of zombies, and use those zombies to save an orphanage and harm no one, is that evil? No, it's clearly Good. A little gross and scary for those poor orphans, but Good. But the person who animated those zombies commited an evil act when he made them. I'm noo saying you couldn't use them for Good (hell, the character I described in the OP would use them for such), you can. Just making them is Evil.
As above, I'm saying they shouldn't be. If making a zombie is just evil because it's evil, and you're not really harming anyone by making it, then it shouldn't be evil.

And as an aside, because in my last alignment thread on the wizards boards I ended up recanting one of my points...can you point out where in the rules that it says poison use is objectively Evil?

I'm not entirely sure. My instinct is that it'd be somewhere in the BoED, probably somewhere around the ravages section.

[RedMage125]

I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.


These things are clearly evil by RAW. I mean, the game pretty much outright says that. I'm saying they shouldn't be.

As above, I'm saying they shouldn't be. If making a zombie is just evil because it's evil, and you're not really harming anyone by making it, then it shouldn't be evil.
You are, however, inputting your own sense of what is good or evil into D&D concepts. A modern interpretation, I might add, that focuses on individuals and what is "not harmful".

The default setting of D&D includes Objective forces of Good & Evil that make up the cosmos. Even deities are beholden to these forces. They are unyielding and unswayed by justification, no matter how sincere.

As D&D is fantasy, the creators reserve the right to spin anything they want from wholecloth, and say "this is true for this fantasy construct". In this instance, Objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, as well as what defines those words. When people say "this thing shouldn't be evil because of justification X, even though the RAW says it is", I respond with "so you can accept that in D&D there are dragons, undead, magic, demons, and any other number of fantastic and otherwise imaginary things, but when they say 'for the purposes of the default setting of D&D, this thing is Evil', that's too much for you?". I don't understand. Especially if you accept that demons are inherently Evil. If even one thing can be inherently evil, why can another not be?

You have a different preference, I get that. I'm not telling you to change your preferences. I'm telling you that since it's fantasy, when the RAW says "this is true", then it's true.



I'm not entirely sure. My instinct is that it'd be somewhere in the BoED, probably somewhere around the ravages section.
So...just to be clear...you think that the RAW that says "using poison is evil" is located in the Book for Super-Goodness, under the section about poisons that can the SUper-Good characters from the book get to use on creatures otherwise immune to poison?

I'm really not trying to be mean, but that is seriously how I read that.

[OldTrees1]

Looks good.

Did you know that Wee Jas really likes Arcane casters? Your devoted servant of Wee Jas could be a straight Dread Necromancer.

[RedMage125]

Looks good.

Did you know that Wee Jas really likes Arcane casters? Your devoted servant of Wee Jas could be a straight Dread Necromancer.

I mad mention of that. That his position as a clergyman could be purely flavor text, since his "religious duties" as a clergyman would be restricted to performing funeral service.

Wee Jas also has no opposition to undead so long as "the corpses ar eobtained legally", which fits in perfectly with this character's particular MO.

[eggynack]

You are, however, inputting your own sense of what is good or evil into D&D concepts. A modern interpretation, I might add, that focuses on individuals and what is "not harmful".
So does the game. That's the whole point. I don't think this should be a part of the game. If all demons are intrinsically evil, that is presumably because they do evil stuff on a constant basis. The question, I suppose, is why the game needs zombification to be inherently evil. My assertion is that it does not, and that that whole rule is a net negative. You're acting like you think I don't know that the game has animate dead is inherently evil in game, per the rules. I do know that, and I think that it's a thing that shouldn't be true.


So...just to be clear...you think that the RAW that says "using poison is evil" is located in the Book for Super-Goodness, under the section about poisons that can the SUper-Good characters from the book get to use on creatures otherwise immune to poison?
Yes. To be more specific with my citation, because I now have time to do a citation, the book of exalted deeds, page 34, says, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." I don't exactly think it makes sense, but that's the whole point.

[RedMage125]

So does the game. That's the whole point. I don't think this should be a part of the game. If all demons are intrinsically evil, that is presumably because they do evil stuff on a constant basis.
Negative. Demons (and all evil outsiders) are literally MADE of evil. The evil energies of their home planes are a part of their physical composition. When they are killed, those energies return to their plane and make a new demon.


The question, I suppose, is why the game needs zombification to be inherently evil. My assertion is that it does not, and that that whole rule is a net negative.
Undead are animated by evil magicks and that evil is a part of their physical makeup as well.


You're acting like you think I don't know that the game has animate dead is inherently evil in game, per the rules. I do know that, and I think that it's a thing that shouldn't be true.
I think you don't get the "why" of undead being inherently evil, just like you demonstrated that you don't get the "why demons are inherently evil". which is why you think that there's a disconnect between the way the rules work and they way you THINK they should.

Houserule what you like, I'm just saying there's no disconnect in resonation between the fluff and the crunch.


Yes. To be more specific with my citation, because I now have time to do a citation, the book of exalted deeds, page 34, says, "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." I don't exactly think it makes sense, but that's the whole point.

Huh...that's amazing. I was at work before, too, and didn't have my books on me. Weird that it's no in the BoVD, where all the other dissertations on what is and is not evil goes.

It's consistent, at least.

[Rubik]

Undead are animated by evil magicks and that evil is a part of their physical makeup as well.You mean the Neutrally EEEEEvil Neutral energies of the Neutral Negative Energy Plane? Which are Neutral?

Because Neutral totally equals Evil.

[eggynack]

I think you don't get the "why" of undead being inherently evil, just like you demonstrated that you don't get the "why demons are inherently evil". which is why you think that there's a disconnect between the way the rules work and they way you THINK they should.

Houserule what you like, I'm just saying there's no disconnect in resonation between the fluff and the crunch.
That's pretty much what I'm saying, I suppose. In particular, I'm saying that this part of the game, where there are some tools and actions that are intrinsically evil beyond their actual harmful impact on people, is a bad part of the game. It's a thing that isn't the most problematic when applied to demons, but it is a lot more problematic when applied to spells. We could always play a few rounds of, "Why is this thing evil?" And, "Why is this thing evil, while this similar thing is not evil?" if you like, but it'd be retreading a lot of old ground. I'll start you off with a few classics. Why is deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) evil? Why is poison use evil, while ravages and the spell poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) are non-evil? And, one of my personal favorites, why is claws of the savage (BoVD, 88) evil, and why is claws of the bebilith (BoVD, 88) frigging corrupt? Seriously, they don't even justify those with flavor. The evil descriptor is just a really poorly designed part of the game.


Huh...that's amazing. I was at work before, too, and didn't have my books on me. Weird that it's no in the BoVD, where all the other dissertations on what is and is not evil goes.
I think it makes some sense. That section is establishing the evil nature of poison, such that it can then create a non-evil poison. The latter would be essentially impossible without the former. The really odd thing is that it's evil at all.

[Jeff the Green]

Casting [Evil] spells and using Evil creatures are both minor evil deeds. If you balance them out (say, use your undead to save orphans) it's easy to be Good.

[Rubik]

Spells should only have alignments when they actually channel energies of those alignments, such as Magic Circle Against/Protection From G/E/C/L. Everything else makes no sense, causes a lot of logical inconsistencies, and should be dropped.

The same applies for racial and alignment prereqs for feats and PrCs. If it's not directly related to a race's abilities (such as the elan racial feats in CPsi, of all things), it shouldn't have race as a prereq. And most alignment prereqs are stupid, as well. Imagining a Good-aligned assassin isn't at all hard, nor is imagining Good uses for, say, Mindrape. There's no logical reason why all arcane archers need to be elves, or why you can't have a halfling chameleon or a human shadowcraft mage.

Senseless restrictions take a lot of imaginative character creation and roleplay out of the game, which makes the game less fun. It's terrible.

[Corrin Avatan]

So, you want to be a follower of Pharazma (pathfinder deity).

I'm running Carrion Crown currently, and the Church of Pharasma uses necromancy spells, but not in the traditional sense you're familiar with, which I'll get to in a moment.

They will cast Speak with Dead to assist in the grieving process (husband's last words to his wife were unkind, and she dies while he was away, so he asks for forgiveness , or casting gentle repose to stop rotting before an investigator can inspect, stuff like that). In fact, the necromancers who follow Pharasma are called White Necromancers, in that they study Necromancy school spells that don't have to do with creating undead (which Pharasma considers blasphemy).

Regarding the trope of the Necromancer you have, I see no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer. You just don't do evil acts. Now, if you don't like that creating undead is considered an evil act, well, houserule it or use the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design/white-necromancer

But outside of the spells that specifically say they are evil acts, there is no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer.

[RedMage125]

So, you want to be a follower of Pharazma (pathfinder deity).

I'm running Carrion Crown currently, and the Church of Pharasma uses necromancy spells, but not in the traditional sense you're familiar with, which I'll get to in a moment.

They will cast Speak with Dead to assist in the grieving process (husband's last words to his wife were unkind, and she dies while he was away, so he asks for forgiveness , or casting gentle repose to stop rotting before an investigator can inspect, stuff like that). In fact, the necromancers who follow Pharasma are called White Necromancers, in that they study Necromancy school spells that don't have to do with creating undead (which Pharasma considers blasphemy).

Regarding the trope of the Necromancer you have, I see no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer. You just don't do evil acts. Now, if you don't like that creating undead is considered an evil act, well, houserule it or use the White Necromancer class from Kobold Press http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design/white-necromancer

But outside of the spells that specifically say they are evil acts, there is no reason why you can't be a Good necromancer.
I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have missed the point entirely. This character can and will use undead as tools, even animate them himself, WITHOUT needing a DM to houserule away the "evil act". He has a strict ethos regarding the animation of undead and how and when to use it, that keeps him from sliding into Evil alignment himself. Dread Necros cannot be good, so he's Lawful Neutral, and in many ways, his outlooks and beliefs are similar to a LG character, save that, he views it as morally acceptable to use Evil magicks on those who are evil.

I think you should re-read the first few paragraphs of the OP. The goal was to make a non-evil character who legitimately embodies what the word "necromancer" evokes in fantasy-that is, a caster who raises and commands undead. Not some kind of "technically a necromancer" that does not use or deal with undead.

[Windstorm]

I like it, I think it works and is a good justification for playing a class and archetype (not in the pathfinder sense) that seldom sees use without causing problematic party dynamics and other issues.

one thing you might find of use is the statement (AFB atm so no explicit citation) in complete divine, that says that consistent actions in the spirit and code of your deities alignment can shift you toward that alignment, in the same way that casting evil spells shunts you toward evil.

considering that every action you take in using an evil spell is likely for this character in the spirit and code of his deity, you could make an argument that the alignment shifts cancel each other out and he remains LN by virtue of acting within his code.

tbh it depends greatly on the number of evil spells he casts in contrast to all other alignment affecting actions the character takes. with how you describe it, as a DM I'd have a very difficult time justifying an alignment shift towards evil for that character when everything is weighed in balance.

[RedMage125]

Thank you. That was the goal.

[RedMage125]

Didn't address this before, wanted to get to it now.

You mean the Neutrally EEEEEvil Neutral energies of the Neutral Negative Energy Plane? Which are Neutral?

Because Neutral totally equals Evil.
Just because Negative Energy is not in and of itself Evil, does not mean it can't be used for evil. Inflict spells do not have alignment descriptors.

A dagger is not an Evil thing. Human sacrifice...is.

I said the magicks used to animate undead are Evil. Animate Dead, Create Undead, Create Greater Undead...these are Evil spells that use negative energy. That does not mean negative energy is Evil, only that those spells are.


Spells should only have alignments when they actually channel energies of those alignments, such as Magic Circle Against/Protection From G/E/C/L. Everything else makes no sense, causes a lot of logical inconsistencies, and should be dropped.
I see your point, and agree with you as far as to say that your point is logical, coherent, and consistent.

That said, the default ruling laid down by the designers of 3.5e is that certain acts are Evil. Trafficking with a fiend for one's soul. Damaging or harming the soul of another. These are acts that the designers of 3e labelled as "objectively Evil". Creation of Undead, due to the violation of the natural order to create a mockery of the cycle of Life&Death, was decided to be an Evil act. The BoVD has the exact wording on this in the chapter "Defining Evil" (which, regardless of the value one holds for the crunchy bits of the book, that section contains excellent treatises on Evil in D&D). I also addressed this in an earlier post, but there seems to be some connection between the soul of the person who provided the corpse and the undead creature, even a mindless one, because that person cannot be raised from the dead, even by 9th level spells that don't require any part of the body. So, at the very least, the decision to make Undead Creation an objectively Evil act is logical and internally consistent.


The same applies for racial and alignment prereqs for feats and PrCs. If it's not directly related to a race's abilities (such as the elan racial feats in CPsi, of all things), it shouldn't have race as a prereq. And most alignment prereqs are stupid, as well.
Almost every restrictive prereq, whether racial or alignment, for any class, can-almost without exception-be ascribed as a flaw not with alignment, but with restrictive Class Design, meant to keep certain classes within the archetype envisioned by the creators of D&D. Lawful Monks, for example. If you look at the monks class abilities, many are said to come from "the hours spent in meditation" or something to that effect. Monks are meant to mechanically reflect the classic fantasy archetype of the wuxia martial artist, and the alignment restriction is meant to reinforce that, to the point of excluding character concepts that are too different.


Imagining a Good-aligned assassin isn't at all hard, nor is imagining Good uses for, say, Mindrape.
Not familiar with Mindrape just offhand, but I think the Assassin thing was to reflect the designers' opinion that "assassin" is only in reference to a hired contract killer (never mind that earlier editions of D&D provide other options for that), and that such disregard for the value of human life to be able to kill for money would only be acceptable to Evil-aligned people.


There's no logical reason why all arcane archers need to be elves, or why you can't have a halfling chameleon or a human shadowcraft mage.
Arcane Archers, I think, assumes that the Elven people are the ones who developed the ability to blend archery and magic in that manner, and keep the secrets of that power close to their chest and do not share them.
Chameleon seems to me to reflect that humans are more adaptable and more mutable in strengths and weaknesses than any other race. Human adaptability is more a defining trait of the race that any other individual trait. Dwarves are gruff in social dealings, physically hardy, and knowledgeable about stonework. This is a trait all dwarves share. Elves are frequently aloof (due to their long lifespans), graceful, and skilled with sword and bow. Humans are so varied that adaptability is pretty much a defining trait of the race as a whole (maybe not each individual human, but altogether). Chameleon is supposed to be the ultimate expression of that adaptability. So unlike Arcane Archers, who are race restricted by virtue of the elves no teaching anyone else, Chameleons are race-restricted by virtue of other races not being flexible enough to gain the ability to radically alter their mindsets and class abilities on the fly. It's almost like the 3e version of 2e's Dual-classing, which only humans could do. Other races were not able to drastically switch the path they set themselves on, even though they could walk a split path from the get-go.
Don't like gnomes, not familiar with Shadowcraft Mage, had to even look up what book it was in and what the restriction was.

That's my hypothesis, by the way. I am in no way espousing that what I have stated is fact.


Senseless restrictions take a lot of imaginative character creation and roleplay out of the game, which makes the game less fun. It's terrible.
My hypotheses aside, I agree that more options would be better, going forward. If a DM removed such restrictions, it would not at all negatively affect my fun nor my personal feeling of resonance between fluff and crunch.

[hamishspence]

Casting [Evil] spells and using Evil creatures are both minor evil deeds. If you balance them out (say, use your undead to save orphans) it's easy to be Good.

Or, at least, nonevil - as Heroes of Horror points out.

[Psyren]

I'm personally of the belief that Animate Dead should have the evil descriptor removed. The other undead making spells should keep it, as they make creatures evil in alignment; Animate Dead just makes meat puppets and therefore shouldn't be any more evil than Fireball. It all comes down to how you use it.

Not so. The fluff reason in Libris Mortis (which makes sense) is that necromancy spells "thin the veil"; every undead on the Prime down to the lowliest skeleton is a walking connection to the NEP, or contains a sliver of it. These connections weaken the Prime's "immune system," as it were, increasing the chances that uncontrolled undead can slip through to our realm or spontaneously animate here. Thus, creating small numbers of undead may not make you outright evil, but it is at best irresponsible - a form of collateral pollution akin to making random patches of land radioactive.

It's thus a minor evil act because you have no way of controlling the unintended consequences that your necromancy could have on innocents you may never even meet - yet you do it anyway. At least with a fireball you (for the most part) can control who it hurts and when, and casting a plethora of fireballs does not increase the chances that a random peasant's hut far away will spontaneously combust.

[RedMage125]

Not so. The fluff reason in Libris Mortis (which makes sense) is that necromancy spells "thin the veil"; every undead on the Prime down to the lowliest skeleton is a walking connection to the NEP, or contains a sliver of it. These connections weaken the Prime's "immune system," as it were, increasing the chances that uncontrolled undead can slip through to our realm or spontaneously animate here. Thus, creating small numbers of undead may not make you outright evil, but it is at best irresponsible - a form of collateral pollution akin to making random patches of land radioactive.

It's thus a minor evil act because you have no way of controlling the unintended consequences that your necromancy could have on innocents you may never even meet - yet you do it anyway. At least with a fireball you (for the most part) can control who it hurts and when, and casting a plethora of fireballs does not increase the chances that a random peasant's hut far away will spontaneously combust.
Do you have a page number for that? It's really excellent, and I just piped in on a thread about the Evil descriptor in Animate Dead over at the WotC boards, and would LOVE to cite that reference.

Also, may I plagarize your "pollution" analogy? I love it.

[eggynack]

Do you have a page number for that? It's really excellent, and I just piped in on a thread about the Evil descriptor in Animate Dead over at the WotC boards, and would LOVE to cite that reference.

It's on page 7, under "Atrocity calls to unlife". I wouldn't necessarily cite it as ultimate proof for the evil of necromancy though, as it's listed as one of several possible theories for how undead work. It is an odd little book section.

[OldTrees1]

pg 7. It (Negative Energy as a Draining Force) is merely one of the 5 listed theories on the origins of undeath.

I prefer the one right before it (Negative Energy as a Supporting Force) which says that a negative energy life force is just like a positive energy life force.

[Talderas]

I can't really see anything in the monster entry where the person's soul is being harmed. If you can find some intrinsic harm that is caused by the creation of undead, that could be valid though.

A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Raise Dead.
A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Resurrection or True Resurrection until the undead that is his body has been destroyed.

[OldTrees1]

A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Raise Dead.
A person which has been raised as undead cannot be revived using Resurrection or True Resurrection until the undead that is his body has been destroyed.

Those spells require uniquely identifying body and soul. Animate Dead interferes with the body component of those spells.

[Talderas]

Raise Dead and Resurrection require body and soul. Animate Dead interferes with the body component of those spells.
True Resurrection works on a person whose body has been animated.

From the SRD.

Raise Dead
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell.

Resurrection
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

True Resurrection
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

Animating a person's body as a zombie prevents that person from being true resurrected until that zombie is destroyed.

[Psyren]

I personally think it's stupid that turning someone's body into a skeleton keeps True Resurrection from working. That skeleton could be miles away, on the bottom of the ocean, on another plane etc.

2x Wish/2x Miracle will work though.



I prefer the one right before it (Negative Energy as a Supporting Force) which says that a negative energy life force is just like a positive energy life force.

Thing is, they aren't mutually exclusive; all of the theories on that page can actually be unified to explain the nature of undeath. The idea is that the energy itself is not evil, but the hunger for life that it creates results in evil acts being committed. Tigers aren't evil either, but releasing one in the marketplace would be an evil act. Or for a more apt analogy, weakening the cages at the zoo so that the animals can break out amidst all the tourists is evil.

[OldTrees1]

Animating a person's body as a zombie prevents that person from being true resurrected until that zombie is destroyed.

I doubt checked and edited my post. Animate still doesn't necessarily affect the soul. It interferes with uniquely identifying the body.

[Walkwalk]

Remember that this is a setting where Evil is a literal thing, that can practically be quantified. Raising the dead is EVIL because the cosmic laws say it is, but the act alone isn't evil as we would recognize it. It's not hard to see a high-minded, somewhat arrogant mage who intends to save the world the only way he knows how: From behind an undead legion.

It would create an interesting contrast as his EVIL actions are purely for good purposes.

[EvilJames]

I mad mention of that. That his position as a clergyman could be purely flavor text, since his "religious duties" as a clergyman would be restricted to performing funeral service.

Wee Jas also has no opposition to undead so long as "the corpses ar eobtained legally", which fits in perfectly with this character's particular MO.

Actually I believe Wee jas is not fond of undead. She allows there use only for specific important tasks, and they must be destroyed after. I could be misremembering though or just inferring from something I read about her and lichs. I know that she allows lichs only if the caster has research to do that will take longer than his life would allow. Once his research is done, he must ritually destroy himself.

[OldTrees1]

Actually I believe Wee jas is not fond of undead. She allows there use only for specific important tasks, and they must be destroyed after. I could be misremembering though or just inferring from something I read about her and lichs. I know that she allows lichs only if the caster has research to do that will take longer than his life would allow. Once his research is done, he must ritually destroy himself.

IIRC Wee Jas
Is perfectly fine with soulless unead
Dislikes but is not against voluntarily created souled undead <-I do not remember if it is "dislikes" or "concerned for"
Will eradicate anyone creating souled undead against the soul's will

[Talderas]

I doubt checked and edited my post. Animate still doesn't necessarily affect the soul. It interferes with uniquely identifying the body.

Doesn't really matter. I was responding to harm caused by animating or creating undead. Harm is done by preventing the soul from being revived by animating the body or using it to create an undead.

[eggynack]

Doesn't really matter. I was responding to harm caused by animating or creating undead. Harm is done by preventing the soul from being revived by animating the body or using it to create an undead.
Well, unless that's either a good or value neutral thing, anyway. Zombifying evil creatures, thus stopping them from being raised, would have a mostly positive impact on society (or why did you kill them in the first place?), and zombifying good or neutral creatures that no one intends to raise from the dead has no impact on society. The former case is the important one, I think. Either way, the game establishes that stopping resurrection is not an intrinsically evil spell effect, because neither trap the soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm), nor imprisonment (not the same thing, technically, but it's probably actually worse) is evil. Thus, if this is the justification for animate dead being evil, then we enter into another round of everyone's favorite D&D party game, "Why is this evil, while this similar thing is not evil?"

[Talderas]

Well, unless that's either a good or value neutral thing, anyway. Zombifying evil creatures, thus stopping them from being raised, would have a mostly positive impact on society (or why did you kill them in the first place?), and zombifying good or neutral creatures that no one intends to raise from the dead has no impact on society. The former case is the important one, I think. Either way, the game establishes that stopping resurrection is not an intrinsically evil spell effect, because neither trap the soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm), nor imprisonment (not the same thing, technically, but it's probably actually worse) is evil. Thus, if this is the justification for animate dead being evil, then we enter into another round of everyone's favorite D&D party game, "Why is this evil, while this similar thing is not evil?"

You asked if there was any intrinsic harm to doing so. I point out the intrinsic harm to the soul in doing so (preventing it from being revived). It doesn't matter whether the soul is good, evil, or worth reviving harm is done.

[Psyren]

Remember that this is a setting where Evil is a literal thing, that can practically be quantified. Raising the dead is EVIL because the cosmic laws say it is, but the act alone isn't evil as we would recognize it. It's not hard to see a high-minded, somewhat arrogant mage who intends to save the world the only way he knows how: From behind an undead legion.

It would create an interesting contrast as his EVIL actions are purely for good purposes.

Indeed - as I cited earlier in this thread, a "legion of undead" might be usable for good purposes, but would also do significant damage to the veil and cause increased shadows, wraiths, allips, mohrgs and all kinds of other nasties to pop up at random locations on the Prime.

[OldTrees1]

Doesn't really matter. I was responding to harm caused by animating or creating undead. Harm is done by preventing the soul from being revived by animating the body or using it to create an undead.

So if you were not referring to harm to the soul, what is the harm to?

[eggynack]

You asked if there was any intrinsic harm to doing so. I point out the intrinsic harm to the soul in doing so (preventing it from being revived). It doesn't matter whether the soul is good, evil, or worth reviving harm is done.
I guess that's fair, but I mostly meant doing something morally wrong, presumably through necromancy induced negative externalities of some kind. If your cited harm is only being done to bad people, then that's somewhat irrelevant for the purposes of judging a spell's morality.

[RedMage125]

Those spells require uniquely identifying body and soul. Animate Dead interferes with the body component of those spells.

True Resurrection requires no part of he body, only that you identify the person unequivocally by name. It creates a new body for someone, because you can rez someone killed by disinterate. And yet, cannot raise someone who has been turned into a simple zombie.

[eggynack]

True Resurrection requires no part of he body, only that you identify the person unequivocally by name. It creates a new body for someone, because you can rez someone killed by disinterate. And yet, cannot raise someone who has been turned into a simple zombie.
The fact that the spell doesn't require you to have a body doesn't mean that it's creating a new one. Let's say that you have in front of you a perfectly normal and intact corpse, and you cast true resurrection on it. Would there then be two bodies, one all corpsified and gross, and the other healthy and soulful? No, there would not. Zombifying a corpse means more than just disintegrating it, because the one merely destroys the body, while the other actually puts it to use. You can't resurrect the body, because doing so would necessarily require removing the negative energy powering the zombie, and true resurrection doesn't have that capability.

[RedMage125]

The fact that the spell doesn't require you to have a body doesn't mean that it's creating a new one. Let's say that you have in front of you a perfectly normal and intact corpse, and you cast true resurrection on it. Would there then be two bodies, one all corpsified and gross, and the other healthy and soulful? No, there would not. Zombifying a corpse means more than just disintegrating it, because the one merely destroys the body, while the other actually puts it to use. You can't resurrect the body, because doing so would necessarily require removing the negative energy powering the zombie, and true resurrection doesn't have that capability.
If I disintegrate someone and blow the ashes into the ocean, someone could use True Resurrection to bring that person back. Thus, TR somehow re-creates the body if one does not exist.
If I kill someone with a sword, and ship their body to the other side of the world, True Resurrection can bring them back.
Conversely, if I kill someone with a sword, and animate them as a zombie, True Resurrection will not work.
Something about being used as an undead creature prevents their resurrection.
The rules, however, are remarkable unclear on if you kill someone with a clone prepared, and then use Create Undead to turn them into a ghoul what exactly happens re:the ghoul's sentience/soul.

[eggynack]

If I disintegrate someone and blow the ashes into the ocean, someone could use True Resurrection to bring that person back. Thus, TR somehow re-creates the body if one does not exist.
If I kill someone with a sword, and ship their body to the other side of the world, True Resurrection can bring them back.
Conversely, if I kill someone with a sword, and animate them as a zombie, True Resurrection will not work.
Something about being used as an undead creature prevents their resurrection.

I'm saying that it's the fact that the body is being used, rather than because of some specific aspect of zombification. If the body is across the world, then they presumably return to life right where they're standing, and if pieces are scattered across the world, it can be assumed that they form into the body in question. There's no real indication, in any case, that it's some function of the soul being harmed.

[RedMage125]

Actually I believe Wee jas is not fond of undead. She allows there use only for specific important tasks, and they must be destroyed after. I could be misremembering though or just inferring from something I read about her and lichs. I know that she allows lichs only if the caster has research to do that will take longer than his life would allow. Once his research is done, he must ritually destroy himself.


IIRC Wee Jas
Is perfectly fine with soulless unead
Dislikes but is not against voluntarily created souled undead <-I do not remember if it is "dislikes" or "concerned for"
Will eradicate anyone creating souled undead against the soul's will
From Dragon #350, which had a Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas, it states:

"Her focus is on the spirits of the dead, not their bodies, and thus she tolerates necromancy-especially if the subject is willing (although she frowns on stealing lawfully-buried bodies). Because she guards the spirits of the dead, she is displeased when these spirits are involuntarily summoned back to the mortal world and corrupted into undead (again, voluntray corruption into undead-bodied or bodiless-does not disturb her). Her belief in the sanctity of death is so strong that her clergy are forbidden from raising the dead by any means without first consulting her (whether directly via commune or indirectly through a divine messenger)."

Now, it is important to note that in Greyhawk, Wee Jas is a Suel deity, and is thus unconcerned with the souls of Flan or other people's souls. I did mention that this character would not animate the corpse of one of his own people. He would likely extend the same courtesy to any corpse he found carrying some evidence that the person worshiped Wee Jas. Anyone else is fair game, though. So even though my DM has his own homebrew world (which he was more than happy to have me introduce an entire nation to), he uses the Core D&D pantheon. There may not be a Suel race in his world, but the faithful of Wee Jas are the only souls she cares about.
Now, The article also goes on about how Lawful she is. Now, in most instances, Lawful alignment does not necessarily have anything to do with civil laws. That's true for any Lawfully-aligned PC out there. Wee Jas, however, is different. She's Lawful in the "obey the law" kind of sense. If you recall, in my character''s background, his culture tolerates the animation of undead for CRIMINALS. Wee Jas is the steward of the souls of the dead, and she cares for them well. To be forced into undeath is to be denied that as a punishment. So, while I am being creative with designing this character's entire culture, I am still firmly in keeping with how the RAW default for Wee Jas works. It's technically a houserule, because the core material for Wee Jas does not explicitly state this about any given culture that worships her, but it's one that does not violate or alter the core, default fluff regarding this deity.

It is interesting, however, that the article on Wee Jas says that when an undead creature is created, that the soul of said person is summoned from the afterlife and forced into said undead. That shines a whole new light on the other discussion that's been going on in this thread, huh?

EDIT: Also found this in the Wee Jas article:
"Wee Jas does not appreciate the use of Suel spirits for creating undead, and any arcane spellcaster bent on creating undead should be careful about what sort of spirit his spell draws to the Material Plane. In most cases, undead-creating spell (including animate dead) can be adjusted as they are cast to avoid contacting the remnant of a Suel spirit, and doing so does not alter their casting or effects in any way. A few spells, however, specifically draw on the soul that once inhabited the target body (often intended as a punishment for the dead person)..."

So apparently, the default of undead-creating spells affects the soul of the target body, but animate dead can be altered so that it does not, but other undead-creating spells (presumably the ones that create non-mindless undead) still draw on the target body's soul. This fits in perfectly with the character concept. It even lists Pale Master, Master of Shrouds, and True Necromancer as some of the Prestige Classes that he faithful are likely to follow.

I think it's safe to say that this necromancer concept works well within the guidelines of RAW for a faithful of Wee Jas.

[RedMage125]

I'm saying that it's the fact that the body is being used, rather than because of some specific aspect of zombification. If the body is across the world, then they presumably return to life right where they're standing, and if pieces are scattered across the world, it can be assumed that they form into the body in question. There's no real indication, in any case, that it's some function of the soul being harmed.

I'd like to amend what I said before about a body on the other side of the world. Because True Resurrection says "As Raise Dead..." with the exceptions following. And Raise Dead has a range of Touch. So if the body has not been destroyed, then you need it to cast True Resurrection. So if you want to keep someone from being raised, ship their body to the other side of the world, or seal it in a stone coffin and sink it in the sea.

And see my above post about the connection between souls and undead. It was in an article on Wee Jas, which was written by Sean K Reynolds, who has worked for D&D since the TSR days. It's not directly a ruling, but it does seem to say that the default for undead creation binds the soul of the target body into the undead creature. Just some food for thought.

[RedMage125]

This shouldn't count as Thread Necromancy (although due to the topic it would be appropriate, har har), as I'm within 45 days, but it's my thread anyway, and I have more to share. I actually finished this about a day after the forums went down for the last week or so.

Here is the homeland I have written up for the character mentioned in the OP. This was written as a file I sent to the DM, so some of the stuff in this is directed at him in the second person (i.e. "you").

Btw, the LN Necromancer's name is Sibuna-hotep, which should help this make sense. Here it is, spolier blocked for space:
Here’s what I’ve come up with for my character’s home nation. Text in brackets [] denotes metagame text or information. Text in double asterisks denotes details best left to the DM to decide, sometimes with placeholder names.
The nation of Khasim [home of Sibuna-hotep]
Current Ruler: Pharaoh Imra-hoten IV [Lawful Good male aasimar Aristocrat 10]

History/Geography: Khasim is a nation that sits in the middle of the **Lakhara** Desert, located in the **South/West/Whatever** of the **X** Continent. The wide, fertile valley of the **Calim** River runs through the otherwise arid desert, and almost all cities and towns that owe allegiance to Khasim are located in that valley. Legend has it that the nation was founded by Khasim Al-govrod, known now as the first pharaoh of Khasim, Potiphar I [Potiphar means something along the lines of “sent from Ra” in Egyptian, so I adapted that as meaning “sent from god/heaven”], who gave the nation his name and took another for himself. Khasim was a grand vizier and High Priest of Wee Jas in the ancient Empire of **insert name of ancient, destroyed empire in your world, although if you’re at all going with 4e influences, I’ll call it Nerath**. When Nerath fell, Khasim gathered as many followers and other refugees as he could and fled, the Army of Ruin hot on their heels. He led them deep into the **Lakhara** Desert, and the Army of Ruin, believing them to have gone to their deaths, did not follow. After wandering for weeks, and running out of water, the refugees were facing death. Khasim prayed to Wee Jas, and pleaded for assistance. She sent powerful divine emissaries to assist Khasim, and led them to the **Calim** River. The refugees, grateful for the divine aid that saved their lives, all pledged to honor and worship Wee Jas above all other gods. They built the town of Ankhetra, now the capital city of the nation of Khasim. It is said that Khasim fell in love with one of the celestial emissaries of Wee Jas [an archon, as they are Lawful Good, and could serve her; an angel in 4e], and she bore him a half-mortal child. This began a tradition of the Pharaohs of Khasim always being chosen for their “divine heritage”.

Government: Although Khasim himself was a powerful cleric, his child was not. Nonetheless, as a child with celestial blood, the priesthood held her in high regard, even reverence, a tradition that has continued down throughout the Potiphar Dynasty to this very day. Khasim, like any other nation, has its aristocracy and its commoners. The merchant class stands somewhere in between. The clergy stand somewhat apart from the rest of society, and although commoners chosen or called to serve in the priesthood are thus elevated above their station, there is a glass ceiling for their ascent, as only those of noble blood are permitted to rise to the higher seats of power, even within the Church. To outside nations, Khasim is viewed as a theocracy, because the clergy holds so many positions of power and authority in the nation. As a quick summation, this is close enough to be correct, but there is more to it than that. The aristocracy-commoner division is a secular one, and many nobles have little to no affiliation with the church, other than as lay worshippers (although a rich enough noble may have a personal chaplain in their home). The Pharaoh himself (or herself, but currently a man) is a secular ruler [male or female aasimar, may or may not have levels in PC classes], who has authority within (and over) the Church. For their part, the people of Khasim view their Pharaoh as both the leader of their nation and as a religious personage, as he has divine blood. Potiphar I laid down a series of laws when he formed his nation, many of which were based off the legal code of Ancient Nerath, but also in keeping with religious doctrine of Wee Jas. The laws have not changed significantly over the centuries and are known collectively as The Code of Potiphar. Slavery is legal in Khasim, but slaves occupy an unusual position in the legal code, as they are both people and property. While a master has a right to punish a slave for disobedience, excessive cruelty towards one’s slaves could be met with consequences. As such, slaves have some rights, but not many. Sometimes free Khasimites voluntarily enter into service as a slave to another, but such is a unique contractual scenario with a limited amount of time (typically 10 years), after which, the former slave is given a payment, agreed upon in the slave-contract. In order for such a contract to be legal, the slave-contract must be notarized by a magistrate (typically a magus), and is kept with local legal records. Slavery is not inherent, if a child is born to two slaves, that child is a free citizen, albeit usually of the lowest social caste.

Religion: Worship of Wee Jas is very widespread throughout Khasim. Officially, it is the only state religion. Worship of other deities is not exactly illegal, but a worshipper of a different deity would be very socially aberrant to the rest of society, and almost no native Khasimites worship anyone other than Wee Jas. There are no temples to other deities anywhere in Khasim, but wealthy foreigners may have a chapel in their homes. The Church itself is headed by the Grand High Magus [The Dragon article ascribed the title of “magus” to Wee Jas’ clergy, and “high magus” to be title of great respect. “Jasdrin” is, apparently, an appellation for any worshipper of Wee Jas], who supports and advises the Pharaoh (although historically, some weaker rulers have been controlled by the Grand High Magus from behind the throne). The Grand High Magus is responsible for the overall spiritual well-being of the people of Khasim, and has the authority to deal with all internal Church matters. The Church, however IS the government of Khasim, as far as government officials go. Almost all government officials at the very least hold the title of “magus” [Cleric of at least 5th level, although other classes may also be magi, see below], and they deal not only with religious duties, but also with government duties (judges, scribes, barristers, etc.). Everyday religious duties can be handled by lower-ranking clergy, and although any who can sufficiently demonstrate worthiness can be granted the title of “magus”, not every magus is a government official. Any clergyman granted the title of “high magus” [usually a cleric of 12th level or higher] is usually offered the opportunity to take on a position of more power and authority. The overall head of a town or city is almost always a high magus. As far as religious outlooks, Khasimite culture is very focused on the afterlife. The deeds of mortals in this life determine what fate they can expect in the next, which will be for eternity. For most law-abiding citizens, regardless of social caste, this will be an eternity of peaceful bliss.

Trade and Foreign Relations: Khasim is no longer as isolated as it once was, but potential trading partners still must send caravans through the **Lakhari** Desert to reach the **Calim** River Valley. Khasim’s most notable exports are textiles (to include Khasimite silk and cotton, both of which demand a high price among the wealthy of other nations), spices, paper, and, of course, a small but flourishing trade in magical goods. Khasim is largely self-sufficient enough that it does not depend on trade, but some foreign goods are very popular in Khasim. Beef is uncommon in Khasim and very expensive, as cows are not usually kept as herd animals due to the large amount of fertile land needed to sustain them. Dwarven ales and beers, for example, keep well along trade routes [like an IPA, they are both bitter and high in alcohol content]. Khasimite spellcasters (both magi and non-Church affiliated) always love to obtain some new magical spell, unique magic item, or construct from foreign lands. However, some of the peculiarities in Khasimite culture lead some other nations to prefer to not deal with them directly, as they feel ill at ease around them. This works well for those nations that do trade with Khasim, because they can charge import duties and levy extra charges on the Khasimite goods that their merchants deliver to other nations (hence the outrageous price of Khasmite silk in most lands).

Necromancy in Khasim: Necromancy, to include the creation of undead, is tolerated and even practiced openly in Khasim, making it unique among all the nations and peoples of **whatever the name of your world is**. In the past, this has led to conflict with other peoples, and misguided “heroes”. However, necromancy is exclusively the demesne of the Church, which polices the practice strictly. As the Church also holds all executive and judicial power in Khasim, this has given rise to the appellation “State Necromancer”, in reference to those magi whose duty it is to deal with the bodies of the dead. They may be members of any variety of classes, arcane or divine [frequently Cleric, Wizard (not always a necromancer), or Dread Necromancer]. Their duties include burial preparation (usually for mummification), and creation of undead. Even for a culture seemingly obsessed with death, this is a rather grim and unpleasant task. Wee Jas is a guardian of the spirits of the dead, and tolerates the loss of souls who volunteer for conversion to undeath (as their souls to not pass to her realm). As per the laws of Khasim, however, some crimes result in execution and summary conversion to undeath as a punishment (as these souls are denied the afterlife forever, and must now serve the very system whose laws they violated); Wee Jas accepts this as well. Such undead creatures are used in a variety of ways, such as simple slave labor or as warriors.

Ways to end up as an undead creature in Khasim:
• Murder (note that killing a slave is more “destruction of another’s property” than it is “murder”, and may result in the killer owing reparations to the slave’s master. However, killing one’s own slaves falls into “mistreatment of slaves” which is a separate crime, but still not murder).
• Treason (This would also apply to foreigners who attempt crimes against the Pharaoh or Grand High Magus, as well as a handful of other individuals of sufficient power and influence).
• Tomb Robbing (to include unsanctioned creation of undead).
• Trafficking with Fiends. [Although as a Lawful Neutral deity, Wee Jas’ clerics are able to cast Evil summoning spells in accordance with the rules, it is a crime in Khasim. It’s also a crime for arcane casters as well.]
• Voluntary Submission as a Guardian. More common among the servants of powerful individuals, such as nobles, a Grand High Magus, or Pharaoh; some of their servants volunteer to serve as mummies, eternally guarding the tomb. This self-sacrifice is viewed as a very honorable and noble act on the servant’s part, and is usually done out of love or devotion for their departed master.
• Selling One’s Body. Any free Khasimite may, at their option, contract their body to the Church (or, more correctly, the necromancers). After they die, their body is animated as an undead servant (usually either as labor or warrior), and their family receives a significant monetary payment [sort of like D&D life insurance, but it’s a sacrifice, as that family member is now denied the afterlife]. If a Khasimite dies in significant debt to another, the creditor may appeal to the magi to oversee his case. In which case, the deceased may be animated as an undead slave to serve a term determined by the magistrate as per the value of the debt. After such debt is paid off, the undead slave is destroyed and their spirit allowed to pass on.

The specific type of undead creature created depends on a number of factors, only the least of which is the spellcasting ability of the magi on hand (passing sentence can always be delayed until an appropriately powerful magi can be reached). A tomb robber found to be looting, for example, may be punished for his greed by being turned into a ghoul (and thus retaining his sentience), which is then rigidly controlled by the magi, and prohibited from ever feeding. Someone volunteering as a tomb guardian is usually a mummy, but other forms may be appropriate. Those that sell their bodies are usually turned into mindless forms of undead (such as zombies) and used as labor, this is viewed as the most merciful option because the undead creature retains almost no sentience and is little more than an automaton, forcing very little upon the soul of the deceased other than denial of afterlife. Incorporeal undead are infrequently used, unless the magi adjudicating a criminal offense deems it appropriate as a specific form of punishment. Khasim’s necromancers view incorporeal undead as an enslavement solely of the target’s ba and ka (aspects of one’s soul relating to individuality and life-force, respectively) outside of the body, leaving it to wander without ability to cease for eternity. This would be considered a more grievous form of punishment than simple zombification. Undead which pose an indiscriminate threat to those around them (such as bodaks, with their death gaze), are almost never used. Vampires are almost unheard of in Khasim, the almost omnipresent burning sun would make unlife as a vampire very difficult, and therefore unsuitable for the state to even get any use out of them. A Necromancer [of any class] may, at his or her own option, choose to enter a state of undeath. As this is voluntary, Khasimite law does not prohibit this, but most regular people still find undead unnerving. Some powerful magi (or other arcanists) do achieve lichdom. Such an individual’s condition is usually something of an “open secret”. No one has an actual objection to it, but out of respect for the living Khasimites around them, such liches usually either only go out in public disguised, or they sent servants out for whatever they may need. Their condition as an undead creature, however, is not usually discussed openly. This is both out of respect for someone who is technically “dead”, and because magic-users of the caliber necessary to achieve lichdom warrant enough respect as individuals that discussing their personal business is considered impolite.

Magic in Khasim: Wee Jas is a goddess of magic, and as such, users of magic are greatly respected. There are Magic Colleges that train arcane casters. These Colleges are run by the state (read as: the Church of Wee Jas), and thus are overseen by a high magus[who may be an acane or divine caster, see below], although the masters at the school are almost always arcane casters themselves. Individual casters are also permitted to take apprentices. Talent for arcane magic is one of the ways that a person may improve their social class standing. Children recognized for a talent for wizardry (or, more likely, sorcery) can be taken in by the Colleges or individual arcanists and trained. Upon completion of their apprenticeship, arcane casters may choose to take positions working for the Church. Sorcerers, in particular, are almost always taken in to be trained by the state-run Colleges when their talent is recognized, as the potential dangers involved in their lack of training. Regardless of whether or not they choose to join the employ of the state, as users of arcane magic they are, at a minimum, considered to be of the merchant class as far as social standing. Very talented arcanists can sometimes amass enough power and wealth to “buy their way in” to nobility, and may be granted noble titles (especially if they have performed a great service to the crown). Those arcanists who choose to enter the employ of the Church are, in fact, entering the priesthood. They are, in almost all respects, priests as far as the view of society is concerned [they are expected to have ranks in Knowledge (religion), and are under the authority of the Church as priests. They may on may not take on the social/judicial duties of the magi, and may earn the titles of “magus” and “high magus”].

The Royal Family: The bloodline of Potiphar I has continued through the generations, but there can only be one Pharaoh. The many siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles and nephews/nieces of the Pharaoh still have some measure of the divine blood of the original emissary of Wee Jas that led Khasim's founders to the **Calim** River. Nepotism is not uncommon among many societies, and many noble families have some relation to the royal family [they may be aasimar, lesser aasimar, or human]. For those distant royal relations, well-to-do positions, cushy state jobs, or even relative autonomy are easy to come by.

Where Sibuna fits in: Sibuna-hotep is the Pharaoh's third cousin, twice removed. He is no danger of ever being in the line of succession. He is, however, still of royal blood [as such I am considering making him a lesser aasimar instead of human, but the fluff fits with either], and that comes with a few benefits. He's a Dread Necromancer, and a magus. He's worked in Khasim as a magus, and now wants to head out on his own. He's got the family connections to let him walk away from his job, but he's still considered a magus of Khasim. Which means he's been invested by divine authority to mete out judgment and sentencing of evildoers, and has the skill set to animate said evildoers as undead.

Character Classes in Khasim:
• Barbarian – Not frequently found in the larger cities, barbarians can be found in smaller communities and among desert-dwelling nomads (not all of whom are affiliated with the nation of Khasim). Some variants, such as Totem of desert animals, may be appropriate.
• Bard – Bards can, of course, be found everywhere, and Khasim is no exception. Harbinger variant may be acceptable.
• Cleric – The prevalence of Wee Jas’ worship means clerics are very common. Clerics of deities other than Wee Jas are almost unheard of unless they are foreigners. Clerics of Wee Jas are always part of the Church and may earn the title of magus. Some variant Cleric classes may be acceptable, such as: Ancestral Speaker, Arcane Disciple, and Cloistered.
• Druid – Less common in Khasim, but not so rare as to be unheard of. Urban druids may be found in the cities, and the desert-dwellers may be totem druids, avengers, or focused animal druids
• Fighter – Fighters can be found the world over.
• Monk – Khasim has its own monastic traditions, most of which are affiliated with the Church of Wee Jas. Holy Monk variants, especially, can be found among them, as well as Sacred Path of Wee Jas.
• Paladin – Wee Jas’ church in Khasim, like elsewhere, trains paladins. Paladins of Wee Jas dislike working with or fighting alongside undead, due to the evil magicks involved in their creation, but it is not against their Code of Conduct to tolerate them (indeed, since Wee Jas’ ethos focus so much on obedience to law and authority, they’re actually obliged to tolerate them).
• Ranger – Rangers can be found in Khasim. Some variant abilities may be appropriate, as there are few “woodlands” in the **Calim** River valley.
• Rogue – Like Fighters, Rogues can be anywhere.
• Sorcerer – Mentioned in Magic section, above, when a child with innate magical talent is discovered, the magi usually take the child in to be trained in one of the Magic Colleges in the cities. This is done without cost, as it is considered less costly to society than leaving such an individual to learn to control their powers on their own. Sorcerers may join the priesthood and become magi.
• Wizard – Wizards are trained in both Magic Colleges and on a one-on-one basis by individual master/apprentice relationships. Wizards may join the priesthood and become magi. Necromancy specialists in particular, often work for the Church. Necromancer variants such as Deathwalker, and Skeletal Minion are common in Khasim
• Dread Necromancer – It should be no surprise that Dread Necromancers are found in Khasim, they usually assist with the magi (if they are not magi themselves) in burial preparations and creation of undead. A Khasimite Dread Necromancer’s “lich transformation” is instead a transformation into a unique type of mummy lord. Their gradual changes are a result of them mummifying their own bodies over time, through application on unguents, oils, and other substances to toughen their flesh. A level 20 Dread Necromancer’s phylactery is usually a sealed box containing the character’s vital organs, preserved in their canopic jars. These are usually stored somewhere safe, such as a tomb that the character builds for the express purpose of a safe haven.
• Favored Soul – Like a combination of Sorcerer and Cleric, individuals found with an innate talent for divine magic are taken in by the Church of Wee Jas to be trained. Favored Souls, however, being blessed with the direct and overt grace of Wee Jas, do not face the “glass ceiling” to their advancement within the Church based on social caste.
• Other Complete Divine Classes –Spirit Shamans are uncommon in Khasim, but those that do exists usually communicate with the spirits of the dead, as opposed to fey. Shugenja are not usually found in Khasim, but if they were, Water focus would be almost unheard of.
• Complete Arcane Classes – Warlocks, due to the nature of the source of their power as a bargain with a fell or eldritch creature, may or may not be found in Khasim. Those that do exist would be sure to hide or disguise their abilities, and perhaps pass themselves off as a member of another class. Warmages fall into the same categories and follow the same rules as Wizards and Sorcerers. Wu Jen are not found in Khasim.
• Complete Adventurer Classes – Ninja would be very uncommon in Khasim, but may be found to be trained by some monasteries, or secret orders that do not reveal their presence to the world. Scouts would follow similar rules to Rangers. Spellthieves would certainly be found in Khasim, with that nation’s focus on magic. A Spellthief may have been trained as an anti-spellcaster operative by the Church, or may be operating independently. However, due to the great respect Khasim has for magic and its users, a Spellthief who continuously targets spellcasters and steals their secrets without sanction by the Church could find himself targeted for retribution (perhaps by other Spellthieves who work for the Church).
• Complete Warrior Classes – Samurai would be almost unheard of, but might be a variant warrior who fights with 2 weapons. Hexblades blend arcane training with martial prowess, and are often found as temple guards for the Church of Wee Jas. Swashbucklers would be very common. Khasim’s climate makes the development of fighting styles that do not rely on heavy armor sensible.
• PHB2 Classes – Dragon Shamans may be found in Khasim, but Brass and Blue varieties (based on terrain of those dragon types) would be the most common. Duskblades would share flavor text with Hexblades. Beguilers would be similar to Spellthieves in the same regard, but would be considered to have more of a focus on magic than stealth and guile. Knights could certainly be found among Khasim’s warriors. Khasim’s society is very ordered, and the Knight’s Code could mesh very well with such structure.
• Psionics – [Not sure how you, the DM, feel about psionics and how, or even if, they fit in your world. However, with a culture focused so much on death and magic (and mostly devoted to a goddess of magic), I think psionic classes in Khasim would be very rare indeed.]
• Incarnum Classes – [I know next to nothing about this book, or the classes contained therin, and cannot thus formulate a fit for them in Khasim. However, as I understand it, Incarnum is “magic of the soul”, which might make for interesting repercussions in this nation.]
• Tome of Battle Classes – Some styles may be more appropriate to Khasim (like Desert Wind) than others. The Warblade, like the Fighter, is a warrior, pure and simple. The Crusader shares a similar role with the Paladin. The Swordsage is more unique. Disciplined, like a Monk, but more of a warrior, and trained to sense magic. The Church of Wee Jas certainly trains Swordsages.
• Tome of Magic Classes – [No. Just…no.]
• Classes From Other Sources – Marshals may be found among Khasim’s military, especially those formally trained as officers and/or field commanders. Archivists could certainly be trained by the Church, sharing a similar flavor to the Cloistered Cleric.
• I think that covers all the base classes.

[Rubik]

Indeed - as I cited earlier in this thread, a "legion of undead" might be usable for good purposes, but would also do significant damage to the veil and cause increased shadows, wraiths, allips, mohrgs and all kinds of other nasties to pop up at random locations on the Prime.The veil isn't RAW. It's a suggestion for one's campaign but isn't an actual thing in the rules. If undead creation spells or the core rules of the necromancy school (ie, the primary source for undead creation) said that the veil is a thing, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

Mindless undead aren't Evil by any definition the game uses. Evil comes in three types: intent, action, and elemental Evil. Zombies and skeletons have no innate intent, only act on what their creator tells them to do (which can be Good, Evil, or neither), and are only composed of elemental Evil when the corpses of fiends and such are involved.

Animals are Neutral because they lack enough moral agency to have alignments, despite having actual Int scores (and thus, can have drives and desires beyond mere survival, albeit not by much, in many cases). This is according to the primary source of rules on alignment, which are the core three rulebooks. Mindless undead have even less moral agency than animals do, given they basically run off of magical programs that say, "do what master tells me to do" and nothing else, exactly like constructs do.

Cats torment their prey. They seem to derive enjoyment from toying with creatures weaker than them, which is a form of sadism, which is Evil, but cats work on predatorial instinct, so they're True Neutral. Zombies don't even do that. They will just stand there doing nothing forever unless commanded to do otherwise, much like, say, a desk lamp. They have no agency, no drive, no desires, and no action not instilled in them by their creators. Thus, they must also be True Neutral.

Unless we can also qualify a desk lamp as Evil? Because it has just as much innate agency as said zombies do.

In short, the "Evil" tag in the monster descriptions and the Animate Dead spell description are errors, and should have been errata'd, but it's yet another oversight, much like ToB's errata was.

[BWR]

The Complete Book of Necromancers has all the answers. Good, neutral and evil necromancy and all aspects between. In short, it's perfectly possible to play a good necromancer, certainly a neutral necromancer, and depending on setting, animating the dead isn't necessarily evil.

[Coidzor]

Sometimes the writers and editors screw the pooch. That's most direct explanation for the difficulty in adding it all up.

[Sam K]

I really like the idea, this is exactly how I would have made a non-evil necromancer too. And the Egyptian touch is nice - a high magic society that incorporates magic.

To (possibly) get around some of the alignment issues, I would likely try to have some variety in punishment of undeath. Perhaps you only have to "serve" as an undead for a set amount of time, and the duties you would have to perform would depend on your crime; the worst criminals would get duties that would lower their status in the afterlife. Like, for a capital crime with some mitigating circumstances, or where you turned yourself in, you have to be animated as a skeleton for 20 years doing maintenance work for the city. For a capital crime where you tried to hide the evidence, you could get sentenced to become animated as a zombie and clean the sewers, serving until you are destroyed. For horrible crimes, you may be animated as a stronger undead, bound to an unplesant duty for eternity, always remembering what you use to be.

It seems to me creating undead with the purpose of destroying them after their "debt to society" had been paid would be less evil (and more LN) than just binding them for eternity.

[RedMage125]

The veil isn't RAW. It's a suggestion for one's campaign but isn't an actual thing in the rules. If undead creation spells or the core rules of the necromancy school (ie, the primary source for undead creation) said that the veil is a thing, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

Mindless undead aren't Evil by any definition the game uses. Evil comes in three types: intent, action, and elemental Evil. Zombies and skeletons have no innate intent, only act on what their creator tells them to do (which can be Good, Evil, or neither), and are only composed of elemental Evil when the corpses of fiends and such are involved.

Animals are Neutral because they lack enough moral agency to have alignments, despite having actual Int scores (and thus, can have drives and desires beyond mere survival, albeit not by much, in many cases). This is according to the primary source of rules on alignment, which are the core three rulebooks. Mindless undead have even less moral agency than animals do, given they basically run off of magical programs that say, "do what master tells me to do" and nothing else, exactly like constructs do.

Cats torment their prey. They seem to derive enjoyment from toying with creatures weaker than them, which is a form of sadism, which is Evil, but cats work on predatorial instinct, so they're True Neutral. Zombies don't even do that. They will just stand there doing nothing forever unless commanded to do otherwise, much like, say, a desk lamp. They have no agency, no drive, no desires, and no action not instilled in them by their creators. Thus, they must also be True Neutral.

Unless we can also qualify a desk lamp as Evil? Because it has just as much innate agency as said zombies do.

In short, the "Evil" tag in the monster descriptions and the Animate Dead spell description are errors, and should have been errata'd, but it's yet another oversight, much like ToB's errata was.
If your assumptions were correct, then your conclusions would be. Alas, you are incorrect. The spells which animate undead are Evil spells. Yes, they use Negative Energy, which is Neutral by itself (such as in the Negative Energy Plane, or directly channeled by an Inflict spell), but the spells themselves are Evil. As undead (even mindless ones) are animated by Evil magicks, they are innately Evil, even if the corpse involved is not a fiendish one.

Sorry, but them's the breaks, it's in the RAW.

Furthermore, a lot of the RAW concerning mindless undead outside of the core 3 books further specifies that they are drivven to attack the living, even if uncontrolled. In that respect, they are different from golems (which will just stand there and do nothing if not given orders, even if they are being attacked).

Desk Lamps are not animated by Evil magicks.

And cats...although I personally would agree that all cats are evil (even in RL), you're applying too much anthropomorphic agency into a cat's hunting mannerisms. Cats do not "torture" their prey. Many predatory animals are very intelligent, and, like other intelligent animals, have a strongly developed sense of "play". A cat plays with its food not because it derives pleasure from torturing something, but because it's exploring the various responses to stigma that the prey exhibits vis the cat's behavior. No malice, no sadism, just curiosity and a kind of innocent wonderment at all the ways their food jumps around amusingly.

The Complete Book of Necromancers has all the answers. Good, neutral and evil necromancy and all aspects between. In short, it's perfectly possible to play a good necromancer, certainly a neutral necromancer, and depending on setting, animating the dead isn't necessarily evil.
Ok, I addressed in the OP that this was in keeping with D&D 3.5e RAW. I don't like all the "good necromancer" forced archetypoes out there that either A) Don't animate undead, or B) Rely on a deviation from the core rules, which state that animating undead is somehow not evil.

According to 3.5e RAW, creation of undead is an evil act. The purpose of this character is to find a way to make a character who is not only capable, but willing to intentionally use those methods, but is not, himself, Evil. Sibuna's rigid doctrine reagrding the use of undead, and the fact that when he does he is acting in accordance with his (Lawful Neutral) deity's ethos means he's not in danger of moving down that "slippery slope".


I really like the idea, this is exactly how I would have made a non-evil necromancer too. And the Egyptian touch is nice - a high magic society that incorporates magic.

To (possibly) get around some of the alignment issues, I would likely try to have some variety in punishment of undeath. Perhaps you only have to "serve" as an undead for a set amount of time, and the duties you would have to perform would depend on your crime; the worst criminals would get duties that would lower their status in the afterlife. Like, for a capital crime with some mitigating circumstances, or where you turned yourself in, you have to be animated as a skeleton for 20 years doing maintenance work for the city. For a capital crime where you tried to hide the evidence, you could get sentenced to become animated as a zombie and clean the sewers, serving until you are destroyed. For horrible crimes, you may be animated as a stronger undead, bound to an unplesant duty for eternity, always remembering what you use to be.

It seems to me creating undead with the purpose of destroying them after their "debt to society" had been paid would be less evil (and more LN) than just binding them for eternity.
Well, Wee Jas is a pretty stern and unforgiving deity in a lot of respects. And those crimes that get you turned into an undead creature in Khasim are considered so grievous, that eternal punishment is usually considered appropriate. However, let's say, for example, a murderer is turned into some kind of zombie and used for slave labor, and then needed to be used as a warrior a decade or so later when the city is attacked. That zombie is destroyed defending the city. No one is interested in using Revive Undead to bring that zombie back, by dying in service to the nation, his debt to society is repaid. That holds true for any undead creature. If they are destroyed in service to the necromancers, they are left destroyed.

If you read the detailed nation description only a few posts up (it's spoiler blocked), you'll see that I did, in fact, address different kinds of undead being warranted for different crimes. Also, sometimes, the animation is a temporary thing to pay off a debt, after which, the zombie destroyed and the soul released. However, keep in mind, that in this culture, something like tomb robbing is one of the worst crimes out there, and warrants one of the more horrible punishments.

For Sibuna's part, he'd probably mostly stick with mindless undead for most minions created from regular combat encounters. No need to expend greater energies on regular grunts. A particularly deserving individual he may raise as a ghoul or something. Any undead minions of his would be viewed as tools, potentially disposable ones. He's invested by his nation and his goddess with the authority to pass judgement and carry out sentence in this regard. But he is not cruel. Unless someone is genuinely deserving of greater punishment, he'd likely just make them a zombie or skeleton, forced to serve his bidding until they're no longer needed, after which they can pass on to whatever afterlife they deserve.

In Khasim, undead are animated as such either because they volunteered for it, or because they "deserve" it (according to Khasim's laws). Denial of the afterlife is considered one of the greatest punishments to Khasimites. Making the punishment "eternal" instead of "after a set period of time" isn't more evil in any way, it's just refusal to bend, and lack or mercy for those who have violated the laws. Because, funny thing about this nation...because necromancy isn't as taboo, it's actually pretty uncommon to have the stereotypical "crazed necromancer" of D&D who is trying to craete an army of undead for his own power and glory. The Church of Wee Jas is pretty firm on stamping that kind of thing out quickly. Any time a person is sentenced to be animated, there's due process and legal record of their crime and punishment. The magi police themselves pretty thoroughly, and it would be uncommon for any individual to be supriously condemning people in order to have more undead at his beck and call. Those undead who are animated as a sentence for a crime are considered property of the state, not that of any individual necromancer.

[Rubik]

If your assumptions were correct, then your conclusions would be. Alas, you are incorrect. The spells which animate undead are Evil spells.Which I already said was an error. The spells don't actually do anything Evil, if the undead they create are incapable of being Evil, and, being mindless automatons by their very monster entries, skeletons and zombies are no more Evil than a serving fork or a trebuchet.


Yes, they use Negative Energy, which is Neutral by itself (such as in the Negative Energy Plane, or directly channeled by an Inflict spell), but the spells themselves are Evil. As undead (even mindless ones) are animated by Evil magicks, they are innately Evil, even if the corpse involved is not a fiendish one.Except, again, they can't be Evil. It's literally impossible for them to be so. They have no agency, can't act on their own volition (although zombies have some possible leeway here, but they're less Evil than most predatory animals due to being mindless), and are not infused with Evil energy, so unless the corpse was innately Evil, neither are they. They just don't have the agency for it.


Sorry, but them's the breaks, it's in the RAW.Not so much.


Furthermore, a lot of the RAW concerning mindless undead outside of the core 3 books further specifies that they are drivven to attack the living, even if uncontrolled. In that respect, they are different from golems (which will just stand there and do nothing if not given orders, even if they are being attacked).The text in the skeleton entry disagrees with you.


Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.

A skeleton is seldom garbed in anything more than the rotting remnants of any clothing or armor it was wearing when slain. A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple. A skeleton attacks until destroyed.Fluff text that disagrees with the monster entry is simply incorrect. The entry explicitly says that skeletons cannot and do not do anything on their own at all. They are mindless automatons, just like golems and animated objects, and do not attack unless commanded to do so by someone capable of making them follow orders.

IE, you are wrong. At least about skeletons.

The zombie template has similar wording, though there's more room for at least a bit of initiative, which means the situation there isn't as clear-cut, though even if they do attack on their own, it's no more "Evil" than any other mindless predator or parasite, such as oozes and politicians.


Zombies are corpses reanimated through dark and sinister magic. These mindless automatons shamble about, doing their creator's bidding without fear or hesitation.

Zombies are not pleasant to look upon. Drawn from their graves, half decayed and partially consumed by worms, they wear the tattered remains of their burial clothes. A rank odor of death hangs heavy in the air around them.

Because of their utter lack of intelligence, the instructions given to a newly created zombie must be very simple, such as "Kill anyone who enters this room."Now, zombies are also "mindless automatons," meaning they do what they're told and nothing else, though since the text doesn't say anything about not attacking on their own, they might attack of their own volition.

Skeletons, however, explicitly don't, and can't, unless commanded to do so.

That doesn't mean that zombies are capable of malice, however, since they're mindless, which automatically excludes them from the capability of morality, and thus, Evil.


Desk Lamps are not animated by Evil magicks.Desk lamps are mindless automatons, without the capability of moral agency. Just like skeletons and zombies, in fact. Imagine that.


And cats...although I personally would agree that all cats are evil (even in RL), you're applying too much anthropomorphic agency into a cat's hunting mannerisms. Cats do not "torture" their prey. Many predatory animals are very intelligent, and, like other intelligent animals, have a strongly developed sense of "play". A cat plays with its food not because it derives pleasure from torturing something, but because it's exploring the various responses to stigma that the prey exhibits vis the cat's behavior. No malice, no sadism, just curiosity and a kind of innocent wonderment at all the ways their food jumps around amusingly.Cats exhibit behavior that's oddly reminiscent of enjoyment when tormenting weaker animals, whether they actually enjoy the act or not, just like dogs appear to enjoy chasing balls and playing a game of tug-of-war. Considering that children and even adult humans display similar signs of enjoyment when we have fun, I don't think it's too far to go to say that animals are capable of feeling most things that humans do, including happiness. So no, I don't think I'm anthropomorphosizing them when I say that it's quite likely that cats enjoy tormenting their prey, any more than I say that laughing children enjoy whatever it was that made them laugh.

Even without sadism, torture is capital-E Evil. But even if cats don't enjoy it, they still commit an Evil act whenever they torture something to death, and since they do have Int scores, they have more moral agency than a mindless automaton, even though they technically don't have enough to actually be Evil.

[Psyren]

The veil isn't RAW. It's a suggestion for one's campaign but isn't an actual thing in the rules.

It's a possible and indeed plausible explanation. If you go just by RAW though, the spells are simply evil with no reason given, similar to how becoming a lich is simply evil, end of story.


In short, the "Evil" tag in the monster descriptions and the Animate Dead spell description are errors, and should have been errata'd, but it's yet another oversight, much like ToB's errata was.

Your suggestion isn't RAW. If undead creation spells or the core rules of the necromancy school (ie, the primary source for undead creation) said that the [Evil] tag can be ignored whenever you please, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

[Rubik]

It's a possible and indeed plausible explanation. If you go just by RAW though, the spells are simply evil with no reason given, similar to how becoming a lich is simply evil, end of story.

Your suggestion isn't RAW. If undead creation spells or the core rules of the necromancy school (ie, the primary source for undead creation) said that the [Evil] tag can be ignored whenever you please, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.And yet the alignment rules say that creatures without Int scores greater than 2 (including mindless ones) are incapable of morality, thus preventing the Evil tag on the undead. And if the undead created are morally incapable of Evil, and are not created by or with Evil, the spell can't be Evil, either.

Thus, it's an error that needs errata but doesn't have it, similar to that whip that deals, what, 1d43 damage? It's an obvious error that should've been corrected, but is currently RAW regardless of how wrong it is.

[Psyren]

And yet the alignment rules say that creatures without Int scores greater than 2 (including mindless ones) are incapable of morality, thus preventing the Evil tag on the undead. And if the undead created are morally incapable of Evil, and are not created by or with Evil, the spell can't be Evil, either.

And yet they are. Specific trumps general, and both the monster entries themselves and the spell entry are more specific than the general intelligence/morality rules you are citing.


Thus, it's an error that needs errata but doesn't have it

Whether it "needs" errata or not, the fact is that it doesn't have any and thus the RAW is clear.

[Rubik]

And yet they are. Specific trumps general, and both the monster entries themselves and the spell entry are more specific than the general intelligence/morality rules you are citing.Which make no sense in context.


Whether it "needs" errata or not, the fact is that it doesn't have any and thus the RAW is clear.Which I have yet to disagree with, if you'll notice.

But do notice that there's no basis for "the veil" outside of campaign suggestions, so please stop bringing it up in RAW discussions.

[Coidzor]

And yet they are. Specific trumps general, and both the monster entries themselves and the spell entry are more specific than the general intelligence/morality rules you are citing.



Whether it "needs" errata or not, the fact is that it doesn't have any and thus the RAW is clear.

Seems strange to make that argument when the thing at contention is whether the rules and justification for them are bad and nebulous and adjusting them to be consistently one way or the other would be better. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

But do notice that there's no basis for "the veil" outside of campaign suggestions, so please stop bringing it up in RAW discussions.

If it conflicted with the mechanics I wouldn't, but it doesn't. (Whereas "the rules are wrong/missing errata because I don't like them" does.)

Basically, they printed that justification for a reason.


Seems strange to make that argument when the thing at contention is whether the rules and justification for them are bad and nebulous and adjusting them to be consistently one way or the other would be better. :smallconfused:

That comes down to opinion; it's my opinion that the Libris Mortis justification makes perfect sense. Others may disagree and that's fine. But if the designers hand me something that says "here's why the rule is the way it is" that does carry at least some weight.

[Bonzai]

I am playing a non-evil focused Necromancer/pale master in an Eberron Campaign that we are about to start. His fluff was that he is Karnathi, and was one of the last few recruits for the Great War who showed some magical aptitude and was pushed through their Necromancer training program. Two weeks after he got through training and arrived at his posting (Fort Bone), a cease fire was called and the war ended. Having just finished his mandatory 2 year enlistment, he found himself a soldier with no wars to fight. So he decided to put his skills to use as an adventurer/Soldier of fortune. He is going to be Lawful Neutral. To him Necromancy is a weapon just like any other, and it's what you do with it that matters. He thinks nothing of animating fallen opponents and using them as disposable fodder. He doesn't even consider them as sentient in any real sense. The one exception would be his skeletal minion (unearthed arcana), Private Jenkins. Having only obtained the rank of Corporal thanks to seeing no action, he takes great pleasure in having some one of lesser rank under him that follows his orders without question. In time he will have his own small skeletal army, the Ventrillan Irregulars, simply to salve the giant chip on his shoulder caused by never advancing further in rank. Role play wise, picture the Drill Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but with skeletons instead of recruits. "Private Jenkins here is the best damn soldier that I have ever had the privilege to command. Why? Because he keeps his damn mouth shut! That's why!". Lol.

That's my take on one. My DM is a big stickler for no Evil aligned characters in his games, so the Karnath angle was my best chance to justify a non-evil Necromancer.

[RedMage125]

Which I already said was an error. The spells don't actually do anything Evil, if the undead they create are incapable of being Evil, and, being mindless automatons by their very monster entries, skeletons and zombies are no more Evil than a serving fork or a trebuchet.
I can't accept any "factual" argument that's founded on "the RAW are wrong because I say so".

You make a very persuasive point re: your opinion on how things "should" work in D&D, but you have no support from the RAW.

The creation of undead in and of itself is an Evil act (as per the BoVD, which also explains why doing so it Evil). So even an epic level character who has the Epic feats that allow him/her to animate a corpse through use of a rebuke undead attempt is commiting an Evil act, by the RAW, because creation of undead is Evil. That is why all undead-creating spells have the [Evil] descriptor, because, by the very nature of the spell, the only thing they can do is an Evil act.

The RAW are clear, and they are consistent. That you do not see that has no bearing on the facts.



Except, again, they can't be Evil. It's literally impossible for them to be so. They have no agency, can't act on their own volition (although zombies have some possible leeway here, but they're less Evil than most predatory animals due to being mindless), and are not infused with Evil energy, so unless the corpse was innately Evil, neither are they. They just don't have the agency for it.
This statement is, by RAW, untrue. The magicks which animate them are Evil. Their very creation was an act of Evil.

Your statement could only be true if it were also true that undead-animating spells were not [Evil]. But they are. So...you're wrong.


Not so much.
Very much so. It's in the rules in EACH AND EVERY spell that animates undead, and in the BoVD under the chapter "Defining Evil". And those are RAW. RAW doesn't start and end with the 3 core books.


The text in the skeleton entry disagrees with you.

Fluff text that disagrees with the monster entry is simply incorrect. The entry explicitly says that skeletons cannot and do not do anything on their own at all. They are mindless automatons, just like golems and animated objects, and do not attack unless commanded to do so by someone capable of making them follow orders.

IE, you are wrong. At least about skeletons.Perhaps you have a point on skeletons.


The zombie template has similar wording, though there's more room for at least a bit of initiative, which means the situation there isn't as clear-cut, though even if they do attack on their own, it's no more "Evil" than any other mindless predator or parasite, such as oozes and politicians.

Now, zombies are also "mindless automatons," meaning they do what they're told and nothing else, though since the text doesn't say anything about not attacking on their own, they might attack of their own volition.

Skeletons, however, explicitly don't, and can't, unless commanded to do so.

That doesn't mean that zombies are capable of malice, however, since they're mindless, which automatically excludes them from the capability of morality, and thus, Evil.

Desk lamps are mindless automatons, without the capability of moral agency. Just like skeletons and zombies, in fact. Imagine that.
Except that even in the bit you quoted, zombies are "animated through dark and sinister magic", so how can you say that the magicks that animate them are Neutral?


Cats exhibit behavior that's oddly reminiscent of enjoyment when tormenting weaker animals, whether they actually enjoy the act or not, just like dogs appear to enjoy chasing balls and playing a game of tug-of-war. Considering that children and even adult humans display similar signs of enjoyment when we have fun, I don't think it's too far to go to say that animals are capable of feeling most things that humans do, including happiness. So no, I don't think I'm anthropomorphosizing them when I say that it's quite likely that cats enjoy tormenting their prey, any more than I say that laughing children enjoy whatever it was that made them laugh.

Even without sadism, torture is capital-E Evil. But even if cats don't enjoy it, they still commit an Evil act whenever they torture something to death, and since they do have Int scores, they have more moral agency than a mindless automaton, even though they technically don't have enough to actually be Evil.

It's not done out of "malice", though. Cats will exhibit the exact same behavior towards a fluffy ball on a length of string. It is not the suffering of their prey that they enjoy, they're just playing with their food. They are naturally inquisitive, playful predators. They have no agency to be anything more.

However, I personally dislike cats, and stand by the motto "Cats are not domesticated. They're just not big enough to kill you".


And yet the alignment rules say that creatures without Int scores greater than 2 (including mindless ones) are incapable of morality, thus preventing the Evil tag on the undead. And if the undead created are morally incapable of Evil, and are not created by or with Evil, the spell can't be Evil, either.
Again, ALL CREATION OF UNDEAD IS AN EVIL ACT as per the BoVD. This bolded part, here? Is not true. They are created by Evil. The spell is, in fact, Evil.

As far as the mindless bit, it's like Psyren said, specific trumps general.

I get that you have an opinion on the matter, and that, in your opinion animation of undead does not carry moral weight in and of itself. But by default RAW, it does. That's why I said "them's the breaks". It's in the RAW, and the RAW are very clear. Because the magicks that animate undead are Evil, undead -even mindless ones- are evil under the purview of "innately evil", because evil is a part of their composition.


Thus, it's an error that needs errata but doesn't have it, similar to that whip that deals, what, 1d43 damage? It's an obvious error that should've been corrected, but is currently RAW regardless of how wrong it is.Funny thing, the new printings of the core books correct things like the whip, but keep the [Evil] tag on undead-creating spells. Hmmmm...what could that mean?.

I'm sorry, but in a discussion about the FACTS of RAW, any argument that hinges upon "RAW is in error" is one I cannot accept as a valid argument. D&D is a construct of fantasy, and need not adhere to any other ideas extrapolated from real life. The designers have the agency, and the right to dictate how things work in this fantasy construct (as a default, of course, individual DMs may do what they wish with Rule 0). Since there is no way to account for all possible permutations of houserules, only RAW can be accepted as Fact. Therefore, when the RAW say "X is Evil in D&D", it is factually true that such is Evil. And any argument that amounts to "the only thing that can be accepted as fact in this discussion (i.e RAW) is wrong because ", [i]cannot be factually true. That's just how logic and debate work. I'm not entertaining a meta-RAW discussion on whether or not the way RAW works in regards to this "could or could not be better". If you want such a discussion, move it to another thread.


Which make no sense in context.
Only to you, because you are ignoring the rest of the body of RAW regarding this matter. Taken as a whole, the rules are entirely consistent.

FACTS/Conclusions:
All creation of undead is an Evil act (as per the BoVD).
Casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil act (as per the PHB).
All spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor (PHB, and other sources).
Conclusion: These rules are all internally consistent. The only thing that Animate Dead does is create undead. All that spell can accomplish is, by the RAW, an Evil act. Ergo, casting the spell will always be an Evil act, and thus the spell has the Evil descriptor, despite not touching on Lower Planes, like [Evil] spells of the Conjuration school.
Creatures incapable of moral action are Neutral rather than Good or Evil(PHB).
Good and Evil are objective forces that shape the cosmos(PHB). This means that Evil can exist outside of living things, as it is an objective force.
For certain types of creatures, Evil is inherent part of their physiology(PHB, MM1, BoVD). So some creatures are Evil, without individuality or moral agency even entering the picture.
When a fiend becomes non-evil (like the often-vaunted LG succubus paladin), it retains the [Evil] descriptor, and will still respond to spells that detect/affect evil beings, like Holy Smite(MM1). The Evil in the fibers of their being goes beyond the moral agency of their action and intent.
Undead -even mindless ones- are animated by Evil magicks(PHB, BoVD).
Zombies and Skeletons have an Evil alignment in the RAW(MM1).
Conclusion: These rules are also internally consistent. Since the magicks that animate zombies are Evil, they fall into the purview of "innately evil" regarding alignment. Even without moral agency present, there is Evil energy inside them. They don't have the [Evil] subtype, because that subtype is only applied to non-Prime-native creatures.

Rubik: The RAW on this are very clear, and very consistent. I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but genuinely hoping that by pointing this out in this fashion, you will see what we've been saying. You have an opinion regarding how you would like the rules to work, because of how you percieve mindless undead. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Please, by all means, feel free to keep preferring...whatever. What I'm trying to show you is fact. And the facts, believe it or not, are consistent. Yes, mindless undead are a specific exemption to the normal rule regarding intelligence and moral agency. This is because the other rules regarding the objective nature of Evil as a force, the objective Evil inherent in any creation of undead, and evil alignment being inherent in those creatures to whom evil is a part of their physical makeup collectively trump the general rule regarding a mindless creature. Therefore, mindless undead are still Evil.

[Coidzor]

That comes down to opinion; it's my opinion that the Libris Mortis justification makes perfect sense. Others may disagree and that's fine. But if the designers hand me something that says "here's why the rule is the way it is" that does carry at least some weight.

Err. Yes, yes it does come down to opinion. :smallconfused:

And without Libris Mortis and before Libris Mortis? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Err. Yes, yes it does come down to opinion. :smallconfused:

Right. But Rubik is saying things like "it conflicts with the alignment/intelligence rules" (they don't apply here, as this is a specific exception to those general rules), and "Libris Mortis isn't RAW" (note that while the veil and other entries at the beginning of the book are labelled as "theories," they are not actually considered to be "variants" or otherwise illegitimate.) In fact, the Pact Primeval is also considered a theory, yet everyone readily accepts that account. He then goes on to posit that this was an error that they just never got around to issuing errata for, despite them doubling down on that supposed "error" in future supplements like LM and Heroes of Horror. It smacks of wishful thinking at best.


And without Libris Mortis and before Libris Mortis? :smalltongue:

I covered this already - without that explanation, animating undead is simply [Evil] without explanation. RAW certainly, just not very satisfying (at least, for me.)

[RedMage125]

Right. But Rubik is saying things like "it conflicts with the alignment/intelligence rules" (they don't apply here, as this is a specific exception to those general rules), and "Libris Mortis isn't RAW" (note that while the veil and other entries at the beginning of the book are labelled as "theories," they are not actually considered to be "variants" or otherwise illegitimate.) In fact, the Pact Primeval is also considered a theory, yet everyone readily accepts that account. He then goes on to posit that this was an error that they just never got around to issuing errata for, despite them doubling down on that supposed "error" in future supplements like LM and Heroes of Horror. It smacks of wishful thinking at best.
While the section you are describing is labelled as a "theory" (and is thus not universally true as a Fact of RAW), the Libris Mortis as a book, IS, in fact, RAW. And anything that the LM describes as fact and not theory (or "optional rule") is true.

[Shining Wrath]

Let rule 0 apply: if a DM rules necromancy is not necessarily evil than it isn't.
Otherwise by RAW many of the interesting spells have that [Evil] tag.
If you want to homebrew something, I suggest taking a look at the Malconvoker and extending that idea to the necromancer; he creates the undead to fight for good purposes, so the [evil] tag may be removed for a reason.

[Naanomi]

I have a similar country in my long-term campaign setting; a nation that the living population lives in extreme luxury and wealth, but are 'obligated' to serve after death... either as a skeleton/zombie for labor, or as an intelligent undead for scholarly work. People aspired to lichdom or similar powerful intelligent undead to join the 'senate of ancestors' and lead the nation and advise the priest-kings who formally ruled. They were always upset at the 'backwards' ways of other people who forced the living to work; almost like one would consider a country run on child labor.

The society was LN as a whole, though there was some LE undercurrents in the leadership.

[RedMage125]

Let rule 0 apply: if a DM rules necromancy is not necessarily evil than it isn't.
Otherwise by RAW many of the interesting spells have that [Evil] tag.
If you want to homebrew something, I suggest taking a look at the Malconvoker and extending that idea to the necromancer; he creates the undead to fight for good purposes, so the [evil] tag may be removed for a reason.

*sigh*
That defeats the purpose of this character, which is the reason for the thread, not an alignment discussion.
This character is a necromancer, totally in line with RAW and Evil animation of undead. The only "house rule" necessary is that this home nation exists in that world.

And as I have said before. My stance on all things D&D is that "plagiarism is the greatest form of flattery". I posted this on the forums with an open invite for anyone to poach from this, cherry-pick ideas, or adopt it wholesale.

[Rubik]

Any arcane caster that isn't exalted can cast [Evil] spells without any real issue. So long as you don't do Evil things with them, you're perfectly within your rights to play a Neutral or even Good character who raises undead, so long as you're A.) careful in how you use them, and B.) willing to add redundant fail-safes to ensure they remain under control (or are destroyed as soon as they're used for the purpose you animated them for). So long as those are seen to, necromancy should be perfectly fine, and won't necessarily change your alignment.

[OldTrees1]

Yes Animate Dead has an [Evil] tag (although this can be seen as a mistake)
Yes Libris Mortis RAW does not overwrite PHB RAW (although this can be seen as a mistake)
Yes despite all of that Neutral(with respect to Good and Evil) Necromancers that cast Animate Dead exist. (See the Dread Necromancer for explicit Authorial Intent)

[Grim Portent]

Every time you animate the dead you will suffer a slight shift to evil no matter how or why you animate them, but if you do sufficient good deeds to outweigh the (relatively) minor evil of animation then you could easily be neutral, possibly even good if you're sufficiently saintly.

Certain evil deeds may outweigh any good deeds you could do in a reasonable time but judging by what you've said of the character concept I can't see that being a major problem. Remaining neutral should be reasonably simple, though you may need to explain the rationale behind the character from time to time to avoid OOC assumptions of evil motives causing an IC alignment shift.

[Shining Wrath]

*sigh*
That defeats the purpose of this character, which is the reason for the thread, not an alignment discussion.
This character is a necromancer, totally in line with RAW and Evil animation of undead. The only "house rule" necessary is that this home nation exists in that world.

And as I have said before. My stance on all things D&D is that "plagiarism is the greatest form of flattery". I posted this on the forums with an open invite for anyone to poach from this, cherry-pick ideas, or adopt it wholesale.

Consider my last idea: he's casting spells that still have the [evil] descriptor, but they don't change his alignment because of the uses to which he puts them. That's what is special about a Malconvoker, and I thought that was what you wanted; to cast the [evil] tagged necro spells without the caster becoming evil. If I misread you, sorry.

[Rubik]

Every time you animate the dead you will suffer a slight shift to evil no matter how or why you animate them, but if you do sufficient good deeds to outweigh the (relatively) minor evil of animation then you could easily be neutral, possibly even good if you're sufficiently saintly.

Certain evil deeds may outweigh any good deeds you could do in a reasonable time but judging by what you've said of the character concept I can't see that being a major problem. Remaining neutral should be reasonably simple, though you may need to explain the rationale behind the character from time to time to avoid OOC assumptions of evil motives causing an IC alignment shift.I had one slightly delusional Good character (Chaotic, FYI) who couldn't quite grasp that his "very special friends" weren't actually alive. Think Pinkie Pie's behavior in "A Friend in Deed" mixed with Pinkamina's delusional hallucination in "Party of One."

A second NG character was a very young psion (a kobold refluffed into a young genetically altered anthropomorphic raccoon boy with some dragon mixed in) with the Psianimate Dead power (also marked as [Evil]) who couldn't control his necromantic powers and accidentally raised any dead creature nearby without meaning to. He didn't like it, but he decided to use them to do good things, since they followed him around regardless of his desires (although they did his bidding otherwise).

A third (also NG) was an incarnate/psion (a young human child) whose parents were mages who studied the positive and negative energy planes. He'd been conceived on the negative energy plane before being orphaned a few years later. His dead father's spirit (which had been tainted with enough negative energy to prevent him from crossing over) followed him around to protect him and inhabited the dead near him in order to ensure his safety. The boy's body was likewise tainted with negative energy, and his connection to the negative energy plane (mechanically represented by the necrocarnum circlet) allowed his father to create necrocarnum zombies any time his old zombie-body was destroyed.

And none of them were even remotely Evil, despite raising undead frequently.

[Windstorm]

I am playing a non-evil focused Necromancer/pale master in an Eberron Campaign that we are about to start. His fluff was that he is Karnathi, and was one of the last few recruits for the Great War who showed some magical aptitude and was pushed through their Necromancer training program. Two weeks after he got through training and arrived at his posting (Fort Bone), a cease fire was called and the war ended. Having just finished his mandatory 2 year enlistment, he found himself a soldier with no wars to fight. So he decided to put his skills to use as an adventurer/Soldier of fortune. He is going to be Lawful Neutral. To him Necromancy is a weapon just like any other, and it's what you do with it that matters. He thinks nothing of animating fallen opponents and using them as disposable fodder. He doesn't even consider them as sentient in any real sense. The one exception would be his skeletal minion (unearthed arcana), Private Jenkins. Having only obtained the rank of Corporal thanks to seeing no action, he takes great pleasure in having some one of lesser rank under him that follows his orders without question. In time he will have his own small skeletal army, the Ventrillan Irregulars, simply to salve the giant chip on his shoulder caused by never advancing further in rank. Role play wise, picture the Drill Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but with skeletons instead of recruits. "Private Jenkins here is the best damn soldier that I have ever had the privilege to command. Why? Because he keeps his damn mouth shut! That's why!". Lol.

That's my take on one. My DM is a big stickler for no Evil aligned characters in his games, so the Karnath angle was my best chance to justify a non-evil Necromancer.

that character description made me laugh loud enough to disturb my roommate from watching a movie. I hope it goes well for you and that your fellow PCs don't have any bad preconceptions.

regarding the thread: I suppose one of the biggest problems we currently have is that all of the book material was written by upwards of 15 people altogether, and just like us, each of them had individual preconceptions and opinions on the topic that found its way into their section of writing. it is exactly this kind of topic and problem where rule zero is at its most relevant. ultimately because of all the conflicting things, working a system or approach out with your DM is always the best route.

[RedMage125]

I had one slightly delusional Good character (Chaotic, FYI) who couldn't quite grasp that his "very special friends" weren't actually alive. Think Pinkie Pie's behavior in "A Friend in Deed" mixed with Pinkamina's delusional hallucination in "Party of One."

A second NG character was a very young psion (a kobold refluffed into a young genetically altered anthropomorphic raccoon boy with some dragon mixed in) with the Psianimate Dead power (also marked as [Evil]) who couldn't control his necromantic powers and accidentally raised any dead creature nearby without meaning to. He didn't like it, but he decided to use them to do good things, since they followed him around regardless of his desires (although they did his bidding otherwise).

A third (also NG) was a incarnate/psion (a young human child) whose parents were a mages who studied the positive and negative energy planes. He'd been conceived on the negative energy plane before being orphaned a few years later. His dead father's spirit (which had been tainted with enough negative energy to prevent him from crossing over) followed him around to protect him and inhabited the dead near him in order to ensure his safety. The boy's body was likewise tainted with negative energy, and his connection to the negative energy plane (mechanically represented by the necrocarnum circlet) allowed his father to create necrocarnum zombies any time his old zombie-body was destroyed.

And none of them were even remotely Evil, despite raising undead frequently.
While those are all very vivid character concepts, and I'm sure playing them was a blast, each and every one of them required your DM to houserule (i.e. deviate) from RAW.

I'm saying nothing negative about them. Just that by a strict RAW reading, those characters would be committing Evil acts every time they animated an undead creature.

[Rubik]

While those are all very vivid character concepts, and I'm sure playing them was a blast, each and every one of them required your DM to houserule (i.e. deviate) from RAW.

I'm saying nothing negative about them. Just that by a strict RAW reading, those characters would be committing Evil acts every time they animated an undead creature.And yet none of them would ever change alignment from it.

[OldTrees1]

While those are all very vivid character concepts, and I'm sure playing them was a blast, each and every one of them required your DM to houserule (i.e. deviate) from RAW.

I'm saying nothing negative about them. Just that by a strict RAW reading, those characters would be committing Evil acts every time they animated an undead creature.

Um, you are half mistaken (and it is the important half too).

Yes, the spell has the [Evil] tag. Yes, casting the spell is an evil act.
No, the DM does not need to deviate from RAW. RAW allows those non-evil characters.

[Psyren]

And yet none of them would ever change alignment from it.

Putting BoVD aside (which clearly states that evil spells are evil acts) and sticking to core, we still have the following.

First, DMG's broad statement:


Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by the players.

From this we see that simply wishing to be a non-evil necromancer will not make you one on its own.

More telling is the PHB line:



[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

Thus, the PHB clearly states that spell descriptors affect alignment. This was then expanded upon in BoVD.

Finally, note that BoVD itself endorses the "thinning the veil" theory in LM:


ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD

Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity— are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

[Rubik]

I dictate my character's actions and attitudes, and nobody else. If the only "evil" thing I do is animate the dead (which is harmless, since it has zero mechanical repercussions beyond the immediate -- pointless and crunchless fluff aside) and choose to do my best to be Good, and the DM says I turn Evil because of it, I'm perfectly free to ignore that and continue to play the way I want, and that my character is no more Evil than someone creating golems. Even less so, really, since golems bind sentient elemental spirits into (potentially) eternal torment, whereas most corporeal undead (or at least, those created by Animate Dead) don't.

[RedMage125]

I dictate my character's actions and attitudes, and nobody else. If the only "evil" thing I do is animate the dead (which is harmless, since it has zero mechanical repercussions beyond the immediate -- pointless and crunchless fluff aside) and choose to do my best to be Good, and the DM says I turn Evil because of it, I'm perfectly free to ignore that and continue to play the way I want, and that my character is no more Evil than someone creating golems. Even less so, really, since golems bind sentient elemental spirits into (potentially) eternal torment, whereas most corporeal undead (or at least, those created by Animate Dead) don't.
Look, whether you disagree or not, those spells, by strict RAW, are Evil. Ergo, by a strict RAW reading, casting them is an evil act. Whether or not that affects your alignment likely depends on other factors, such as...you know...the entire gamut of his actions. I didn't say "by RAW, your character is now evil", I said "by a strict RAW reading, those are evil acts, no matter how you fluff it".

And the bare fact of the matter is: no matter how much you say fluff is "pointless" just because YOU don't like it, it remains factually true that by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act.

As an aside: I find it either ironic or hypocritical (I'll go with ironic) that you dismiss one bit of fluff as "pointless", but your 3 character concepts hinge entirely on fluff alterations to the same mechanics as a stereotypical evil necromancer animating corpses for his own benefit. So which is it? Is pure fluff "pointless", or key?

[Rubik]

How is determining a personality and quirks for a character while disliking rules that fly in the face of both other rules and logic (with ruleset fluff that has no basis in the actual rules at all) hypocritical, exactly?

[OldTrees1]

Look, whether you disagree or not, those spells, by strict RAW, are Evil. Ergo, by a strict RAW reading, casting them is an evil act. Whether or not that affects your alignment likely depends on other factors, such as...you know...the entire gamut of his actions. I didn't say "by RAW, your character is now evil", I said "by a strict RAW reading, those are evil acts, no matter how you fluff it".

And the bare fact of the matter is: no matter how much you say fluff is "pointless" just because YOU don't like it, it remains factually true that by RAW, casting those spells is an Evil act.

As an aside: I find it either ironic or hypocritical (I'll go with ironic) that you dismiss one bit of fluff as "pointless", but your 3 character concepts hinge entirely on fluff alterations to the same mechanics as a stereotypical evil necromancer animating corpses for his own benefit. So which is it? Is pure fluff "pointless", or key?

Um, no you didn't merely say casting the spell was an evil act. (read your first paragraph of post 77)

If you merely said that then you would have been correct and you would not have been addressing the point Rubik was making with the 3 characters.

Rather you said that the 3 characters required the DM to deviate from RAW. That was factually incorrect. One evil action in a sea of other actions does not require the character to be evil regardless of the other actions.

So Rubik's point "Non evil characters that occasionally do a single evil action (animate dead) are RAW consistent" is still true.

Thus the point "Non evil minonmancer Necromancers are RAW consistent" is true



Psyren does a good job of explaining how non evil minonmancer necromancers are possible BY describing the hurdle they need to overcome to remain non evil. Aka since actions dicate alignment and Animate Dead is an evil action, non evil minonmancer necromancers must have enough non evil actions to overcome their occasional evil action.

[ShurikVch]

Despite Necromancy school have many [evil] spells, still, I think, considering the school itself evil is wrong
After all, even Paladins :miko: have some necromancy spells in their list (Mark of Doom, Mark of Justice), and we all know about how unnecessary harsh is the Code of Conduct

Also, IIRR, no of spells which are channeling the Negative Energy in the most direct fashion, are [evil]. Inflict ... Wounds (Mass)? Negative Energy Ray/Aura/Burs/Wave? Harm (Greater, Mass)? Not [evil]!!! :smalltongue:

And theory about "thinning the veil" have one glaring weakness: Negative Energy is just one another of Inner Planes. How is channeling NE lead to such consequences, and yet channeling any other energy do nothing? Why the casting of Incendiary Cloud not contribute to Global Warming, or affect the population of Ash Rats and Living Holocausts? Isn't cast of Create Water heightening risk of the Great Flood? :smallconfused:

Also, even if creating undead considered an evil act, summoning apparently completely OK, because no spell from Summon Undead line is [evil]

And Fell Animate/Fell Drain metamagics not add an [evil] descriptor despite being from the very same Libris Mortis

[Divayth Fyr]

If your assumptions were correct, then your conclusions would be. Alas, you are incorrect. The spells which animate undead are Evil spells.
So is Deathwatch. And what an evil spell that is...


undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
With this logic in mind bringing more and more positive energy would be a good thing, even if it would kill all the living creatures...

[Blightedmarsh]

You may be interested in my necrotheistic setting (see sig)

The main thrust of the philosophy is that all gods essentially consume the souls of their followers; incorporating there energy into their home plane. From a certain point of view all gods are essential self righteous soul eating abominations who have enslaved and exploited the mortal races since time immemorial.

The alignment system? alien and eldritch energies used to justify a set of godspawned ideals meant to divide and control us. I do what I think is right and I don't give a damn about their judgement. By all the power of necromancy and incarnum I will ensure they NEVER get their claws on my soul or the souls of those I care about.

[Psyren]

I'm perfectly free to ignore that and continue to play the way I want.

You're not, actually. DMG pg. 134: "You [the DM] control alignment changes, not the players."

For the record, I happen to think creating golems via the "shackled elemental" method should be evil too. That's not the only way to create a construct, or even a golem, however.


How is determining a personality and quirks for a character while disliking rules that fly in the face of both other rules and logic (with ruleset fluff that has no basis in the actual rules at all) hypocritical, exactly?

Spell descriptors are "actual rules." Not fluff; mechanics.

As for the fluff - they did explain it (just not in core), and it does make sense to many. You happen not to like it, and that's okay, but it's not because they didn't explain it.


With this logic in mind bringing more and more positive energy would be a good thing, even if it would kill all the living creatures...

You can spam heals from sun-up to sundown without hurting anyone. Is there a form of negative energy that isn't harmful to the living?

[Divayth Fyr]

You can spam heals from sun-up to sundown without hurting anyone. Is there a form of negative energy that isn't harmful to the living?
For starters: Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead. Then, going to spells we have Desecrate that doesn't do anything to non-divine casters, Curse water uses negative energy to make unholy water which is harmless for anyone except good outsiders and Positive Energy Protection may actually save your life (if on Positive energy plane). Also, going by strict RAW, creating a skeleton is as harmful to the living (since that bit about negative energy is basically fluff - the undead subtype in itself doesn't have anything to go with that) as making a golem or a sword. It might kill someone, but not without someone making it do that.

[Shining Wrath]

I dictate my character's actions and attitudes, and nobody else. If the only "evil" thing I do is animate the dead (which is harmless, since it has zero mechanical repercussions beyond the immediate -- pointless and crunchless fluff aside) and choose to do my best to be Good, and the DM says I turn Evil because of it, I'm perfectly free to ignore that and continue to play the way I want, and that my character is no more Evil than someone creating golems. Even less so, really, since golems bind sentient elemental spirits into (potentially) eternal torment, whereas most corporeal undead (or at least, those created by Animate Dead) don't.

You may get to control your character; you don't get to control Law and Good and Chaos and Evil, which in a D&D game are actual, palpable things (see: Incarnate). If Evil has come to dwell in your character that has an in-game impact regardless of how you choose to play your character. In fact, you're probably doing a poor job of role-playing if your character doesn't change no matter how many [Evil] by RAW things he or she does. And you don't get to house-rule from the player's side of the screen that because you don't see these spells as evil they aren't [Evil].

Were I your DM, I might rule that your alignment has changed. And reach back to AD&D and hit you with an XP penalty, to teach you not to create your own house rules without consulting me. That's a no-no at most tables.

[Psyren]

You may get to control your character; you don't get to control Law and Good and Chaos and Evil, which in a D&D game are actual, palpable things (see: Incarnate).

The PHB agrees:

"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."


For starters: Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead.

PHB 160: "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."


Then, going to spells we have Desecrate that doesn't do anything to non-divine casters, Curse water uses negative energy to make unholy water which is harmless for anyone except good outsiders and Positive Energy Protection may actually save your life (if on Positive energy plane).

1) Infusing an area with negative energy is like spraying radiation everywhere. Even if it doesn't have an immediate effect, it's hardly something to encourage.
2) Creating something designed solely to harm a good sapient being doesn't sound particularly morally upright to me.
3) PEP does nothing if there isn't already an imbalance of positive energy in the area. Thus you can easily say that the spell doesn't actually do anything until the subject would be acted upon by positive energy and it produces just enough negative to offset it. It does not increase the amount of negative in the area.


Also, going by strict RAW, creating a skeleton is as harmful to the living (since that bit about negative energy is basically fluff - the undead subtype in itself doesn't have anything to go with that) as making a golem or a sword. It might kill someone, but not without someone making it do that.

Going by strict RAW, it's still evil to do it. If you want to dismiss the reasons given for that in other sources, nothing can stop you, but then you're just left with it being evil without an explanation.

[Divayth Fyr]

PHB 160: "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."
1) Infusing an area with negative energy is like spraying radiation everywhere. Even if it doesn't have an immediate effect, it's hardly something to encourage.
2) Creating something designed solely to harm a good sapient being doesn't sound particularly morally upright to me.
Perhaps - but are those actually harmful to the living (which is the thing you have asked about)? The unholy water could be said to be (depending on who do we think about), but the rest?


3) PEP does nothing if there isn't already an imbalance of positive energy in the area. Thus you can easily say that the spell doesn't actually do anything until the subject would be acted upon by positive energy and it produces just enough negative to offset it. It does not increase the amount of negative in the area.
Again, that still is a non-harmful use of negative energy.

[Psyren]

Perhaps - but are those actually harmful to the living (which is the thing you have asked about)? The unholy water could be said to be (depending on who do we think about), but the rest?

According to LM and HoH, yes, desecrating random patches of land is indeed harmful to the living.


Again, that still is a non-harmful use of negative energy.

It's not harmful because there is already something more harmful that it is countering. This is like saying burning someone isn't harmful because you can cauterize their wounds, or irradiating someone isn't harmful because it can destroy cancer cells. In those specific situations they aren't, but overall they still are.

[Bonzai]

You may get to control your character; you don't get to control Law and Good and Chaos and Evil, which in a D&D game are actual, palpable things (see: Incarnate). If Evil has come to dwell in your character that has an in-game impact regardless of how you choose to play your character. In fact, you're probably doing a poor job of role-playing if your character doesn't change no matter how many [Evil] by RAW things he or she does. And you don't get to house-rule from the player's side of the screen that because you don't see these spells as evil they aren't [Evil].

Were I your DM, I might rule that your alignment has changed. And reach back to AD&D and hit you with an XP penalty, to teach you not to create your own house rules without consulting me. That's a no-no at most tables.

I think all he was saying, was that even though he might start pinging on the Paladin's radar and the parties protection from evil spell might start being inconvenient, functionally it won't change his characters personality or actions. I didn't gather that he was re-writing any rules. Role play wise, evil is versatile. It can have the noblest intentions and use the just and purest means to it's ends. It's far more flexible than good, as good has for more rigid rules.

Animating Skeletons may taint you in the long run. However, how evil is it compared to the supposedly neutral methods of summon monster or leadership feat? Skeletons have no soul, can't feel pain, and have no mind of their own. They are simple animated matter bound together and compelled with energy channeled from an elemental plane. As opposed to ripping outsiders from their home plane, compelling the to do your bidding, subjecting them to pain and torment, and then dismissing them back to their home plane without so much as a thank you? Or sending loyal friends and followers to their death? Or a druid with their beloved pets?

Can a good aligned character get away with animating dead? It would be really tough. Neutral? As a DM I'd probably let it slide. I do think its bad and heavy handed DM'ing to penalize a player for not trying to kill the party in their sleep after casting animate dead the xth number of times.

[RedMage125]

Psyren...you make good points. Shining Wrath, you are correct and you make me laugh "teach you not to create houserules from your side of the screen"...lol.

How is determining a personality and quirks for a character while disliking rules that fly in the face of both other rules and logic (with ruleset fluff that has no basis in the actual rules at all) hypocritical, exactly?
Hypocrisy (or irony, take your pick) enters in thusly: Your 3 proposed characters hinge upon fluff being SO IMPORTANT, that your alterations to the default RAW (i.e. all the "innocent" ways that they cast Animate Dead), which are ONLY FLUFF, make them work the way they do. So in that respect, you are claiming that fluff is so important that it can negate mechanics if twisted just the right way.

And then you dismiss other fluff as "pointless", just because you don't like it. You have dismissed it as "crunchless fluff", even though that fluff actually supports the purely mechanical elements such as [Evil] descriptors on those undead animation spells.

So which is it? Is fluff super-important, or "meaningless without crunch"? Because to basically dismiss some of it just because you don't like it, but claim your 3 concepts work without commiting Evil acts based solely on your altered fluff, is contradictory, at best (making it ironic that you make both claims), or hypocritical at worst.

If you're going to continue on this topic, I'd like you to respond to post #64. In that post, I pointed out what the RAW say regarding this topic, which books those rules are located in, and showed how they all work together in an entirely consistent manner. Just because something is an example of "specific trumps general", or that it is more in keeping with one rule than another (i.e. zombies being evil keeps true to the "inherent evil" general rule over the "mindless creatures are Neutral" general rule), does NOT mean that it is "flying in the face of other rules". If what you claim had any validity, then we should dismiss all game mechanics that "fly in the face of other rules", such as getting extra AoOs from taking Combat Reflexes, because there's a rule that says you only get one per round.


Um, no you didn't merely say casting the spell was an evil act. (read your first paragraph of post 77)

If you merely said that then you would have been correct and you would not have been addressing the point Rubik was making with the 3 characters.

Rather you said that the 3 characters required the DM to deviate from RAW. That was factually incorrect. One evil action in a sea of other actions does not require the character to be evil regardless of the other actions.

So Rubik's point "Non evil characters that occasionally do a single evil action (animate dead) are RAW consistent" is still true.
You mean this post?

While those are all very vivid character concepts, and I'm sure playing them was a blast, each and every one of them required your DM to houserule (i.e. deviate) from RAW.

I'm saying nothing negative about them. Just that by a strict RAW reading, those characters would be committing Evil acts every time they animated an undead creature.
Nope, nothing in there is me saying that his characters' alignments have changed. And Rubik's point was not that. He's trying to claim that animate dead isn't Evil, but rather, that it's harmless, like some kind of victimless crime (completely ignoring what the RAW say about animation of undead being an evil act in and of itself), and using these characters who have re-fluffed the animation and claiming that because of these changes, and because of his reasoning regarding the "harmlessness" of animating the dead, that when these characters do it, they are not committing evil acts.

And he is wrong. You said yourself that I am correct in saying what I am. You're just reading into what I said incorrectly.

Those characters even animating the dead in the way that they do requires a DM to deviate from RAW, because all 3 of those characters were "unintentionally" raising the dead, even if in game terms it still cost them their spells per day/power points/whatever. And since those things are spells/powers with casting times and material components, it would, actually, REQUIRE a DM's houserule to allow the character to spend those resources in a metagame fashion, while in-character, the dead just rise up, unbidden, around them. Now, mind you, they're neat concepts, and it could make for great storytelling. But it's still not in keeping with strict RAW. And like I said before, if we're going to discuss what is factually true, or factually false in D&D, then only things in keeping with RAW are valid, and deviations from it are not.



Thus the point "Non evil minonmancer Necromancers are RAW consistent" is true

Psyren does a good job of explaining how non evil minonmancer necromancers are possible BY describing the hurdle they need to overcome to remain non evil. Aka since actions dicate alignment and Animate Dead is an evil action, non evil minonmancer necromancers must have enough non evil actions to overcome their occasional evil action.
I really don't understand why you're making this point to me, or who you think you're making it to. I never said that non evil minionmancer necromancers weren't possible. I'm the OP of the thread. Remember the OP of this thread? My quasi-Egyptian Dread Necromancer who worships Wee Jas? Yeah, I've demonstrated quite thoroughly that a nonevil minionmancer necromancer is possible, fully in keeping with the RAW (in which animating the undead is an evil act). Sibuna, the character in the OP, knows full well that animation of the undead is an evil act. He only does it under a carefully prescribed set of guidelines, and his goals are, in many ways, Good. The reason he is not Lawful Good is that he is willing to use such abhorrent methodology. And actions can and do affect alignment. He does not care about "the dignity of sentient beings", but opposes Evil. Like the Malconvoker, he uses Evil's tools against it when he encounters them (by taking control over encountered undead), or passes judgement on those evildoers who "deserve" undeath, and passes said sentence. Using Evil ends to achieve Good means is onyl forbidden to Paladins and Exalted characters, but it's a slippery slope for most. "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality" (DMG, page 134), so Sibuna being LN makes sense. He doesn't deviate on the Law/Chaos axis, and him being Neutral on the Good/Evil one allows him to qualify for the Dread Necromancer class. So he is a non-evil minionmancer necromancer, and he is entirely in keeping with RAW, he even matches up with more detailed fluff regarding Wee Jas, he could work 100% as a cleric of Wee Jas. The closest thing to a "houserule" that would be required to make Sibuna work, is to say that his nation exists in the DM's world.
Rubik, on the other hand, is making a different point. Rubik claims that he knows better than the RAW, that they are stupid and wrong "because he says so", and that Animate Dead should not be [Evil] (again "because he says so"), and that fluff he doesn't like can be ignored as "crunchless and pointless", but he can completely abrogate his characters from the Evil of the acts they have committed, because he's re-fluffed it as being something they do not control and they are happy and innocent about it.
So you seem to be confused as to what points I am making that you are contesting, and what points Rubik is making that you are defending.

[OldTrees1]

@RedMage125

Obviously I misunderstood then. I apologize. I incorrectly inferred that you were implying non-evil necromancers deviated from RAW. (Particularly when you claimed all 3 examples required deviation from RAW despite only the second using uncontrolled magic)

[Psyren]

Yes - to be clear, I'm not advocating that neutral or even good necromancers are impossible. Just that they have more of an uphill battle to stay that way, unless they avoid aligned necromancy spells and reanimation entirely.

[Werephilosopher]

Animating Skeletons may taint you in the long run. However, how evil is it compared to the supposedly neutral methods of summon monster or leadership feat? Skeletons have no soul, can't feel pain, and have no mind of their own. They are simple animated matter bound together and compelled with energy channeled from an elemental plane. As opposed to ripping outsiders from their home plane, compelling the to do your bidding, subjecting them to pain and torment, and then dismissing them back to their home plane without so much as a thank you?

The energy planes are distinct from the elemental planes- animating something with negative energy is very different from powering an engine with fire from the Plane of Fire. Bringing more elemental fire into the material world is not, in and of itself, harmful to the world, but bringing in more negative energy is.

I don't believe creatures summoned with summon monster are in danger of real death, as they are not actually called to your plane. And yeah, they may find it unpleasant- but summoning good creatures gives the spell the Good descriptor, so it's a good act. Probably because a good outsider brought to the material world is eager to do what it can to help people while it remains. Though if I'm wrong on the mechanics of the spell someone correct me.

Further, sending people who willingly follow and obey you to their deaths isn't necessarily evil. They're acting of their own volition, after all.

[Shining Wrath]

I think all he was saying, was that even though he might start pinging on the Paladin's radar and the parties protection from evil spell might start being inconvenient, functionally it won't change his characters personality or actions. I didn't gather that he was re-writing any rules. Role play wise, evil is versatile. It can have the noblest intentions and use the just and purest means to it's ends. It's far more flexible than good, as good has for more rigid rules.

Animating Skeletons may taint you in the long run. However, how evil is it compared to the supposedly neutral methods of summon monster or leadership feat? Skeletons have no soul, can't feel pain, and have no mind of their own. They are simple animated matter bound together and compelled with energy channeled from an elemental plane. As opposed to ripping outsiders from their home plane, compelling the to do your bidding, subjecting them to pain and torment, and then dismissing them back to their home plane without so much as a thank you? Or sending loyal friends and followers to their death? Or a druid with their beloved pets?

Can a good aligned character get away with animating dead? It would be really tough. Neutral? As a DM I'd probably let it slide. I do think its bad and heavy handed DM'ing to penalize a player for not trying to kill the party in their sleep after casting animate dead the xth number of times.

It depends on what you think a character's alignment means. I don't think you can say "Yes, I'm of evil alignment" and then act the same as you would if you said "Yes, I'm of neutral alignment". To be evilly aligned has to mean something in how a character acts, and furthermore, it means that there's a part of you that likes hurting people per RAW.

If, then, by RAW your alignment changes to [Evil] then your actions ought to change from what they were before the alignment change. It's a very classic part of very many stories; the guy who starts dabbling with Forces That Ought Not To Be Dabbled With and finds out that he's being changed by them. See HP Lovecraft for a start. Or using the One Ring. It's character development.

I can understand Rubik wanting to say his character's actions are what he says they are, because a player should make the decisions for their character. I agree with that. Where we disagree is I think that you ought to make *different* decisions, in a role-playing game, if your alignment is changed. Someone sneaks up behind you and slaps a Helm of Opposite Alignment on your head, you ought to role-play differently. If, by RAW you don't much like, casting a series of spells with the [Evil] descriptor changes your alignment to evil, you also ought to role-play differently.

[hamishspence]

It depends on what you think a character's alignment means. I don't think you can say "Yes, I'm of evil alignment" and then act the same as you would if you said "Yes, I'm of neutral alignment". To be evilly aligned has to mean something in how a character acts, and furthermore, it means that there's a part of you that likes hurting people per RAW.

Actually there is considerable variation.

"Some evil characters simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"
"Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master"

Not every Evil character is sadistic. An Evil alignment can manifest itself in many different ways - going by BoVD and Champions of Ruin. Also Exemplars of Evil and Savage Species.

[Psyren]

You don't have to actively want to hurt people to be evil - simply not caring whether you hurt them or not is also sufficient, or even being deluded as to the level of harm you're truly inflicting compared to the benefit. That's where neutral necromancers fall in my opinion - more misguided than malicious.

[Tvtyrant]

I am sad, as I thought this was going to become a thread about playing an evil necromancer to the teeth. I have personally never seen an alignment debate that came to a conclusion rather than just die, probably because the people writing in the have different alignments.

In this case I think it is perfectly fine to play an evil necromancer as being a good guy who pings evil all over the place. In this case I would say that rather than be confusing to other individuals of that world, everyone would see him or her as being insane and more than a little creepy. Like skingrafters and other shady experimental magicks Necromancy can be used for good and still repulse good individuals.

[Shining Wrath]

Actually there is considerable variation.

"Some evil characters simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"
"Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master"

Not every Evil character is sadistic. An Evil alignment can manifest itself in many different ways - going by BoVD and Champions of Ruin. Also Exemplars of Evil and Savage Species.

But all varieties of evil are not neutral. If your alignment changes from not-evil to evil, you either act differently than you once did, or you suck at role-playing. Alignment does mean something, even if there's variation within each category.

[Tvtyrant]

But all varieties of evil are not neutral. If your alignment changes from not-evil to evil, you either act differently than you once did, or you suck at role-playing. Alignment does mean something, even if there's variation within each category.

That is one heck of a value statement. If I go from TN to NE then my personality may become slightly crueler, or I may just stop giving a darn about other people all together. There might not be a visible side effect at all, I have just lost all sense of empathy for other humans or worse started feeling pleasure when my actions cause them pain.

[Shining Wrath]

That is one heck of a value statement. If I go from TN to NE then my personality may become slightly crueler, or I may just stop giving a darn about other people all together. There might not be a visible side effect at all, I have just lost all sense of empathy for other humans or worse started feeling pleasure when my actions cause them pain.

I'm perfectly OK with the idea that there's a line segment of finite length with "pure good" at one end, "pure evil" at the other end, and infinitely many points between the two end points. Same thing for law and chaos.

RAW says that there are two points on that line, though, where you cross from "good alignment" to neutral and from "evil alignment" to neutral. Good and evil are real things in the game.

Now, I say, as a matter of what makes sense to me, that if your alignment moves along either axis then how you play your character ought to move accordingly. If you claim that you only moved a teeny tiny amount but just happened to cross over one of those points RAW says are on the line, then the difference may be small.

HOWEVER ... math also says that the odds of a small interval containing one of those key points is also small. If you didn't move very far, you probably didn't cross over one of the key points. Conversely, if you did cross over one of the key points, the odds are the move was not teeny-tiny. Therefore, the odds are that you're kidding yourself. When you cast enough [Evil] spells to change from neutral to evil, the last one moved you only a small step, but so did all the other [Evil] spells you cast, and the sum of those steps is very likely non-trivial.

It's an definite integral of dEvil/dT over a fixed time interval...

[Bonzai]

I'm perfectly OK with the idea that there's a line segment of finite length with "pure good" at one end, "pure evil" at the other end, and infinitely many points between the two end points. Same thing for law and chaos.

RAW says that there are two points on that line, though, where you cross from "good alignment" to neutral and from "evil alignment" to neutral. Good and evil are real things in the game.

Now, I say, as a matter of what makes sense to me, that if your alignment moves along either axis then how you play your character ought to move accordingly. If you claim that you only moved a teeny tiny amount but just happened to cross over one of those points RAW says are on the line, then the difference may be small.

HOWEVER ... math also says that the odds of a small interval containing one of those key points is also small. If you didn't move very far, you probably didn't cross over one of the key points. Conversely, if you did cross over one of the key points, the odds are the move was not teeny-tiny. Therefore, the odds are that you're kidding yourself. When you cast enough [Evil] spells to change from neutral to evil, the last one moved you only a small step, but so did all the other [Evil] spells you cast, and the sum of those steps is very likely non-trivial.

It's an definite integral of dEvil/dT over a fixed time interval...

I think turning Evil into a linear equation really over simplifies it. Evil is much more mutable and subjective than that. Evil isn't always stupid or obvious. Nor does your equation involve intentions and objectives which are just as important as actions. If the Evil conjurer who subjugated the kingdom, slaughtered the men, ravaged the women, enslaved the children, ate the kittens, kicked the puppies, pulled the tags off of mattresses, trimmed the hedges of many small villages, etc..., but does nothing but summon good aligned outsider's to do his bidding via summon monster. As long as he is spamming those good spells, then he is considered good and those paladin's won't ping off him.

Sounds a bit ridiculous, but it's possible once you equate alignment to nothing more than math. It's going to work both ways. Furthermore the scale at which you have decided some one falls to evil is purely subjective. How many white lies equals a theft? How many thefts equals a murder? Where does animate dead fit in? On your scale, how many castings does it take to go from neutral to wanting to murder your friends in their sleep and wearing their faces as a hat? It's all a linear progression right?

[Mellack]

I would have to disagree that you should change how you are playing because of an alignment change. How you have been making your character act is the REASON he changed. So clearly you are already acting in the manner of that alignment. If your actions are evil enough to make you ping evil, then I feel they are more than sufficient to keep you there. To feel that you must now become some sort of extreme evil maniacal psychopath seems ridiculous to me.

[Shining Wrath]

I think turning Evil into a linear equation really over simplifies it. Evil is much more mutable and subjective than that. Evil isn't always stupid or obvious. Nor does your equation involve intentions and objectives which are just as important as actions. If the Evil conjurer who subjugated the kingdom, slaughtered the men, ravaged the women, enslaved the children, ate the kittens, kicked the puppies, pulled the tags off of mattresses, trimmed the hedges of many small villages, etc..., but does nothing but summon good aligned outsider's to do his bidding via summon monster. As long as he is spamming those good spells, then he is considered good and those paladin's won't ping off him.

Sounds a bit ridiculous, but it's possible once you equate alignment to nothing more than math. It's going to work both ways. Furthermore the scale at which you have decided some one falls to evil is purely subjective. How many white lies equals a theft? How many thefts equals a murder? Where does animate dead fit in? On your scale, how many castings does it take to go from neutral to wanting to murder your friends in their sleep and wearing their faces as a hat? It's all a linear progression right?

And my argument, essentially, is that if your started-out-Evil conjurer summoned so many good outsiders that it changed his alignment, then a good (meaning competent) player will change how he role-plays that conjurer. When you mess with elemental forces of the universe and try to bend them to your will, they bend you right back. Gaze into the abyss and the abyss gazes back into you, etc.

Your alignment should be reflected in how you role-play. Again, if someone manages to slap a Helm of Opposite Alignment on you, it should make your personality different, and every action taken by that character needs to be considered in the light of the new alignment.

Alignment is not a tool to be used to qualify for a class. It's supposed to describe part of your personality. If your choices by RAW change your alignment, then the personality of your PC has been changed, and you should role-play accordingly.

[Bonzai]

In broad strokes I agree, but I don't believe that the casting of animate dead for defensive or even noble purposes is enough in and of it's self to forcibly shift your alignment. Intent should have some weight there as well. Murder is evil, but killing in self defense is not. Either way you have ended a life, and the difference is the circumstance and intent that separates the two. A Necromancer who creates an undead horde to destroy a village should be painted with a different brush than a Necromancer who uses the dead to keep from harming the living. Alignment is a thing, but the rules regarding it are fairly subjective for the most part once you get past the blatantly obvious stuff. Animating undead every day for 20 years may only lead to one becoming a bit numb and indifferent to the loss of a human life, or it could lead to mustache twirling villainy. There are no rules hard rules for it that I am aware of.

That being said, I stand by what I said. It's bad and heavy handed DM'ing to penalize players for not role playing to a purely arbitrary set of standards that you might wish to impose. It will take away far more enjoyment from the game than strictly enforced role play would ever bring.


I think I've derailed the topic enough. Sorry to the OP. Wish you luck with your Necromancer. I am looking forward to trying out mine this weekend.

[hamishspence]

In broad strokes I agree, but I don't believe that the casting of animate dead for defensive or even noble purposes is enough in and of it's self to forcibly shift your alignment. Intent should have some weight there as well. Murder is evil, but killing in self defense is not. Either way you have ended a life, and the difference is the circumstance and intent that separates the two. A Necromancer who creates an undead horde to destroy a village should be painted with a different brush than a Necromancer who uses the dead to keep from harming the living.

Heroes of Horror does say that characters who commit "Evil" deeds toward Good ends are probably neither Good nor Evil but "a flexible neutral".

And (in the Dread Necromancer class description) that even if the class requires one to commit Evil acts - it's possible to balance that with one's intentions, and remain Neutral.

[RedMage125]

In broad strokes I agree, but I don't believe that the casting of animate dead for defensive or even noble purposes is enough in and of it's self to forcibly shift your alignment. Intent should have some weight there as well. Murder is evil, but killing in self defense is not. Either way you have ended a life, and the difference is the circumstance and intent that separates the two. A Necromancer who creates an undead horde to destroy a village should be painted with a different brush than a Necromancer who uses the dead to keep from harming the living. Alignment is a thing, but the rules regarding it are fairly subjective for the most part once you get past the blatantly obvious stuff. Animating undead every day for 20 years may only lead to one becoming a bit numb and indifferent to the loss of a human life, or it could lead to mustache twirling villainy. There are no rules hard rules for it that I am aware of.
I see what you're saying, but right back to what Shining Wrath is saying about "gazing into the abyss". Animating those undead is an evil act by RAW, even if the spell didn't have the [Evil] descriptor. Animating a horde of zombies to defend a town from an incoming army of orcs is still a massively Evil act done for a Good cause. Good acts may ensue with what the necromancer does with those zombies. But the initial act of raising them was an Evil act. Like consorting with fiends, the very act of doing it taints one's soul a bit. Not to say that any such necromancer MUST become Evil, just that the actual creation of a "mockery of life" (to use the BoVD's words on the subject) is an Evil act, according to the objective, cosmos-defining forces.


That being said, I stand by what I said. It's bad and heavy handed DM'ing to penalize players for not role playing to a purely arbitrary set of standards that you might wish to impose. It will take away far more enjoyment from the game than strictly enforced role play would ever bring.
Right, but there's give and take. Because it's a petulant and juvenile player roleplaying poorly if his character never shows any change, growth, or actual responses to in-game effects. So it goes both ways.

I think jamming a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a PC's head would be kind of a jerk move on the DM's part. But I have been forced to change a player's alignment due to a magical item. A few years ago, I was running The Age of Worms adventure path, and the players got to one of the tombs of the Wind Dukes of Aaqa (the creators of the Rod of Law, AKA The Rod of Seven Parts). Now, by this point, the players were at least somewhat familiar with the Rod of Law. The tomb itself was filled with all kinds of Law-related traps (my favorite was the Word of Law glyphs, that only the LG cleric in the party was unaffected by). So, when they finally find the tomb, and retrieve one of the Parts of the Rod. The cleric makes sure he's the only one to handle it at first. They find out what it does by itself (casts heal 1/day), and the party Rogue (True Neutral) decides that it would be good for him to hold onto it, so the melee types can have emergency healing if needed and the cleric is too far away. He grabs the Rod Piece. I look at him and shake my head and ask for a Will save (For only one piece, it's only a DC17 Will save to not move alignment one step closer to Lawful), and he rolls a 1. I asked him for his character sheet, wrote Lawful Neutral on there instead, and took the player aside to discuss what had happened. I told him that the powerful Lawful energies of the Rod fragment had affected him, and that I would like to see more disciplined, methodical behavior out of him from now on.

Now, I don't even feel remotely bad about what I did. The players knew in-character and out, that it was a Major Artifact dedicated thoroughly to Law. They had seen how non-lawful people were adversely affected by the tomb. They knew all of this, even initially making sure that only the LG party member touched the thing initially. And then one of them grabbed it. And after that, it was a fair chance at a saving throw, and the Dice Gods decreed that it was meant to be.

Unfortunately, we stopped being able to meet regularly one session after that, so I didn't see much of his altered behavior. But I don't think I would have "penalized" him for not acting in accordance with his new alignment. I just would have reminded him that it was changed and his behavior should reflect it. I think he would have done a good job.



I think I've derailed the topic enough. Sorry to the OP. Wish you luck with your Necromancer. I am looking forward to trying out mine this weekend.
I appreciate the desire to stop derailing.

Also, I like your Karrnathi guy. I'm actually going to be asking the DM this weekend if he'll allow Karrnathi zombies and skeletons in Khasim. It would make sense that this nation would have developed more advanced undead, especially for their undead warrior corps. The Khasimite people's view towards the undead soldiers i very similar to the Karranthi view. I may even amend the "ways to end up undead in Khasim" to include professional soldiers who volunteer to be turned into the more intelligent undead solier types, and continue advancing in rank, thus making their military profession last forever. Career soldier indeed.

[hamishspence]

I see what you're saying, but right back to what Shining Wrath is saying about "gazing into the abyss". Animating those undead is an evil act by RAW, even if the spell didn't have the [Evil] descriptor. Animating a horde of zombies to defend a town from an incoming army of orcs is still a massively Evil act done for a Good cause.

I'd go more with "a great many tiny evil acts" in this case.

[OldTrees1]

I'd go more with "a great many tiny evil acts" in this case.

By RAW it might only be 1 tiny evil act. Casting has the [Evil] tag, not Animating. Since Deathwatch also has the [Evil] tag, the [Evil] tag is probably a tiny evil act.

[Shining Wrath]

By RAW it might only be 1 tiny evil act. Casting has the [Evil] tag, not Animating. Since Deathwatch also has the [Evil] tag, the [Evil] tag is probably a tiny evil act.

I guess I should say I never meant to say that the DM should force the player to do anything, and the whole Helm of Opposite Alignment thing was an example of what can happen, not something I'd be likely to do.

Leave one lying around and see if anyone tries it on? Only if there's some sort of warning that this item might be "special".

Anyway, just how much [Evil] a particular spell involves is a DM judgement call if there ever was one. I think in this case I'd go by # of undead created and their power - that is, creating 50 HD of skeletons might be as evil as creating one vampire.

I'd never put up with a non-evil Lich, though.

[OldTrees1]

I'd never put up with a non-evil Lich, though.

What about involuntary lichdom? (Recently read a Drizzt book where this occurred.)

[RedMage125]

BTW, Bonzai, DM ruled that Karrnathi Zombies and Skeletons will be permissible in this game, to represent the "superior undead creating abilities" of the Khasimite necromancers.

[killem2]

I have always wanted to play a Lawful Good Cleric that uses the bodies of criminals to do the work of good.

I kind of imagined him like a staunch good-er, who has the thought process of..

/SOUTHERN draw

"Ya'll listen now. These bags of bones were either criminals in a past life, or they were just down right vile. *spit*

Point a'is, justice ain't over just cuz they be dead."

/southern draw

[Shining Wrath]

What about involuntary lichdom? (Recently read a Drizzt book where this occurred.)

That would appear to be a "novel" sort of lich. From SRD:


Lich Characters

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.

So I think I'm safe being "intolerant" per RAW. Unspeakably evil and only by a willing character does not leave a lot of wiggle room. Your Drizzt book modifies second portion of RAW.

I, myself, imagine that every lich follows a different path and undergoes a different unspeakably evil process. The techniques that worked to make Xykon a lich wouldn't work to make Redcloak a lich.

[OldTrees1]

That would appear to be a "novel" sort of lich. From SRD:



So I think I'm safe being "intolerant" per RAW. Unspeakably evil and only by a willing character does not leave a lot of wiggle room. Your Drizzt book modifies second portion of RAW.

I, myself, imagine that every lich follows a different path and undergoes a different unspeakably evil process. The techniques that worked to make Xykon a lich wouldn't work to make Redcloak a lich.

Savage Species gives Wish an explicit RAW usage that would bypass that quote. (Wish can be used as a ritual to change the species of a target creature.)

I agree on the differing techniques. (although I don't think there would be enforced uniquiness)

[squiggit]

Regarding the actual topic here. I never really liked the whole "simply doing it slowly corrupts you because... reasons" schtick people like to use for Evil spells or Evil force powers or whatever.

This is, obviously, different than the Rod of Law example (and others), because an artifact of power imposing its will on someone fits in a different category.

The act of necromancy itself can be reviled in a society for all the normal reasons, sure, but I feel like the issue from a storytelling standpoint becomes a lot less interesting when it just invariably corrupts you because... yeah.

Hell, the idea of a sect of clerics or a magical empire where the dead are intentionally and willingly raised for various reasons seems like a potentially nifty one. Until you add "IT MAKES YOU EVIL BWAHAHAAHAHA" as an addendum to necromancy magics.

What about involuntary lichdom? (Recently read a Drizzt book where this occurred.)

Might still be qualified as evil.

I can't remember the source now but I do remember a story I read where the major plot point was a group of necromancers forcing a good aligned dragon to become a dracolich (who then proceeded to lead the cult in trying to destroy the city at the center of the story). Obviously that could be a special case or... who knows really.


I'd never put up with a non-evil Lich, though.

Not a fan of Baelnorn? D:

[Deophaun]

Point a'is, justice ain't over just cuz they be dead.
Seems kind of an odd sentiment for a universe where the afterlife is demonstrably real and incorporates all sorts of nasty punishments.

[RedMage125]

I'd never put up with a non-evil Lich, though.
Funny, because as a DM I had my players encounter a non-evil lich.

'Course, it was during a moment when they encountered all kinds of things they didn't expect to feel sympathy for.
Spoiler blocked for space concerns, and because I'm a sick DM ;)
The PCs had gotten captured, and had busted themselves out. They discovered they had been captured by the same cabal of devil summoners whose operation they had stumbled upon many levels before. They entered the next block of cells and found a dark hallway with 3 cells on each side. A large, dark shape floated up to the bars to greet them. In the light of their sunrod they saw a beholder...but his central eye had been gouged out, and all his eye stalks severed and cauterized. Across from the beholder was a mind flayer with a scar on its forehead. The wizards' experimentation and operation on him had left him as intelligent as before, but without the psionic power to command so much as a rat. Next to the illithid was a medusa, who had been blinded and her head shaved. Across from her was a lich. This lich spoke to the PCs and revealed his name to be Bernard. He was a human wizard and historian who felt his time in life was too short, so he became a lich and dedicated himself to becoming the ultimate dispassionate historian. He usually holed himself up in OrcGate Hold, an undead-infested ruin, because the undead there ignored him, and usually kept people away who might otherwise seek to destroy him due to his nature. He had the power to break out of here, but his captors had his phylactery and all his spellbooks. Next to Bernard was a nymph who had been so badly mutilated that she would not show her body (she hid under a blanket). And across from her was an ettin. The ettin had had one of its heads cut off and cauterized. It's loss was still keenly felt by the remaining personality, who swore that "Morg and Torg will.........Morg will crush little wizards for this".
My players stared at me, some looking horrified, others with looks of deep sympathy in their eyes and said "Dude, you're sick. I never thought I'd feel sorry for MONSTERS".
Bernard the Lich was a human wizard. He desired to be the ultimate historian, and felt his life was too short. Knowing full well how evil the ritual was, he still undertook it, viewing his ultimate goal as for a greater good. He then retreated to OrcGate Hold, where a powerful ancient curse turned any who died there into an undead creature. He was left alone by the undead there, and scryed on the world, recording his findings, making copies of the books, and donating them anonymously to libraries the world over. He's True Neutral. He has had to kill misguided "heroes" before, but always tries to reason with them first. Usually it's paladins who are too stubborn to listen to reason. He hates having to kill, but will defend himself.

Seems kind of an odd sentiment for a universe where the afterlife is demonstrably real and incorporates all sorts of nasty punishments.
Yes, but keep in mind, to Sibuna's people, denial of the afterlife is the greatest punishment one can inflict.

[Deophaun]

Yes, but keep in mind, to Sibuna's people, denial of the afterlife is the greatest punishment one can inflict.
Which I just don't get. It's like saying denial of punishment is the greatest punishment you can inflict, at least for the type of people you're inflicting it on. Unless the person you've got is the baddest of the bad, likely to be accorded a place of honor by whatever dark deity he worships, all you're doing is granting a temporary reprieve in exchange for community service. No matter how horrible an existence you try to give the (mindless) undead, it's not going to hold a candle to what they would be doing to him in Baator.

[killem2]

Which I just don't get. It's like saying denial of punishment is the greatest punishment you can inflict, at least for the type of people you're inflicting it on. Unless the person you've got is the baddest of the bad, likely to be accorded a place of honor by whatever dark deity he worships, all you're doing is granting a temporary reprieve in exchange for community service. No matter how horrible an existence you try to give the (mindless) undead, it's not going to hold a candle to what they would be doing to him in Baator.

But it's me that gets to deal the punishment. That alone, is worth delaying him to what ever god wants him.

[Psyren]

I'd go more with "a great many tiny evil acts" in this case.

Yep.


What about involuntary lichdom? (Recently read a Drizzt book where this occurred.)

This is effectively homebrew and therefore up to the DM. (RA Salvatore in that specific case.)

[Deophaun]

But it's me that gets to deal the punishment. That alone, is worth delaying him to what ever god wants him.
But you aren't really dealing any punishment at all. Unless you're using create undead, whatever you bring back is mindless: it doesn't care what you do to it. The only punishment is the soul sitting in limbo, which, yippee. Good deal for the guy if he's a monster, bad deal if he was wrongfully convicted and is a nice guy.

So yeah, I could see that by its very nature being evil: it spares the guilty of their punishment and denies the innocent their reward. There's no redeeming feature.

[killem2]

But you aren't really dealing any punishment at all. Unless you're using create undead, whatever you bring back is mindless: it doesn't care what you do to it. The only punishment is the soul sitting in limbo, which, yippee. Good deal for the guy if he's a monster, bad deal if he was wrongfully convicted and is a nice guy.

So yeah, I could see that by its very nature being evil: it spares the guilty of their punishment and denies the innocent their reward. There's no redeeming feature.

I'm talking about specifically taking criminals, that I put away. (I would probably have been a judge in the past) I want their ghost to see what has happened to their remains.

[Deophaun]

I'm talking about specifically taking criminals, that I put away.
And no one was ever, in the history of the world, wrongly accused and convicted. Your characters will always be infallible.

I want their ghost to see what has happened to their remains.
How, again, even if this were to happen (and there's no evidence their "ghost" will actually be aware), is that worse than what Baator would do to them?

Your punishment is only something a good person is going to fear, which is what makes it evil.

[Bonzai]

Funny, because as a DM I had my players encounter a non-evil lich.

'Course, it was during a moment when they encountered all kinds of things they didn't expect to feel sympathy for.
Spoiler blocked for space concerns, and because I'm a sick DM ;)
The PCs had gotten captured, and had busted themselves out. They discovered they had been captured by the same cabal of devil summoners whose operation they had stumbled upon many levels before. They entered the next block of cells and found a dark hallway with 3 cells on each side. A large, dark shape floated up to the bars to greet them. In the light of their sunrod they saw a beholder...but his central eye had been gouged out, and all his eye stalks severed and cauterized. Across from the beholder was a mind flayer with a scar on its forehead. The wizards' experimentation and operation on him had left him as intelligent as before, but without the psionic power to command so much as a rat. Next to the illithid was a medusa, who had been blinded and her head shaved. Across from her was a lich. This lich spoke to the PCs and revealed his name to be Bernard. He was a human wizard and historian who felt his time in life was too short, so he became a lich and dedicated himself to becoming the ultimate dispassionate historian. He usually holed himself up in OrcGate Hold, an undead-infested ruin, because the undead there ignored him, and usually kept people away who might otherwise seek to destroy him due to his nature. He had the power to break out of here, but his captors had his phylactery and all his spellbooks. Next to Bernard was a nymph who had been so badly mutilated that she would not show her body (she hid under a blanket). And across from her was an ettin. The ettin had had one of its heads cut off and cauterized. It's loss was still keenly felt by the remaining personality, who swore that "Morg and Torg will.........Morg will crush little wizards for this".
My players stared at me, some looking horrified, others with looks of deep sympathy in their eyes and said "Dude, you're sick. I never thought I'd feel sorry for MONSTERS".
Bernard the Lich was a human wizard. He desired to be the ultimate historian, and felt his life was too short. Knowing full well how evil the ritual was, he still undertook it, viewing his ultimate goal as for a greater good. He then retreated to OrcGate Hold, where a powerful ancient curse turned any who died there into an undead creature. He was left alone by the undead there, and scryed on the world, recording his findings, making copies of the books, and donating them anonymously to libraries the world over. He's True Neutral. He has had to kill misguided "heroes" before, but always tries to reason with them first. Usually it's paladins who are too stubborn to listen to reason. He hates having to kill, but will defend himself.

Yes, but keep in mind, to Sibuna's people, denial of the afterlife is the greatest punishment one can inflict.

It reminds me of a Forgotten Realms Campaign I created. There was a small mining camp I created near the Silver Marches, called Red Rock (due to the iron deposits there). There was nothing much to the camp to start with, until a Necromancer built his tower near by. The Necromancer approached the camp and made his intentions clear, from time to time he will approach the camp and trade for basic supplies, at all other times he was to be left completely alone. Terrified, the miners agreed. The arrangement continued on for a while, until the camp was attacked by Orcs. Having little patience for this disruption, the Necromancer slaughtered the Orcs and saved the camp in the process. With their increased safety and steadier trade, the camp grew. Eventually it became a small town, and the populace all looked to the Necromancer as their protector and leader. Eventually the Necromancer embraced this role. Undead minions began to patrol the woods and build up the town. Roads were created that improved trade. The Necromancer being Lawful Evil put down strict laws and harsh punishments, usually the death penalty where the offender was killed and then animated for the public good. The laws may have been harsh, but they were fairly applied and the people were kept safe. King Obould began causing problems in the region, and thanks to the protection of the Necromancer, the town was kept safe, and was flooded with refugees that further swelled it's population.

Fast forward to just after the year of Rogue Dragons. Harper agents who have come to this town and attempted to investigate or do something about the Necromancer have all disappeared. The party is sent to investigate. They find a thriving town amidst a war torn region. The people both love and fear their ruler, and have no complaints as they have been kept safe and spared the worst of it. Undead roam the streets, building and doing basic manual labor. Criminals are publicly executed and turned into skeletons to the they may serve in death those they have wronged in life. The Necromancers hall is decorated with Husk globes of Harpers and paladins that have attempted to destroy him. He freely admits that he killed them in self defense, and would gladly do the same to any who threatened him or his people. The town has become a source of pride for him, as he see's its prosperity as an extension of his greatness.

The party is left with a choice, the Necromancer is unquestionably evil, but he is also lawful, brought prosperity to his people, and has saved hundreds of refugees from the Orcs.If he is killed, then the party would be condemning hundreds to their deaths or worse. Fortunately there was a plot ark that allowed the party to undermine him without killing him or undermining the town. The Necromancer was a member of the cult of the dragon and used the year of rogue dragons to stockpile dragon corpses for various purposes. The party is able to find his cashes and destroy it, setting back his plans.

[OldTrees1]

This is effectively homebrew and therefore up to the DM. (RA Salvatore in that specific case.)
I found a RAW way in Savage Species. The Wish ritual can create an involuntary lich.

[RedMage125]

Which I just don't get. It's like saying denial of punishment is the greatest punishment you can inflict, at least for the type of people you're inflicting it on. Unless the person you've got is the baddest of the bad, likely to be accorded a place of honor by whatever dark deity he worships, all you're doing is granting a temporary reprieve in exchange for community service. No matter how horrible an existence you try to give the (mindless) undead, it's not going to hold a candle to what they would be doing to him in Baator.


But you aren't really dealing any punishment at all. Unless you're using create undead, whatever you bring back is mindless: it doesn't care what you do to it. The only punishment is the soul sitting in limbo, which, yippee. Good deal for the guy if he's a monster, bad deal if he was wrongfully convicted and is a nice guy.

So yeah, I could see that by its very nature being evil: it spares the guilty of their punishment and denies the innocent their reward. There's no redeeming feature.
Look, I'm getting the feeling you didn't read the whole OP.

Khasim is a more or less monotheistic society. Other religions, while not illegal, are not found anywhere in Khasim. The culture in Khasim is thus entirely dominated by the tenets of Wee Jas, specifically those exclusive to Khasim. To Sibuna's people, the afterlife is great. Someone who's a lawbreaker and isn't accepted into Wee Jas' Realm...their fate is uncertain, but they don't know for sure that it's eternal punishment. But they will be denied ANY afterlife, AND be forced to serve the government of the laws they broke.

And the spoiler block in the OP covers what kinds of undead are used in Khasim. And yes, sometimes Create Undead is used. My DM also said he'd allow Karrnathi undead. But some people are turned into simple zombies and skeletons, usually not the most grievous criminals.

And some of the fluff regarding zombies and skeletons (including the Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas) suggests that the soul of the departed (or some other soul) is in any undead creature, even mindless ones.

[Ravens_cry]

If they aren't illegal, what's stopping people from moving into the country and doing a few Hail Pelors? There should be some diversity at least.

[Psyren]

I found a RAW way in Savage Species. The Wish ritual can create an involuntary lich.

Actually it still has to be voluntary:


A ritual is a method of permanently transforming a willing creature into a monster of a certain kind.

The Wish Ritual also requires DM involvement (and invites DM screw.)


Casting wish to become a new kind of creature...falls under the "wishing for greater effects" rules in the spell description.

[OldTrees1]

Actually it still has to be voluntary:

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, helpless counts as willing for 'willing only' spell effects, at least in Pathfinder. For all I know that could be a new rule.

[Psyren]

Well, helpless counts as willing for 'willing only' spell effects, at least in Pathfinder. For all I know that could be a new rule.

Point, but the second clause I quoted is far worse.

[Ravens_cry]

Point, but the second clause I quoted is far worse.
I agree. I recommend putting on your DM wrangling boots, engaging in outright bribery if you must.:smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

Look, I'm getting the feeling you didn't read the whole OP.
Read it, and your objections are irrelevant unless you're rebuilding the entire cosmology. As your OP reads, your society is just ignorant of how the afterlife works (although there's no explanation for this ignorance: "We all like Wee Jas" doesn't explain it.)

Also, the objections are further irrelevant because it was addressed to killem2, not the OP.

And some of the fluff regarding zombies and skeletons (including the Core Beliefs article on Wee Jas) suggests that the soul of the departed (or some other soul) is in any undead creature, even mindless ones.
Which has not been disputed, and in fact has been accepted. But if the creature is mindless, then it's mindless.

[Coidzor]

If they aren't illegal, what's stopping people from moving into the country and doing a few Hail Pelors? There should be some diversity at least.

Wee Jastapo.

[OldTrees1]

Read it, and your objections are irrelevant unless you're rebuilding the entire cosmology. As your OP reads, your society is just ignorant of how the afterlife works (although there's no explanation for this ignorance: "We all like Wee Jas" doesn't explain it.)

I don't know how relevant this is but:
Followers of deities escape their Alignment based afterlives and instead go to their deity's realm for a reward. (Except followers of Lolth, she does not reward her dead followers IIRC)
So turning a LE High Priest of Vecna into a ghoul would be a greater punishment than letting the Priest get their unjust reward in Vecna's realm.

[Ravens_cry]

Wee Jastapo.

Ah, but of course.

[Deophaun]

Followers of deities escape their Alignment based afterlives and instead go to their deity's realm for a reward. (Except followers of Lolth, she does not reward her dead followers IIRC)
So turning a LE High Priest of Vecna into a ghoul would be a greater punishment than letting the Priest get their unjust reward in Vecna's realm.
Not really. You generally have to be an exceptional champion of the deity in order to get any reward. Otherwise Nerul, for example, will freeze the petitioner in ice and use it to build his castle. Not a very nice fate. So what you're looking at is the worst of the worst getting a place of honor, and your average murder cult leader having a very bad afterlife. And some have this overridden: any lawful evil soul that worships a lawful deity goes to Baator, as per the Pact Primeval. And being lawful, there is a precise determination of when exactly someone has damned themselves (casting nine spells with the [Evil] descriptor does it).

So as I said, using undeath as a punishment is going to be evil, because unless the killer you've condemned to death is a legendary serial killer in service to Nerul, you're granting him a reprieve. If the person was actually innocent, you're needlessly torturing him.

Then there's the question as to the nature of the punishment. Raising an evil person as a skeleton or zombie isn't all that terrible to them; they're mindless. so they're basically stuck in a form of limbo. Its potential utility simply doesn't outweigh the problems with it. Meanwhile, if you use such bad judgment as to bring him back using create undead, then you are creating a murderous killing machine that you have no guarantee of controlling. So that's evil right out of the gate. This isn't even questionable, like with animate dead, whose creations are only as violent as the commands they are given.

[Tryxx]

I think the Nightstalker could fit pretty well in the Khasim clergy. Funnily enough out of their entire spell list (which includes animate dead and create undead) they have deathwatch specifically as a non-evil spell for the class.

[Coidzor]

Ah, but of course.

A cleric of Wee Jas is sitting at his desk, looking over a file on a recent immigrant. He pulls out a rubber stamp and stamps "FIND HIM AND ZOMBIFY HIM" on the top piece of paper, handing it off to a filing skeleton before moving on to the next file.

[RedMage125]

Read it, and your objections are irrelevant unless you're rebuilding the entire cosmology. As your OP reads, your society is just ignorant of how the afterlife works (although there's no explanation for this ignorance: "We all like Wee Jas" doesn't explain it.)

Also, the objections are further irrelevant because it was addressed to killem2, not the OP.
Not irrelevant, and I am not rebuilding the entire cosmology. Since the entire society worships Wee Jas, the afterlife for Jasdrin (worshipers of Wee Jas) is the only one their belief system is concerned about. Trafficking with Fiends is one way to ensure something else happens to your soul after death, and that is a crime punishable by death and reanimation.
Wee Jas is a deity of Law, Death, and Magic (but not Good or Evil, which she is ambivalent to). So even Evil people can expect to be welcomed into her realm after death, as long as they adhered to her tenets sufficiently in life. And her afterlife is peace and serenity.
So...no. There's no "rearranging of the cosmology" necessary. And no one is "ignorant of how the afterlife works", you're just not taking all the factors into account as a big picture.


Which has not been disputed, and in fact has been accepted. But if the creature is mindless, then it's mindless.But it's soul is still prohibited from whatever afterlife it would go to. And yes, the mindless undead are atill mindless. Thus, the more egregious crimes usually warant being turned into some other form of undead. Professional soldiers are usually turned into "Karrnathi" undead (going to be Khasimite in this world). Grave Robbers are usually turned into ghouls. Mindless undeath is considered less of a punishment than other options, and is usually the result of those who have sold themselves into state service after death.


If they aren't illegal, what's stopping people from moving into the country and doing a few Hail Pelors? There should be some diversity at least.
That's happened in the past. When the very people those misguided Pelorites are trying to "save" object to their actions and kick them out of the country, it tends to confuse them. For their part, Khasim's immediate neighbors have accepted that the nation has some "unusual idiosyncrasies", and border conflicts are rare. More likely is some misguided "heroes" out adventuring coming into the nation and attempting to force their beliefs onto Khasimite society.

Which would not end well.

The DM has made it clear that his world has a kind of "world police" organization (basically the Feds), and that the representatives of that organization would have ambassadorial status. Within their compound, there would be a temple to other gods. But for most of Khasim, Wee Jas is the only deity worshiped. There isn't any diversity because the Church of Khasim is also the government, basically. The pharaoh is technically a secular ruler, so it's not actually a theocracy, but he rules through the Church, so it might as well be.

[Deophaun]

Not irrelevant
Extremely irrelevant. Let me make this PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to you.
This:

I have always wanted to play a Lawful Good Cleric that uses the bodies of criminals to do the work of good.
Is what I responded to. Note: Lawful Good. Let me quote again, with emphasis to make sure it gets home:

I have always wanted to play a Lawful GoodCleric that uses the bodies of criminals to do the work of good.

What you wrote? Not applicable.


Wee Jas is a deity of Law, Death, and Magic (but not Good or Evil, which she is ambivalent to). So even Evil people can expect to be welcomed into her realm after death, as long as they adhered to her tenets sufficiently in life. And her afterlife is peace and serenity.
See that word? That word means you agree with me. Thank you.

But let's go with things you wrote:

Thus, the more egregious crimes usually warant being turned into some other form of undead. Professional soldiers are usually turned into "Karrnathi" undead (going to be Khasimite in this world). Grave Robbers are usually turned into ghouls. Mindless undeath is considered less of a punishment than other options, and is usually the result of those who have sold themselves into state service after death.
And this is unquestionably evil. You don't even need the [Evil] descriptor for this to be evil. You are creating a creature of malevolence that, by default, wants to kill the living. Skeletons and zombies don't have this. Stuff created by create undead does, which is why they are not created automatically under their creator's command. You can try to control it, and with preparation you will succeed a good deal of the time, but if you fail, or there's an accident and the person who was controlling them dies in a mining accident or from a heart attack, you've now got a powerful, murderous entity you created on the loose. Doesn't go with your question of "non-evil necromancer."

[Ravens_cry]

That's happened in the past. When the very people those misguided Pelorites are trying to "save" object to their actions and kick them out of the country, it tends to confuse them. For their part, Khasim's immediate neighbors have accepted that the nation has some "unusual idiosyncrasies", and border conflicts are rare. More likely is some misguided "heroes" out adventuring coming into the nation and attempting to force their beliefs onto Khasimite society.

Which would not end well.

The DM has made it clear that his world has a kind of "world police" organization (basically the Feds), and that the representatives of that organization would have ambassadorial status. Within their compound, there would be a temple to other gods. But for most of Khasim, Wee Jas is the only deity worshiped. There isn't any diversity because the Church of Khasim is also the government, basically. The pharaoh is technically a secular ruler, so it's not actually a theocracy, but he rules through the Church, so it might as well be.
Pelor is but one of the possibilities. There is other deities that'd cause less friction with the existing system, and even ones that do, well, there is plenty of examples throughout history that I shouldn't need to go into of groups continuing to live in an area despite various persecutions.

[Envyus]

I don't know how relevant this is but:
Followers of deities escape their Alignment based afterlives and instead go to their deity's realm for a reward. (Except followers of Lolth, she does not reward her dead followers IIRC)
So turning a LE High Priest of Vecna into a ghoul would be a greater punishment than letting the Priest get their unjust reward in Vecna's realm.

Actually that is the same almost the same fate as he would have gotten. Vecna's realm is the Material plane and he would have turned the guy in to an undead anyway.



And this is unquestionably evil. You don't even need the [Evil] descriptor for this to be evil. You are creating a creature of malevolence that, by default, wants to kill the living. Skeletons and zombies don't have this. Stuff created by create undead does, which is why they are not created automatically under their creator's command. You can try to control it, and with preparation you will succeed a good deal of the time, but if you fail, or there's an accident and the person who was controlling them dies in a mining accident or from a heart attack, you've now got a powerful, murderous entity you created on the loose. Doesn't go with your question of "non-evil necromancer."

Plus intelligent undead unlike Skeletons and Zombies are confirmed to trap the soul of the dead person in the body of the undead. Robbing them of their proper after life even if it is horrible.

Anyway a major reason creating undead is evil is also because even if the creator uses the undead for good they still desire the death of the living. If a necromancer trying to do good had his skeletons kill some orcs attacking an orphanage then say an arrow from the orcs killed him. His undead would go on to slaughter the orphans and remaining orcs alike before heading off to slaughter any other living creatures in sight.

This actually reminds me of a cool little thing in one of my games. The city was going to be a attacked by a horde of monstrous humanoids and undead so the players decided to kill the necromancer who created the undead as the undead in the horde would then no longer be controlled and would attack the living members of the horde causing the horde to self destruct from infighting.

[Shining Wrath]

Savage Species gives Wish an explicit RAW usage that would bypass that quote. (Wish can be used as a ritual to change the species of a target creature.)

I agree on the differing techniques. (although I don't think there would be enforced uniquiness)

And so we find that Wish can do anything, including turn your local Paladin into a LG Lich?
I've never read Savage Species but while I'll agree "Lich" is a species I would think a lot of DMs might rule against wishing someone into Lichhood against their will. If it ever came up in a campaign I was running I would have to ponder that one.

[Psyren]

Again, the ritual method still specifies that the recipient has to be willing (barring D&D's weird unconscious = consent rules) - but more importantly it also specifies that using Wish to do this falls into the "DM screw" category of wish and it is very far from being foolproof. If your DM is going to let Wish do this you may as well just Wish for it normally and skip the ritual since you're already exceeding Wish's safe power anyway.

[Svata]

[E]ven if they do attack on their own, it's no more "Evil" than any other mindless predator or parasite, such as oozes and politicians.

My thoughts exactly.


Also, the reasoning behnd the undead being evil is a bit circular. They're evil because the spell that makes them is evil, which is evip because the creature it creates is evil which is evil because the spell that creates itis evil, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

[Psyren]

Also, the reasoning behnd the undead being evil is a bit circular. They're evil because the spell that makes them is evil, which is evip because the creature it creates is evil which is evil because the spell that creates itis evil, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

It's only circular if you flat-out ignore the justification given in Libris Mortis.

[Rubik]

It's only circular if you flat-out ignore the justification given in Libris Mortis.Which is only one of several possibilities, which has absolutely no crunch to support it. It 'weakens the veil'? What does that mean? No rules say that anything actually happens, so where's the Evil, exactly?

[Shining Wrath]

Funny, because as a DM I had my players encounter a non-evil lich.

'Course, it was during a moment when they encountered all kinds of things they didn't expect to feel sympathy for.
Spoiler blocked for space concerns, and because I'm a sick DM ;)
The PCs had gotten captured, and had busted themselves out. They discovered they had been captured by the same cabal of devil summoners whose operation they had stumbled upon many levels before. They entered the next block of cells and found a dark hallway with 3 cells on each side. A large, dark shape floated up to the bars to greet them. In the light of their sunrod they saw a beholder...but his central eye had been gouged out, and all his eye stalks severed and cauterized. Across from the beholder was a mind flayer with a scar on its forehead. The wizards' experimentation and operation on him had left him as intelligent as before, but without the psionic power to command so much as a rat. Next to the illithid was a medusa, who had been blinded and her head shaved. Across from her was a lich. This lich spoke to the PCs and revealed his name to be Bernard. He was a human wizard and historian who felt his time in life was too short, so he became a lich and dedicated himself to becoming the ultimate dispassionate historian. He usually holed himself up in OrcGate Hold, an undead-infested ruin, because the undead there ignored him, and usually kept people away who might otherwise seek to destroy him due to his nature. He had the power to break out of here, but his captors had his phylactery and all his spellbooks. Next to Bernard was a nymph who had been so badly mutilated that she would not show her body (she hid under a blanket). And across from her was an ettin. The ettin had had one of its heads cut off and cauterized. It's loss was still keenly felt by the remaining personality, who swore that "Morg and Torg will.........Morg will crush little wizards for this".
My players stared at me, some looking horrified, others with looks of deep sympathy in their eyes and said "Dude, you're sick. I never thought I'd feel sorry for MONSTERS".
Bernard the Lich was a human wizard. He desired to be the ultimate historian, and felt his life was too short. Knowing full well how evil the ritual was, he still undertook it, viewing his ultimate goal as for a greater good. He then retreated to OrcGate Hold, where a powerful ancient curse turned any who died there into an undead creature. He was left alone by the undead there, and scryed on the world, recording his findings, making copies of the books, and donating them anonymously to libraries the world over. He's True Neutral. He has had to kill misguided "heroes" before, but always tries to reason with them first. Usually it's paladins who are too stubborn to listen to reason. He hates having to kill, but will defend himself.

Yes, but keep in mind, to Sibuna's people, denial of the afterlife is the greatest punishment one can inflict.

Well, as a DM you are supposed to present weird things, and that would be one of the weirder ones.

The ritual per RAW is described as "unspeakably evil". I have always imagined that many characters with non-evil motives, e.g., "My people need my wisdom" or "I must protect my children" undergo the ritual, and find out that, guess what, doing something that is unspeakably evil in a D&D game overcomes all your pure motives, all your good intentions, and you wind up just as evil as the psychopathic wizard who underwent the ritual so he could spend eternity pulling the wings off of butterflies. It's a trap, see, set by the dark powers who delight in the souls they gain thereby.

I don't want to speak of what unspeakably evil might be, but let's just assume that it involves inflicting lots of pain on completely innocent sentient beings. You don't get to do that for any reason and not get a spot on your soul that won't come out no matter how many times you wash your hands.

[Psyren]

Which is only one of several possibilities, which has absolutely no crunch to support it. It 'weakens the veil'? What does that mean? No rules say that anything actually happens, so where's the Evil, exactly?

There's no crunch to support the Pact Primeval either yet I don't see you questioning that. Again, the alternative is it simply being evil for no reason - definitely possible, just unsatisfying.

[Rubik]

There's no crunch to support the Pact Primeval either yet I don't see you questioning that.I haven't entered a conversation that dealt with it -- or at least that was a focus of my part of the conversation.


Again, the alternative is it simply being evil for no reason - definitely possible, just unsatisfying.Exactly. Mindless undead are Evil for no reason, as is the spell that creates them. They have no capacity for morality, which is why I'm opposed to making them Evil. It's unsatisfying and rather stupid, to boot.

[edit] Necropolitans are undead, and they're not auto-Evil.

Ghosts are undead, and they're not auto-Evil.

Dread necromancers are all about raising the undead, and they're not auto-Evil.

Necromancer wizards specialize in manipulating negative energy (including raising undead as a large part of their purpose), and they're not auto-Evil. They're not even banned from being Exalted, let alone Good.

We even have Good liches, in the form of baelnorn.

So why is it that the mindless automatons, which cannot act on their own (skeletons especially), and are basically just animated tools given mobility by negative energy, are? Could it be a hastily slapped-on excuse, as I've been asserting?

[Psyren]

Exactly. Mindless undead are evil for no reason, as is the spell that creates them. They have no capacity for morality, which is why I'm opposed to making them Evil. It's unsatisfying and rather stupid, to boot.

"There's no reason for it being evil."
"They gave a reason in Libris Mortis."
"I don't like that reason, so I'm ignoring it."
"But if you ignore the reason they gave, then what's left?"
"goto 1"

It's just an endless, pointless loop.

[Rubik]

"There's no reason for it being evil."
"They gave a reason in Libris Mortis."
"I don't like that reason, so I'm ignoring it."
"But if you ignore the reason they gave, then what's left?"
"goto 1"

It's just an endless, pointless loop.It also doesn't touch on any of the other non-Evil undead. See above.

[Psyren]

It also doesn't touch on any of the other non-Evil undead. See above.

Interesting you should mention Necropolitans. They may have a variety of alignments themselves, but the ritual that creates all of them is pretty suspect:


The ceremony that lasts for 24 hours—the usual time it takes for the petitioner to perish. During this period, two or three zombie servitors keep up a chant initiated by the ritual leader when the petitioner is first placed into position. Upon hearing the petitioner’s last breath, the ritual leader calls forth the names of evil powers and gods to forge a link with the Negative Energy Plane, and then impales the petitioner. Dying, the petitioner is reborn as a necropolitan, dead but animate.

As for Ghosts, they run the gamut alignment-wise, I agree. But they are but one type of undead out of the many, many varieties across the monster manuals and in LM etc.

[Envyus]

My thoughts exactly.


Also, the reasoning behnd the undead being evil is a bit circular. They're evil because the spell that makes them is evil, which is evip because the creature it creates is evil which is evil because the spell that creates itis evil, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

No the spell is evil because it's a defilement of life and it creates a evil creature.



So why is it that the mindless automatons, which cannot act on their own (skeletons especially), and are basically just animated tools given mobility by negative energy, are? Could it be a hastily slapped-on excuse, as I've been asserting?

Baelnorns are created through a different process then the normal lich and the rest are free willed and don't have a hate for life.

All mindless undead and almost all intelligent undead hate life and will go around slaughtering the living. Things like oozes and other mindless things kill but when they kill something it's for food. Mindless undead don't get anything out of killing creatures they just do so because they are evil abominations against life. Plus there is the possibility it prevents the soul of the creature that it was made from resting in the after life. Intelligent undead straight up prevent the souls from going to the after life.

[Coidzor]

Exactly. Mindless undead are Evil for no reason, as is the spell that creates them. They have no capacity for morality, which is why I'm opposed to making them Evil. It's unsatisfying and rather stupid, to boot.

So why is it that the mindless automatons, which cannot act on their own (skeletons especially), and are basically just animated tools given mobility by negative energy, are? Could it be a hastily slapped-on excuse, as I've been asserting?

Hence why I've always enjoyed the thoughts of Frank and K on the subject, even if I don't quite like their balance point.

I got the impression that Psyren acknowledged that it was but also that they retconned it in with Libris Mortis and we have always been at war with East Asia. Apparently I was wrong? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Hence why I've always enjoyed the thoughts of Frank and K on the subject, even if I don't quite like their balance point.

I got the impression that Psyren acknowledged that it was but also that they retconned it in with Libris Mortis and we have always been at war with East Asia. Apparently I was wrong? :smallconfused:

I don't know which Psyren you mean, but this one never had a problem with the spells being evil, nor with the LM justification for that alignment. So I don't see how you could have gotten any sort of acknowledgement out of that.

[RedMage125]

Extremely irrelevant. Let me make this PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to you.
This:

Is what I responded to. Note: Lawful Good. Let me quote again, with emphasis to make sure it gets home:


What you wrote? Not applicable.
At no point did I ever claim that yhe character concept in question was ANY form of Good. To the contrary, he's Lawful Neutral.

So all these "points" you think you're making? Don't apply to the character in the OP, so once again, I feel as if you did not actually READ the OP.



See that word? That word means you agree with me. Thank you.
It means nothing of the sort. It means that to Khasimite society, even those who are Evil (don't even have to be Lawful for non-cleric types), can go to the same afterlife as a LG person in that same society, as they are claimed by Wee Jas. Wee Jas is a goddess of death and the dead, which, if you would read the Core Beliefs article in Dragon #350, you would know.

The point being that ciminals being "denied the afterlife" is not "avoiding punishment" by any stretch. It seems YOU are the one who is unaware of all the factors in play here. The souls of any who claim Wee Jas as a patron (or, in Greyhawk, all Suel souls not claimed by other deities) go to her.


But let's go with things you wrote:

And this is unquestionably evil. You don't even need the [Evil] descriptor for this to be evil. You are creating a creature of malevolence that, by default, wants to kill the living. Skeletons and zombies don't have this. Stuff created by create undead does, which is why they are not created automatically under their creator's command. You can try to control it, and with preparation you will succeed a good deal of the time, but if you fail, or there's an accident and the person who was controlling them dies in a mining accident or from a heart attack, you've now got a powerful, murderous entity you created on the loose. Doesn't go with your question of "non-evil necromancer."
I never said it wasn't evil. He comes from a society where this act of Evil is, under certain prescribed circumstances, acceptable means to an end. Welcome to the point of the character.


My thoughts exactly.


Also, the reasoning behnd the undead being evil is a bit circular. They're evil because the spell that makes them is evil, which is evip because the creature it creates is evil which is evil because the spell that creates itis evil, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.


Which is only one of several possibilities, which has absolutely no crunch to support it. It 'weakens the veil'? What does that mean? No rules say that anything actually happens, so where's the Evil, exactly?
Both of you are also ignoring what the BoVD says on the matter.
That is:
ANIMATING THE DEAD OR
CREATING UNDEAD
Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
Many communities keep their graveyards behind high
walls or even post guards to keep grave robbers out. Graverobbing
is often a lucrative practice, since necromancers pay
good coin for raw materials. Of course, battlefields are also
popular places for grave-robbers—or for necromancers
themselves—to seek corpses.
By virtue of creating a mockery of life and purity, one had committed an Evil act. The universe itself cries out against such an act, ergo, Evil.

Why? Because the designers said so, just like how murdering an innocent in cold blood is Evil. or how selling one's soul to a fiend is Evil.


Exactly. Mindless undead are Evil for no reason, as is the spell that creates them. They have no capacity for morality, which is why I'm opposed to making them Evil. It's unsatisfying and rather stupid, to boot.
The bolded part here is entirely your opinion. Some of us have no problem with it, and it's cohesive and resonates well with other rules on the matter.

You don't like it. Noted.


[edit] Necropolitans are undead, and they're not auto-Evil.

Ghosts are undead, and they're not auto-Evil.
Glad someone else covered necropolitans.

Ghosts are kind of a catch-all, agreed.


Dread necromancers are all about raising the undead, and they're not auto-Evil.
They're auto-non-Good, though. Hmmm...maybe there's a reason for that. Couldn't be their frequent use of Evil magicks, could it?


Necromancer wizards specialize in manipulating negative energy (including raising undead as a large part of their purpose), and they're not auto-Evil. They're not even banned from being Exalted, let alone Good.
A necromancer wizard can go his whole career without ever animating a single corpse and still be good at his job. Wizard necromancy more frequently focuses on manipulation of life energy and the soul.


We even have Good liches, in the form of baelnorn.

Good thing those aren't campaign-setting specific, or your point might be weakened


So why is it that the mindless automatons, which cannot act on their own (skeletons especially), and are basically just animated tools given mobility by negative energy, are? Could it be a hastily slapped-on excuse, as I've been asserting?
Or it could be that you're ignoring the fact that the RAW states that undead, as mockeries of life and purity, are inherently evil. After all, you accept that demons are inherently evil, yes?

[Psyren]

They're auto-non-Good, though. Hmmm...maybe there's a reason for that. Couldn't be their frequent use of Evil magicks, could it?

Precisely; the ones that are neutral are those capable of offsetting the constant peccadilloes with good intentions or other practices, and the outright evil ones don't care. But none of them are actually capable of good or even neutral necromancy; they can only end up neutral at best by doing non-necromantic things.

[Meowmasterish]

Just to weigh in here, you can easily have a non-evil necromancer. They do evil things, killing, reanimating (which is classified as such, I'm not joining into that debate), and subterfuge, in the pursuit of good things.
For example, I could kill a king (who has been a neutral ruler), in order to establish a new government to bring better social policies to the people. While killing is typically described as an inherently evil act, I would be doing it for the greater good, which would make it a solidly neutral act. I could also use Animate Dread Warrior, (a reanimating spell, which would fall under the evil category) to allow a father to have final words with his son. Again, an evil act done with good intentions, making it solidly neutral.
(Also works vice versa, healing an evil being. Healing is, by nature, a good act, but the evil being will do evil things, making it solidly neutral.)

[RedMage125]

Just to weigh in here, you can easily have a non-evil necromancer. They do evil things, killing, reanimating (which is classified as such, I'm not joining into that debate), and subterfuge, in the pursuit of good things.
For example, I could kill a king (who has been a neutral ruler), in order to establish a new government to bring better social policies to the people. While killing is typically described as an inherently evil act, I would be doing it for the greater good, which would make it a solidly neutral act. I could also use Animate Dread Warrior, (a reanimating spell, which would fall under the evil category) to allow a father to have final words with his son. Again, an evil act done with good intentions, making it solidly neutral.
(Also works vice versa, healing an evil being. Healing is, by nature, a good act, but the evil being will do evil things, making it solidly neutral.)

.........Yes, that's the character in the OP.

Seriously, does no one read the OP of the thread?

[OldTrees1]

.........Yes, that's the character in the OP.

Seriously, does no one read the OP of the thread?

There is an apparent disconnect between the OP of the thread and the apparent arguments in the thread. People see an OP with a pro non-evil necromancer tone and then see anti non-evil necromancy tones in current arguments. This is where such confusion comes from.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Mechanics aren't really important as far as why I posted this, but here's what I had...

When this was just in the planning stages, I envisioned him as a Dread Necromancer/Cleric multiclass going into True Necromancer(probably DN4/Clr3/TN13)...and then I actually gave that PrC a more than cursory glance. It sucks pretty hard. I mainly thought of him as arcane/divine because his position as State Necromancer in a culture that so prevalently worships Wee Jas seemed to indicate that he was a member of the clergy. MAD wasn't a big problem, since this DM uses rolled stats and I rolled a phenomenal stat array in front of him. Nothing below a 12, and 2 18s.

Looking back on it, I could have kept him straight Dread Necro (maybe taking a PrC), and had his position as a clergyman be flavor text. The Lich Body transformation could easily be re-flavored as gradual mummification. And the staright-DN level 20 full transformation could be flavored as a special kind of mummy lord. The phyalctery sort of making sense (conatining his baa or ka), but more likely being a box containing his 6 canopic jars.

Anyways, the mechanics are less relevant for what I wanted to share. I'm sure the optimizers on these boards could have a field day making that character work great mechanically. Even going Arcane/Divine could work, if one went Dread Necro 8/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8/Paragnostic Apostle 2, would have level 9 arcane/divine spells, would rebuke as a level 14 cleric (with Undead Mastery), and (with Practiced Spellcaster) would have a Caster Level of 20 for DN spells and cleric spells. Sadly, the DM is pretty fluff-mutable on a lot of things, but not on Ur-Priest, which would require him to explicitly NOT worship a deity. And this build would be pretty MAD for anyone who didn't roll crazy stats like I did (seriously, they were ridiculous, something like 18, 18, 16, 14, 15, 12).



Did you know that Wee Jas really likes Arcane casters? Your devoted servant of Wee Jas could be a straight Dread Necromancer.


I mad mention of that. That his position as a clergyman could be purely flavor text, since his "religious duties" as a clergyman would be restricted to performing funeral service.
If you're still wanting to add some mechanics-related Divine power to your character, there's always the Arcane Devotee prestige class (originally in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, updated in the Player's Guide to Faerun). It really, really doesn't add much in the way of class abilities, but it's pretty flavourful. And it's full casting, so no worries there.

[Rubik]

If you're still wanting to add some mechanics-related Divine power to your character, there's always the Arcane Devotee prestige class (originally in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, updated in the Player's Guide to Faerun). It really, really doesn't add much in the way of class abilities, but it's pretty flavourful. And it's full casting, so no worries there.Note that the flavor can simply be ported over, for most things, so long as there's some mechanical justification involved.

[RedMage125]

If you're still wanting to add some mechanics-related Divine power to your character, there's always the Arcane Devotee prestige class (originally in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, updated in the Player's Guide to Faerun). It really, really doesn't add much in the way of class abilities, but it's pretty flavourful. And it's full casting, so no worries there.

Yeah, but then I'd lose all the fun of the lich transformation (which is being re flavored as a "greater mummy" with the phylactery as a box containing his canopic jars).

He will be taking Arcane Disciple, and the DM is willing to entertain Wee Jas granting other domains, such as the Undeath and/or Deathbound domains for this character, but I now run into a roleplay problem. That being, a lot of REALLY good spells in those domains (like the Avasculate spells) are [Evil], and while Sibuna is willing to animate the dead as punishment, I don't see him willing to toy with [Evil] spells in any other regard. HOWEVER, the Inquisition domain would be appropriate, as would Magic and/or Spell. DM said he'd allow the Spell domain, and Wee Jas already grants Inquisition and Magic.

Sibuna really does see himself as an agent of justice. He knows that creating undead is Evil, but his culture prescribes that as acceptable means under certain circumstances. He also will use the tools of Evil as weapons to fight Evil (such as by commanding already existing undead to fight for him). But in most other respects, he resembles a Lawful Good type. Save that he doesn't really "show concern for the dignity of sentient beings". So he's Lawful Neutral with both Good and Evil tendencies. He sees his duty as the punishment of the wicked. And his behavior is definitely that of a priest, in that he carries himself as a member of the clergy and considers his talents to be divine gifts from Wee Jas (even though he KNOWS that as arcane spells, the powers come from him, unlike a cleric).


There is an apparent disconnect between the OP of the thread and the apparent arguments in the thread. People see an OP with a pro non-evil necromancer tone and then see anti non-evil necromancy tones in current arguments. This is where such confusion comes from.

Probably. And I share some of the blame for engaging those discussions instead of shutting them down by pointing that out.