PDA

View Full Version : Necromancy? Evil?



ufo
2007-03-10, 03:54 AM
I have seen many constantly think "Necromancy = Evil", but is this true? It is right that most evil spellcasters make use of necromancy, but why is it automaticly evil?

I mean, wouldn't it only be automaticly evil if it was a world constructed so that disturbing the slumber of dead is evil. It's more like a denying of tradition than evil, and it can easily be used in a good way.

Huh?

Kantolin
2007-03-10, 04:50 AM
Necromancy isn't evil. Only certain spells have the [evil] descriptor, and they generally involve the creation of undead, specifically causing agonizing pain, or... um, are deathwatch. Which maybe kills a puppy every time you cast it or something.

Anyway, it's just something about the process used to create an undead creature that is intrinsically evil, by RAW. If you like, it'd be easy to house rule that away for your campaign; it's just the way RAW is.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-03-10, 04:52 AM
Necromancy isn't evil. Only certain spells have the [evil] descriptor, and they generally involve the creation of undead, specifically causing agonizing pain, or... um, are deathwatch. Which maybe kills a puppy every time you cast it or something.

Anyway, it's just something about the process used to create an undead creature that is intrinsically evil, by RAW. If you like, it'd be easy to house rule that away for your campaign; it's just the way RAW is.

Exactly. A nice concise post.

Not all necromancy is evil just like not all Conjuring spells summon monsters.

The Prince of Cats
2007-03-10, 07:39 AM
I have always viewed necromancy as being a bit like biological weapons; there is a time and a place but the potential for abuse and the collateral damage is so high that most necromancers will be tempted to the dark side...

Yuki Akuma
2007-03-10, 07:50 AM
I have always viewed necromancy as being a bit like biological weapons; there is a time and a place but the potential for abuse and the collateral damage is so high that most necromancers will be tempted to the dark side...

Unless they're the necromancers that focus on spells such as Undeath to Death. You know, because necromancy can be used against the undead, too.

JaronK
2007-03-10, 09:03 AM
Almost all undead critters are evil, so raising evil critters pretty much is an evil act. Since a zombie can't exactly make moral choices, I would presume the magic that created it is evil, leaving a lingering aura of evil that detect evil spells will catch.

Other necromancy uses aren't evil at all.

JaronK

EvilElitest
2007-03-10, 10:42 AM
I have seen many constantly think "Necromancy = Evil", but is this true? It is right that most evil spellcasters make use of necromancy, but why is it automaticly evil?

I mean, wouldn't it only be automaticly evil if it was a world constructed so that disturbing the slumber of dead is evil. It's more like a denying of tradition than evil, and it can easily be used in a good way.

Huh?

When it comes to ethics in my game, some actions are in themselves evil. Just casting necomancy spells it not so, it is the line between evil and neutral. However it is very easy to use necro powers for neutal or good ends. Necomancy is not in itself completsly evil (but still pretty close) but can be easily abused. Creating undead is a different story but neco magic by its self no.
from,
EE

The Prince of Cats
2007-03-10, 01:14 PM
Unless they're the necromancers that focus on spells such as Undeath to Death. You know, because necromancy can be used against the undead, too.

If you want to argue semantics, healing spells tend to border on necromancy. While few (if any - I cannot think of any, but I would not stake my reputation on it) will use negative energy, the idea of raising dead is more like necromancy than any other school or sphere.

Thoughtbot360
2007-03-10, 01:58 PM
Almost all undead critters are evil, so raising evil critters pretty much is an evil act.


See that annoys me in and of itself. Undead have no need for food (well a few do, most don't), never feel pain, live forever, and in the case of the ghost and lich, regenerate after defeat. Why doesn't everyone who can become a lich? Because lichdom requires a vaguely described "Evil Ritual" (Eeeek! Oh no! Evil!11!!1!:smalleek: ). Therefore this results in a world where only the depraved enjoy the benefits of living longer than the Elves (While being tougher to take out, too!) pretty much by virtue of their "evilness." Any good guy who wants to join the club had better cross his fingers that the lichdom ritual doesn't involve the sacrifice of thousands of innocents.


Since a zombie can't exactly make moral choices, I would presume the magic that created it is evil, leaving a lingering aura of evil that detect evil spells will catch.

A Flesh Golem can't exactly make moral choices, and its made from a dead body,too! Where does that leave it?

The maddening thing is I have one case in the fantasy genre where zombies were free to "make moral decisions" (Warcraft 3: the Frozen Throne, the Forsaken where zombies and banshee created by the undead scrouge, their souls made to serve the Lich King, but when the Lich King's powers waned, he lost control over thier minds, and they got their free will back and they could've sued for peace among the living, could have contacted Kalimdor and formed a pact among the alliance and horde races, who where on good terms at the moment, and attacked Northrend while the Lich king had his hands tied up with Illidain, therefore destroying the Scrouge forever!) ....They choose to be evil and made an alliance of convience (Strictly of convience) with the Horde (who actually aren't really the bad guys since the end of Warcraft 2) in World of Warcraft, after the Alliance and the Horde start fighting again despite all the real threats faced by both sides, among them THE SECRET PLAGUE THE FORSAKEN ARE DEVELOPING!! :smallsigh:

Thanks a lot, Blizzard. You shot down a lot of potential with the Forsaken. Now they are just a bunch of 12-year olds going "I'm so cool cuz' I'm an evil flesh-eating zombie. Yay for the emo horde!" (an Orc, Troll and Tauren in the background cry for the horde's lose of face. Just to make things worse a bubbly cute Blood Elf girl pops up and asks for 4 silver. Puh-leeeeeeeze? *sigh*)

Daneel the Sane
2007-03-10, 02:58 PM
I have been DMing since I was 11 years old... I am 34... do the math. :smallsmile:

This is my personal take on necromancy. Keep in mind I run my own campaign setting, my own world, my own theology, and my own concept of morality, so take all this with a grain of salt. I am NOT saying that my way is the way you should do it, just some food for thought.

Necromancy in and of itself is not evil. However, there is very little you can do with it that is not evil... I know that sounds wierd, but hear me out.

Creating undead? Oh yeah, evil. You are channelling the forces of Negative Energy to force the souls of the dead to be ripped out of their afterlife to serve your purposes... That is not exactly a nice thing to do. "Mindless" undead such as skellies and zombies do not have enslaved souls, but pretty much anything else does. Even making skellies and zombies, however, channels Negative Energy, thus adding to the energies of decay and death to the world, etc etc. So yeah, evil. Not only that, in my game creating undead will get you talked about by the neighbors, and some of those neighbors may be clerics of my death goddess, who is neutral, and she rather frowns on creating undead due to it being an "abuse of death".

Using nasty-bad hurting spells that make your life less than pleasant? Well, unless they are unneccessarily painful or channel crazy amounts of ickiness, I do not rule them as evil. Basically, I go with the evil descriptor on those spells. After all, fireballs are pretty nasty too, since most of us are allergic to explosions. Fire hurts! But fireball is not an evil spell.

Becoming a lich? Well, that tends to tick off the death goddess, etc etc, but I generally do not see becoming a lich as inheritantly evil. After all, unless the ritual requires human saccrifice or having baby a la king for dinner, all you are doing is making YOURSELF an undead nasty. You are not enslaving a soul or anything. Sure, you are channelling some negative mojo, but just this once? Why not. It will not exactly earn you your halo and wings, of course.

There are many spells of a necromantic nature that are actually rather decent. Undeath to Death, for instance, as well as some others.

Like I said, that is my personal take, so don't anyone think I am speaking as an authority or anything.

TheOOB
2007-03-10, 03:04 PM
Really it's up to the DM of any given campaign to decide if necromancy is inheriently evil, because WotC can't seem to decide. For example why are skeletons and zombies considered evil, despite being mindless (and thus incapable of making moral choices), though the inflict spells, spells that kill people using the same energy that powers the undead are perfectally neutral?

I strongly suggest that anyone wondering about the morality of necromancy (or heck, anyone who wants to use necromancy in general) take a look at the Tome of Necromancy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=632562) on the WotC boards, it talks about necromancy and it's moral ramifications, as well as introduces several varient rules and ideas to help flesh out necromancy in your campaign. It's definatly worth a look see.

Turcano
2007-03-10, 04:04 PM
If necromancy spells were by definition evil, the repose domain would be absolutely pointless.

Also, in previous editions of D&D, healing magic was necromancy. This is consistent with the "manipulat[ion of] the power of death, unlife, and the life force." For some reason, the writers of 3rd Edition moved healing to conjuration, which makes no sense whatsoever.


Really it's up to the DM of any given campaign to decide if necromancy is inheriently evil, because WotC can't seem to decide. For example why are skeletons and zombies considered evil, despite being mindless (and thus incapable of making moral choices), though the inflict spells, spells that kill people using the same energy that powers the undead are perfectally neutral?

That's not necromancy in general; that's undead. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Woot Spitum
2007-03-10, 04:07 PM
D&D doesn't use the old implications of necromancy that made it evil, such as the risk that every time necromantic power is used, there is a chance that unspeakably evil creatures from beyond the grave will be released upon the world. This sort of weakens the argument of necromancy being evil.

JadedDM
2007-03-10, 07:21 PM
Also, in previous editions of D&D, healing magic was necromancy. This is consistent with the "manipulat[ion of] the power of death, unlife, and the life force." For some reason, the writers of 3rd Edition moved healing to conjuration, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Yep, it's true. In 2E, healing was necromancy. Also, skeletons and zombies were not evil, but True Neutral. It was reasoned that they have no minds of their own, so how can they possible have an alignment?

Zincorium
2007-03-10, 07:45 PM
Yep, it's true. In 2E, healing was necromancy. Also, skeletons and zombies were not evil, but True Neutral. It was reasoned that they have no minds of their own, so how can they possible have an alignment?

Not just in 2nd ed, I definitely recall it being that way in 3.0.

The mindless undead thing has had it's own, very complex and interesting thread. I personally think it's a logic-less decision that allows paladins to smite zombies and the like. They can't make moral decisions, having a moral compass is meaningless.

Necromancy has become so utterly skewed and distorted over time that it really makes no sense from the psuedo-scientific standpoint D&D has towards magic. Fear is necromancy? Isn't that exploiting an emotion, kind of like, I dunno, Enchantment's description? How is a level 1 spell able to conjure energy from a different plane, and why only that one? (I'm looking at you, cure light wounds). Wouldn't it just be easier to manipulate and strengthen the critter's life force?

The 'necromancy' label is a stylistic choice now, and it became closer to Black in the magic the gathering game rather than stay distinct. I don't feel there's any reason for it to be evil by definition. If your game says that raising the dead is bad, go for it, but saying something is evil without justifying it, which is what WotC has done, is pointless. You only notice it when it's a problem to the game, which is always an indicator of an unneeded rule: People who think it's bad don't need that tag, and people who think it's not are annoyed by it.

13_CBS
2007-03-10, 07:50 PM
Just curious, but is there a necromantic-ish class that asks the dead to help them fight instead of forcing them to do so?

JadedDM
2007-03-10, 07:54 PM
Fear is Necromancy? That's weird. In 2E, it's Illusion/Phantasm, because it makes you 'see' something horrible that isn't really there. But I could easily see it as part of the Enchantment/Charm school, too.

I don't know why Necromancy is so associated with evil nowadays. True, animating the dead has always been considered evil and so necromancers are often evil, as well. But in the Complete Wizard's Handbook, it states Necromancers can even be Good alignment (although admits this is pretty rare).

"Continual exposure to forces associated with undead creatures can have a corrupting effect on wizards with even the slightest inclinations toward evil. Consequently, the number of evil-aligned necromancers is rumored to far outweight the number of those of good alignment. Neutral necromancers are virtually non-existent; in general, a necromancer either has a will strong enough to resist the lure of darkness, or he submits himself to the corruption and devotes himself to a life of evil.

In spite of their reticence, most good-aligned necromancers are unshakable in their determination to confront and extinguish evil and will join like-minded individuals to undertake these types of missions."

Sturmjaeger
2007-03-10, 08:43 PM
I play a Necromancer in an FR campaign. They're not evil. They just see undead as tools to be used.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-03-10, 08:51 PM
I've always seen enchantment as way more evil in general. Sure, necromancy probably has more spells than enchantment that'd make Asmodeus cringe at you, but enchantment as a whole seems more evil. Manipulating the sentient minds of living creatures instead of animating the bodies of those already dead.

Orzel
2007-03-10, 08:54 PM
Necromany is like guns. You can do a lot of things with a gun but 90% of the time, people use guns to shoot at things.

Daneel the Sane
2007-03-10, 09:59 PM
I've always seen enchantment as way more evil in general. Sure, necromancy probably has more spells than enchantment that'd make Asmodeus cringe at you, but enchantment as a whole seems more evil. Manipulating the sentient minds of living creatures instead of animating the bodies of those already dead.

Funny you should mention that, because I have been thinking alot about that very subject. Thwarting free will could definately be seen as evil. In fact, I read a fantastic essay that suggested that Tolkien himself based his concept of evil towards domination of the will of others. A great example of good was Elrond not exacting an oath from the Fellowship, etc etc.
Then I saw the spell in the Book of Exalted Deeds... I cannot recall the name of it right now, but it essentially acts as a Trap the Soul spell except that over the course of a year it turns the person Good. I thought, "Now wait just a darn minute here..." That struck me as an odd spell, because it robs the evil victim of his free will. I am uncertain that I would consider it good. Right now I am of the mind that while I have not yet decided that it is in fact good, it is at least pretty lawful! The whole "Think as I do for Righteousness and stuff!" concept is certainly rather lawfulish, imposing an order of sorts on someone, robbing someone of their freedom for the benefit of Good, etc. But if a Chaotic Good person cast this spell, I would definately nudge them a little towards Law, since Chaos is supposed to be about individualism and freedom. Being a big fan of Chaotic Good, I decided to basically make an alignment issue there.

Lemur
2007-03-10, 10:38 PM
There's not much I can say about the morality of necromancy that hasn't already been said, but consider this:

Regardless of how you treat necromancy, as evil, neutral, gray area, or whatever, the inhabitants of the world are likely to have a fairly uniform view of necromancy.

As a history example, back in the day, you were liable to be put on trial by the Church if you engaged in the practice of dissecting human bodies. They're dead, so they're not using them anymore. Technically you're not hurting anyone, and you're learning a lot about the human body that could be potentially be used for good (or ill, for that matter). However, none of that matters to other, less scientific-minded people, who can only see such actions as atrocious.

So what I would say is that, while those who use necromancy, but don't use [Evil] descriptor spells won't run into alignment change problems, such spells will still be percieved as evil by the whole of society.

Go ahead and use it, but if someone who you can't trust sees you do it, watch out for lynch mobs.

Kantolin
2007-03-10, 10:44 PM
As a note to several people this topic, let me further emphasize that 'use necromancy' does not equate to 'Summon undead'.

I'm fairly sure that you will not get lynched for using 'Halt undead'. Nobody minds if you use False Life, Disrupt Undead, Touch of Fatigue, Ray of Exhaustion, Bestow Curse, any of the fear spells...

At least, not anymore than people may lynch you for summoning a monster or being followed by a ghostly unseen servant or making fog or walls.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-10, 10:50 PM
Well, unless it's socially standardized. If making mindless undead isn't inherently evil, you could imagine good churches supporting it and even extensively using undead slave labor. Though they have a harder time of it than evil clerics with that rebuke/control business.

The fact that you're making something whose basic approach to life forms is to kill them (mindlessly, but still) might be cause to consider it evil, though it seems narrow...

Deathwatch always strikes me as more 'diagnosti-cam for healers' than some implement of evil. I never got that tag.

EvilElitest
2007-03-10, 11:35 PM
See that annoys me in and of itself. Undead have no need for food (well a few do, most don't), never feel pain, live forever, and in the case of the ghost and lich, regenerate after defeat.

And hunger for the flesh of the living, fulled by negative energy, rising from the grave, often evil ect.


Why doesn't everyone who can become a lich?
1. You need to know the ritual
2. You need to be able to cast the ritual.
3. You need to be a powerful caster 99% of the time.
4. You need to sacerfice a living sentient creature (i'm pretty sure).
5. You need to bear the pain of being you know, undead, bad and good.
6. You need to evil (except for the deathless or good liches from FR)
7. Yoo will be powered by negative energy.
8. You need to basiclly sell you soul.
9. You are now an unholy creature, a sin against nature.
10. You don't look very good.
11. Unavoidably, adventures will come and defeat you in an epic quest.


Because lichdom requires a vaguely described "Evil Ritual" (Eeeek! Oh no! Evil!11!!1!:smalleek: ).
Well most people have some sense of moral, but if an evil creature wants to become one its fine (I get the impression the rituel is expansive though). Also i think being a lich would be unpleasent.


Therefore this results in a world where only the depraved enjoy the benefits of living longer than the Elves (While being tougher to take out, too!) pretty much by virtue of their "evilness."
I would not consider becomeing a creature that is rotting a benefit. Sounds like a hollow existence. But anyways, the point is that evil pays better than good. Fact of life. If you are in life for profit, don't be good. Be evil or neutral. I am a cynic but in material goods evil pays better. Good just gets morals and wins a lot.


Any good guy who wants to join the club had better cross his fingers that the lichdom ritual doesn't involve the sacrifice of thousands of innocents.
To bad, i would imagine it would. Unless you become a deathless or one of FR's good lichs but they are a different story. Being undead is not very pleasent i imagine.


A Flesh Golem can't exactly make moral choices, and its made from a dead body,too! Where does that leave it?
Wrong. While both invole dead body, ravaging the dead, while disgusting and not very moral is not in itself an evil act. Bringing back souls from grave is a different story. That is taking them away from their rightful resting place to live in a tormented undead state. Flesh Golems just have an earth spirt put inside the body. While disgusting, it is not evil.



The maddening thing is I have one case in the fantasy genre where zombies were free to "make moral decisions" (Warcraft 3: the Frozen Throne, the Forsaken where zombies and banshee created by the undead scrouge, their souls made to serve the Lich King, but when the Lich King's powers waned, he lost control over thier minds, and they got their free will back and they could've sued for peace among the living, could have contacted Kalimdor and formed a pact among the alliance and horde races, who where on good terms at the moment, and attacked Northrend while the Lich king had his hands tied up with Illidain, therefore destroying the Scrouge forever!)
They never destoryed the Scrouge. They pervented it invasion a few times but never made the claim of destroying it. Arthas is still "alive" and well and the Forsaken are still commiting 95% of their resources to fight the scourge.


....They choose to be evil and made an alliance of convience (Strictly of convience) with the Horde
Well why not? All of the horde races hate the scrouge, perticully the Blood elves and Orcs. The Forsakens alliance is an convient alliance in every sense. Also a good deal of Forsaken are coming to like the hoard and the alliance while edgy is working fine, though nothing has come as yet to ruin it. We will have to wait and see.


(who actually aren't really the bad guys since the end of Warcraft 2)
Then how is the forsaken joining them evil?


in World of Warcraft, after the Alliance and the Horde start fighting again despite all the real threats faced by both sides,
They are officially at peace. In WOW they make them fight because of PVP issues but in the cannon world alll the attacks on eachother are just viglante groups fighting eachother. Why? Because of racil tensions, happens all the time.


among them THE SECRET PLAGUE THE FORSAKEN ARE DEVELOPING!! :smallsigh:
Three points
1. The Secret Plague, while commonly know amoung WOW players is not know amounge many forsaken in the canon WOW world. The plauge makers are ment of be a secret cult. Unknow if the Forsaken leaders approve of this.
2. The Forsaken are entirly "Ends Justify the Means". They have never claimed to be good. They are working to destroy the Scourge and don't care about the cost. There life is not really worth living (you know, zombies and all that) and so their one goal in life is to destroy their creator. They no longer care for the living races.
3. The Forsaken have never claimed to be good. They just fight evil. In WOW roleplaying game they are often NE,LE,CN,N, or LN with rare CG,LG,NG. The most dispised (plauge people) are CE. They have never, from the beginning claimed they were good people.



Thanks a lot, Blizzard. You shot down a lot of potential with the Forsaken.
And they are still are very popluar.


Now they are just a bunch of 12-year olds going "I'm so cool cuz' I'm an evil flesh-eating zombie.
Dude their are inmature people (Not all 12 years olds but 90%) in every faction. The zombie one are just the emo group.


Yay for the emo horde!"
hell of a lot worst on the alliance.


(an Orc, Troll and Tauren in the background cry for the horde's lose of face. Just to make things worse a bubbly cute Blood Elf girl pops up and asks for 4 silver. Puh-leeeeeeeze? *sigh*)

Blah blah blah, whine whine whine, WOW is so abusive, they have inmature people out of the 7.5 million people who play world wide. Who would have thought. Not relvence to the topic please?
from,
EE

Zincorium
2007-03-11, 12:01 AM
And hunger for the flesh of the living, fulled by negative energy, rising from the grave, often evil ect.


Most carnivorous animals hunger for the flesh of the living. Filled with negative energy isn't a moral act. Rising from the grave is probably a desirable alternative to just laying there in the dark. And often evil is just wotc saying 'we need to have paladins able to smite these things'.



1. You need to know the ritual
2. You need to be able to cast the ritual.
3. You need to be a powerful caster 99% of the time.
4. You need to sacerfice a living sentient creature (i'm pretty sure).
5. You need to bear the pain of being you know, undead, bad and good.
6. You need to evil (except for the deathless or good liches from FR)
7. Yoo will be powered by negative energy.
8. You need to basiclly sell you soul.
9. You are now an unholy creature, a sin against nature.
10. You don't look very good.
11. Unavoidably, adventures will come and defeat you in an epic quest.

Some of these are right, but you should probably double check your sources.

4. Well, you have to die, and you're probably a living, sentient being, but there's no mention of killing anyone else, or even strong hints. That's probably fluff you ran into somwhere that's become canon in your game.

6. Only afterwards. You can start off lawful good, but there is no evil requirement to perform the ritual, you're just automatically evil afterwards for poorly explained reasons.

8. Well, no. You're putting your soul in a safe deposit box. Thus the phylactery. What happens to it when it gets destroyed is probably bad, but you in no way sold it.

10. Necrophiliacs may disagree with you. May.

11. Only if you're the BBEG. I'm sure there are plenty of liches who take that +2 intelligence and wisdom and decide to keep a really, really low profile so they get to enjoy that immortality the committed unspeakably and thus unspoken vile acts for.



Well most people have some sense of moral, but if an evil creature wants to become one its fine (I get the impression the rituel is expansive though). Also i think being a lich would be unpleasent.

Well, do you mean expensive? Yeah, 120k is a bit of a price tag. Not particularly expansive though. And you're free to think it's unpleasant, but we'll never know for sure.



I would not consider becomeing a creature that is rotting a benefit. Sounds like a hollow existence. But anyways, the point is that evil pays better than good. Fact of life. If you are in life for profit, don't be good. Be evil or neutral. I am a cynic but in material goods evil pays better. Good just gets morals and wins a lot.


To bad, i would imagine it would. Unless you become a deathless or one of FR's good lichs but they are a different story. Being undead is not very pleasent i imagine.


Wrong. While both invole dead body, ravaging the dead, while disgusting and not very moral is not in itself an evil act. Bringing back souls from grave is a different story. That is taking them away from their rightful resting place to live in a tormented undead state. Flesh Golems just have an earth spirt put inside the body. While disgusting, it is not evil.


More non-canon fluff. I really would like to see where you guys get this. NOWHERE does it say you're taking the spirit of the dead, and really, the deities would get pretty pissed off if you did. Enough to send an inevitable after you or something. Animate dead is just that, corpses which move around just like animated objects, but with a negative energy battery to keep 'em that way.

A vampire or ghoul turning others into those like itself is committing a truly evil act, but that's par for the course for them.



Anyways, if you want to bring up more unsupported arguments, I'll be happy to play with them.

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 12:29 AM
Most carnivorous animals hunger for the flesh of the living. Filled with negative energy isn't a moral act. Rising from the grave is probably a desirable alternative to just laying there in the dark. And often evil is just wotc saying 'we need to have paladins able to smite these things'.

Yes but carnivourous animals are well, you know nautral. They hunger for food. The vast majority of undead hate the living and try to kill them.
And i don't know what kind of mess up priorities state that coming back from the grave as a rotting, inhuman, insane, twisted mocker of ones self is better than being dead. I rather stay dead thank very much. And you know, paladin smite them for a reason. I would imagine killing an undead (other than a deathless) is putting them out of their misery. And the vast (99%) have evil intentions or at least intentions that are not good for the living.



4. Well, you have to die, and you're probably a living, sentient being, but there's no mention of killing anyone else, or even strong hints. That's probably fluff you ran into somwhere that's become canon in your game.
Strongly hinted at in the Book of Undead. I will check again, but i can't imagine going against the laws of nature and becomeing a powerful creature made out of negative engergy would not have an evil rituel. Sacerfice seems to be the most likely solution.


6. Only afterwards. You can start off lawful good, but there is no evil requirement to perform the ritual, you're just automatically evil afterwards for poorly explained reasons.
We if the rituel is evil then yes. If not, well hey congrats.


8. Well, no. You're putting your soul in a safe deposit box. Thus the phylactery. What happens to it when it gets destroyed is probably bad, but you in no way sold it.
I am speaking in a moral sense.


10. Necrophiliacs may disagree with you. May.
OK, one more reason not to become a lich. If they do think your good looking, your better of as dust.


11. Only if you're the BBEG. I'm sure there are plenty of liches who take that +2 intelligence and wisdom and decide to keep a really, really low profile so they get to enjoy that immortality the committed unspeakably and thus unspoken vile acts for.
And at eventully found out by a band of unexpected heroes.


Well, do you mean expensive? Yeah, 120k is a bit of a price tag. Not particularly expansive though.
Finding it. Lichs tend to be a greedy lot. I don't think they just hand out the rituel of lichdoms on the streets. I would imagine most will attempt to kill of potential rivals.


And you're free to think it's unpleasant, but we'll never know for sure.
Well your flesh begins to rot, you soul is stored in a jar, your organs stop working, and you basiclly die and are reborn. I can't imagine that would feel good. OH and the book of undead does state that it hurts a lot.



More non-canon fluff. I really would like to see where you guys get this.
Now now, superiority complexes just cause trouble. And what do you mean by "you guys". I am one person, not an orginazation of cuban mobsters who post on random threads as part of a massive conspiracy.



NOWHERE does it say you're taking the spirit of the dead,
Stange i though they were called undead for a reason. Vampires, ghouls, Wights, Wraiths, Ghasts, Mummies, ect we know have the souls of the dead in them. And the gods rarely directly interfer. As for zombies and Skeletons, well you are defying the laws of nature and life and brining them back to life, though barely. Flesh Golems are just the spirts of the earth in side a vessel. See MM for details on golems.


and really, the deities would get pretty pissed off if you did. Enough to send an inevitable after you or something.
They don't when you make greater undead.


Animate dead is just that, corpses which move around just like animated objects, but with a negative energy battery to keep 'em that way.
Ok, i can't imagine using negative engergy to make bodies dance is very moral. A good person could very well use it mind you, just not a paldadin or most good priests.



A vampire or ghoul turning others into those like itself is committing a truly evil act, but that's par for the course for them.
True.

[/QUOTE
Anyways, if you want to bring up more unsupported arguments, I'll be happy to play with them.[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah, ego ego ego, thinly disgusted insult, surperority complex, EE is unable to surrport anything, ect.

Sure if you want to argue over the reason of why everbody does not become liches, then i have no problem.
from,
EE

Payne
2007-03-11, 01:00 AM
Several points to consider:

In D&D Good & Evil are real, quantifiable realities. There is no doubt or gray areas.
That makes any debate on the topic a bit difficult from a realistic point of view (our own world's).

Plus even if all undead are mindless that should make them neutral.
They only obey instructions.
But on their own they will seek out and destroy all life.

SO by nature (not TRUE malice) they are evil, as a force of nature. (As much as nothing good comes out of a hurricane that is attracted to orphanages.)

But does that make their maker (the necromancer) evil?
What if he has his undead build orphanages?
Well the necromancer is using dangerous tools, that naturally will harm others.
His willingness to make them is a clear indication his morals are questionable.
Compound the fact that almost every sentient specie believes proper burial is a sanctity that must be observed, then there is but few doubts.

Those who willingly create dangerous things, use material & processes that offends everyone's morals are bound to be labeled "evil".

Does that mean that GE is evil?
They make anti-personal bombs.

The question, I'm afraid, is wrought with uncertainty.

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 01:21 AM
My option is this.
Necromancy is not an evil act, though taboo.
Raising the dead is an evil act.
However as Necromancers are not paladins by any standards, they can very well simply use their undead for good. Unlike exalted classes or paladins, a Necromancer has no duty to be good and so may use his undead for good causes and be considered good. That is why a Necromancer using his army of zombies to fight force of orcs is quite good.
Rasing undead at the cost of innocent lives or though acts of murder makes the guy evil, even if he uses them for a good cause.
Creating undead like vampires or wights i think would be evil, not quite sure.
from,
EE

kamikasei
2007-03-11, 01:30 AM
However as Necromancers are not paladins by any standards, they can very well simply use their undead for good. Unlike exalted classes or paladins, a Necromancer has no duty to be good and so may use his undead for good causes and be considered good. That is why a Necromancer using his army of zombies to fight force of orcs is quite good.

What have paladins to do with it? If the act of raising undead is evil, then it's evil. It may be that a good character who is not a paladin could commit evil for a good end, but the evil act is still evil.


Rasing undead at the cost of innocent lives or though acts of murder makes the guy evil, even if he uses them for a good cause.

Eating ice cream at the cost of innocent lives or through acts of murder is evil. This has nothing to do with the undead or the ice cream. If you have a plan of action where step one is murder innocents and step two is do x, then the action as a whole is evil and the value of "x" is irrelevant.

reorith
2007-03-11, 01:49 AM
i don't think necromancy has a set morality. death ward, a necromancy spell is on the paladin spell list and they have the restriction of being lg... i think it is the number of necromancy spells with the evil spell descriptor giving the school a bad reputation.

TheOOB
2007-03-11, 02:01 AM
Eating ice cream at the cost of innocent lives or through acts of murder is evil.

Hmm, eating ice cream for evil, sounds like a death rock band

kamikasei
2007-03-11, 02:10 AM
Hmm, eating ice cream for evil, sounds like a death rock band

Ah, the fun to be had with an Ozzy bard build and a gray Bag of Tricks...

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 01:32 PM
What have paladins to do with it? If the act of raising undead is evil, then it's evil. It may be that a good character who is not a paladin could commit evil for a good end, but the evil act is still evil.


Yes but some classes get lighter senteces then others. In my worlds, a necromancer can't be LG. They might be able to be NG if they don't raise the dead (But summoning them, or controling already raised ones is barely ok) and if they raise mindless undead to fight evil they might, and i empathis might be CG.

[/QUOTE]
Eating ice cream at the cost of innocent lives or through acts of murder is evil. This has nothing to do with the undead or the ice cream. If you have a plan of action where step one is murder innocents and step two is do x, then the action as a whole is evil and the value of "x" is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

I will agree with you here.
from,
EE

ufo
2007-03-11, 02:10 PM
[disagree with some of the posters in the thread]

I don't see how disturbing the dead can be evil. They're frick dead. You know, mindless and all. Of course, raising the dead to kill people etc. is evil, but nay more evil than just killing people yourself, in my book.

[/disagree with some of the posters in the thread]

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 02:11 PM
In my worlds, a necromancer can't be LG.

Wait... why not?

I mean, a specialist necromancer could have Touch of Fatigue, Ray of Enfeeblement, Blindness/Deafness, Halt undead, Enervation, Waves of Fatigue, Undeath to Death, Waves of Exhaustion, Horrid Wilting, and I dunno, Energy Drain. And wish.

Blam! You are an anti-undead unit who's also a fatigue-mage.

Now, if you stated that you can't use [evil] spells as a wizard without being lawful good, that's still a bit unusual... but sure. But 90% of necromancy spells aren't evil at all (Halt Undead anyone?). Therefore, 90% of necromancy spells do not cost the lives of innocents or anything by RAW.

And if the wizard at any point casts 'Protection from Good' on a friend of his, does that wizard loses his ability to be lawful good?

JellyPooga
2007-03-11, 02:51 PM
One thing that seems to have been mentioned but not explored is the self-propogation of sentient undead (i.e. Vampires making more vampires, ghouls making new ghouls, etc.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of these are not processes that are a conscious decision; the Ghoul has a diseased bite, the Wights touch drains peoples life energy, etc. They are not abilities that the creature can call upon, like a wizard casts spells, but rather are properties of their particular existance like a fishes ability to breathe underwater. According to Libris Mortis, the ability to propogate can be suppressed given a Will save (or something), which indicated that it requires effort to stop it.

Thus, taking the Wight as an example, a truly good Wight would try to suppress his energy drain ability whenever he does have to attack someone with his natural attacks, but then again, a truly good undead wouldn't be attacking many people in the first place... However, the indifferent (read: neutral) Wight isn't going to take the effort and just deal with whatever consequences there are. The Evil Wight goes out of his way to kill people with his energy drain, so as to gain minions.

In my eyes, this is no different from, for example, a Fire Elemental (or similar creature) that has an aura of flame surrounding it. A good creature of this nature would avioid getting close to vunerable others, a neutral one wouldn't really care much and an evil one would go around hugging people. A sentient creatures physical nature does not have a bearing on its morality (otherwise all carnivores would be evil).

Given that most sentient undead contain the soul of the creature when it was alive, creating such a creature could be considered an evil act (though I don't know why people think that all undead live tortured existances. I suspect that if you were expecting to go to whatever heaven you were destined for, but ended up walking around rotting slightly, you might go a bit mad, which explains some of the Undead are usually evil bit I suppose...), but if you cannot help doing it, is it really all that evil? I suppose you could feel guilty about it because you are the one responsible, but I would not call it evil, as such.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so i'll stop here (though I could say more, it's all a bit too waffly for my liking). Hope I've said something relevant...

ufo
2007-03-11, 03:00 PM
One thing that seems to have been mentioned but not explored is the self-propogation of sentient undead (i.e. Vampires making more vampires, ghouls making new ghouls, etc.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of these are not processes that are a conscious decision; the Ghoul has a diseased bite, the Wights touch drains peoples life energy, etc. They are not abilities that the creature can call upon, like a wizard casts spells, but rather are properties of their particular existance like a fishes ability to breathe underwater. According to Libris Mortis, the ability to propogate can be suppressed given a Will save (or something), which indicated that it requires effort to stop it.

Thus, taking the Wight as an example, a truly good Wight would try to suppress his energy drain ability whenever he does have to attack someone with his natural attacks, but then again, a truly good undead wouldn't be attacking many people in the first place... However, the indifferent (read: neutral) Wight isn't going to take the effort and just deal with whatever consequences there are. The Evil Wight goes out of his way to kill people with his energy drain, so as to gain minions.

In my eyes, this is no different from, for example, a Fire Elemental (or similar creature) that has an aura of flame surrounding it. A good creature of this nature would avioid getting close to vunerable others, a neutral one wouldn't really care much and an evil one would go around hugging people. A sentient creatures physical nature does not have a bearing on its morality (otherwise all carnivores would be evil).

Given that most sentient undead contain the soul of the creature when it was alive, creating such a creature could be considered an evil act (though I don't know why people think that all undead live tortured existances. I suspect that if you were expecting to go to whatever heaven you were destined for, but ended up walking around rotting slightly, you might go a bit mad, which explains some of the Undead are usually evil bit I suppose...), but if you cannot help doing it, is it really all that evil? I suppose you could feel guilty about it because you are the one responsible, but I would not call it evil, as such.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so i'll stop here (though I could say more, it's all a bit too waffly for my liking). Hope I've said something relevant...


Good points, though it doesn't touch the topic of necromancers alot, it's good points.

Next time I'm DM'ing, the PCs will be undead... good undead hopefully. That would be extremely intresting.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-11, 03:31 PM
While the mechanics probably aren't quite the same (and I can't find the 'becoming a lich' rules beyond handwaving in the MM) becoming a Dracolich, described in Draconomicon, actually doesn't involve any evil acts. You just make a phylactery, make a special poison for yourself, and proceed to quasi-immortality.

Starbuck_II
2007-03-11, 03:48 PM
While the mechanics probably aren't quite the same (and I can't find the 'becoming a lich' rules beyond handwaving in the MM) becoming a Dracolich, described in Draconomicon, actually doesn't involve any evil acts. You just make a phylactery, make a special poison for yourself, and proceed to quasi-immortality.

Killing yourself is irrevocatively evil. Another reason Lich turns you evil alignment. :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 09:09 PM
Killing yourself is irrevocatively evil. Another reason Lich turns you evil alignment.
Really, why? I think killing yourself is sad and a waste but not evil. Though maybe killing yourself to create a powerful evil creature would be.


Wait... why not?

Because they are using "Evil arts". Not lawful. They could be NG,CG but not LG, because you can just become a normal wizard or necro mage. Oh maybe i should explain. I am talking about the core class necomaner, from heros of horror. A "necro mage" the class wizard can be any alignment.


I mean, a specialist necromancer could have Touch of Fatigue, Ray of Enfeeblement, Blindness/Deafness, Halt undead, Enervation, Waves of Fatigue, Undeath to Death, Waves of Exhaustion, Horrid Wilting, and I dunno, Energy Drain. And wish.
Kinda losing his most powerful abilties don't you think?


Blam! You are an anti-undead unit who's also a fatigue-mage.
Interesting idea.


Now, if you stated that you can't use [evil] spells as a wizard without being lawful good, that's still a bit unusual... but sure. But 90% of necromancy spells aren't evil at all (Halt Undead anyone?). Therefore, 90% of necromancy spells do not cost the lives of innocents or anything by RAW.
Well depends if you views raising the dead as evil. I do but not REALLY evil. it is not in the same league as torture rape or slavery (if the undead are mindless). They you can be good but use undead, just no LG.

[/QUOTE]
And if the wizard at any point casts 'Protection from Good' on a friend of his, does that wizard loses his ability to be lawful good?[/QUOTE]
No, i never made a claim like that.
from,
EE

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 09:42 PM
I am talking about the core class necomaner, from heros of horror.

I... I see. Okay, misunderstanding then, I thought you meant a wizard specialized in necromancy.

But do note that the vast majority of necromancy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor. THerefore, the vast majority of necromancy spells are not evil. So unless the class says 'you must be evil to enter', you can walk around flinging ray of enfeeblements around all day.


Kinda losing his most powerful abilties don't you think?

Again, I'm unsure about the dread necromancer himself, but Ray of Enfeeblement/Exhaustion is an astoundingly potent combo against a lot of things. Of those, the one spell I wouldn't take is halt undead, and even that has use. An anti-undead necromancer would be fun. (And necromancy would do it best)


Well depends if you views raising the dead as evil.

Well, had you said 'A spellcaster who creates undead creatures cannot be lawful good', then that's... well, slightly different. By RAW, you don't become evil when you cast evil spells. Also by RAW, however, those spells are inherently and irrevocably evil, so it's up to you.

Just don't nix all of necromancy by that statement, as necromancy has a bunch of very potent abilities that are in no way [evil].

...and it has deathwatch, which is usually the wild card. I guess it has the Material Component: A cute puppy, or possibly an orphan.

And as to your lack of claim, the spell 'Protection from Good' is an [evil] spell. In fact, Protection from Good is far more evil than the majority of spells within the necromancy school (as they are in no way evil), so hey.

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 10:28 PM
I... I see. Okay, misunderstanding then, I thought you meant a wizard specialized in necromancy.

There we go, changes the point.


But do note that the vast majority of necromancy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor. THerefore, the vast majority of necromancy spells are not evil. So unless the class says 'you must be evil to enter', you can walk around flinging ray of enfeeblements around all day.
But if you become Dread Necromancer, i presume you want to use the more powerful aspects of you magic. If you just want to use the non evil necro spell become a necro mage.



Again, I'm unsure about the dread necromancer himself, but Ray of Enfeeblement/Exhaustion is an astoundingly potent combo against a lot of things. Of those, the one spell I wouldn't take is halt undead, and even that has use. An anti-undead necromancer would be fun. (And necromancy would do it best)
As a necro mage i would agree with you, but not as good a a paladin.


Well, had you said 'A spellcaster who creates undead creatures cannot be lawful good', then that's... well, slightly different. By RAW, you don't become evil when you cast evil spells. Also by RAW, however, those spells are inherently and irrevocably evil, so it's up to you.

Just don't nix all of necromancy by that statement, as necromancy has a bunch of very potent abilities that are in no way [evil].
I never did, the class dread necomancer is normally evil but i allow it to become good but not LG as they use such "vile" magic. The magic is highly taboo, so using it would not be lawful considering that it is normally evil.

[/QUOTE]
And as to your lack of claim, the spell 'Protection from Good' is an [evil] spell. In fact, Protection from Good is far more evil than the majority of spells within the necromancy school (as they are in no way evil), so hey.[/QUOTE]


How is that evil? IF you are being attacked by a good person who you don't want to fight, just protect yourself so that you can try to reach a peace.
from,
EE

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-03-11, 10:43 PM
Raising undead is pretty evil in D&D. You can't raise a person if their original body is a shambling corpse, right? So, it's pretty much a perma-death solution and should thus be frowned upon if only because you've just made ressurecting the person it used to be very, very hard. This is looking at it from a morality point of view.

To attack it from a different angle, let's consider this- evil in D&D is an actual energy. We call it "negative energy". Creating beings composed of negative energy is thus, regardless of why you did it, evil. So is using pretty much any ability that requires/creates negative energy, since you're bringing evil energies into the world. Perhaps your reasoning for it is good, but since there's no real grey area in D&D to allow for Machiavellian attitudes, anyone frequently using the negative energy spells from the necromancy domain teeters dangerously close to falling to evil. Consider that the wizard in question could simply learn other spells that don't involve negative energy and still do good deeds. Suddenly, the jerk off that SPECIALIZED IN IT is instantly evil comparitively because while he could have gone with the other schools, he purposely chose the one that calls forth pure evil.

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 10:57 PM
Raising undead is pretty evil in D&D. You can't raise a person if their original body is a shambling corpse, right? So, it's pretty much a perma-death solution and should thus be frowned upon if only because you've just made ressurecting the person it used to be very, very hard. This is looking at it from a morality point of view.

To attack it from a different angle, let's consider this- evil in D&D is an actual energy. We call it "negative energy". Creating beings composed of negative energy is thus, regardless of why you did it, evil. So is using pretty much any ability that requires/creates negative energy, since you're bringing evil energies into the world. Perhaps your reasoning for it is good, but since there's no real grey area in D&D to allow for Machiavellian attitudes, anyone frequently using the negative energy spells from the necromancy domain teeters dangerously close to falling to evil. Consider that the wizard in question could simply learn other spells that don't involve negative energy and still do good deeds. Suddenly, the jerk off that SPECIALIZED IN IT is instantly evil comparitively because while he could have gone with the other schools, he purposely chose the one that calls forth pure evil.

Pretty much. Sure a Dread Necromancer could be NG or CG but it would be VERY rare. Most would just be evil
from,
EE

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 10:57 PM
First of all, you also stated:


In my worlds, a necromancer can't be LG. They might be able to be NG if they don't raise the dead

Why can't they be LG if they don't raise the dead?

Secondly,


How is that evil? IF you are being attacked by a good person who you don't want to fight, just protect yourself so that you can try to reach a peace.

It's just that you seem to imply that a necromancer cannot be lawful good if they summon undead, as summoning undead is [evil]. I was giving a comparison to the spell Protection from Good, which is also [evil]... it carries the same [evil] descriptor that the spell 'Animate Dead' carries. Therefore, if a spellcaster can't cast [evil] spells without turning evil, then you cannot have any lawful good units using Protection from Good for any reason.

Overall, though, I don't mind what your rule sounds like it is much. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who will raise the dead can possibly be good, but not lawful good. Which I can't say I agree with, but that's a fairly reasonable way to look at it. My single problem is that you're lumping all necromancy into it, meaning you'll punish the player who uses ray of enfeeblement, and then I'm pointing out to everyone as a whole that there are some evil spells that probably shouldn't be problematic, and that most necromancy spells, most of which are the most potent ones, are in no way evil (Not even by RAW)

Edit:


evil in D&D is an actual energy. We call it "negative energy".

Wait a minute... negative energy isn't evil. Inflict spells aren't evil. Slay living isn't evil. RAW stats as such, as neither has the [evil] descriptor and both can be utilized by good clerics, etc.

Positive energy can also kill you. And frequently does.



So, it's pretty much a perma-death solution and should thus be frowned upon if only because you've just made ressurecting the person it used to be very, very hard.


That doesn't quite fit either. You cannot Raise someone killed by a death effect either, yet Slay living is once again not [evil].


anyone frequently using the negative energy spells from the necromancy domain teeters dangerously close to falling to evil

But 90% of the spells in the necromancy domain are not evil. Ray of Enfeeblement is not evil, has no evil descriptor, and is no more evil than fireball (And is possibly less evil, as you can incapacitate without killing by using Ray of Enfeeblement). Death Ward is not evil. Protection from Good is not evil. Halt undead is not evil.

None of those spells are in the slightest evil nor have they the evil descriptor. Only a small handful of necromancy spells have the [evil] descriptor. Heck, you don't get any [evil] spells as a wizard until spell level 4, when you get two (out of 5 choices, thus a majority of spells there aren't evil either).


he purposely chose the one that calls forth pure evil.

No, he chose the school that has the best spells for dealing with undead and helping his friends. It takes necromancy to be able to deliver bull's strength to your friends from range - and spectral hand is not an [evil] spell! It has no [evil] descriptor!

Rainspattered
2007-03-11, 11:00 PM
Almost all undead critters are evil
Racism is morally grounded, so long as one keeps it to fantasy settings.

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 11:12 PM
To analyze, evil core necromancy spells that a wizard can learn:

Animate Dead, Contagion, Create Greater Undead, Create Undead, Eyebite, Symbol of Pain

That is six. There are six evil necromancy spells that a wizard can learn.

There are, inf act, only nine evil necromancy spells in the game (Core). I mean, more evil spells are not necromancy than evil spells that are necromancy. Saying Necromancy the school is inherently evil or even mostly evil is incorrect. Even evil wizard-specialists are likely forced to use more spells that are not evil than spells that are evil, simply because most spells aren't evil.

Turcano
2007-03-11, 11:16 PM
To attack it from a different angle, let's consider this- evil in D&D is an actual energy. We call it "negative energy". Creating beings composed of negative energy is thus, regardless of why you did it, evil. So is using pretty much any ability that requires/creates negative energy, since you're bringing evil energies into the world.

I should remind you that the rules don't actually state that negative energy by itself is evil, just within the context of undead. There are other explanations for the inherent evil of undead that don't directly involve negative energy. (For instance, my pet explanation is that the animating spirit of mindless undead,which is analogous to the elemental spirit that animates a golem, is evil and comes either from the Plane of Negative Energy or the Plane of Shadow.)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-03-12, 12:05 AM
Hmm, negative energy isn't the evil energy source? I guess RAW supports that. I guess I have to concede my second point at least.

Still, usage and/or specialization in spells clearly labled as evil is certainly an evil act by their descriptor. Not all necromancy is evil, of course, but when most people choose to play necromancers, they don't think "Hmm, I believe I will choose necromancy as my school so that I can fight the undead and help with healing a little like a poor-man's cleric with the benefits of a few good arcane spells". No, they think "Awesome, defiling corpses and rending souls!". The former is certainly possible and might actually be fun to play. But the latter is, realistically, what 99% of everyone always does.

afternoon
2007-03-12, 01:14 AM
The RAW says that channelling negative energy is an evil act, at least in the 3.0 turning undead section.

But I'm going to go ahead and assume being raised unwillingly as a zombie or wight or other form of undead is unpleasant. They're not in control of their body or mind, and are forced to run around consuming flesh and yada yada, most of the time.

I have difficulty seeing how essentially torturing a spirit isn't evil.

Kantolin
2007-03-12, 02:21 AM
I have difficulty seeing how essentially torturing a spirit isn't evil.

The arguments for animate dead basically suggest that, since it doesn't really effect the soul, it being evil is more of a cultural thing than an inherent thing - I mean, you're not actually doing anything with your body once you're dead and no longer occupying the real estate.

For me personally throughout this debate, I'm making a distinction between 'all spells in the necromancy school' and 'Spells with the evil descriptor / spells that summon undead' ^_^ Just in case that wasn't clear.


But the latter is, realistically, what 99% of everyone always does.

That I can see, from a PC perspective... most people wish to be a necromancer to summon an undead horde. Still, saying wizard-specialist necromancers (Or the school of necromancy) is then banned is like banning Rogues because they tend to be thieves and steal from the party. ^_^

Turcano
2007-03-12, 02:48 AM
Still, usage and/or specialization in spells clearly labled as evil is certainly an evil act by their descriptor. Not all necromancy is evil, of course, but when most people choose to play necromancers, they don't think "Hmm, I believe I will choose necromancy as my school so that I can fight the undead and help with healing a little like a poor-man's cleric with the benefits of a few good arcane spells". No, they think "Awesome, defiling corpses and rending souls!". The former is certainly possible and might actually be fun to play. But the latter is, realistically, what 99% of everyone always does.

That's essentially the difference between a good/neutral necromancer and an evil one. It's just that people, as you said, tend to play evil necromancers to the extent that the reputation of the entire school suffers as a result.


The RAW says that channelling negative energy is an evil act, at least in the 3.0 turning undead section.

As I said (although I might not have been clear), that's specific to undead. The only evil uses of necromancy that don't involve undead* are the spells contagion, curse water, death knell, deathwatch, eyebite, and symbol of pain; of those, only curse water explicitly mentions negative energy. By contrast, chill touch, energy drain, enervation, ghoul touch, harm, inflict X wounds, touch of fatigue, waves of exhaustion, and waves of fatigue all mention negative energy without being evil. Moreover, disrupt undead uses positive energy, so negative energy is by no means the only force behind necromancy.

*Spontaneous inflict spells are tied to rebuking undead and are therefore related to that use of negative energy; you can't have one without the other.


But I'm going to go ahead and assume being raised unwillingly as a zombie or wight or other form of undead is unpleasant. They're not in control of their body or mind, and are forced to run around consuming flesh and yada yada, most of the time.

I have difficulty seeing how essentially torturing a spirit isn't evil.
The soul of the dead creature in question is not used in the process of animating/creating undead as far as we can tell; the deceased's soul has moved on to the Outer Planes. An animating spirit (like a golem's) is a more plausible explanation, to me at least.

PnP Fan
2007-03-12, 10:56 AM
Um. . I don't have any research to back this up, but I think, in most medieval societies, defiling of the body gets chalked up to evil. I believe this is rooted in the idea that there is a connection between the treatment of the body, and it's afterlife (whatever flavor that might be) are connected. So, violating funerary rites, possibly jeapardizing the afterlife of the deceased, particularly if the person was virtuous, could probably be classified as "evil".
Alternatively, one might consider that the creation of undead is a violation of the natural order of life and death as arbitrarily defined by the gawds, making it an evil act.
Of course, you could make the SRD argument that follows something like this: SRD says it's evil. ..therefore it's evil. Disregard flavor text/fluff discrepancies. ;-)

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 01:32 PM
First of all, you also stated:



Why can't they be LG if they don't raise the dead?


If you don't want to raise the dead, why become a Dread Necromancer? Also i find the idea of a class that becomes a lich and has many abilties to control undead rather evil. It is what i call mildly evil arts. So no, they can't be LG. If you want to use Necromancy and not raise the dead, become a Necro mage.



It's just that you seem to imply that a necromancer cannot be lawful good if they summon undead, as summoning undead is [evil]. I was giving a comparison to the spell Protection from Good, which is also [evil]... it carries the same [evil] descriptor that the spell 'Animate Dead' carries. Therefore, if a spellcaster can't cast [evil] spells without turning evil, then you cannot have any lawful good units using Protection from Good for any reason.
Protection from good is an evil spell? Strange i did not know that.


Overall, though, I don't mind what your rule sounds like it is much. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who will raise the dead can possibly be good, but not lawful good. Which I can't say I agree with, but that's a fairly reasonable way to look at it.
Makes perfect sense to me.


My single problem is that you're lumping all necromancy into it, meaning you'll punish the player who uses ray of enfeeblement, and then I'm pointing out to everyone as a whole that there are some evil spells that probably shouldn't be problematic, and that most necromancy spells, most of which are the most potent ones, are in no way evil (Not even by RAW)
No i never made thatt claim. Necromancy is fine if you don't raise the dead. Dread Necomancers however, have many dubious abilities and many of their spell are related to undead. If you want to pratice necromancy and be LG become a necro mage. If not, become a Dread Necromancer.
Edit:




Wait a minute... negative energy isn't evil. Inflict spells aren't evil. Slay living isn't evil. RAW stats as such, as neither has the [evil] descriptor and both can be utilized by good clerics, etc.
Negative engergy harms. Postive cures. Negative enegery is the source of undead. Kinda evil.


Positive energy can also kill you. And frequently does.
It can also heal you. And frequently does.



That doesn't quite fit either. You cannot Raise someone killed by a death effect either, yet Slay living is once again not [evil].
So? Killing somebody with flame arrow at least lets their soul rest, which undead spells don't. And when i cast slay evil, at lest they don't rise again.



But 90% of the spells in the necromancy domain are not evil. Ray of Enfeeblement is not evil, has no evil descriptor, and is no more evil than fireball (And is possibly less evil, as you can incapacitate without killing by using Ray of Enfeeblement). Death Ward is not evil. Protection from Good is not evil. Halt undead is not evil.
Become a Necro magee\.


[/QUOTE]
No, he chose the school that has the best spells for dealing with undead and helping his friends. It takes necromancy to be able to deliver bull's strength to your friends from range - and spectral hand is not an [evil] spell! It has no [evil] descriptor![/QUOTE]

Yet again necro mage.
from,
EE

Zincorium
2007-03-12, 05:30 PM
If you don't want to raise the dead, why become a Dread Necromancer? Also i find the idea of a class that becomes a lich and has many abilties to control undead rather evil. It is what i call mildly evil arts. So no, they can't be LG. If you want to use Necromancy and not raise the dead, become a Necro mage.


Dread Necromancer is not the same as necromancer, and the latter is far more common because it is core, whereas Dread Necromancer is a class with a far darker flavor, as evidenced by the book it comes from, heroes of horror. Also, WTF is a necromage? A wizard specializing in necromancy? The term for that is necromancer. Just not a dread one.



No i never made thatt claim. Necromancy is fine if you don't raise the dead. Dread Necomancers however, have many dubious abilities and many of their spell are related to undead. If you want to pratice necromancy and be LG become a necro mage. If not, become a Dread Necromancer.


Dread necromancers can't be good anyway, it's an alignment restriction based off of fluff unique to that class. And again, when most people say necromancer, they're referring to a specialist wizard with necromancy as their favored school. I don't think anyone is arguing the dread necromancer can be good (by the rules they can't), they're arguing that regular, non-dread necromancers can be good, even lawful good.



Negative engergy harms. Postive cures. Negative enegery is the source of undead. Kinda evil.


Fire burns and kills. It's incredibly destructive. So is every other damage type around. Negative energy destroys life, which is only evil if destroying that life is evil.

And seriously, the argument that negative energy is evil because it powers undead which are evil because they're made with negative energy is an obviously circular argument. Don't leave it at that if you want to make a point.



So? Killing somebody with flame arrow at least lets their soul rest, which undead spells don't. And when i cast slay evil, at lest they don't rise again.


WHY OH WHY does this keep getting brought up. THERE IS NO REASON to believe that a spell making undead takes a person's soul and puts it into that body. The entire D&D cosmology of Forgotten realms, Eberron, and Greyhawk strongly suggests that no matter what happens to your body, you go to your god's domain. Trap the Soul, which actually does trap your soul in something, is a freaking 8th level spell. Saying that a lowly third level spell does the same thing and gives you a minion is an incredibly stupid claim. I know you found something in some 'book of the undead', but Libris Mortis, the only real WotC book on the subject, doesn't mention it, and I've looked.


And lastly, again, wtf is a necro mage? You keep using that term.

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 08:27 PM
Dread Necromancer is not the same as necromancer, and the latter is far more common because it is core, whereas Dread Necromancer is a class with a far darker flavor, as evidenced by the book it comes from, heroes of horror. Also, WTF is a necromage? A wizard specializing in necromancy? The term for that is necromancer. Just not a dread one.

Read my earlier posts, i mentioned that. Several times.


Dread necromancers can't be good anyway, it's an alignment restriction based off of fluff unique to that class. And again, when most people say necromancer, they're referring to a specialist wizard with necromancy as their favored school. I don't think anyone is arguing the dread necromancer can be good (by the rules they can't), they're arguing that regular, non-dread necromancers can be good, even lawful good.
I also already adressed that.


Fire burns and kills. It's incredibly destructive. So is every other damage type around. Negative energy destroys life, which is only evil if destroying that life is evil.
But it also creats undead. Not nice.


And seriously, the argument that negative energy is evil because it powers undead which are evil because they're made with negative energy is an obviously circular argument. Don't leave it at that if you want to make a point.
Negative engergy does not just power undead, it controls them. It makes them exist thus making them (or 99%) evil.


WHY OH WHY does this keep getting brought up. THERE IS NO REASON to believe that a spell making undead takes a person's soul and puts it into that body. The entire D&D cosmology of Forgotten realms, Eberron, and Greyhawk strongly suggests that no matter what happens to your body, you go to your god's domain. Trap the Soul, which actually does trap your soul in something, is a freaking 8th level spell. Saying that a lowly third level spell does the same thing and gives you a minion is an incredibly stupid claim. [/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but if my body is walking around i think i would be a little peeved. And we do know that wights, wraiths, ghouls, ghast, mummies, vampires, and spectors have the souls of who they were when they were alive. If you count Eberron, what about those intellgent zombies and skeltons that one nations uses.

[/QUOTE]
And lastly, again, wtf is a necro mage? You keep using that term.[/QUOTE]
Read the thread before posting upon it. I mentioned that i call the wizard specialist a "Necro mage" for the purpose of knowing the difference between them and say, a dread necromancer or a true necromancer.

from
EE

Enzario
2007-03-12, 09:11 PM
Interesting that no one has noted that a non-specialized wizard can still cast ALL WIZARD NECROMANCY SPELLS. A necromancer is special just because he can cast a few more necromancy spells per day than the other guy. Therefore, if you say that a necromancy-specialized wizard has to be evil, then there is logical argument for an alignment restriction on any wizard that hasn't chosen necromancy as a prohibited school.


Yes but some classes get lighter senteces then others. In my worlds, a necromancer can't be LG. They might be able to be NG if they don't raise the dead (But summoning them, or controling already raised ones is barely ok) and if they raise mindless undead to fight evil they might, and i empathis might be CG.


Wait, what?
You are essentially stating that a necromancer can't be lawful. I was under the impression that this was more a discussion on the ETHICS of necromancy, not whether the person using said school of magic adheres to a personal code.
Restrict to evil/neutral? Makes sense
Restrict to neutral/chaotic? What makes necromancy a chaotic act?

Also, in response to the numerous people talking about torturing souls, it states in the RAW that when an individual dies, its soul travels to the plane corresponding to its diety or alignment. I think that raising undead is more of defiling corpses than souls, because if you were to raise a corpse, would you want the original soul competing for control of the body with the negative energy it is infested with? I thought not. If the soul returned to the body, then create undead in effect is a reincarnation spell. Makes no sense.

I rest my case.

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 09:35 PM
[QUOTE=Enzario;2182055]Interesting that no one has noted that a non-specialized wizard can still cast ALL WIZARD NECROMANCY SPELLS. A necromancer is special just because he can cast a few more necromancy spells per day than the other guy. Therefore, if you say that a necromancy-specialized wizard has to be evil, then there is logical argument for an alignment restriction on any wizard that hasn't chosen necromancy as a prohibited school.



Wait, what?
You are essentially stating that a necromancer can't be lawful. I was under the impression that this was more a discussion on the ETHICS of necromancy, not whether the person using said school of magic adheres to a personal code.
Restrict to evil/neutral? Makes sense
Restrict to neutral/chaotic? What makes necromancy a chaotic act?

QUOTE]

No a Dread Necromancer can be LN or LE. Just not LG because they are praticing fobidding. A "necro mage" or a wizard who chooses the necromancer school can be any aligment he wants, but can't be LG if raises undead.
From,
EE

Zincorium
2007-03-12, 11:03 PM
Negative engergy does not just power undead, it controls them. It makes them exist thus making them (or 99%) evil.


I don't know about you, but if my body is walking around i think i would be a little peeved. And we do know that wights, wraiths, ghouls, ghast, mummies, vampires, and spectors have the souls of who they were when they were alive. If you count Eberron, what about those intellgent zombies and skeltons that one nations uses.


Okay, yes, I missed the one post out of many where you told everyone that you were going to be using messed up terminology. My bad. But if you'd use the same terms as everyone else, including wizards of the coast, that wouldn't be a problem, now would it? And as far as addressing stuff, you're not doing a very good job of supporting your arguments. I'm at least using the books that form the basis of the world we're talking about. As far as I can tell, you could just be making it up, since there's no evidence given to the contrary.

And no, as far as the bolded section of what you wrote, we don't. They have the memories and abilities of what they were when they were alive. If you want me to go along with this charade, pull out your book and give me a paragraph where it specifically says that undead retain the specific soul of the dead person. I've looked, trust me, I've looked very hard to see if I'm wrong on this one, and there just flat out isn't any information.

And what makes you think you'd even know? The souls of the dead are on the plane of their diety and 99% of the time they aren't even sentient, the rest of the time they're outsiders and have a whole lot more to worry about than they're body walking around back home without their permission. THAT is the world we're given.

TheOOB
2007-03-12, 11:47 PM
You still have to consider that while you may not be trapping the soul of a creature, you still are bringing an evil creature into the world. I don't care what your intentions are, bringing a ghoul into the world isn't a good thing.

Kantolin
2007-03-13, 12:08 AM
I think we're more or less in agreement, then. Whether or not undead-summoning is evil, the school of necromancy... not so much.

I'm unsure as to your final stance on negative energy, but using negative energy is not intrinsically evil itself.

Okay then! As a final statement, though...


I don't know about you, but if my body is walking around i think i would be a little peeved.

I dunno... if I was killed by some evil orc, and upon looking down from the seven mounting halls of Celestia I noted that a necromancer within the town was using my body to help prevent the orcs from burning the town down and sacking everything and carting off my loved ones, I'd be rather cool with that. ^_^

But eh. By RAW, undead-summoning is evil, necromancy as a school isn't. Personally, I tend to remove the 'undead-summoning is evil' clause, but hey.

psiryu
2007-03-13, 09:41 AM
I’m just going to say my peace on this. In my opinion there is no part of necromancy that is evil, the creation of undead is not evil, the pain spells are not evil, nothing in necromancy is evil (unless you make it evil).

Undead, mindless undead anyway, should be neutral not evil. They are mindless animated objects that have no though process so they can not separated the ideas of good and evil much like animals therefor they should be neutral.

The creation of undead does not touch the soul of the dead creature if it did then you wouldn’t have to use negative magical energy in order to animate it. And if it did use the soul of the creature we would have to start making conjurers evil because they summon and bind outer planners to do their bidding which is no different to animating the dead.

Someone obove said that spells that inflict pain or suffering are evil, so therefor most evocation spells are evil as they deal damage which inflicts pain. Who new, magic missile is an evil spell.

For my closing rant animating dead being evil has nothing to do with being "unnatural" if it did then ALL magic would be evil, as magic isn’t all that natural you know.

this is of course how I see things, every one will see it diffrently.

Telonius
2007-03-13, 10:42 AM
Not all Necromancy spells are evil. Some of them are actually pretty tame, and even good-ish. Something like "Gentle Repose" I could see being used by undertaker-types, to preserve a body until it's practical to give it a proper burial. Halt or Disrupt Undead actively fights against evil creatures. Astral Projection - Necromancy, because (I assume) it separates soul from body for awhile. Nothing particularly evil about it. Even Mark of Justice is Necromancy-based, which is certainly an eminently Lawful spell to cast.

Hoggmaster
2007-03-13, 10:46 AM
The old AD&D splat the Complete guide to Necromancer had varients for "good" Necromancers
From the book....


Benign or White Necromancy

A third and final category of necromancy embraces magic of a benign or beneficial nature. White necromancy includes spells which restore and fortify the living body or life force (such as delay death (WH), empathic wound transfer, bone growth, Spendelard's chaser (FOR), Nulathoe's ninemen (FOR), and reincarnation) or derive their power from the caster's own life force (such as spirit armor (TOM) or homunculus shield (TOM)) or can be used only to disable undead (such as hold undead and bind undead). Note, however, that spells that control undead are not considered white necromancy!
Although white magic can be used to heal wounds and bone fractures, it is no substitute for clerical healing. White necromancy derives its healing power from a volunteer's source of life energy (often the caster's), as in empathic wound transfer. Clerical magic, in contrast, bestows healing through a combination of faith and divine authority. Short of a wish (or for a brief duration, a limited wish), wizard spells cannot "create" new hit points - the Art usually shuttles life force from a donor to recipient.
In contrast with black and gray necromancy, white magic has absolutely no chance of attracting the attention of an evil god. No powers check is ever required for casting a spell of white necromancy (except, perhaps, in Ravenloft).
Wizards of good alignment will thus employ white necromancy over those spells with questionable moral implications. Of course, nothing prevents evil mages from employing these spells as well, provided that doing so suits their own dark purposes. During an emergency, when a wizard needs to heal allies (or him- or herself) and no cleric is available, even the most dark-hearted necromancer will resort to white magic