Good-aligned Necromancer?

[5w337x7007h]

Now I saw this idea on Imgur about a guy who played a necromancer that used the undead for good, so here's the post. http://i.imgur.com/2VL2yqd.png

I've been pondering this belief for a while, that not all necromancers are inherently evil. That there are Necromancers that seek to create a semblance of balance in the world, keeping the evil at bay with the dead who would happily, in life, do this without question anyways.

Any ideas where I should start? I'm thinking a Heretic of the Clergy of Pharasma might be a good starting point.

[OldTrees1]

Let's see. I have done this 3 ways.

1) Bodies are property of the soul. The soul can do with them what it wishes even including granting it to a necromancer. (Basically: "undead via permission")

2) Energy is neutral. How you use them matters. (Ended up trying to create a post racism/typism/sexism/... and post scarcity society in the wastelands)

3) [Technically I played this as Blue/Orange morality but it could be Good] Death is not evil. The Goddess of Death deserves just as much reverence has her sister the Lady of Life. Undeath is one of her tools to balance the out flow of souls.

[5w337x7007h]

Could I technically follow this path as an Alchemist, if at all possible? Edit: Nevermind, figured out that the undead a Reanimator creates are uncontrolled.

[Doc_Maynot]

I'm currently playing a CG Necromancer. I'm however using Necromancer (Undead Focused) Wizard 1/Sage Blooded Arcanist 19 (in order to just use Int). I picked up the School Understanding Arcane Exploit with a feat allowing me to have my Arcanist and Wizard levels stack for the powers of my wizard school.
I also use Sacred Geometry to help me extend Command Undead so that I can just use that power for the uninteligent undead.

The character believes that she is just animating the bodies (seeing as I primarily deal with unintelligent undead) with a false soul. She still treats the undead like friends or pets depending on the creature she animated. And so far even the Paladin has had no complaints about it seeing as she's been keeping him in the loop with her undead. He even is encouraging it to help the kingdom out. (We are playing Kingmaker)

[atemu1234]

I've seen tragic-type necromancers. Usually with a dead loved one in the background, who they brought back as zombies or somesuch.

[Edenbeast]

I think the White Necromancer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design/white-necromancer) is probably what you are looking for. You mentioned Pharasma, so I assumed you play Pathfinder.

[Psyren]

I think the White Necromancer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/kobold-press-open-design/white-necromancer) is probably what you are looking for. You mentioned Pharasma, so I assumed you play Pathfinder.

Keep in mind this is a third party class. In general, neutral necromancy (never mind good) is difficult to pull off in Pathfinder (or 3.5 for that matter) without houserules.

You have an okay concept but it's your GM you need to sell on it.

[Vhaidara]

I personally allow it, but usually the difference between Good and Neutral is that Good gets the permission of the soul first (Speak with Dead is usually given as an at-will SLA for such characters)

[lytokk]

Not to steal the thread, but I'm working on something like this right now (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?393827-Priest-of-the-White-Hand-(good-necromancer)-WIP), and could use some feedback. I don't see why there's any reason necromancy couldn't be used for good. So long as the undead are volunteers. Speaking with the dead could easily offer closure to grieving relatives, stuff like that.

[thematgreen]

I don't know if this helps, but:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389361-Necromancy-Not-Evil-would-you-allow-this

[5w337x7007h]

To add to my knowledge of history, I remember a classic necromancer from the Diablo books, Zayl. His entire family and culture revolve around the belief that necromancy is a neutral magic that is only as evil as it's user. Their order is dedicated to preserving the balance of good and evil, only acting when evil becomes to prevalent in the world.

His expertise in necromancy is amazing. You can find him as a protagonist in Kingdom of Shadows and Moon of the Spider.

[Bucky]

I personally allow it, but usually the difference between Good and Neutral is that Good gets the permission of the soul first (Speak with Dead is usually given as an at-will SLA for such characters)

Pre-death permission should be good enough, and is much easier to obtain.

I recall one homebrew setting with an order of paladins, many of whom would elect to continue serving after death. Which meant the order needed a few good-aligned necromancers to allow them to do so.

[Vhaidara]

Pre-death permission should be good enough, and is much easier to obtain.

Yes, but not always an option.

[Temotei]

If you're into homebrew, Krimm's white necromancer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?93644-White-Necromancer-PrC) might work for you.

[Toilet Cobra]

This actually came up in our group back in third when we had a Dread Necromancer and a pally being rolled up in the same group. Both the players and the DM (me) wanted to avoid conflict while keeping the RP solid. So we fluffed the DN to be a little more benevolent by adding the idea that using someone's body or soul to create an undead allowed them to redeem themselves for a life of sin. Basically, if you were a bandit and you died, you might be damned, but you could 'work off' some of that punishment by fighting as a zombie against evil monsters. That particular necromancer was only neutral, but it would have worked basically the same if he'd been LG.

[Naanomi]

A cultural approach is a good one to take. One of the big nations in my home campaign has everyone turning into an Undead after death as part of their Caste system... some continue their labors as Zombies or Skeletons; others are made into intelligent undead to continue their studies or advise living rulers with their wisdom. Even incorporeal undead, though not intentionally created, are utilized and guided when found. Only vampires (for historic reasons) and Ghouls (for the damage they can do to 'sacred corpses') are really reviled.

While the society itself is Lawful Neutral with some secretly Lawful Evil types in the upper politics; there is (and has been) room for Good necromancers trained by the death-cult.

[Coidzor]

Now I saw this idea on Imgur about a guy who played a necromancer that used the undead for good, so here's the post. http://i.imgur.com/2VL2yqd.png

I've been pondering this belief for a while, that not all necromancers are inherently evil. That there are Necromancers that seek to create a semblance of balance in the world, keeping the evil at bay with the dead who would happily, in life, do this without question anyways.

Any ideas where I should start? I'm thinking a Heretic of the Clergy of Pharasma might be a good starting point.

Where to start? Probing your DM to see where they stand on things and if they agree with the Paizo devs that it should always be EVIL, EVIL, EVILL-E or if they can entertain the notion long enough to not just do it to screw you as part of a surprise reveal halfway through the game.

Following that, it sounds like you've either read the 3.5 homebrew PrC Redeemer of Regrets (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9994058&postcount=14) floating around these boards or you'd be interested in reading it for yourself. Formatting's a bit painful to read, but I believe all of the pertinent information is the the text rather than the table anyway. Well, ok, maybe some of the chassis information is still in the broken table, but that should be the easisest part to parse even if it takes a few minutes.

[JusticeZero]

Alignment has no effect whatsoever on your behavior, so why does the question matter? Seriously, before continuing, it needs to be made clear exactly why a do-gooder should CARE if they have an E on their sheet. It isn't stopping them from doing good after all.

[grarrrg]

To add to my knowledge of history, I remember a classic necromancer from the Diablo books, Zayl. His entire family and culture revolve around the belief that necromancy is a neutral magic that is only as evil as it's user. Their order is dedicated to preserving the balance of good and evil, only acting when evil becomes to prevalent in the world.

His expertise in necromancy is amazing. You can find him as a protagonist in Kingdom of Shadows and Moon of the Spider.

Diablo Necromancy /= DnD Necromancy.

Diablo necromancers are very much Neutral. And they worship some spirit/bone dragon/god/thing.
They are about preserving "the balance", which is NOT the same as "the balance between good and evil".
There are (at least) 3 "worlds" in the Diablo universe, the "angel" one, the "demon" one, and the "human" one. The angels are locked in an eternal war with the demons. The human world was founded by angels and demons that no longer wanted any part of the fight, and humans are their "offspring".
The demons are (obviously) evil, but the angels aren't so much "good" as they are VERY overly Lawful. Both want to control the human world as it would give their side an advantage in their war.
The bone dragon guy founded the necromancers to keep either side from gaining much of a foothold in the human world. So they would fight the angels just as much as they would fight demons, except for the fact that the angels don't have as much of an obvious presence/influence going on.

[P.F.]

Alignment has no effect whatsoever on your behavior, so why does the question matter? Seriously, before continuing, it needs to be made clear exactly why a do-gooder should CARE if they have an E on their sheet. It isn't stopping them from doing good after all.

It's all fun and games until the mob with torches and pitchforks and good-aligned clerics and wizards decides to hunt you down.

[atemu1234]

It's all fun and games until the mob with torches and pitchforks and good-aligned clerics and wizards decides to hunt you down.

Meh, just another Friday for me.
...
...
...
No one told me that hobo had a family!

[Coidzor]

Alignment has no effect whatsoever on your behavior, so why does the question matter? Seriously, before continuing, it needs to be made clear exactly why a do-gooder should CARE if they have an E on their sheet. It isn't stopping them from doing good after all.

If the DM isn't willing to play ball with the player on a non-Evil Necromancer, do you really think they're not going to give them penalties for not roleplaying their Evil alignment properly? Or that they won't NPCify the character or ban it because they're one of those DMs that bans Evil PCs? :smallconfused:

I mean, sure, OK, they might not, but then, they're also fairly likely to fall into that camp if they're that married to the idea that Necromancy must always be Evil. I'd say they're more likely to fall into that camp than to not fall into that camp, just going by whether or not they'd work with a player for non-Evil Necromancy.

[P.F.]

If the DM isn't willing to play ball with the player on a non-Evil Necromancer, do you really think they're not going to give them penalties for not roleplaying their Evil alignment properly?

What if we imagine a character who goes around kicking puppies. Does it several times a day. Keeps puppies for the purpose of kicking them, even. Has Neutral Evil or somesuch written on his character sheet.

Other than that he's a really nice guy. Polite, friendly, will go out of his way to help you. Hates the idea of innocent people being killed or oppressed. Slays demons. Thinks of himself as a good person, while he's kicking a puppy. Doesn't see why kicking puppies is wrong, believes it's making the world a better place, even. Sure, everyone thinks he's evil, but he's doing it anyway.

What DM in the world would argue that he isn't playing his alignment properly?

It's only when the puppy-kicking "good-guy" wants to put "Good" down as his alignment and be treated as if he were good that I take exception.

[Coidzor]

What if we imagine a character who goes around kicking puppies. Does it several times a day. Keeps puppies for the purpose of kicking them, even. Has Neutral Evil or somesuch written on his character sheet.

Other than that he's a really nice guy. Polite, friendly, will go out of his way to help you. Hates the idea of innocent people being killed or oppressed. Slays demons. Thinks of himself as a good person, while he's kicking a puppy. Doesn't see why kicking puppies is wrong, believes it's making the world a better place, even. Sure, everyone thinks he's evil, but he's doing it anyway.

Ok, so the character is deluded and thinks they're good when really they're evil. That's not going to satisfy the desire of a player who wants to play a legitimately good necromancer and is only marginally better than one of the several "**** yous" that a DM could pull with a player by pretending to go along with the player's desire only to screw them later, mostly because someone who wasn't actually married to the good necromancer so much as one that could actually be played with the rest of the party might actually be able to do something with that setup... so long as no Paladins or Clerics of hardass Good deities were involved, anyway.


What DM in the world would argue that he isn't playing his alignment properly?

I've run into several on this forum and several people who have had DMs who would complain or ban the character because they don't want to deal with insane or deluded PCs.


It's only when the puppy-kicking "good-guy" wants to put "Good" down as his alignment and be treated as if he were good that I take exception.

OK. The DM is ultimate arbiter of whether Necromancy is Evil in their game. I disagree with your position that it should always be Evil in all games if that is, in fact, your position, but I otherwise have no issue with you so long as you're actually upfront with your players about it.

[Mystral]

Undead are evil.

Creating evil creatures is an evil act.

Doing evil means to accomplish good is neutral at best.

You can occasionally do that and stay good, but not all the time.

Simple as that.

[5w337x7007h]

How does alignment work anyways? Is it the natural state of mind that detect spells are looking at, or is it their deity's point of view that they're looking through?

Imagine two people sitting at a table. One sees his/herself as a hero, committing acts of bravery and valor for the good of all, while the other sees a soldier who piously commits acts that would be perceived as severe criminal behavior.

Who is in the right? The first, or the second? Would a detect evil spell even work if that 'hero' believes, without a doubt, that what he's doing is good, or would it detect evil like the second believes it should?

[Mystral]

That really depends on the world you are playing in. Sometimes it's like karma, where you load up on "good" or "evil" karma according to your deeds. Sometimes it's more vague. Sometimes, good and evil are real forces in the world that battle each other and influence people, so that you change into an evil person when you cast evil spells too much.

[goto124]

A system where casting 'Evil' spells turns you 'Evil' isn't likely to work well for a well-meaning good necromancer, especially if she'll have to cast 'Evil' spells all the time.

It probably works best in games where alignment doesn't do much, or even exist at all.

Usually alignments are to guide (not enforce) roleplaying, and add to a few paladin/cleric spells I think?

[JusticeZero]

How does alignment work anyways? Is it the natural state of mind that detect spells are looking at, or is it their deity's point of view that they're looking through?
The way to prevent such spells from being useless is to assume that they are reporting the point of view of whatever or whoever is in charge of relegating souls to their relevant planes. The alignment planes are a thing. Everything is sorted into them. Something dictated the original sorting criteria, and that is what the spell will test.

Anyways, any GM who first moves the alignment of a character whose behavior is consistent, then tries to complain because the behavior didn't change when the descriptive alignment moved, isn't worth role-playing in front of in the first place. People play characters, not letters.

[Psyren]

The way to prevent such spells from being useless is to assume that they are reporting the point of view of whatever or whoever is in charge of relegating souls to their relevant planes. The alignment planes are a thing. Everything is sorted into them. Something dictated the original sorting criteria, and that is what the spell will test.

Anyways, any GM who first moves the alignment of a character whose behavior is consistent, then tries to complain because the behavior didn't change when the descriptive alignment moved, isn't worth role-playing in front of in the first place. People play characters, not letters.

An academic question then - what would that Good-behaving PC do if they were to later learn that (a) weaknesses/tears in the planar border were causing undead to run rampant and slaughter innocents in remote areas, and that (b) his necromantic activities were contributing to those tears? Would he keep doing it, or stop?

[JusticeZero]

An academic question then - what would that Good-behaving PC do if they were to later learn that (a) weaknesses/tears in the planar border were causing undead to run rampant and slaughter innocents in remote areas, and that (b) his necromantic activities were contributing to those tears? Would he keep doing it, or stop?
I don't know; that's up to the character to decide. A lot of "Good Necromancer" types tend to have their zombies smashing skeletons i'm sure.
My objection is to the scenario where:
1: Player creates a character, and acts generally like Category A.
2: The GM declares "Player's character is doing things that fall under Category B", and puts Character in Category B.
3: The GM declares "Character is acting like Category A even though they are in Category B", and punishes the player.
I have no objection to steps one or two of the sequence; it is step three, after steps one and two, that transform the series into farce. The character was created following a nice set of behavior, and being a team player. The character is CONTINUING to be played as a nice team player. the GM decides to re-classify the characters' relationship to the physics of the universe based on the mechanics of how the character does its niceness. None of these are problematic. It is only the step where the GM decides that the classification THEY PUT THE CHARACTER INTO doesn't describe the character as a whole, THEN PUNISHES THEM FOR IT, that makes the game into a laughable mockery of the concept of roleplay.
If a nice character happens to be [Evil] because of how physics classifies what they do, then so be it, this has no effect on the characterization of the character. If the GM wants necromancy to be evil instead of merely [Evil], they need to descriptively highlight this every time the necromancer wants to do something. The first and every time the necromancer casts a spell to animate the dead, the GM needs to describe the way that the spell is imprisoning and torturing the soul of the previous owner, or whatever.

[Psyren]

That really depends on what exactly you mean by "punish." You're correct in that a player is free to act however they choose regardless of labels, and the DM should avoid dictating/mandating that they behave a different way just because one of those labels changes.

However, if a player's actions (no matter how well-intentioned) have negative consequences, and the DM highlights some of those negative consequences or even chooses to make some of them relative to the story being told, I don't know that I'd necessarily call that punishment. In that case it's less "you're not acting like someone with your alignment tag should act so I'm penalizing you" and more "despite your noble efforts elsewhere, you keep doing X, and these are some potential downsides to repeatedly doing X. If you don't want this to happen, you'll need to stop doing X; otherwise, you'll have to live with the downsides."

[JusticeZero]

All of the consequences described are OOC ones. "I will ban you for being too evil in spite of the fact that all of the actually ethically meaningful behaviors you do are nonevil" is OOC. "I will take away your XP for trying to behave the same way your character has always acted" is OOC. Getting smacked by Detect spells that flag the character as evil is just an accepted job hazard that shouldn't stop a character from rescuing kittens and helping little old ladies across streets the same way they always were.

[OldTrees1]

An academic question then - what would that Good-behaving PC do if they were to later learn that (a) weaknesses/tears in the planar border were causing undead to run rampant and slaughter innocents in remote areas, and that (b) his necromantic activities were contributing to those tears? Would he keep doing it, or stop?

Well that depends on the character's estimates of unspecified details. However it basically boils down to: "How can I best act to end/reduce this threat?". Stopping, reducing, continuing, and increasing(temporarily) are all possible answers to that question. However something common would be trying to stop the other activities that are contributing to the problem while also trying to protect those at risk. How to do that also varies based on unspecified details like "What is the distribution of all the activities that contribute to the problem?", "What strategy(war, assassination, bribery, diplomacy, education, ...) would be most effective at ending those activities?", "What is the distribution of those at risk?", and "What strategy(relocation, recruit defenders, fortify, ...) would be most effective at protecting those at risk?".


I can see one Necromancer creating an army of necromancers to spread out and absorb the incoming waves of uncontrolled undead.

I can see another Necromancer drop all negative energy activities and dive full on into positive energy necromancy.

I can see another Necromancer sending messangers and diplomats across the world to inform other necromancers of this common problem in an effort to get everyone to halt.

I can see another Necromancer speeding around the globe slaying necromancers and using their undead against the next necromancer until only they remain(at which time they stop being a necromancer).

I can see another Necromancer with low Int/Wis that goes "I don't understand".

[Coidzor]

How does alignment work anyways? Is it the natural state of mind that detect spells are looking at, or is it their deity's point of view that they're looking through?

Unless you're playing in a game where the deities have explicitly defined what is Good and what is Evil and what is Lawful and what is Chaotic, then any individual deity's POV is irrelevant when it comes to alignment, but not if one is dependent upon them granting a character divine spellcasting. I have yet to encounter anything along those lines as the default assumption of Pathfinder or explicitly stated in any of the fluff about Golarion or its deities.

The sanest way I've seen of doing it (so that Orc Clerics of Gruumsh don't detect as Good for doing what they believe is Right and Proper despite worshipping an Evil deity) is to have alignment/morality be objective in some way, but alignment is still going to have areas that are a bit, well, wonky.


That really depends on what exactly you mean by "punish." You're correct in that a player is free to act however they choose regardless of labels, and the DM should avoid dictating/mandating that they behave a different way just because one of those labels changes.

However, if a player's actions (no matter how well-intentioned) have negative consequences, and the DM highlights some of those negative consequences or even chooses to make some of them relative to the story being told, I don't know that I'd necessarily call that punishment. In that case it's less "you're not acting like someone with your alignment tag should act so I'm penalizing you" and more "despite your noble efforts elsewhere, you keep doing X, and these are some potential downsides to repeatedly doing X. If you don't want this to happen, you'll need to stop doing X; otherwise, you'll have to live with the downsides."

That's still pulling the rug out from under the feet of the player after agreeing to let them play a Good Necromancer. Otherwise, you have to wonder just what the DM did say and what kind of weasel words they went through to avoid directly lying to their player while still maximizing their dishonesty.


An academic question then - what would that Good-behaving PC do if they were to later learn that (a) weaknesses/tears in the planar border were causing undead to run rampant and slaughter innocents in remote areas, and that (b) his necromantic activities were contributing to those tears? Would he keep doing it, or stop?

At that point the PC's actions are irrelevant because you now have an OOC issue of the DM and Player having had words and now the DM declaring something IC that demands further OOC words. :smallconfused:

Besides, either undead only weaken it when they're created, so simply destroying the undead that one already had wouldn't do jack **** or undead continually weaken it, so that by destroying enough uncontrolled undead or the undead of other people or spells diametrically opposed to necromancy one would come out at a net positive, weakening the impact of the attempted screwing without being completely and transparently bald-faced about this being nothing other than trying to screw the player.

[Psyren]

That's still pulling the rug out from under the feet of the player after agreeing to let them play a Good Necromancer. Otherwise, you have to wonder just what the DM did say and what kind of weasel words they went through to avoid directly lying to their player while still maximizing their dishonesty.

I was not assuming, in my example, that the DM had agreed to anything called a "good necromancer." I was responding specifically to JusticeZero's scenario - "what if the DM says 'reanimation is evil' and the player simply doesn't care and keeps doing it?" (Assuming, obviously, an arcane caster or other class whose powers don't care about the alignment shift itself.) Basically it's a way of showing that "evil acts have consequences in the game world" rather than expecting "you're evil now!" to be some kind of punishment in and of itself.

I also don't see how "confronting the player with the consequences of their evil acts" is in any way "screwing them." Nothing is stopping you from continuing to be a necromancer once you see the full effects, save your own guilty conscience, no?

[goto124]

We did intend to have a Good necromancer...

"what if the DM says 'reanimation is evil' and the player simply doesn't care and keeps doing it?"

You're likely going to have a DM vs Player game.

[Psyren]

We did intend to have a Good necromancer...

"what if the DM says 'reanimation is evil' and the player simply doesn't care and keeps doing it?"

You're likely going to have a DM vs Player game.

You're assuming here that the DM is somehow opposed to "evil" characters. I look at "your character's alignment has shifted to evil" as no different than saying "it's raining." It's just a statement of the way things are in that particular setting, which just so happens to be the case in most published settings.

Yeah, some inhabitants or even objects in the world react differently if your alignment has shifted downwards, but it's still a valid outlook on life for someone who lives in that setting. Redcloak accepts the "evil" tag, but does not see anything he's doing as being wrong or undesirable either.

tl;dr - I don't buy the premise that stating a character's alignment has shifted will necessarily result in antagonism between the DM and player.

[Coidzor]

I was not assuming, in my example, that the DM had agreed to anything called a "good necromancer."

How else would you actually have evil consequences of necromancy actually be a surprise though? :smallconfused: If the player knows going into it that Necromancy is Evil in this game then it rather loses the edge for them to discover that it has negative consequences and they'd already either be trying to mitigate their evil and maintain a neutral alignment or embrace it and be cackling evil villainous types when they're not in stealth mode. :smalltongue:


I was responding specifically to JusticeZero's scenario - "what if the DM says 'reanimation is evil' and the player simply doesn't care and keeps doing it?" (Assuming, obviously, an arcane caster or other class whose powers don't care about the alignment shift itself.) Basically it's a way of showing that "evil acts have consequences in the game world" rather than expecting "you're evil now!" to be some kind of punishment in and of itself.

Well, yes, his scenario is pretty weird, but it's definitely one where the issue is OOC between the DM and the player, what with the player most likely openly rejecting the DM's ruling or just being a weirdo for the lulz or something.

I suppose I am a bit focused on the context of someone wanting to play a Good Necromancer and honestly can't seriously entertain JusticeZero's position of thumbing one's nose at the DM in the first place.


I also don't see how "confronting the player with the consequences of their evil acts" is in any way "screwing them." Nothing is stopping you from continuing to be a necromancer once you see the full effects, save your own guilty conscience, no?

Except for the fact that by springing that surprise on a player who wanted to be a non-evil necromancer, their entire concept is being pissed on by the DM after the DM okayed it rather than the DM not okaying it and being upfront about it. The DM being upfront with players is more desirable than duplicity or dishonesty on an interpersonal level rather than something actually as part of the game IC where certain NPCs will try to mislead or misdirect the PCs.

Also, if someone's character has been built around having necromantic minions and half their build is set on fire by the DM-screw revelation forcing them to choose between their build and their concept, well, either they have to choose to be gimped but Good like they wanted to be (in the absence of any kind of rebuild or retraining options, but, let's be real, any DM that's going to pull this sort of thing is unlikely to be generous enough to allow a rebuild without it turning out that the rebuild is also cursed or contains potassium benzoate) or embrace their build but say goodbye to their concept.

Much more than mere guilty conscience on the player's part. :smallconfused:

And there's no way that someone would want to play a Good Necromancer without discussing it with their DM while someone who was perfectly fine with playing an Evil Necromancer wouldn't care, so your points only really all that relevant for someone who wants to be a Neutral-But-Heroic Necromancer where they're already embracing the controversy. So I suppose they'd be perfectly fine with it since it'd be appropriate in their character arc to either have known that or to discover it anyway, but it's decidedly inappropriate for someone who wanted a Good Necromancer and, well, irrelevant for someone who wanted to be Evil.

[Psyren]

How else would you actually have evil consequences of necromancy actually be a surprise though? :smallconfused: If the player knows going into it that Necromancy is Evil in this game then it rather loses the edge for them to discover that it has negative consequences and they'd already either be trying to mitigate their evil and maintain a neutral alignment or embrace it and be cackling evil villainous types when they're not in stealth mode. :smalltongue:



Well, yes, his scenario is pretty weird, but it's definitely one where the issue is OOC between the DM and the player, what with the player most likely openly rejecting the DM's ruling or just being a weirdo for the lulz or something.

I suppose I am a bit focused on the context of someone wanting to play a Good Necromancer and honestly can't seriously entertain JusticeZero's position in the first place.



Except for the fact that by springing that surprise on a player who wanted to be a non-evil necromancer, their entire concept is being pissed on by the DM after the DM okayed it rather than the DM not okaying it and being upfront about it. The DM being upfront with players is more desirable than duplicity or dishonesty on an interpersonal level rather than something actually as part of the game IC where certain NPCs will try to mislead or misdirect the PCs.

Also, if someone's character has been built around having necromantic minions and half their build is set on fire by the DM-screw revelation forcing them to choose between their build and their concept, well, either they have to choose to be gimped but Good like they wanted to be (in the absence of any kind of rebuild or retraining options, but, let's be real, any DM that's going to pull this sort of thing is unlikely to be generous enough to allow a rebuild without it turning out that the rebuild is also cursed or contains potassium benzoate) or embrace their build but say goodbye to their concept.

Much more than mere guilty conscience on the player's part. :smallconfused:

And there's no way that someone would want to play a Good Necromancer without discussing it with their DM while someone who was perfectly fine with playing an Evil Necromancer wouldn't care, so your points only really all that relevant for someone who wants to be a Neutral-But-Heroic Necromancer where they're already embracing the controversy. So I suppose they'd be perfectly fine with it since it'd be appropriate in their character arc to either have known that or to discover it anyway, but it's decidedly inappropriate for someone who wanted a Good Necromancer and, well, irrelevant for someone who wanted to be Evil.

Okay, I have no idea what you're on about :smallconfused: You're still acting as though this is some kind of "surprise" or "gotcha" moment for the player, but I never said that at all. I would make it very clear up front that the character can think his actions are totally fine or net positive all he likes, but the player will know what we all know - that by RAW necromancy is evil, and that I have no plans to houserule that out. The idea here is to enable roleplay, not disable it - i.e. have an evil character that thinks they are 100% doing the right thing. I even brought up the parallel of Redcloak.

Confronting the PC with the magnitude of his crimes would very much be an lategame or endgame revelation, similar to Vaarsuvius not realizing that zapping a helpless baby dragon might have some consequences until hundreds of strips later.

[5w337x7007h]

Okay, so lets say that in this necromancer's culture, necromancy is not evil at all, but neutral, as true necromancy is brought about by the knowledge of life and death, and how to manipulate each half of the coin. Thus using such powers to defend oneself and use it in a productive manner.

Example: An old war hero has fought long and hard in his journey to become who he is, though his past transgressions have forever scarred his mind. He eventually commits suicide as the memories of his past are far too traumatizing to deal with anymore.

A young necromancer comes upon the grave, not knowing who or what lies beneath the cool earth of this abode for the dead. He, in a moment of peril, raises the corpse to his defense against bandits, or some other threat. The corpse survives the fight and the necromancer feels that the corpse still has use and enlists it to carry his things, help with tilling a field, or provide service where the living could not because it does not need to eat, breath, or sleep.

Necromancy should not be inherently evil because magic is only as destructive as how it's applied. I've used stone shape for destructive and creative tasks before, so why can't I do the same with create undead? (Literally contained three ghouls with a well placed stone shape, reducing enemies from 8 to 5)

[JusticeZero]

Some settings have inherently evil necromancy. That doesn't make a necromancer a bad person, it just makes them evil.

[goto124]

You're assuming here that the DM is somehow opposed to "evil" characters. I look at "your character's alignment has shifted to Evil" as no different than saying "it's raining." It's just a statement of the way things are in that particular setting, which just so happens to be the case in most published settings.

Yeah, some inhabitants or even objects in the world react differently if your alignment has shifted downwards, but it's still a valid outlook on life for someone who lives in that setting.

tl;dr - I don't buy the premise that stating a character's alignment has shifted will necessarily result in antagonism between the DM and player.

You are right about the assumption I have made. It's something that's easy to happen because evil and Evil usually aren't really seperated.

If the DM and player have talked it out, and agreed that the player is fully willing to accept that her good Necromancer has the cosmic alignment of Evil, pings on Detect Evil, gets hit by Smite Evil, other characters react to her evil-looking actions negatively etc, while the DM agrees not to constantly throw 100 overpowered overzealous Lawful Stupid paladins at the necromancer, writing the storyline such that somehow the necromancer is being 'punished' as if she was evil, etc... that's all good.

It could go another way. The DM could be open to the idea of a Necromancer not pinging on Detect Evil, simply because no spell has any cosmic alignment attached and the Necromancer has used her powers for good. Again, DM-player agreement.

It's just that alignment is a reflection of what the player wants to roleplay. The DM saying 'your alignment shifted' is pretty much overthrowing the player's roleplay, and telling her that she's roleplaying her character wrong. Actually, I can't see why this won't lead to antagonism.

[Psyren]

You are right about the assumption I have made. It's something that's easy to happen because evil and Evil usually aren't really seperated.

If the DM and player have talked it out, and agreed that the player is fully willing to accept that her good Necromancer has the cosmic alignment of Evil, pings on Detect Evil, gets hit by Smite Evil, other characters react to her evil-looking actions negatively etc, while the DM agrees not to constantly throw 100 overpowered overzealous Lawful Stupid paladins at the necromancer, writing the storyline such that somehow the necromancer is being 'punished' as if she was evil, etc... that's all good.

Not "evil-looking" - evil. The rest I agree with.


It's just that alignment is a reflection of what the player wants to roleplay. The DM saying 'your alignment shifted' is pretty much overthrowing the player's roleplay, and telling her that she's roleplaying her character wrong. Actually, I can't see why this won't lead to antagonism.

I still don't see how roleplay should be impacted by alignment at all. Again, the character's cosmic status does not affect their outlook on life. If you want to roleplay a "good necromancer," by all means do so, and feel free to act surprised, annoyed or offended if/when you ping as evil. If a foolhardy paladin attacks you, feel free to have your minions peacefully restrain him or knock him out while you move on from the area.

If you used Detect Evil on Redcloak, he'd undoubtedly ping as evil. Would he change his behavior as a result of that reading? Of course not, he believes himself to be totally justified. That is a character, that is roleplay.

[illyahr]

Just to be perfectly clear: necromancy is not evil. Neither is negative energy. Otherwise, all necromancy and negative energy effects would have the [Evil] descriptor. They do not.

It is perfectly possible to play a Good-aligned necromancer, provided that you don't abuse undead-creating spells (the ones that actually have the [Evil] descriptor).

I played a L/N Halfling Wizard (Necromancer) who only created a few undead for utility purposes (a skeleton pony to pull his cart, etc.) and mostly used other necromancy spells on an as-needed basis. His primary purpose was as a funeral advisor. He had max ranks in Knowledge (Religion) so he could prepare any creature he came across with the appropriate funeral rites.

[Psyren]

OP's use of the term "necromancy" referred specifically to reanimating and utilizing undead; that was the context under which I was operating.

[OldTrees1]

Just to be perfectly clear:

If you think Necromancy is Evil, you will not convince those that think it is not Evil.
If you think Necromancy is not Evil, you will not convince those that think it is Evil.

The OP is asking about a Good aligned Necromancer. You have 2 guesses about which is relevant. (Hint: It is whatever is the OP's DM's opinion)

[Psyren]

Indeed, I said as much in my first post in this thread - OP's GM is the only opinion that matters here, all we can do is tell him designer intent and/or our own feelings on the matter.

[JusticeZero]

Or my point which is that it is actually irrelevant whether necromancy is Evil or not, since orphanages won't cast Detect Alignment before accepting donations, nor will rescued villages, etc. One can still do everything expected of a Good character in spite of having the world pulling their alignment Evil, it will only affect them on rare occasions when Clerics start throwing stuff around.

[5w337x7007h]

I'm going to start a new thread, and change the goal of what I was attempting here, I guess phrasing would help a bit better in meeting my goal.

[JaminDM]

There is not, and can never be, a good necromancer. It is completely against everything that necromancy is about.

[Psyren]

There is not, and can never be, a good necromancer. It is completely against everything that necromancy is about.

You can do this if you avoid animating undead or harming souls in any way.

[OldTrees1]

There is not, and can never be, a good necromancer. It is completely against everything that necromancy is about.

That is your opinion.

Personally I see nothing about "Control over life and death" that necessitates it can only be used in an immoral manner.

In fact, I can see Necromancy being one of the foundation stones upon which a utopia can bloom:
Ensuring people get a chance to say goodbye/reconcile.
Creating a post scarcity society through the use of negative energy constructs (what I consider soulless mindless undead to be).
The best healthcare one could ask for.

However that is my opinion.

[Coidzor]

There is not, and can never be, a good necromancer. It is completely against everything that necromancy is about.

The Ur-example of Necromancy is not evil. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/speak-with-dead)

Determining whether something is alive and in need of healing, dead, or undead and trying to hide isn't exactly evil, either. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/deathwatch)

[Psyren]

As previously mentioned, some folks (like the OP) use "necromancy" to refer to that specific subset of the school that involves reanimating the dead, rather than the school as a whole. It's possible that was Jamin's context as well.

[RedMage125]

Now I saw this idea on Imgur about a guy who played a necromancer that used the undead for good, so here's the post. http://i.imgur.com/2VL2yqd.png

I've been pondering this belief for a while, that not all necromancers are inherently evil. That there are Necromancers that seek to create a semblance of balance in the world, keeping the evil at bay with the dead who would happily, in life, do this without question anyways.

Any ideas where I should start? I'm thinking a Heretic of the Clergy of Pharasma might be a good starting point.

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335215-Character-Concepts-Non-Evil-Necromancer) is 3.5 and not pathfinder, but you might find it useful.

Also, the idea of Necromacers dedicated to some kind of balance is prominent in the mythos of the Diablo games. Perhaps a jaunt over to Diablo wiki to read the fluff there could be of inspiration.

[Jergmo]

Now, this is just how I see it, and someone else is perfectly able to tell me I'm wrong even if I don't feel I am.

You can be a Necromancer and be Good. The rules do not explicitly say you cannot.

However, you cannot be Good and cast spells that are Evil. By doing so, you are no longer Good.

Animating the undead makes you Evil because by animating the undead, you are introducing more Evil to the world, regardless of what you use them for.

The only thing I can offer to an argument against this because of the character's intentions is ask the question "If they're Good, why would they want to create something Evil?"

Please note that I offer this as someone who has looked into the topic enough that several years of homebrew campaign rules, theory and practice have gone into it, and the end result was "Things are fine the way they are. Finger of Death the wicked in the name of justice if that's what you want to do."

[Coidzor]

However, you cannot be Good and cast spells that are Evil. By doing so, you are no longer Good.

How many spells? One spell? Two? Dozens? Does nothing counterbalance them at all, even though we have [Good] spells too?

If Deathwatch hadn't been updated to lose the erroneous [Evil] tag, would a LG cleric fall and become an ex-Cleric for trying to use the spell to perform triage?

[RedMage125]

How many spells? One spell? Two? Dozens? Does nothing counterbalance them at all, even though we have [Good] spells too?
As per the 3.5e DMG, page 134...
Continuously performing Evil acts to such an extend that you show a trend of disregard for the moral culpability of your actions (i.e. behaving in a manner more in keeping with a less "moral" alignment), over a period of time to be NO LESS than 1 week of in-game time, will cause your alignment to shift one step closer to evil.


If Deathwatch hadn't been updated to lose the erroneous [Evil] tag, would a LG cleric fall and become an ex-Cleric for trying to use the spell to perform triage?

You are intentionally trying to twist the situation to your advantage, on multiple counts, and it's dishonest. You clearly know as well as anyone who reads the spell, that it calls upon the "foul powers of undeath" to accomplish what it does. I know many of the alignment detractors on these boards like to paint that spell as just some kind of "status check", and claim it should not be [Evil]. That's not the case. There's a 2nd level Cleric spell called Status that is Divination and uses no "powers of unlife" and is not [Evil].
Furthermore, Deathwatch has not been "updated" to remove the [Evil] descriptor. In the PHB errata and in the SRD, it still has the descriptor. PATHFINDER changed it for their game, yes. But for that game, the spell does not "call on the powers of undeath", and is completely non-sequitur to your example. Much like one cannot say that the Cleave feat was "updated" to be a standard action.
Furthermore, a LG cleric in 3.5 CANNOT cast Deathwatch AT ALL, let alone, enough times to move his alignment, as a cleric is prohibited from casting a spell with an alignment descriptor that is opposite his alignment or his deity's alignment.

So a LG Cleric of Wee Jas Cannot cast Deathwatch, while a LN Cleric of Wee Jas can. A LN cleric of Heironeous cannot cast the spell either, just as if he were good aligned. Interestingly enough, that LN cleric of Heironeous has a Good aura, and a NG cleric of Heironeous has a Lawful one. That LG cleric of Wee Jas? No Good aura, only a Lawful one (more correctly, a level 9 LG cleric of Wee Jas has a Faint Good Aura, but a Strong Lawful one).

Clerics are one of the base classes in D&D with the most bizarre and screwy restrictions (like how you CANNOT, by RAW have a non-dwarf who is a cleric of Moradin), and yet all people complain about are "lawful barbarians", "chaotic monks" and "evil paladins", completely disregarding the most alignment-mechanic-jacked class in the game as if there were no issues.

Sorry, sidetracked. As I was saying, only a non-good cleric of a non-good deity can cast that spell anyway (as it does not appear on any other class' spell list). So your example is intentionally twisted in an attempt to prove something about your point.

[Coidzor]

As per the 3.5e DMG, page 134...
Continuously performing Evil acts to such an extend that you show a trend of disregard for the moral culpability of your actions (i.e. behaving in a manner more in keeping with a less "moral" alignment), over a period of time to be NO LESS than 1 week of in-game time, will cause your alignment to shift one step closer to evil.

Ah, I forgot about that section, thank you. Doesn't answer the question for Jergmo, though.


You are intentionally trying to twist the situation to your advantage, on multiple counts, and it's dishonest.

You do realize that people can have positions and say things in order to both show their position and also clarify where someone else stands relative to their own position, right? :smallconfused:


You clearly know as well as anyone who reads the spell, that it calls upon the "foul powers of undeath" to accomplish what it does.

Not in PF and not in 3E to the best of my recollection. It is also commonly known to be on the spell lists of Healers and various other classes that can't be evil. Indeed, it's viewed as kind of an error that it got the Evil tag in the first place.


I know many of the alignment detractors on these boards like to paint that spell as just some kind of "status check", and claim it should not be [Evil].

Then you should be aware of what I just said and not be barking up this tree. :smallconfused:


Furthermore, Deathwatch has not been "updated" to remove the [Evil] descriptor. In the PHB errata and in the SRD, it still has the descriptor. PATHFINDER changed it for their game, yes.

This is the part where I point out we're in a Pathfinder tagged discussion and that Pathfinder is commonly viewed as a form of update to D&D 3.5.


But for that game, the spell does not "call on the powers of undeath", and is completely non-sequitur to your example.

No, my example pretty much stands, a clearly non-evil spell with the evil tag being used in a non-evil manner and how many uses of such a spell Jergmo requires to turn a character Evil.


Much like one cannot say that the Cleave feat was "updated" to be a standard action.

Sure one could, though generally one would say that it was altered.


Sorry, sidetracked.

Just a bit, yeah.


So your example is intentionally twisted in an attempt to prove something about your point.

You're right except for the very glaring fact that you think it's twisted. :smalltongue:

[Jergmo]

There is no answer I can provide for your question. I'm not in a position to make a specific magic number unless I'm your DM. If I were your DM, I'd say allowing you to create undead for any amount of time less than a week and keep your Good alignment would be way too generous. For me, one time is enough.

Edit: My reason for saying that goes back to the question of "If you're Good, why would you want to create something Evil?" The idea of creating something Evil would suggest to me that the character's moral alignment was never truly Good to begin with, and it often seems to be the case that it's something that is usually refined over time. I've had a few characters of my own who started out Good, and I learned that, over time, it really didn't fit with their motivations.

I feel that, if your motivations are Good, but your actions are not Good, you are not Good. If your actions are Good, but your motivations are not Good, you are not Good.

[GreyBlack]

Great Grod, it's another of these questions. The best answer is YDMWV (Your DM will vary), but strict RAW will state that reanimation is strictly evil, even for good reasons, balancing out to Neutral in those cases. I, for one, am appalled by this interpretation, but I didn't write RAW.

For my money, Necromancy is just magic that manipulates life energies, whether positively (healing) or negatively (draining). Raising the dead is the same; do you reattach the soul to the body or simply give motor function back to the body for your own benefit? It's all in how you use it, in much the same way that a sword is only a hunk of metal, but how it's used makes all the difference.

[Doc_Maynot]

Great Grod, it's another of these questions. The best answer is YDMWV (Your DM will vary), but strict RAW will state that reanimation is strictly evil, even for good reasons, balancing out to Neutral in those cases. I, for one, am appalled by this interpretation, but I didn't write RAW.

Actually RAW only says that the evil tag for spells, like all alignment tags, only rules whether or not Clerics and other similar divine casters can prepare it or not. And casting them doesn't even change the alignment unless you are using the 3.0 book Book of Vile Darkness (which not all tables accept 3.0 content, even though it should be still 3.5 legal), and even then, I do believe it only has a slim chance of affecting one's alignment IIRC.

[Othniel]

This makes me think of these guys: Baelnorn (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Baelnorn_lich)

[hamishspence]

Actually RAW only says that the evil tag for spells, like all alignment tags, only rules whether or not Clerics and other similar divine casters can prepare it or not. And casting them doesn't even change the alignment unless you are using the 3.0 book Book of Vile Darkness (which not all tables accept 3.0 content, even though it should be still 3.5 legal), and even then, I do believe it only has a slim chance of affecting one's alignment IIRC.

The 3.5 book Fiendish Codex 2 has "casting an [Evil] spell" as a 1 point Corrupt act.

[RedMage125]

Ah, I forgot about that section, thank you. Doesn't answer the question for Jergmo, though.

Jergmo was incorrect, or was exaggerating. He said "you cannot be Good and cast spells that are Evil. While Good clerics cannot cast such spells, Good Wizards/Sorcerers may cast spells with the Evil descriptor very sparingly, and not change alignment. While casting such spells are still Evil acts, very infrequent use will not alter one's alignment. My TN Wizard (who was starting to trend towards NG) had a scroll of Avasculate that he had, and was only prepared to use it on something consumately evil. Ended up using it on an Ancient Shadow Dragon.


You do realize that people can have positions and say things in order to both show their position and also clarify where someone else stands relative to their own position, right? :smallconfused:
You intentionally created a skewed example that was either not possible (in 3.5e) or not relevant (in PF)


Not in PF and not in 3E to the best of my recollection. It is also commonly known to be on the spell lists of Healers and various other classes that can't be evil. Indeed, it's viewed as kind of an error that it got the Evil tag in the first place.
Deathwatch is not on the Healer (Miniature's Handbook) spell list, please reference what "cannot be evil" class you are referring to that has this spell on their list.


Then you should be aware of what I just said and not be barking up this tree. :smallconfused:

Just because I am familiar with the argument doesn't make it legitimate.


This is the part where I point out we're in a Pathfinder tagged discussion and that Pathfinder is commonly viewed as a form of update to D&D 3.5.

And yet, as an example, you were referring to the spell in it's 3.5e form, so now you're either backpedaling, or you were trying to cherry pick which system we're talking about so you can both be right and not have your point contested. This is called Moving the Goalposts, and it's dishonest debate.

And no, Pathfinder is NOT an "updated" form of 3.5. It may be viewed as such, but it is not. Like Cleave, like Glitterdust, it was altered. Don't get me wrong, I like Pathfinder, but even Paizo is considering their game its own entity. Take a look at their news posts regarding the Pathfinder Unchained book that's coming out in April.


No, my example pretty much stands, a clearly non-evil spell with the evil tag being used in a non-evil manner and how many uses of such a spell Jergmo requires to turn a character Evil.
Your example does not stand. It only has the [Evil] tag in 3.5, when the spell called upon "the powers of unlife". What manner you use it in is entirely non-sequitur to the discussion of the alignment tag on the spell. It's like summoning a devil, and then using that devil to save orphans, feed the poor, and as labor to build a homeless shelter. Summoning the devil is still an Evil act, even if you choose to do Good with the spell once it's been cast.

If we're talking about Pathfinder, then there's no [Evil] tag, and your example has no teeth.



You're right except for the very glaring fact that you think it's twisted. :smalltongue:

You used the example of the spell having the [Evil] tag, which means 3.5 and not Pathfinder. Your example involved a Good cleric casting the spell, which is impossible. And your "point" was attempting to show that the system is flawed by implying that this Good Cleric would gradually shift alignment if he cast that spell with good intentions.

So yes, you intentionally twisted the example, hoping no one would catch you and call you on it, thnking it actually proved your "point". And when I called you on it, you tried to claim "well, we're discussing Pathfinder", which is Moving the Goalposts.

Here's your answer: in 3.5, a Good cleric cannot cast the spell so your example could not occur. In Pathfinder, the spell is not Evil, so the Good Cleric would not suffer any alignment change, and your example is moot.

Better?

[Psyren]

Deathwatch is not on the Healer (Miniature's Handbook) spell list, please reference what "cannot be evil" class you are referring to that has this spell on their list.

I think he means Slayer of Domiel from BoED, which you need to be exalted good to enter. For the record though you're totally right, Deathwatch's status is completely irrelevant in a PF thread because Paizo fixed the tag on that spell. And while the ability of aligned spells to shift your alignment is vague in PF, they have made it abundantly clear that animating undead is an evil act in their system/setting.

[OldTrees1]

Jergmo was incorrect, or was exaggerating. He said "you cannot be Good and cast spells that are Evil.

Jergmo was neither incorrect nor exaggerating. He was describing his personal DM stance on a topic that is best discussed by DM stances rather than argued by RAW.

[Psyren]

Jergmo was neither incorrect nor exaggerating. He was describing his personal DM stance on a topic that is best discussed by DM stances rather than argued by RAW.

Even if your "personal DM stance" is that you shift alignments after a single casting of an aligned spell (which I find ridiculous personally - would you cause a baby-eating rapist sorcerer to immediately become good-aligned after a single casting of Protection From Evil?), you have still cast the spell and therefore he is indeed wrong or exaggerating as RedMage125 stated. After all, you have to actually cast the spell before your alignment would shift anyway, therefore you cast it while good.

Besides which, sometimes such a risk or downside can be worth it. To quote Hinjo: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile."

[OldTrees1]

Even if your "personal DM stance" is that you shift alignments after a single casting of an aligned spell (which I find ridiculous personally - would you cause a baby-eating rapist sorcerer to immediately become good-aligned after a single casting of Protection From Evil?), you have still cast the spell and therefore he is indeed wrong or exaggerating as RedMage125 stated. After all, you have to actually cast the spell before your alignment would shift anyway, therefore you cast it while good.

Besides which, sometimes such a risk or downside can be worth it. To quote Hinjo: "They wouldn't have an atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in awhile."

Regardless of whether you find his personal DM stance to be ridiculous or not, please take the time to get it right.

My reason for saying that goes back to the question of "If you're Good, why would you want to create something Evil?" The idea of creating something Evil would suggest to me that the character's moral alignment was never truly Good to begin with, and it often seems to be the case that it's something that is usually refined over time. I've had a few characters of my own who started out Good, and I learned that, over time, it really didn't fit with their motivations.
Jergmo is of the opinion that Good does not knowingly voluntarily choose to do Evil. If a character is knowingly voluntarily choosing to do Evil at Jergmo's table, then Jergmo is going to question whether that character was truly Good. Self consistent, not an exaggeration, but not the only position and not held up as the only position.

So while neither you nor I would use his stance, both of us are able to notice that he is neither wrong(DM's are not wrong about the existence of their own houserules) nor exaggerating.

[Psyren]

Regardless of whether you find his personal DM stance to be ridiculous or not, please take the time to get it right.

Jergmo is of the opinion that Good does not knowingly voluntarily choose to do Evil. If a character is knowingly voluntarily choosing to do Evil at Jergmo's table, then Jergmo is going to question whether that character was truly Good. Self consistent, not an exaggeration, but not the only position and not held up as the only position.

So while neither you nor I would use his stance, both of us are able to notice that he is neither wrong(DM's are not wrong about the existence of their own houserules) nor exaggerating.

Er, you're the one who needs to spend more time getting stances right. You're quoting Jergmo's post in #61, but RedMage was specifically responding to #57, where he stated:


Now, this is just how I see it, and someone else is perfectly able to tell me I'm wrong even if I don't feel I am.

You can be a Necromancer and be Good. The rules do not explicitly say you cannot.

However, you cannot be Good and cast spells that are Evil. By doing so, you are no longer Good.

Bold mine. This is in fact an exaggeration in the D&D game. "This is how I see it" refers to an interpretation of the rules, rather than a houserule, which would be "this is how it works at my table." It's possible he meant the latter, but again, RedMage (and I) were responding to the former.

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch is not on the Healer (Miniature's Handbook) spell list, please reference what "cannot be evil" class you are referring to that has this spell on their list.

Miniatures Handbook, Page 11:

Healers choose their spells from the following list:

0th level: create water, cure minor wounds, deathwatch, detect magic, detect poison, light, mending, purify food and drink, read magic

[OldTrees1]

Er, you're the one who needs to spend more time getting stances right. You're quoting Jergmo's post in #61, but RedMage was specifically responding to #57, where he stated:
I read both the initial post(#57) and the clarifying post(#61).


It's possible he meant the latter, but again, RedMage (and I) were responding to the former. Hence why I was pointing out that it is probable that he meant the other, especially with the clarifying context from post #61.

[Psyren]

I read both the initial post(#57) and the clarifying post(#61).

Hence why I was pointing out that it is probable that he meant the other, especially with the clarifying context from post #61.

Yeah, I don't see it that way. He made a broad and very sweeping statement in #57, followed by a more nuanced yet still mutually exclusive reasoning in #61. I think it's quite possible to consider the former to be an exaggeration and call it out regardless of one's opinions on the latter.

[hamishspence]

Keep in mind that in D&D Eberron Campaign Setting, a Good cleric could cast Deathwatch or Animate Dead, but they'd still be in danger of alignment change if they did it a lot:

Eberron Campaign Setting, page 35

A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric's alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player's Handbook.

[RedMage125]

Miniatures Handbook, Page 11:

Healers choose their spells from the following list:

0th level: create water, cure minor wounds, deathwatch, detect magic, detect poison, light, mending, purify food and drink, read magic

Huh. I guess I was wrong. When I looked, I did not even glance at the 0 level spells, but focused only on the 1st and 2nd level ones.

Weird.

However, concerning Coidzor's assertion that the [Evil] tag was a mistake intended to be fixed, I find it more likely that that spell on the Healer's spell list was the mistake, given that errata for the PHB was released AFTER the miniatures Handbook, and Deathwatch was not "fixed".

That assumes there was a mistake there. Healer's are not forbidden from casting spells with Evil alignments.

Errata for the Miniatures Handbook was never released, and most of the material is generally ignored by most DMs. Favored Soul and Warmage were re-printed in their respective "Complete X" books, and Marshal and Healer were generally regarded as poor classes that saw little use*.

*Although I made an AWESOME Dread Pirate with Bard/Marshal/Swashbuckler levels as an NPC for a buddy of mine. That guy was like, the best "cheerleader" ever.

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch had no Evil tag in 3.0. It's possible that the decision to give it the Evil tag was made very late in the 3.5 design process, and that the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED weren't aware of it.

(Possibly Monte Cook was responsible - in BoVD he suggests, as a variant rule, giving various spells, including Deathwatch, the Evil tag.)

As an Exalted character, a Slayer of Domiel "Falls" losing the benefit of their Exalted feats, and PRC abilities, if they commit an evil act. Putting an [Evil] spell on their PRC spell list would be a little odd.

[RedMage125]

Deathwatch had no Evil tag in 3.0. It's possible that the decision to give it the Evil tag was made very late in the 3.5 design process, and that the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED weren't aware of it.

(Possibly Monte Cook was responsible - in BoVD he suggests, as a variant rule, giving various spells, including Deathwatch, the Evil tag.)

As an Exalted character, a Slayer of Domiel "Falls" losing the benefit of their Exalted feats, and PRC abilities, if they commit an evil act. Putting an [Evil] spell on their PRC spell list would be a little odd.

I haven't looked at my 3.0 PHB in awhile, so I didnt realize that. Wow, that REALLY undercuts the idea that it was a "mistake" in 3.5e, huh?

BoED was solidly a 3.0 book, so that makes sense. I know some people call it a 3.5e book, but it was not.

Minis Handbook was one of the earliest 3.5e supplements (October 2003), so your hypothesis about the change occurring later in the design process may indeed be correct.

[hamishspence]

BoED was solidly a 3.0 book, so that makes sense. I know some people call it a 3.5e book, but it was not.

BoED was published October 2003 (and has various 3.5 things, like DR/evil). BoVD, however, was published quite a lot earlier, and was indeed "solidly 3.0".

[Psyren]

I haven't looked at my 3.0 PHB in awhile, so I didnt realize that. Wow, that REALLY undercuts the idea that it was a "mistake" in 3.5e, huh?

It was definitely a mistake. What we don't know is whether it was an accident.

It's a mistake because Deathwatch has no business being evil. Luckily, Paizo grasped that.

[Jergmo]

It could then be taken as an exaggeration, being a mixture of personal feeling and reason, even if the mechanics are not quite at the same speed. However, I feel that every attempt to besmirch what I've said has been an outright ridiculous example (Such as casting Protection from Evil turning you Good). The two are in no way comparable and that's all I have to say on the matter at this point.

[JusticeZero]

Well.. not necessarily; I would in fact have repeated castings of Protection from Evil move ones defined alignment toward Good. I have done, in fact.

[goto124]

Back to the 'it's easy to be Evil, hard to be Good' argument.

We could say Evil does have reason to cast Protection from Evil- got to guard yourself from likeminded backstabbing Evil! Can't really say the same for Protection from Good.

[Psyren]

Back to the 'it's easy to be Evil, hard to be Good' argument.

We could say Evil does have reason to cast Protection from Evil- got to guard yourself from likeminded backstabbing Evil! Can't really say the same for Protection from Good.

Precisely what I was about to say. A spellcasting devil on the front lines of the Blood War has plenty of reason to use Protection from Evil - not only to protect himself against demons (many of whom have summons that now won't be able to touch him) - but also against Orcus' legions of undead. Repeated, even routine use will make him no less vile a creature.

But while a devil might have plenty of reason to use Pro Evil, an angel will pretty much never need Pro Good; certainly not for anything Pro Evil couldn't have handled.

[hamishspence]

If they know ahead of time that they are going up against a specialist in charm and domination spells (or, for that matter, an evil arcane caster that likes to summon celestials as well as fiends) it might be a bit more necessary to have Protection from Good in one's repertoire.