Alignment discussion reguarding clerics and the perception of good vs evil.

[adriana]

I'm wanting to have a general discussion regarding the perception of good vs evil. So my favorite class is a necro based cleric who is LN. I just love the flavor of it. However; I'm wanting to have a discussion as to what should dictate evil and what doesn't. Normal perception dictates that raising the dead and being negatively charged is evil. However; I would like to present a case against that perception and get others opinions if I may.

As stated typically people look at death as evil, however; in many cultures death is a good thing and many believe in the resurrection of the dead. Let's take a look at ancient Egypt. Many of their practices and religion was based on the dead and the resurrection of the dead in the afterlife. The whole purpose of embalming revolved around preservation of the body for the afterlife.

The reason I'm starting this discussion was due to a heavy debate during one of my more recent campaigns. We were discussing persisted visage of the deity line. Since our group typically fought demons and npcs with a evil alignment I, being LN, naturally I wanted to go the good route for smite evil. My friend severely disagreed and we had a fierce debate about the subject. I eventually gave in and went the evil part of the route just so the campaign could move on, however; I still feel I should have been able to go the other way. My character truly enjoyed helping other people and hated murder as she believed it violated the natural cycle of life.

So my question for you guys is what do you think dictates evil or good? The dm was neutral towards it. BOED has good undead or "deathless" as they like to call it plus there is no place where it states a negative charged cleric is evil. Liches can theoretically chose to stay behind to watch over and provide guidance to loved ones and families. So what makes a necro cleric always evil?

[Cowardly Griffo]

I generally agree with the notion that necromancy is not inherently evil. It's tied to the negative energy plane, and that's all evil clerics can channel, but that's physics, not morality. Never mind that DnD conflates the two with its planar cosmology, that's a separate issue. Point is: necromancy isn't necessarily evil.

You know what it is? Squicky. Rousing a dead body and making it dance, working it like a puppet, makes people very uncomfortable. And when people get weirded out by something because it's outside their comfort zone, a common reaction is to label it as evil.

But that doesn't mean that it actually is evil. To me, Evil or Good comes down to intent. If you're raising the bodies for a good purpose, then it's a good act. And in a setting where the afterlife and how souls work are a known value, the view of a dead body as anything more than a suit comes completely down to different societal mores. On which note: I've read a couple of fascinating discussions on how necromancy (and, in one case, cannibalism) is a very noble endeavor, and fighting for a good cause after one's death is an honorable act. Yo could even argue that animating evildoers is a way of helping to redeem them, that they might find a more peaceful afterlife than their lives would normally demand. Mind you, to some other societies, using someone's corpse without their consent is a gross violation of ethics. But when you start crossing societal boundaries, you're always going to run into morality questions, and who's right or wrong isn't going to be as clear-cut as you'd like. The point of it is, it's subjective. And acknowledging and examining that subjectivity is a pretty good defining trait of being morally neutral.

And last note? Here's my biggest beef with the habit of labeling necromancy as evil: if you're going to be inflexible about saying that raising dead bodies is evil, then you should be equally inflexible in saying that creating dead bodies is evil. If the cleric doesn't get a pass, neither do the guys swinging steel or chucking fireballs. You can't have it both ways, guys.

[JusticeZero]

As a staunch physicalist, I would agree that using lots of negative energy and undead is evil, but suggest that it really shouldn't worry you. Going through life hiding from paladins while being a model citizen isn't that big a deal. Embrace your letter E, don't let it define you.

[eternal]

As a staunch physicalist, I would agree that using lots of negative energy and undead is evil, but suggest that it really shouldn't worry you. Going through life hiding from paladins while being a model citizen isn't that big a deal. Embrace your letter E, don't let it define you.

I'm thinking one of her questions is regarding whether or not she can use the good version of visage or evil version. Being LN I think it's pretty much up to player choice, unless the dm overrides.

[adriana]

As a staunch physicalist, I would agree that using lots of negative energy and undead is evil, but suggest that it really shouldn't worry you. Going through life hiding from paladins while being a model citizen isn't that big a deal. Embrace your letter E, don't let it define you.


so for you negative=evil no matter what. May I ask why you think that, other than being a physicalist.

I don't really worry about it. If a paladin wants to fight he can certainly try. :smallwink:


I'm thinking one of her questions is regarding whether or not she can use the good version of visage or evil version. Being LN I think it's pretty much up to player choice, unless the dm overrides.
yes this is also a part of why I'm asking.

[JusticeZero]

Necromancer doing good deeds. If the world is physicalist, alignment will pull towards E. If ambivalist, alignment will pull towards G. Your actual behavior and personality will be unaffected in either case.

[shadowseve]

Necromancer doing good deeds. If the world is physicalist, alignment will pull towards E. If ambivalist, alignment will pull towards G. Your actual behavior and personality will be unaffected in either case.

The choices you make in dnd though can effect your alignment. Or at least most DM's I've played with have often forced characters to make alignment changes based on certain choices made through the course of the campaign.

That aside I also agree that raising the dead is not inherently evil. It's not the weapon that determines what is evil., only the person who wields it. I would have no problems with a necro cleric taking lesser holy transformation or the good side of visage of the deity as long as her actions reflected that path.

[JusticeZero]

Because evil Clerics can't channel positive energy, good Clerics can't channel negative energy, a lot of undead are described as explicitly Evil without defining their behavior adequately to make a definite judgment, and Clerics are loaded with a class that is designed to fit around the physics of morality as reflected in the outer planes etc. Lots of stuff pointing to a cosmological linkage by definition. So it's easier to just run with it and assume that negative and positive energy explicitly alters ones physical alignment property. But I don't see any reason to tell players to change their characters behavior just because they dumped a river of a certain type of spell downrange.
Your actions affect your alignment. Your alignment doesn't affect your actions.

[eggynack]

I'm of the opinion that making undead just shouldn't be evil at all. If you raise some undead, and they attack some orphanage, then that's evil. If you raise some undead, and you bring them along to take down an evil dragon, then that's good. Tools are irrelevant to morality, or it should be. What matters is how you use them, and the actual outcome of your doings. Really, I think the game would be better off if it just ditched good spells and evil spells altogether, with the possible exception of spells that specifically interact with alignment, like protection from evil or blasphemy. Even for those, it's probably an unnecessary mechanic. It's not like this negatively impacts balance either, as you can usually do just fine running true neutral if you want.

[adriana]

Because evil Clerics can't channel positive energy, good Clerics can't channel negative energy, a lot of undead are described as explicitly Evil without defining their behavior adequately to make a definite judgment, and Clerics are loaded with a class that is designed to fit around the physics of morality as reflected in the outer planes etc. Lots of stuff pointing to a cosmological linkage by definition. So it's easier to just run with it and assume that negative and positive energy explicitly alters ones physical alignment property. But I don't see any reason to tell players to change their characters behavior just because they dumped a river of a certain type of spell downrange.

So based on your ruling you would have the cleric take the evil versions since they're negatively charged, even though their personality isn't inherently evil, basing this decision on how the outer planes are typically portrayed? Interesting and good point.

Edit:

I'm of the opinion that making undead just shouldn't be evil at all. If you raise some undead, and they attack some orphanage, then that's evil. If you raise some undead, and you bring them along to take down an evil dragon, then that's good. Tools are irrelevant to morality, or it should be. What matters is how you use them, and the actual outcome of your doings. Really, I think the game would be better off if it just ditched good spells and evil spells altogether, with the possible exception of spells that specifically interact with alignment, like protection from evil or blasphemy. Even for those, it's probably an unnecessary mechanic. It's not like this negatively impacts balance either, as you can usually do just fine running true neutral if you want.

So then you would allow them to take holy transformation vs infernal transformation and so on based on action instead of
physicality of the planes and negative vs positive energy? This is how I've always viewed it.

[JusticeZero]

I'm of the opinion that making undead just shouldn't be evil at all. Tools are irrelevant to morality, or it should be... I think the game would be better off if it just ditched good spells and evil spells altogether, with the possible exception of spells that specifically interact with alignment, like protection from evil or blasphemy. Even for those, it's probably an unnecessary mechanic.
Yeah, that's what I would classify as textbook ambivalism. Though I am open to a better name if someone has one. I've been working on this theory that most alignment debates are tied to that dichotomy, and that it is actually a world building question. Hopefully it will allow for a much more nuanced discussion of the influence of alignment on a setting.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm beginning to think that the problem with undead is one of instrumentality. Everyone talks about it like they are tools; I think this is a bit of a simplification.

Let's take a not-so-rigorous look at something else along a related line of things. Let's say that my character concept (and some clearly homebrewed mechanics) allowed me to extract my own biological material and rapidly grow it into mindless children, who would then be magically bound to my will and have to do what I want (since they are artificial and mindless, they aren't evil, right?). Is this acceptable too?

In short, where is the line between taking something that was or should have been something and turning it into something that it never should have been? Dead bodies are dead. They stay dead. That's what they are, that's how they should be; in fact, that's how most people would prefer them to be in terms of the fate of their own body.

But, if there is something that can take the dead body and make it something that it isn't, even for a good purpose, is that acceptable?

Let's go further. Let's say that people are dying of an illness that, in its later, terminal stages renders them comatose for years before they finally die. Is it okay for me to hijack their bodies and use them as puppets during this stage? They are mindless, and only barely "alive" by all measures, and since they are doomed to die, it's not like they are going to have a say in the matter.

Or maybe that's the issue. As a person, I'd like to think that my body belongs to me; this is a pretty common concept throughout the world. While tradition has long dictated what happens to bodies, increasingly it is about one's personal wishes; if you wish to be cremated/buried/buried without embalming/plasticized/held in cryostasis/donated to science, then these wishes are generally observed in many societies.

By extension, if I think that it's okay for my body to be animated by negative energy after I am dead, then that may be acceptable. But I would suggest that there is a big problem when we treat things that are important (remains of sentient creatures) on a cultural level like they are tools. If you come from a culture where that is fine and all the bodies you use are from willing members of that culture, okay, cool, that sounds like a good basis for a non-evil role play of a necromancer. But I think any culture that then generalizes that belief and says that animating anyone's body, regardless of their wishes, is now treading on substantially unstable ground.

On another note, a big problem with undead is, if the necromancer dies, his tools don't. See next point.

Finally, before Psyren shows up, there is verbiage in the Libris Mortis that basically lays out why undead are evil and why creating them is evil, basically establishing that undead create negative energy sinks that disturb the normal balance of energies on the Prime and which attract malevolent spirits. Uncontrolled undead (and potentially even the controlled ones) are therefor inhabited by these spirits, and thus randomly encountered undead with no master are as likely to be hostile as they are to be robots like the undead=neutral position often portrays them as.

Frankly, I find that bit of stuff to be weird retconning of their MM position about mindless undead alignments, but, meh, the genre classics don't do the same with undead=neutral anyway, so I think there are some metagame factors going on as well when the designers try to back up the way they set things up. My personal view is that some undead in the world is okay, even natural (like haunting ghosts and other spontaneously formed undead), but that things quickly, very quickly can spiral out of control without a steady hand and much wisdom.

EDIT: And before I forget, I think the OP may have slightly misconstrued the exact principles on which Ancient Egyptian religion operated. I'm pretty sure that, while they envisioned a very real life-after-death for those deemed worthy by Anubis/Thoth/whoever it was, they didn't envision a life that involved shambling about among the living. In short, it was still a one-way trip, living->dead->afterlife, while undeath is more living<-undeath->dead. This is why disturbing the dead was taboo in their culture; dead that didn't rest peacefully couldn't complete their journey.

[thedmring]

I'm of the opinion that making undead just shouldn't be evil at all. If you raise some undead, and they attack some orphanage, then that's evil. If you raise some undead, and you bring them along to take down an evil dragon, then that's good. Tools are irrelevant to morality, or it should be. What matters is how you use them, and the actual outcome of your doings. Really, I think the game would be better off if it just ditched good spells and evil spells altogether, with the possible exception of spells that specifically interact with alignment, like protection from evil or blasphemy. Even for those, it's probably an unnecessary mechanic. It's not like this negatively impacts balance either, as you can usually do just fine running true neutral if you want.

It's not about what should or what shouldn't be. It's about what is. The spell descriptor is Evil. So by raw it's an evil spell. By that same argument you could conclude that someone who trying to be good wouldn't cast that type of spell without eventual alignment consequences. Thus by constantly casting a spell with the "evil" descriptor her alignment would shift thus forcing her to use the unholy versions of those spells. Even more so since she is negatively charged. This is a clear cut case. Based on raw and dnd a necro cleric is evil thus she would take the evil side of those spells.

I thought you went by raw?

[SowZ]

Finally, before Psyren shows up, there is verbiage in the Libris Mortis that basically lays out why undead are evil and why creating them is evil, basically establishing that undead create negative energy sinks that disturb the normal balance of energies on the Prime and which attract malevolent spirits. Uncontrolled undead (and potentially even the controlled ones) are therefor inhabited by these spirits, and thus randomly encountered undead with no master are as likely to be hostile as they are to be robots like the undead=neutral position often portrays them as.

Frankly, I find that bit of stuff to be weird retconning of their MM position about mindless undead alignments, but, meh, the genre classics don't do the same with undead=neutral anyway, so I think there are some metagame factors going on as well when the designers try to back up the way they set things up. My personal view is that some undead in the world is okay, even natural (like haunting ghosts and other spontaneously formed undead), but that things quickly, very quickly can spiral out of control without a steady hand and much wisdom.

So you're saying that a wise enough necromancer could use undead to balance out the inherent evil in the process and do good?
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101118194025/venturebrothers/images/thumb/2/20/Dr-orpheus-picture.jpg/300px-Dr-orpheus-picture.jpg

[eggynack]

]
So then you would allow them to take holy transformation vs infernal transformation and so on based on action instead of
physicality of the planes and negative vs positive energy? This is how I've always viewed it.
No, I would allow them to take holy and infernal transformation based on nothing. Just ditch the descriptors altogether.

Snippled
But that's not an intrinsic issue with undead, but an issue with you not respecting the wishes of dead guys. As you note, consent is a valid way around that issue, and you can probably get away with zombifying evil folk too. The point is, the spell itself isn't evil. You can even maintain the situation where casting it is usually evil, by making non-consensual zombifying evil, and still ditch the descriptor. At that point, we've moved past the immorality of suffusing a corpse with negative energy, and we're at the morality of doing stuff with bodies, and I think the latter is perfectly OK. If what you do has any real sort of evil ramifications, then you can weight the act towards evil on that basis. Descriptors just complicate things, and make them silly.

[Phelix-Mu]

So you're saying that a wise enough necromancer could use undead to balance out the inherent evil in the process and do good?
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101118194025/venturebrothers/images/thumb/2/20/Dr-orpheus-picture.jpg/300px-Dr-orpheus-picture.jpg

Maybe, but it's a matter of diminishing returns. The more undead you use, the more you tend to allow for things to get disrupted in a way counter to the good that you are intending to do, the more you step on the rights of the dead (or the rights they had in life to be treated with respect, even when dead). Add in what LM says about malevolent spirits, and it would be totally irresponsible to create things that, if you lost control, would become murderous restless creatures bent on ending life, even if you are going to use them to rescue orphans or whatever.

I mean, if dead bodies really are just objects and there is no problem with using them, then I hope we can also agree that disease-free necrophilia and necrophagism are also acceptable practices. Certainly both are possible within D&D, where diseases can be done away with with a bit of magic, but still generally frowned upon, regardless of undead=neutral being a fairly common viewpoint among the fanbase.

[eggynack]

It's not about what should or what shouldn't be. It's about what is. The spell descriptor is Evil. So by raw it's an evil spell. By that same argument you could conclude that someone who trying to be good wouldn't cast that type of spell without eventual alignment consequences. Thus by constantly casting a spell with the "evil" descriptor her alignment would shift thus forcing her to use the unholy versions of those spells. Even more so since she is negatively charged. This is a clear cut case. Based on raw and dnd a necro cleric is evil thus she would take the evil side of those spells.

I thought you went by raw?
I'm talking about a potential house rule, not how the game currently is. It's important to uphold the RAW when we talk about what is, but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about what should be. I never indicated anywhere in my post that I was talking about what is in the RAW, and my stance that is more extreme than the one Adriana desires indicates that I agree with the idea that she should have a choice in the matter. Of course, it does help that the RAW supports her position on that count. Neutral characters get to zombify with one hand and smite evil with the other. That's just how the game works.

Edit:
Add in what LM says about malevolent spirits, and it would be totally irresponsible to create things that, if you lost control, would become murderous restless creatures bent on ending life, even if you are going to use them to rescue orphans or whatever..
Then losing control of the undead such that they eat faces should be evil. Seems simple enough to me.

[adriana]

EDIT: And before I forget, I think the OP may have slightly misconstrued the exact principles on which Ancient Egyptian religion operated. I'm pretty sure that, while they envisioned a very real life-after-death for those deemed worthy by Anubis/Thoth/whoever it was, they didn't envision a life that involved shambling about among the living. In short, it was still a one-way trip, living->dead->afterlife, while undeath is more living<-undeath->dead. This is why disturbing the dead was taboo in their culture; dead that didn't rest peacefully couldn't complete their journey.

No I guess I didn't explain my self well enough. I know they're not about walking zombies. My point is that there are cultures who revere death and the resurrection of the dead. I guess that was just a poor choice of words on my part.

However I'm enjoying the discussion so far and seeing the different perspectives.

[Phelix-Mu]

No, I would allow them to take holy and infernal transformation based on nothing. Just ditch the descriptors altogether.

But that's not an intrinsic issue with undead, but an issue with you not respecting the wishes of dead guys. As you note, consent is a valid way around that issue, and you can probably get away with zombifying evil folk too. The point is, the spell itself isn't evil. You can even maintain the situation where casting it is usually evil, by making non-consensual zombifying evil, and still ditch the descriptor. At that point, we've moved past the immorality of suffusing a corpse with negative energy, and we're at the morality of doing stuff with bodies, and I think the latter is perfectly OK. If what you do has any real sort of evil ramifications, then you can weight the act towards evil on that basis. Descriptors just complicate things, and make them silly.

I'd say no to zombifying anyone without their consent, even if they were evil. If we establish that consent is necessary to avoid stepping on rights, then that principle should hold even for evil people. Is it acceptable for a person to torture another if the subject is evil? No, torture is still wrong. Likewise, if doing something is wrong, it shouldn't matter who we are doing it to. A person avoids wrong for oneself, not solely because of actual/perceived impact on others (thought that is important as well). Good people avoid doing evil because they view it as wrong to do so, because doing so would distress them, and so forth. Maybe also because they don't want to inflict evil on others, but the issue can't be judged purely on external factors (like is the subject evil).

Furthermore, as I said, LM, which I believe supersedes core as the source for info on undead, states that animating the dead causes evil, related to those malevolent spirits and the integrity of the Prime that I mentioned. Unless you ignore LM, then animate dead should probably stay [evil].

EDIT: @eggynack: If the thing one is doing to help them do good is at all likely to result in evil, then that is a very slippery slope. Such risks are probably not worth taking.

[SowZ]

Maybe, but it's a matter of diminishing returns. The more undead you use, the more you tend to allow for things to get disrupted in a way counter to the good that you are intending to do, the more you step on the rights of the dead (or the rights they had in life to be treated with respect, even when dead). Add in what LM says about malevolent spirits, and it would be totally irresponsible to create things that, if you lost control, would become murderous restless creatures bent on ending life, even if you are going to use them to rescue orphans or whatever.

I mean, if dead bodies really are just objects and there is no problem with using them, then I hope we can also agree that disease-free necrophilia and necrophagism are also acceptable practices. Certainly both are possible within D&D, where diseases can be done away with with a bit of magic, but still generally frowned upon, regardless of undead=neutral being a fairly common viewpoint among the fanbase.

Well, if the person agreed that their body could be used for... uh... those kinds of acts before dying I suppose there's not much harm in it. It's not as if there is one all powerful deific entity making judgement calls about these sorts of things in D&D, so if the characters religion or personal code wasn't offended by necrophilia than I'm not sure what standard I could use to judge it that wouldn't just be cultural bias. So I guess that's acceptable in D&D? I just don't want to know about it.

In the same manner, I expect this 'good' necromancer obtained the permission of the living before they died, maybe by compensating them with gold or promising them their corpse would be used nobly.

It is also possible that this necromancer ha contingencies in place to keep spirits he has unwittingly summoned from running a muck/his zombies to go crazy when he dies. Perhaps he has paid a high level adventurers guild to destroy his creations should he die unexpectedly. Maybe he has a high level cleric on retainer. Ready to be summoned on a moments notice if some powerful ghost shows up uninvited.

I'm sure it could be done responsibly with enough resources, forethought, and knowledge. Though Jeff Goldbloom from Jurassic Park may disagree.

[eternal]

I'm sure it could be done responsibly with enough resources, forethought, and knowledge. Though Jeff Goldbloom from Jurassic Park may disagree.

Sorry to hijack the thread but you win for the Jurassic Park reference in an undead discussion.

[shadowseve]

I think a good balance between this would be to home brew a device to communicate with the spirit of the person you're about to animate and ask permission. You could also home brew a rule that allowed the corpse to return to the ground should anything happen to the necromancer.

Only problem about getting permission is from monsters and other low int creatures. How do you ask a hydra if you can make it a zombie after you kill it?

[JusticeZero]

It's not as if there is one all powerful deific entity making judgement calls about these sorts of things in D&D,
The core issue is that there are a large number of spells and effects that do in fact rely on the concept that there is something keeping a running tally on judgment calls on "these sorts of things", but the exact heuristics by which those effects make their decisions aren't explicitly defined in the rules.

How those decisions are made should be an explicit world building question, like the structure of the afterlife.

[eggynack]

I'd say no to zombifying anyone without their consent, even if they were evil. If we establish that consent is necessary to avoid stepping on rights, then that principle should hold even for evil people. Is it acceptable for a person to torture another if the subject is evil? No, torture is still wrong. Likewise, if doing something is wrong, it shouldn't matter who we are doing it to. A person avoids wrong for oneself, not solely because of actual/perceived impact on others (thought that is important as well). Good people avoid doing evil because they view it as wrong to do so, because doing so would distress them, and so forth. Maybe also because they don't want to inflict evil on others, but the issue can't be judged purely on external factors (like is the subject evil).
Seems reasonable. It's obviously complicated though, but that's probably fine. There are a lot of questions like this, where you ask how evil it is to do evil to an evil guy to good ends, and where animation evil ranks, and so forth.


Furthermore, as I said, LM, which I believe supersedes core as the source for info on undead, states that animating the dead causes evil, related to those malevolent spirits and the integrity of the Prime that I mentioned. Unless you ignore LM, then animate dead should probably stay [evil].
By my recollection, that was only one of several competing theories about the nature of undead.

EDIT: @eggynack: If the thing one is doing to help them do good is at all likely to result in evil, then that is a very slippery slope. Such risks are probably not worth taking.
Maybe, but I think that's really a thing that's up to the character to decide. Heroes take risks all the time, and hope that it'll lead to the right outcome. I don't really think that's necessarily evil though, especially if you try to construct some safeguards. Only you can prevent the zombie apocalypse, after all.

[Phelix-Mu]

Sorry to hijack the thread but you win for the Jurassic Park reference in an undead discussion.

No, no, that is a perfectly valid sentiment in any context, totally +1, and very prescient, SowZ.

Part of the problem is that you create a tool that, while you might use it for good, is probably going to end up involved in some serious evil at some point. Creation of nuclear weapons, giving gifts (useful blankets) to indigenous cultures, introducing rabbits to Australia; human history is littered with things that were are really good plans and full of good expectations right up until the point where they directly led to terrible results.

Like an amusement park to see living dinosaurs created from recombinant DNA.

As a good person, one must remain vigilant against doing things that have substantial potential for bad results. I made ten zombies from consenting members of my culture, and we rescued the orphans from the burning building. Then one week later I was hit by drow poison and the ten zombies murdered the entire village in their sleep. I probably would have been better off just using my spells to train firefighters, or some other way of saving people that doesn't involve creatures that become evil when I'm out of the picture (as is the substantial probability of my dangerous adventuring career).

[SowZ]

Sorry to hijack the thread but you win for the Jurassic Park reference in an undead discussion.

http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=7915367&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=If%20there%27s%20one%20thing%20the%20history %20of%20magic%20has%20taught%20us:&text1=unlife%20finds%20a%20way&text2=&text3=

I was conflicted if I should make it something about zombies being 'a rape of the natural world' or even say that necromancers were so preoccupied if they could, they never stopped to think if they should. But I'm happy with my decision. Alternatively, this:

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3378607360/hF1422D78/

always seems appropriate. I shall stop with the memes on this thread forever now, thanks guys.


No, no, that is a perfectly valid sentiment in any context, totally +1, and very prescient, SowZ.

Part of the problem is that you create a tool that, while you might use it for good, is probably going to end up involved in some serious evil at some point. Creation of nuclear weapons, giving gifts (useful blankets) to indigenous cultures, introducing rabbits to Australia; human history is littered with things that were are really good plans and full of good expectations right up until the point where they directly led to terrible results.

Like an amusement park to see living dinosaurs created from recombinant DNA.

As a good person, one must remain vigilant against doing things that have substantial potential for bad results. I made ten zombies from consenting members of my culture, and we rescued the orphans from the burning building. Then one week later I was hit by drow poison and the ten zombies murdered the entire village in their sleep. I probably would have been better off just using my spells to train firefighters, or some other way of saving people that doesn't involve creatures that become evil when I'm out of the picture (as is the substantial probability of my dangerous adventuring career).

You are right in that the effort is probably better spent elsewhere. Whereas one can come up with a thousand scenarios where zombies can be used for good, it becomes a lot harder to come up with a scenario where the same problem couldn't have been solved by some other means with the same or less amount of effort.

[Pan151]

Furthermore, as I said, LM, which I believe supersedes core as the source for info on undead, states that animating the dead causes evil, related to those malevolent spirits and the integrity of the Prime that I mentioned. Unless you ignore LM, then animate dead should probably stay [evil].

Does LM go into any more detail about that, or is it yet another case of "it is evil because of extremely vague reasons with no actual tangible effect whatsoever", such as with Liches etc? Because, unless I am given some actual mechanical implications of undeath, I'm inclined to consider the whole thing as completely irrelevant.


Then one week later I was hit by drow poison and the ten zombies murdered the entire village in their sleep.

Except zombies don't attack anyone unless commanded to, so this is a bad example...

[eternal]

Only you can prevent the zombie apocalypse.

Ok I seriously need some popcorn this thread is full of win.:smallbiggrin:

I'm imagining smokey the bear with a zombie gnawing on his leg and a whole horde of them walking slowly towards him.

[Phelix-Mu]

The implication is that uncontrolled undead behave as though evil, and hunt and kill the living whenever possible, even the mindless ones. Because of the malevolent spirits. In short, zombies that don't have a master act like in a zombie movie, as opposed to acting like C-3PO when its powered down (which is what the MM suggests, and which is, frankly, moronic...we don't need more robots in a game that has robots).

[JusticeZero]

IIRC, beyond them being walking metaphysical Superfund sites powered by preventing the soul from going on to its reward (as seen from things like how RAW, you cannot Resurrect or Reincarnate a pile of skin, muscle, brains and internal organs left behind from creating a CR1 Skeleton), unattended undead go rogue after awhile and start attacking people. It's been awhile since I've had the book in hand though.

[adriana]

In regards to the undead just going rogue and killing everyone, remember there are good undead as well. Look at the crypt wardens and sacred watchers in BOED. Surely it's possible to have some undead that are filled with the same kind of energy and won't go munch on the first person they see if there master dies.

[SowZ]

The implication is that uncontrolled undead behave as though evil, and hunt and kill the living whenever possible, even the mindless ones. Because of the malevolent spirits. In short, zombies that don't have a master act like in a zombie movie, as opposed to acting like C-3PO when its powered down (which is what the MM suggests, and which is, frankly, moronic...we don't need more robots in a game that has robots).

Couldn't we eliminate that risk by placing the zombies in a large concrete facility with no living things to kill? Have it be a massive factory where the zombies churn out goods and food all day, every day, for free. Distribute the goods to the people as incredibly cheap or free products.

It could serve the function of one of the slavery-based utopias proposed by the Greeks, but without any of the human suffering.

[JusticeZero]

"Possible", "Some ".. Not something that you can rely on to negate a general trend, I'd say.

[Phelix-Mu]

Couldn't we eliminate that risk by placing the zombies in a large concrete facility with no living things to kill? Have it be a massive factory where the zombies churn out goods and food all day, every day, for free. Distribute the goods to the people as incredibly cheap or free products.

It could serve the function of one of the slavery-based utopias proposed by the Greeks, but without any of the human suffering.

Or people could learn that the best rewards come from hard work and personal virtue, not from a life free from expensive bread and disappointing movies. Just because undead can alleviate some problems doesn't mean we can carte blanche the whole thing. Your zombie will outlive you; if someone evil comes along, creating zombies is "okay," there are actually plenty around to hijack, and it will be okay right up until he uses them to do [evil scheme].

If we come right down to it, part of the problem with the game is that magic makes totally hyperbolic things possible with minimal personal investment. For good, hard work, effort, patience, and the like are all really important, and magic really just makes those virtues seem totally superfluous. Things that make virtues seem superfluous are evil, and clearly the game never intended for all magic to be evil.

Example: Conjuration magic allows for conflicts to be solved with violence without anyone actually dying. But isn't violence still wrong? Yes, yes it is, but magic makes it seem cheap and easy, consequence-free. The consequence of relying on conjuration magic-fueled violence is that violence starts to seem acceptable, but good says it is not. If something is worth fighting for, put your own life on the line and only hurt people when necessary (cause "do unto others..."). Phoning the whole thing in is basically step one in some fiend convincing you to run your life via skype, trusting that everything will work out, cause you made plans that say everything will work out.

Jeff Goldbloom says that mathematics proves not everything will work out.

EDIT: zomg, just stayed up the final half of the night posting on alignment debates. There isn't enough caffeine in the world to solve the catastrophe that will be tomorrow. Goodbye, dear friends, I am going to go collapse. Great discussion, though.

[eggynack]

The implication is that uncontrolled undead behave as though evil, and hunt and kill the living whenever possible, even the mindless ones. Because of the malevolent spirits. In short, zombies that don't have a master act like in a zombie movie, as opposed to acting like C-3PO when its powered down (which is what the MM suggests, and which is, frankly, moronic...we don't need more robots in a game that has robots).
It's a possible outcome, but as I noted, it's one that I think can be plausibly averted. Really, I think that this question, the morality of animate dead, can be effectively split into two separate ones. The first, the one you've been trying to answer, is whether animating a corpse should always/usually be evil. It's possible that it is, likely because of some universal and impossible to counteract ramification, but it's not definite.

The second, the one I was proposing an answer to, is whether the spell animate dead itself should be intrinsically evil. As in, let's say that you got permission from the guy before he was all corpsified and gross, animated his body, and then immediately killed the zombie. By the current rules, that act would be evil, and I don't think it should be. Such is the nature of my argument, I think. The other topic is interesting as well, and I'd be open to further discussing it, but this latter topic is the essential one I had in mind.


IIRC, beyond them being walking metaphysical Superfund sites powered by preventing the soul from going on to its reward (as seen from things like how RAW, you cannot Resurrect or Reincarnate a pile of skin, muscle, brains and internal organs left behind from creating a CR1 Skeleton), unattended undead go rogue after awhile and start attacking people. It's been awhile since I've had the book in hand though.
I'm not sure that that's necessarily the cause. Another plausible interpretation is that you can't resurrect an animated corpse because the corpse is already being used for something, and the magic inhabiting it interferes with resurrection. Basically, it could be a body end issue rather than a soul end issue.

[thedmring]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

[Pan151]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

I can't possibly fathom why anyone would ever contest the validity of "they're evil because they're evil" as an explanation.

[adriana]

I can't possibly fathom why anyone would ever contest the validity of "they're evil because they're evil" as an explanation.

I know right? that should win an award. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil.

Some are. Not all. Ghosts spring to mind. And undead are capable of alignment change.

[JusticeZero]

You are arguing that two spells to bring back the dead that do not require a complete body will fail depending on whether the part of the body that the spell didn't need present are being used by an animation spell, and that this doesn't imply a soul effect? That's a bit of a stretch.

[Pan151]

You are arguing that two spells to bring back the dead that do not require a complete body will fail depending on whether the part of the body that the spell didn't need present are being used by an animation spell, and that this doesn't imply a soul effect? That's a bit of a stretch.

They still require at least part of a body (even just ashes in the case of true resurrection). Problem is, if your body is animated as a zombie, then you have no body - all the parts, even those cut off before the animate spell was cast, now belong to the zombie.

You can still make do with double Wish though (one to create a new body, one for replicating resurrection). There's nothing that prevents it.

[jedipotter]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.

Sure 3E says ''undead are evil, case closed'', but not all of D&D agrees. 2E had evil, neutral and good undead.

Neutral undead were the ones who died with something left undone or those that could not leave their duty. A guard might rise and an undead to again man his post or person who dies lost in the wilderness might rise and still be trying to get home. A ''lost undead trying to get home'' is not evil, nor is the ''guard who could not leave his post, even in death.''

Good undead are ones who died with unfinished good to do. A great example is the ones who choose undead to watch or protect something or someone. The evil artifact that needs a guard ''for all time''. Or the person who does not wish to leave their family.

The 2E Forgotten Realms were full of them. Lots of elves chose unlife to do things after death. There were tons of elf liches around. And ghosts too.

[eggynack]

I don't see why this is still being argued since by raw undead are evil. Pg 7 of Libris, which should be considered as the primary source material for undead talks about the nature of undead and what fuels them. In D&D they're evil. Animating them is an evil act. Thus a cleric who is animates them is performing evil acts willingly and should be labeled evil accordingly.

Case closed.
There are arguments that are not rules arguments. This is one of them. It's like I'm saying, "I think that the two weapon fighting line should be compressed down into one feat," and you're saying, "By the RAW, the two weapon fighting line is not one feat." The latter is practically a premise of the former, rather than an argument against it.

[AMFV]

There is a trend I've noticed in recent alignment threads (like the chaotic good one) to treat regular alignment as though people were Paladins. Good people can do evil things, sometimes even habitually. The nearest equivalent I can think of to the Undead thing (and it's not a perfect analogy, mind) is a nurse that takes drugs to get her through the shift. She's doing something wrong, and it'll eventually come back to bite her, or somebody else. But the net result is good at least for the present moment, she's functional, she's got it under control (or so she thinks). It's the same with using necromancy for good. You can be a good character and have evil habits, they just can't consume your character, maybe they just take that one morally ambiguous shortcut, and it pulls them toward neutral, but they still are good enough to stay good.

[adriana]

My argument against all undead being evil by nature again is the deathless in BOED. What if the necromancer sought dead saints, or other "holy" ghosts to aid in her/his fight? Say she had a wisard/sorcerer to cast some divination spell that allowed her to communicate with the body of the deceased and ask for permission to use their body.

Also keep in mind that some of the best zombies are not human at all. Hydras make damn good zombies. Is raising the dead of something that was trying to eat you inherently evil? It's not like you can ask the hydra if you can use it's corpse. The same goes for say a red dragon. Say it threatens to burn a village down and you slay it. are you going to ask it's dead spirit if you can borrow it's body? Probably not. So you raise it for good purposes to slay other demons or dragons or what ever. Is that evil? It may be a slippery slope, but is it evil?

[AMFV]

My argument against all undead being evil by nature again is the deathless in BOED. What if the necromancer sought dead saints, or other "holy" ghosts to aid in her/his fight? Say she had a wisard/sorcerer to cast some divination spell that allowed her to communicate with the body of the deceased and ask for permission to use their body.

Also keep in mind that some of the best zombies are not human at all. Hydras make damn good zombies. Is raising the dead of something that was trying to eat you inherently evil? It's not like you can ask the hydra if you can use it's corpse. The same goes for say a red dragon. Say it threatens to burn a village down and you slay it. are you going to ask it's dead spirit if you can borrow it's body? Probably not. So you raise it for good purposes to slay other demons or dragons or what ever. Is that evil? It may be a slippery slope, but is it evil?

Remember that Deathless is a special case, and they are animated by different energies.

[adriana]

Remember that Deathless is a special case, and they are animated by different energies.
Fair enough. You make a solid point.

[yoshi67]

I've had this talk with several others, including a few DMs because I've wanted to play a Dread Necromancer and they usually run games along the good side of the axis. This is what we have come to conclude.

The BOED/BOVD has rules to make a necromancer good, or about as close to good as a neutral character gets, but they are specialized books. The DMs I talked to said the rules are meant for more complicated games involving morality and the concepts would have to apply to whole encounters or the entire campaign, so they only use those if they plan on playing a campaign specifically using those rules, and would ban a single player from using them to justify an action due to the nature of the books.

The standard game considers necromancy evil. Most spells are evil-aligned, so it's the act of raising and controlling the dead that is evil. That does not mean you can't play a LN character who is also a necromancer. In fact, NPCs would probably treat you just like any other adventurer and would welcome you into their town and tavern and give you access to stores. But as soon as you visit the graveyard and bring back grandma (even if it's just her body) to beat down an orc, the pitchforks and torches come out.

I'm playing a cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard, the dwarf god of battle. He is LG, and taken from his description he has no problems with followers killing evil enemies, but asks that they respect the bodies of fallen warriors, even those of evil enemies. I would have a problem with a good necromancer due to my automatic respect for corpses even if you were using them for a good purpose.

You can make an argument for a good necromancer, citing his outlook, morals, or philosophy and create an entire race or religion built on the use of zombies or undead for good. However, it also depends on the outlook of everyone else in the game. Yes, there are cannibal tribes who might think raising the dead is a great way to honor them, but would you fault them if I went to one of their towns and buried a body and they killed me for desecrating a corpse by not eating it? It ultimately comes down to the majority morality, and if most people in your game view raising corpses as disrespecting the dead, your probably gonna be labeled as evil.

So for a good necromancer to be viable, a DM would have to houserule a campaign specifically to allow for one by making one socially acceptable. That's not too difficult. But then there's the rules that would have to be changed or ignored, and this is usually more work than a DM is willing to put in so you can play a character without getting chased out of every town or having weird rule interactions. So, you can have a good necromancer, and there are even rules designed for one, but it is very complicated and DMs usually won't want to bother with it, since it goes against the nature of the game.

[AMFV]

I've had this talk with several others, including a few DMs because I've wanted to play a Dread Necromancer and they usually run games along the good side of the axis. This is what we have come to conclude.

The BOED/BOVD has rules to make a necromancer good, or about as close to good as a neutral character gets, but they are specialized books. The DMs I talked to said the rules are meant for more complicated games involving morality and the concepts would have to apply to whole encounters or the entire campaign, so they only use those if they plan on playing a campaign specifically using those rules, and would ban a single player from using them to justify an action due to the nature of the books.

The standard game considers necromancy evil. Most spells are evil-aligned, so it's the act of raising and controlling the dead that is evil. That does not mean you can't play a LN character who is also a necromancer. In fact, NPCs would probably treat you just like any other adventurer and would welcome you into their town and tavern and give you access to stores. But as soon as you visit the graveyard and bring back grandma (even if it's just her body) to beat down an orc, the pitchforks and torches come out.

I'm playing a cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard, the dwarf god of battle. He is LG, and taken from his description he has no problems with followers killing evil enemies, but asks that they respect the bodies of fallen warriors, even those of evil enemies. I would have a problem with a good necromancer due to my automatic respect for corpses even if you were using them for a good purpose.

You can make an argument for a good necromancer, citing his outlook, morals, or philosophy and create an entire race or religion built on the use of zombies or undead for good. However, it also depends on the outlook of everyone else in the game. Yes, there are cannibal tribes who might think raising the dead is a great way to honor them, but would you fault them if I went to one of their towns and buried a body and they killed me for desecrating a corpse by not eating it? It ultimately comes down to the majority morality, and if most people in your game view raising corpses as disrespecting the dead, your probably gonna be labeled as evil.

So for a good necromancer to be viable, a DM would have to houserule a campaign specifically to allow for one by making one socially acceptable. That's not too difficult. But then there's the rules that would have to be changed or ignored, and this is usually more work than a DM is willing to put in so you can play a character without getting chased out of every town or having weird rule interactions. So, you can have a good necromancer, and there are even rules designed for one, but it is very complicated and DMs usually won't want to bother with it, since it goes against the nature of the game.

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil. Also the BoED and BoVD don't really present rules for good necromancy. Deathless are a special exception but they aren't raised by a spellcaster for his or her own ends, which allows partially for their Good stance. You can certainly be a good necromancer, you just have to be aware that your character is going to have some issues with necromancy later on.

[JusticeZero]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil..
Another point raised often is that [Evil] necromancy might make you (E)vil, but it does not necessarily make you evil. In this case, does it actually matter much?

[AMFV]

Another point raised often is that [Evil] necromancy might make you (E)vil, but it does not necessarily make you evil. In this case, does it actually matter much?

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes. So it does matter, but the question is, "is necromancy enough to make you Evil?" And I don't think it is in all cases, a Paladin would certainly fall if they performed necromancy, but somebody who does Good, is very likely to do enough to enough to balance it out in the end. As I pointed it's like the drug-addicted nurse, it doesn't make you a bad person, but it is something wrong you're doing. Good characters do not need to never do anything evil. Hell even Paladins don't need to always do good, they can atone.


I think there will be social consequences as most do view it as evil. I don't think it would corrupt the necro cleric unless he allowed it.
Now the undead going rogue after the cleric died would cause issues unless the cleric was undead and this immortal as far as aging goes.


Certainly as I've said it is evil... but it's not necessarily something that makes the character evil. It just pushes them in that direction. They wouldn't be Exalted, but they could even still be good.

[adriana]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil. Also the BoED and BoVD don't really present rules for good necromancy. Deathless are a special exception but they aren't raised by a spellcaster for his or her own ends, which allows partially for their Good stance. You can certainly be a good necromancer, you just have to be aware that your character is going to have some issues with necromancy later on.
I think there will be social consequences as most do view it as evil. I don't think it would corrupt the necro cleric unless he allowed it.
Now the undead going rogue after the cleric died would cause issues unless the cleric was undead and this immortal as far as aging goes.

[adriana]

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes. So it does matter, but the question is, "is necromancy enough to make you Evil?" And I don't think it is in all cases, a Paladin would certainly fall if they performed necromancy, but somebody who does Good, is very likely to do enough to enough to balance it out in the end. As I pointed it's like the drug-addicted nurse, it doesn't make you a bad person, but it is something wrong you're doing. Good characters do not need to never do anything evil. Hell even Paladins don't need to always do good, they can atone.




Certainly as I've said it is evil... but it's not necessarily something that makes the character evil. It just pushes them in that direction. They wouldn't be Exalted, but they could even still be good.
I can agree with that to an extent. It certainly gives the character depth. I do agree they're definitely not going for saint hood.

[AMFV]

I can agree with that to an extent. It certainly gives the character depth. I do agree they're definitely not going for saint hood.

I mean it would be rough to be a Paladin or an Exalted character and practice necromancy, but it's not impossible to be Good otherwise, you just have to balance out. Although it could lead to a lot of problems later or possible falling into evil later, so you have to be mindful of that, as I said to my mind it's comparable to drug addiction, you do it, because you think it's necessary, because you don't think you can get by with out it, and there's some point where you'll slip up.

[yoshi67]

Well just because necromancy is evil, does not mean that all of the practitioners of necromancy are necessarily evil.

That was the point of my post. You can play as a neutral or good necromancer in your eyes, but it depends on how other people in your world look at it too. Also it has a lot to do with your DM.

I think these arguments ask a question, but really are looking for an answer to something else. A theoretical answer is turned into fuel for a realistic expectation.

"Can you theoretically play a good necromancer?" - Yes.
"Is it realistic to play a good necromancer?" - Not really, it is just too hard without changing rules, but you might find a DM who is willing to take on the challenge.

[JusticeZero]

Well they're synonymous as far as the game world goes.
Well, no, they aren't. Often they are, in the traditional stereotypes, but there are exceptions. For instance, one can theoretically summon demonic forces to repair a damaged hospital. That's "good" and [Evil] at the same time. What that adds up to varies from one setting to another. I track the [Evil] in that case, since being (E)vil doesn't affect your behavior.

[AMFV]

That was the point of my post. You can play as a neutral or good necromancer in your eyes, but it depends on how other people in your world look at it too. Also it has a lot to do with your DM.

I think these arguments ask a question, but really are looking for an answer to something else. A theoretical answer is turned into fuel for a realistic expectation.

"Can you theoretically play a good necromancer?" - Yes.
"Is it realistic to play a good necromancer?" - Not really, it is just too hard without changing rules, but you might find a DM who is willing to take on the challenge.

You don't have to change the rules... First off, casting Evil spells has no explicit corruptive effect, it doesn't magically turn you evil, any more than cheating on a test magically turns you chaotic. There is no falling for standard characters. Yes a Paladin can't do it. And yes an Exalted character ought not too. But you can have a good character that does bad things, not in an ends justify the means sort of way, but maybe they're working on it. A fighter who is unnecessarily cruel, a Bard who winds up selfishly using women and then leaving them discarded, a Wizard who studies lore that's a just a little bit evil, but he doesn't want to use it for evil, if it weren't for his damnable curiosity. These characters can be good, they can try, they can do Good things, enough to balance out. They just have problems, and all characters are flawed.

Secondly, society's viewpoint is irrelevant, it doesn't affect alignment, while it might present a stumbling block or potential issues that you have to deal with, just because people disapprove of something doesn't make it evil, although in this case it is. But doing something people disapprove of, doesn't make it evil.

[adriana]

One question still remains. Can a CN or LN cleric who happens to do necromancy take holy transformation or is he/she tied to infernal due to being negatively charged? Same with visage of the deity. My outlook remains the same that since they are neutral they can raise the dead and smite evil at the same time. Since dnd seems to be centered more around fighting evil baddies holy transformation and the "good" side of visage of the deity tends to be more useful. It's an interesting twist if you consider the act of necromancy evil but not the person wielding it evil unless certain acts are made.

[AMFV]

One question still remains. Can a CN or LN cleric who happens to do necromancy take holy transformation or is he/she tied to infernal due to being negatively charged? Same with visage of the deity. My outlook remains the same that since they are neutral they can raise the dead and smite evil at the same time. Since dnd seems to be centered more around fighting evil baddies holy transformation and the "good" side of visage of the deity tends to be more useful. It's an interesting twist if you consider the act of necromancy evil but not the person wielding it evil unless certain acts are made.

You shouldn't be negatively charged, there's no ruling that it does anything like that. It's just evil to do, you should even still be able to channel positive energy, the spells don't change your makeup, I mean if you use them enough and for crappy ends you'd eventually become Evil. But there are plenty of Neutral Necromancers in D&D. The act is evil, but the person may not be. If you are neutral and your deity is also neutral, you can completely cast [Good] Spells, without any restrictions.


Well, no, they aren't. Often they are, in the traditional stereotypes, but there are exceptions. For instance, one can theoretically summon demonic forces to repair a damaged hospital. That's "good" and [Evil] at the same time. What that adds up to varies from one setting to another. I track the [Evil] in that case, since being (E)vil doesn't affect your behavior.

And in the real world terrorist organizations repair hospitals to better their public image so that they can recruit more suicide bombers. I think I may see where your earlier issues were. In D&D, ends do not justify means. Raising an Undead will always be evil, not matter how much good you do with it. Furthermore your behavior affects being Evil, summoning Demons to repair a hospital is definitely questionable, but summoning Demons may not be in all cases Evil (See the Malconvoker, although it's not really clear if that's evil, it's on the fence), but if the demons come willingly and agree to help, then they likely have other motivations and the end result will be Evil and evil, as with the organizations that use hospital repair and disaster aid as a means to perpetuate further violence.

[adriana]

You shouldn't be negatively charged, there's no ruling that it does anything like that. It's just evil to do, you should even still be able to channel positive energy, the spells don't change your makeup, I mean if you use them enough and for crappy ends you'd eventually become Evil. But there are plenty of Neutral Necromancers in D&D. The act is evil, but the person may not be. If you are neutral and your deity is also neutral, you can completely cast [Good] Spells, without any restrictions.

Well what I mean by negatively charged is I was rebuking undead and not turning and I was casting spontaneous inflict wounds so I could heal my minions out of combat. I got flack from my group about attempting to use holy vs infernal.

[thedmring]

Well what I mean by negatively charged is I was rebuking undead and not turning and I was casting spontaneous inflict wounds so I could heal my minions out of combat. I got flack from my group about attempting to use holy vs infernal.

If you're negatively charged and casting evil spells, it doesn't matter if you're alignment is neutral. You'd take the infernal and evil version of visage.

[AMFV]

If you're negatively charged and casting evil spells, it doesn't matter if you're alignment is neutral. You'd take the infernal and evil version of visage.

I'm looking at the spell right now and that text isn't there. She could use either the Infernal or the Holy version since she's neutral. Turning vs. Rebuking makes no difference as far as being able to cast [Good] or [Evil] spells.

[adriana]

I'm looking at the spell right now and that text isn't there. She could use either the Infernal or the Holy version since she's neutral. Turning vs. Rebuking makes no difference as far as being able to cast [Good] or [Evil] spells.


To further anchor his statement lets take a look at sanctified spells in the BOED

Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells, and casters who do not prepare spells (including sorcerers and bards) cannot make use of them except from a scroll. Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.

It says nothing about neutral characters not being able to cast. Just those that have an evil alignment. So " in theory I could cast luminous armor just fine even though it's a sanctified spell since my alignment was LN.

So my original assessment was correct in the fact that neutral characters can cast from both sides. Making the neutral alignment attractive.

[thedmring]

To further anchor his statement lets take a look at sanctified spells in the BOED

Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells, and casters who do not prepare spells (including sorcerers and bards) cannot make use of them except from a scroll. Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.

It says nothing about neutral characters not being able to cast. Just those that have an evil alignment. So " in theory I could cast luminous armor just fine even though it's a sanctified spell since my alignment was LN.

So my original assessment was correct in the fact that neutral characters can cast from both sides. Making the neutral alignment attractive.

I would never allow a necro cleric to be neutral. Look at Nerull in the phb. Evil.

I rest my case.

[AMFV]

I would never allow a necro cleric to be neutral. Look at Nerull in the phb. Evil.

I rest my case.

Wee Jas, LN.

[adriana]

Wee Jas, LN.

swordsaged O.o :smallbiggrin:



I would never allow a necro cleric to be neutral. Look at Nerull in the phb. Evil.

I rest my case.

Your argument is so compelling. I bow to your wisdom.

[yoshi67]

You don't have to change the rules... First off, casting Evil spells has no explicit corruptive effect, it doesn't magically turn you evil, any more than cheating on a test magically turns you chaotic.
It kinda does. By the rules, your alignment can change based on actions. A good person committing evil deeds can (and should) have his alignment changed. A good cleric who knows some evil necromantic spells watching his town burn and knowing the only way to stop it is to raise an army would not change his alignment, but should feel bad about it. Doing it over and over might though. Again, throwing out alignment or saying your alignment never changes or you can do anything regardless of alignment without penalties is changing the rules.


Secondly, society's viewpoint is irrelevant, it doesn't affect alignment, while it might present a stumbling block or potential issues that you have to deal with, just because people disapprove of something doesn't make it evil, although in this case it is. But doing something people disapprove of, doesn't make it evil.
I never said society's viewpoint affects alignment, but in a standard game most villagers don't like evil. Have you read the Dark Elf trilogy? Basically a lawful good drow is ostracized by towns because they view the drow as evil. It doesn't affect alignment, but made it hard for him to do anything because they viewed him as bad. Same thing, you cast an evil spell, people get mad. You can create a game where people don't care about evil or remove the social aspects, but again that's kinda changing the dynamic of a standard game.

I'm not trying to say you can't have a good necromancer; I believe you totally could. I just think it goes too far out of the normal rules. DMs might not have a problem with you playing a drow, but might if you want him to be LG because that's very far removed from a standard character, but its possible. Just like I could conceivably come up with a demon who wants to repent and is therefore good. It's possible, but the game would have to be reconstructed to make it work.

[AMFV]

It kinda does. By the rules, your alignment can change based on actions. A good person committing evil deeds can (and should) have his alignment changed. A good cleric who knows some evil necromantic spells watching his town burn and knowing the only way to stop it is to raise an army would not change his alignment, but should feel bad about it. Doing it over and over might though. Again, throwing out alignment or saying your alignment never changes or you can do anything regardless of alignment without penalties is changing the rules.


Yes, actions change alignment, but somebody could do some Evil actions and remain Good. Furthermore there are NO rules for forced alignment change, and including them is changing the rules (although not necessarily unreasonable). You could feel bad about it, but as I've said we could have a person with an Evil habit who is Good. You just need to be doing more Good than Evil in the long run.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yes, actions change alignment, but somebody could do some Evil actions and remain Good. Furthermore there are NO rules for forced alignment change, and including them is changing the rules (although not necessarily unreasonable). You could feel bad about it, but as I've said we could have a person with an Evil habit who is Good. You just need to be doing more Good than Evil in the long run.

Yes, you do have to be more good than evil. But part of being good is going to lengths to avoid and not tolerate evil, either in yourself or in the world around you. Certainly this doesn't mean that every good person is a zealot who must crusade to vanquish all sin, but neither can you regularly indulge in evil and shrug it off by donating wealth to orphans or whatever other virtue. The slippery slope leads decidedly towards Hades, my friend, and while it can be mitigated, nobody that is good should ever count some evil act or another as "tolerable." That's neutral territory if I ever heard it, and this is why like 95% of everyone ever in the system as RAW describes it should actually be neutral (unless they are out there raping and pillaging, in which case the evil is easy to diagnose).

Being Good as the game describes it can exist around evil, but one of the key aspects of evil is that it is seductively easy compared to good (immediate gratification, not having to worry about consequences, sex/drugs/rock 'n roll). So if a good person is doing evil, it tends to lead toward alignment change, because repentance is at least fluffily harder (though atonement is the same either way).

As to an earlier comment, neutrality for divine casters is pretty boss. Because neutral encompasses both those with evil tendencies that put work into being good, and those with good tendencies that simply aren't dedicated enough to bother, it's a big territory, and often harder to stray from than the extremes. Additionally, for druids, a TN druid needs to fall from their native alignment twice (once on each axis) to lose their spellcasting, though in theory it is possible for a single action/series of actions to jump one over on both axes. One of my favorite characters was a TN druid that tried to hold the middle ground in a party that ranged from LN (with a liberal dose of evil) to CN to NG and CG. At several points in the campaign she basically told the others that, if their actions held too much impact for the balance on the Prime, she'd have to take steps to act against them in her role protecting the natural state of things. Interesting dynamic, especially since the whole group of characters were all quite friendly, generally speaking. Just one guy was chatting up Mephistopheles and the other was going around lobbing sanctified spells at pit fiends (though not at the same time, ofc).

[adriana]

In the case of my character. She was forced into becoming a necropolitan by a dread necro that had captured her. After her change he taught her the art of Necromancy. One day the dread necro got into a fight and was injured. His hold on my character was weakened and she broke free. Attempting to regain some of her lost humanity she attempted to help all that she could. However; when it came to combat she relied on the only training she knew: necromancy and raising the dead. So was she evil?

Edit:
I don't think the answer is so cut and dry.

[AMFV]

Yes, you do have to be more good than evil. But part of being good is going to lengths to avoid and not tolerate evil, either in yourself or in the world around you. Certainly this doesn't mean that every good person is a zealot who must crusade to vanquish all sin, but neither can you regularly indulge in evil and shrug it off by donating wealth to orphans or whatever other virtue. The slippery slope leads decidedly towards Hades, my friend, and while it can be mitigated, nobody that is good should ever count some evil act or another as "tolerable." That's neutral territory if I ever heard it, and this is why like 95% of everyone ever in the system as RAW describes it should actually be neutral (unless they are out there raping and pillaging, in which case the evil is easy to diagnose).


No, that's Exalted and Paladins that aren't allowed to tolerate Evil, otherwise as you say only Exalted people and Paladins would qualify as Good. Somebody that's working to ensure that slaves are treated with kindness in an evil Imperial Hierarchy is good.

And you completely can regularly commit Evil and still atone, that's pretty much the way that all moral structures go. Absolute moral structures need a system of atonement. And that is present in D&D. Again you can be a good Character and do Evil things, or even have an Evil Habit, it just needs to balance out, and as far as Evil things go, raising the dead isn't that Evil, it's not a corrupt spell, and it doesn't directly harm the innocent. In fact it doesn't qualify for the majority of acts described as Evil in the BoED or the BoVD. It's certainly Evil, but I question how Evil. Again, my comparison is the nurse that takes Drugs on the jobs because they can no longer get by any other way.

The point is that it is possible for a Good character to have some Evil Tendencies and still not even be neutral, as long as they aren't harming people, now if they escalate, then they fall, or if they stop seeing the Good side of things then they fall also.



Being Good as the game describes it can exist around evil, but one of the key aspects of evil is that it is seductively easy compared to good (immediate gratification, not having to worry about consequences, sex/drugs/rock 'n roll). So if a good person is doing evil, it tends to lead toward alignment change, because repentance is at least fluffily harder (though atonement is the same either way).

Well it is certainly easy to fall, but not every Necromancer does. Not every Farmer who's hard on his horses but kind to his family falls. I mean there's the predisposition, but you can't hold Good characters to the standard of Exalted characters or Paladins, or that standard becomes meaningless.

[JusticeZero]

Attempting to regain some of her lost humanity she attempted to help all that she could. However; when it came to combat she relied on the only training she knew: necromancy and raising the dead. So was she evil?
I am what I title a "Physicalist"; I consider the supernatural effects linked to alignment effects to be more important toward determining what alignment Detect Alignment and Holy Word think you are than your actions. As such, I would pin that letter E on your character sheet in an instant, and consider your good deeds to be completely in keeping with your character. Others go the opposite direction, and that's fine, but that isn't how I roll.

[adriana]

I am what I title a "Physicalist"; I consider the supernatural effects linked to alignment effects to be more important toward determining what alignment Detect Alignment and Holy Word think you are than your actions.


The problem I have with that how the PHB defines alignments. It defines them by their personality, not by there supernatural effects.
from 103 in the phb

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good,chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.

So I don't see how you can base it on supernatural effects linked to alignment effects unless you house rule it.

While this has been a moral discussion it's also included some RAW thrown in there.

In that same sense the phb also states "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent." In otherwords it means that good people can do bad things and have flaws without a necessary alignment change.

So in essence RAW even sums it up when some of us has said not all Necro clerics are evil. You can be good and have a darkside to you even by RAW standards.

[AMFV]

I am what I title a "Physicalist"; I consider the supernatural effects linked to alignment effects to be more important toward determining what alignment Detect Alignment and Holy Word think you are than your actions. As such, I would pin that letter E on your character sheet in an instant, and consider your good deeds to be completely in keeping with your character. Others go the opposite direction, and that's fine, but that isn't how I roll.

But that's not RAW, you can't have only cosmic alignments and no action based alignments. Also one Evil act does not turn you Evil, not even in a physicalist setting. Even Exalted characters don't have that restriction, even a Paladin doesn't immediately turn Evil for a single Evil action. So while the supernatural effects are important they aren't by RAW. Furthermore, there is no RAW pretext for casting [Evil] spells turning you [Evil], even Corrupt spells don't do that by RAW. You can't claim an RAW objectivist position and then ignore chunks of RAW.

[Phelix-Mu]

No, that's Exalted and Paladins that aren't allowed to tolerate Evil, otherwise as you say only Exalted people and Paladins would qualify as Good. Somebody that's working to ensure that slaves are treated with kindness in an evil Imperial Hierarchy is good.

And you completely can regularly commit Evil and still atone, that's pretty much the way that all moral structures go. Absolute moral structures need a system of atonement. And that is present in D&D. Again you can be a good Character and do Evil things, or even have an Evil Habit, it just needs to balance out, and as far as Evil things go, raising the dead isn't that Evil, it's not a corrupt spell, and it doesn't directly harm the innocent. In fact it doesn't qualify for the majority of acts described as Evil in the BoED or the BoVD. It's certainly Evil, but I question how Evil. Again, my comparison is the nurse that takes Drugs on the jobs because they can no longer get by any other way.

The point is that it is possible for a Good character to have some Evil Tendencies and still not even be neutral, as long as they aren't harming people, now if they escalate, then they fall, or if they stop seeing the Good side of things then they fall also.



Well it is certainly easy to fall, but not every Necromancer does. Not every Farmer who's hard on his horses but kind to his family falls. I mean there's the predisposition, but you can't hold Good characters to the standard of Exalted characters or Paladins, or that standard becomes meaningless.

One of the major points about being good is that actions have consequences that matter, and that evil begets evil. Yes, even the small evil. That's why neutrality is common. Because being good is like walking up a hill. If you walk down the hill, yes, you may still be walking up the hill, but you have directly undone your previous efforts. Moreover, if you get used to walking down the hill, then walking up the hill is going to seem dumb and tiresome. Who wants to strive for virtue or try to be their best self when it's easier to just coast, or to indulge in some kind of evil that mysteriously doesn't harm anyone ever.

Not all of this applies much in-game, however. If a character sheet says the character is good, and the character mainly sticks to that in areas that matter, then that is fine by me; not every game can have a comprehensive look at virtue and include all the off-screen activities that make up so much of what is virtuous in the world (being kind, chivalrous, charitable, and so forth...not very dramatic, and often just assumed to happen off-camera). I don't have a problem with that.

But if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the nurse that takes drugs to help her through her shift isn't handling things well. She's walking down the hill. And if she isn't exceedingly careful, she can walk too far; lots of drugs that can help you coast through a rough patch also can challenge your judgement, and in a job where other people's physical welfare is your responsibility, is that even a risk worth taking? Much more responsible would be for the nurse to acknowledge her limits and the impacts of underestimating the effects of drugs on her work performance. She could approach a friend about covering for her, take medical leave, talk to her supervisor about skipping a shift. All of those are much better than trying to make a problem go away with pills, because next time she needs to pull a hard shift, those pills will still be there. And the next time. And each time, the temptation to go downhill instead of sticking to her guns and taking responsibility for her own limits will only grow, until she's in it up to her eyeballs.

Will that always happen? No. But when people's lives are on the line, when your future in the profession is on the line. A good person takes responsibility and strives to do the best in such crucial moments, instead of spinning the roulette wheel and hoping things work out. Your nurse is neutral unless she atones. And atoning involves a strong effort not to repeat the same mistake.

Now, if it's just the parking meter woman or something, and she wants to smoke some weed or get drunk or let loose, that's not virtuous, but neither is it moral suicide to do such stuff. But weighing the consequences is huge. Right and wrong matter, that is a crucial tenet of goodness. It's evil to suggest that evil is okay or can be swept under the rug, because evil thinks that rules are for idiots and if you can justify it to yourself, then to hell with everyone else.

A big part of this is that there is some kind of stigma to being L/C/T Neutral (good tendencies). There shouldn't be. Most people are flawed and too busy struggling to survive to always be concerned with right and wrong, and that is fine; commoners look out for themselves and their kin, and are easily tricked or led into evil actions because evil is way easier than being good, and the difference between the two is almost always cloudy (or easily muddled by any evil person hoping to pull a fast one). Afraid of that woman with the weird hair and the tattoos, and she does something noisy at night? Clearly she is a dangerous influence and should be shunned and ridiculed, the better to teach everyone else to not act that way. But cruelty is evil, and that mindset is basically a couple mob incidents away from a good ol' witch burning.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. I hate to borrow from irl stuff, but the sentiment is true in D&D; things like redeeming and forgiving are virtues because they preserve what is precious and give people a new chance to start over, to walk up that hill. On the other hand, tolerating evil is bad, because evil begets evil. Even if the nurse and the example harms no one and only doses herself once, she has done something irresponsible and has to live with it, and that guilt is a burden that is hard to carry. If she doesn't care, then there you go, that's also not good. Good people care.

Again, the system mainly glosses over the small stuff because heroes are already icons of whatever they stand for, and the drama of the story is set in the epic scale of high fantasy, where the sins at stake are the big ones; death, horror, the end of hope, tragedies on a grand scale. So little stuff is not the focus of the game. This emphatically does not mean that little stuff doesn't matter at all. Just that it isn't pertinent to the story until it is established that the good cleric is doing something really foul in his spare time. Otherwise, the good cleric can claim the Good title and have most of their virtues glossed over as downtime stuff and character building that is usually totally optional.

To summarize, there is a line, AMFV, and there is tolerance for the sinner, and ample forgiveness for the repentant. But what is wrong is still wrong, and there is no way that some kind of evil is harmless or something. That's not a thing. Evil and good may both happen in a person's life, but they aren't good roommates, and one or the other will tend to dominate, each at the expense of the other. Anyone that rides the middle ground is neutral, and I think that is cool too. I think we mainly agree, and the issue is more one of language and the spin that the tolerance is given. In my game, even the succubus that seeks redemption is welcome, if she is genuine in her desire. Likewise, even the most heinous crimes are forgivable. But will everyone rise to the occasion and pardon the genocidal warlord of his crimes when he expresses remorse? Unlikely. Overall, even if people quest for goodness in their own lives, they can't force others to be virtuous, it's a personal path. So things look bad for the warlord. Or for the nurse that is shooting up on the job (even for a good reason). Society judges them harshly, but that is because society is a lowest common denominator kind of phenomena.

OMG. What am I doing spending another night ranting about alignment?? I am not setting a very good example for those D&D characters struggling to be virtuous by my seriously obsessive desire to talk about this particular area of the game.

[thedmring]

In the case of my character. She was forced into becoming a necropolitan by a dread necro that had captured her. After her change he taught her the art of Necromancy. One day the dread necro got into a fight and was injured. His hold on my character was weakened and she broke free. Attempting to regain some of her lost humanity she attempted to help all that she could. However; when it came to combat she relied on the only training she knew: necromancy and raising the dead. So was she evil?

Edit:
I don't think the answer is so cut and dry.

Yes. If not now she would become evil. At least if the dm was worth anything he would make you eventually do an alignment change.

[yoshi67]

Yes, actions change alignment, but somebody could do some Evil actions and remain Good. Furthermore there are NO rules for forced alignment change, and including them is changing the rules (although not necessarily unreasonable).
Sorry but paladins have a "fall from grace" dynamic where the DM can (and is supposed to) change alignments. The player can atone for it and regain his proper alignment. All the people I've talked to use this mechanic for every character.

"A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions." PHB pg. 33

Animate Dead is an evil spell, so by RAW a good necromancer can't really work.


In the case of my character. She was forced into becoming a necropolitan by a dread necro that had captured her. After her change he taught her the art of Necromancy. One day the dread necro got into a fight and was injured. His hold on my character was weakened and she broke free. Attempting to regain some of her lost humanity she attempted to help all that she could. However; when it came to combat she relied on the only training she knew: necromancy and raising the dead. So was she evil?

Edit:
I don't think the answer is so cut and dry.

So here's the problem I'm seeing. (This is purely from a game perspective). Lets say your heart is pure and as a DM I let you have a Good alignment. I can bend the rules and let cast evil spells, or change the descriptor for spells your character casts to good. But as a Good character, do you channel positive energy and rebuke undead? If so, you damage or destroy your own undead and can't heal them. Ok so your either a Good person who channels negative energy, or I have to change all the undead you create to Good and feed off of positive energy. That means any character who has something that affects the undead has to have contingency rules written for interactions with your special undead. Lots of work.

Honestly, your character history is interesting and I like the idea of atonement. If I was DMing, I'd talk to you about taking a neutral alignment and allowing you some benefits of a good character while you work towards atoning. Part of that process would involve learning other spells or domains that are neutral or good, keeping necromancy as evil, which is why you try to give it up. Once you have totally turned from evil spells, you can be a good necropolitan cleric or whatever class you think is best. Something like replacing 2 levels of spells for every character level, so it would take about 4 levels to completely atone.

[adriana]

So here's the problem I'm seeing. (This is purely from a game perspective). Lets say your heart is pure and as a DM I let you have a Good alignment. I can bend the rules and let cast evil spells, or change the descriptor for spells your character casts to good. But as a Good character, do you channel positive energy and rebuke undead? If so, you damage or destroy your own undead and can't heal them. Ok so your either a Good person who channels negative energy, or I have to change all the undead you create to Good and feed off of positive energy. That means any character who has something that affects the undead has to have contingency rules written for interactions with your special undead. Lots of work.

Honestly, your character history is interesting and I like the idea of atonement. If I was DMing, I'd talk to you about taking a neutral alignment and allowing you some benefits of a good character while you work towards atoning. Part of that process would involve learning other spells or domains that are neutral or good, keeping necromancy as evil, which is why you try to give it up. Once you have totally turned from evil spells, you can be a good necropolitan cleric or whatever class you think is best. Something like replacing 2 levels of spells for every character level, so it would take about 4 levels to completely atone.

Well the actual character ended up chaotic neutral since even though she helped those she could she still had a dark side to here. She resented most authority and could be very brash. The only reason she got along with the NG druid, who was the party leader, was due to the fact the druid never judged her, despite her necro ways. The druid saw the good in her and the rest of party was fine with her. Though the druid did try to get her to stop raising the dead. Although she at times tried she never could get over a what the dread necro did to her or put her through. She never did cross over to totally good. She never worshiped any deity so there was never an issue with the whole neutral cleric with a good God.
That make sense?

[AMFV]

One of the major points about being good is that actions have consequences that matter, and that evil begets evil. Yes, even the small evil. That's why neutrality is common. Because being good is like walking up a hill. If you walk down the hill, yes, you may still be walking up the hill, but you have directly undone your previous efforts. Moreover, if you get used to walking down the hill, then walking up the hill is going to seem dumb and tiresome. Who wants to strive for virtue or try to be their best self when it's easier to just coast, or to indulge in some kind of evil that mysteriously doesn't harm anyone ever.

Yes, Good is hard, it's why most Good people do Evil things from time to time. I'm not arguing that it's not Evil, I'm arguing that small Evil acts are not enough to push you down the slippery slope into the land of cackling Evil. That's a standard NOT EVEN Exalted People and Paladins are held to. That was my point, every Good character is not going to be able to be Good all the time, because it's not possible. That's why Atonement exists. I think we're in agreement here at least somewhat. Although I'd add that the ones really climbing the Hill are the Exalted folk. Good people can just be those that do small Good acts, and that's not always climbing a hill.



To summarize, there is a line, AMFV, and there is tolerance for the sinner, and ample forgiveness for the repentant. But what is wrong is still wrong, and there is no way that some kind of evil is harmless or something. That's not a thing. Evil and good may both happen in a person's life, but they aren't good roommates, and one or the other will tend to dominate, each at the expense of the other. Anyone that rides the middle ground is neutral, and I think that is cool too. I think we mainly agree, and the issue is more one of language and the spin that the tolerance is given. In my game, even the succubus that seeks redemption is welcome, if she is genuine in her desire. Likewise, even the most heinous crimes are forgivable. But will everyone rise to the occasion and pardon the genocidal warlord of his crimes when he expresses remorse? Unlikely. Overall, even if people quest for goodness in their own lives, they can't force others to be virtuous, it's a personal path. So things look bad for the warlord. Or for the nurse that is shooting up on the job (even for a good reason). Society judges them harshly, but that is because society is a lowest common denominator kind of phenomena.

I think we're actually in agreement or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that Virtuous characters are explicitly Exalted, you don't have to be free of Evil to be Good, just Good enough to pull yourself out of neutral. I'm not saying that Necromancy isn't Evil or that it doesn't cause problems, socially in particular. I'm saying hat if Necromancy is your only failing, one could still be Good, definitely not a Paladin or Exalted but Good.


Sorry but paladins have a "fall from grace" dynamic where the DM can (and is supposed to) change alignments. The player can atone for it and regain his proper alignment. All the people I've talked to use this mechanic for every character.

"A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions." PHB pg. 33

Animate Dead is an evil spell, so by RAW a good necromancer can't really work.


You've misread my comment. A Paladin falls from grace for a SINGLE bad act, they don't spontaneously turn evil. Furthermore a Wizard Necromancer is possible (that would be the notional Good Necromancer) you can definitely have a neutral Necromancer.

The point is that even a Paladin doesn't have a "You Switch Alignments Now" button, they only have a fall button, as with Exalted, we can't hold Good to a higher standard than Exalted that's absurd. So if Exalted don't plummet automatically to Evil, then neither should Good.

[yoshi67]

That make sense?
Absolutely. I've been talking about good as an alignment and I think you've been talking about good as a personal philosophy. While it's hard to have a good-aligned necromancer, having a neutral-aligned but good-doing one like you described is perfectly fine and really interesting. Your evil side and spells are counteracted by your good deeds and choices. I can't see anything wrong with that.