Necromancer

[Spacehamster]

Hey peeps!

So how do you guys think the necromancer subclass of wizard stacks up against the other subclasses? Is it any good? :) also question about animate dead spell, it just says you get skeletons or zombies depending on state of the stuff you animate but nothing about if for example animating a dwarf skeleton or dragon skeleton does any difference. So question is would you use the staple skeleton and zombies from MM for stats or make it different depending on what the pc animates? :)

[Fwiffo86]

Hey peeps!

So how do you guys think the necromancer subclass of wizard stacks up against the other subclasses? Is it any good? :) also question about animate dead spell, it just says you get skeletons or zombies depending on state of the stuff you animate but nothing about if for example animating a dwarf skeleton or dragon skeleton does any difference. So question is would you use the staple skeleton and zombies from MM for stats or make it different depending on what the pc animates? :)

As far as the Zombie question, There are examples of multiple zombies in the MM. I would use the closest approximation.

The necromancer has the mechanical potential to be devastating. Story wise, it's unlikely they will ever actually achieve it.

[Heartspan]

It says in the animate dead spell that you can only animate humanoid corpses, and as far as i know, templates aren't a thing anymore, so i think you're stuck with normal skeletons and zombies.

[Segev]

Every time I see a new version of Necromancer that tries to give something cool to minionmancy...it turns around and removes 4 other cool things. And since it's never quite up to par to begin with, that's always extremely disappointing.

[Tehnar]

What are you talking about? It is easily the strongest subclass until you get to chain binding elementals, True Polymorph and Simulacrum. Having skeleton archers with you is like having a extra couple of ranged fighters.

[Eslin]

Be careful, you'll apparently get DMs insisting reanimating the dead is inherently evil.

[Segev]

What are you talking about? It is easily the strongest subclass until you get to chain binding elementals, True Polymorph and Simulacrum. Having skeleton archers with you is like having a extra couple of ranged fighters.

And that's one of the good things!

But now I miss the drama and variety of seeking out better and better corpses for my undead army.

[kaoskonfety]

Be careful, you'll apparently get DMs insisting reanimating the dead is inherently evil.

"Well it isn't very pleasant" I actually agree with you Eslin - I had one neutral death church that fought the sentient undead and used the mindless undead as labour.
One is a soul bound to the world, restless and hungry for the blood of the living, the other is basically and odd application of animate objects. The Psychopomp deity had no issue with negative energy, as long as the creatures souls weren't in the mix. It fell like a good balance.

The idea that it is evil as it gets you used to dealing with the dead and less likely to object to eventual turning people into vampires could about equally be applied to embalmers.

On the original topic - On review necromancer looked quite good power wise - I'm not sure if I'd say the best, but solid. I've not drilled into the spell list, there were some odd gaps in some editions depending on your focus

[Spacehamster]

Would be fun to make a death lord type character tho, would probably start with 1 level paladin then 5 lvl nec wizard to get animate dead then follow up with getting to lvl 6 oathbreaker paladin for +cha dmg to fiends and undead. Then 1 lvl death cleric for 2 target necrotic dmg cantrip, rest necro wizard. Would net you lvl 9 spell slots and undeads with plus dmg from both int and cha. Would be a cool concept at least dunno how practical it would be. :)

[Eslin]

Would be fun to make a death lord type character tho, would probably start with 1 level paladin then 5 lvl nec wizard to get animate dead then follow up with getting to lvl 6 oathbreaker paladin for +cha dmg to fiends and undead. Then 1 lvl death cleric for 2 target necrotic dmg cantrip, rest necro wizard. Would net you lvl 9 spell slots and undeads with plus dmg from both int and cha. Would be a cool concept at least dunno how practical it would be. :)

I've found in practise it's just best to go full paladin - the necromancy isn't amazing, but it's a good backup.

[Tvtyrant]

They are supposed to be bog standard. If you go undead minionmancer I would take the great leader feat and pump up charisma for skeletons that won't instantly die.

[Spacehamster]

I've found in practise it's just best to go full paladin - the necromancy isn't amazing, but it's a good backup.

Were mostly thinking of coolness factor. :) but what I listed gets lvl 7 spells and lvl 9 slots tho which the lvl 20 oathbreaker wont get so would prob go with that anyways. :)

[Person_Man]

Read the Finger of Death spell.

[Louro]

On D&D literature the undead are often described as "trapped souls". It's something like summoning a soul and binding it by force to "fuel" his own dead corpse.

So, you are enslaving a soul, which is sort of evil. Besides this, if the soul was a devote follower of a god, his soul will be "living" with that God, and he will go angry if you steal his souls to fulfil your own purposes and these are way far from that God ones.

It's up to the DM and his world undead mechanics.

[Malifice]

On D&D literature the undead are often described as "trapped souls". It's something like summoning a soul and binding it by force to "fuel" his own dead corpse.

So, you are enslaving a soul, which is sort of evil. Besides this, if the soul was a devote follower of a god, his soul will be "living" with that God, and he will go angry if you steal his souls to fulfil your own purposes and these are way far from that God ones.

It's up to the DM and his world undead mechanics.

And his desired game ethics.

In my campaigns, animating the dead is an evil act that carries repercussions (unless done in total secrecy, or the necromancer is powerful enough to not care). Besides the implications of intentionally creating creating evil monsters, and the issues around the intentional desecration of a persons corpse for your own benefit, there is also the implication (in my games the fact) that undead creatures contain a fragment of the persons 'soul', trapped by the necromancer, twisting them into a horrific state of undeath as a result.

Thats where the distinction between construct and undead lies. The construct lacks a soul. It was never alive and can never die. The undead creature was once alive and then it died. Now its neither; trapped in a tortured state of 'undeath' be the dark magics of the Necromancer (or evil undead that spawned them).

[Eslin]

On D&D literature the undead are often described as "trapped souls". It's something like summoning a soul and binding it by force to "fuel" his own dead corpse.

So, you are enslaving a soul, which is sort of evil. Besides this, if the soul was a devote follower of a god, his soul will be "living" with that God, and he will go angry if you steal his souls to fulfil your own purposes and these are way far from that God ones.

It's up to the DM and his world undead mechanics.

Except we're told there is no continuity between corpse and soul, there's nothing to indicate using the body does anything to the soul. And it seems kind of weird that it would, powerful spells like true resurrection still require consent to move the soul out of the afterlife, why would a level 3 spell that targets multiple things be able to force a soul when an expensive single target level 9 spell can't?

[Tvtyrant]

Why are we discussing houserules when they have nothing to do with the OP's question?

To the original poster: Powerwise it is as good or better than the other subtypes. You can only make zombies or skeletons of humanoids, but they get a substantial to-hit and hit point bonus when you make them.

[comk59]

Honestly, the consent of the departed isn't quite as important. (As they're dead)

However, if we're going to be treating someone's body as property, then that means ownership of the body goes to the deceased's family. So, to be purely ethical, you would have to track them down and get their consent to animate the body of their loved one with negative energy. Which is unlikely.

However, the morality of Necromancing is pretty much a moot point. Morality in D&D is objective, not subjective, and is set by the gods of the world. And it's pretty clear that the gods have decided that negative energy, and especially necromancy, is inherently evil .

EDIT
Back on subject, yeah, it's pretty good. You can even scrounge up some armor for your skeletons, since a good fit is a lost cause for them.

[Malifice]

Except we're told there is no continuity between corpse and soul, there's nothing to indicate using the body does anything to the soul. And it seems kind of weird that it would, powerful spells like true resurrection still require consent to move the soul out of the afterlife, why would a level 3 spell that targets multiple things be able to force a soul when an expensive single target level 9 spell can't?

The necromancer forces and traps a fragment of a persons soul back into its own corpse against its will, creating a mockery of life and inflicting spiritual torment for the creature, stopping it from being dead anymore - but also not bringing it back to actual life.

The healer is able to bring back the whole soul, and (miraculously) actually restore the creature to life. He also asks (and indeed requires) the creatures permission (unless the creature is tricked).

Different things

[Ashrym]

I still think the natural progression of legal consequence goes beyond the death sentence to the undeath sentence in a fantasy world.

8 consecutive life sentences of hard labour becomes a distinct possibility in a lawful society.

[Xetheral]

I still think the natural progression of legal consequence goes beyond the death sentence to the undeath sentence in a fantasy world.

8 consecutive life sentences of hard labour becomes a distinct possibility in a lawful society.

Reminds me of the 3.5 prestige class Eternal Legionnaire from my homebrewed world. An open-ended term of enlistment can be a very dangerous thing.

[Malifice]

Reminds me of the 3.5 prestige class Eternal Legionnaire from my homebrewed world. An open-ended term of enlistment can be a very dangerous thing.

Totally stealing this idea.

[Falling Icicle]

However, the morality of Necromancing is pretty much a moot point. Morality in D&D is objective, not subjective, and is set by the gods of the world. And it's pretty clear that the gods have decided that negative energy, and especially necromancy, is inherently evil

Negative energy is not inherently evil. There are plenty of necromancy spells that have neutral or even good applications, such as spare the dying and raise dead. Radiant/positive energy can be used to do horrible things like blind and kill (see spells like sacred flame and sunburst), and necrotic/negative energy can be used to preserve life.

There are many types of magic in D&D that are far more morally questionable than animate dead. Spellcasters can charm and dominate people, stripping them of their free will. They can trap an innocent elemental soul inside of a constructed body to create a golem. They can burn people to death with acid and fire. And yet none of those things are called out as being evil, and heroes and "good" gods in the setting don't so much as bat an eye when people do it. But animate a corpse, and oh boy, you've crossed the line! :smallannoyed:

A corpse is just an object, whatever emotional response people may have to it. The soul has departed it for the after life, and it's going to become worm food and decompose either way. It is true that zombies are violent and have an urge to feed on the living - but then so do many wild animals. Are tigers evil because they sometimes kill and eat people? The rule books may say zombies are "evil," but IMO that was a bad design decision (older editions, all the way up to and including 3.0e, had zombies as neutral alignment; it was only in 3.5 edition that they first were labeled as evil, and that was just so that paladins could smite them).

As for the argument that it is "desecrating" the body, there are people that believe that performing scientific experiments on dead bodies is also an abhorrent violation of the dead. And yet, much of the advances of modern medicine are because of that practice. Because people like Leonardo DaVinci were willing to violate social taboos and laws of the time, an incalculable amount of human suffering has been alleviated in the centuries since. I see a necromancer who raises a skeletal army to defend a village from marauding ogres the same way I see DaVinci - as a hero.

[Falling Icicle]

The necromancer forces and traps a fragment of a persons soul back into its own corpse against its will, creating a mockery of life and inflicting spiritual torment for the creature, stopping it from being dead anymore - but also not bringing it back to actual life.

The animate dead spell's text states that "your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature." It doesn't affect the soul of the person that once inhabited that body in any way.

[Malifice]

A corpse is just an object, whatever emotional response people may have to it.

Disregarding that emotional connection be desecrating that body (particularly by animating it as an evil undead monster) is clearly a morally dubious act.

To say the least.

[Malifice]

The animate dead spell's text states that "your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature." It doesn't affect the soul of the person that once inhabited that body in any way.

In your campaigns. In mine it does. As i mentioned in the post.

Also 'undead' clearly implies to me that the person you just animated is no longer dead. Dead being the state of a living creature after its soul leaves its body.

Remember; that dead person you just animated is no longer dead. This isn't something akin to a building a robot (which was never alive, can never die and even when activated is not 'undead'). Its something very different.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt be entirely happy to have my family members brought back from death in a state of undead servitude to a Necromancer. Fairly sure this would raise the ire of not just the families involved, but law enforcement and many religious institutions as well.

[Spacehamster]

Disregarding that emotional connection be desecrating that body (particularly by animating it as an evil undead monster) is clearly a morally dubious act.

To say the least.

Its a good undead monster if you have it kill badguys and help the greater good tho. :)

[Malifice]

Its a good undead monster if you have it kill badguys and help the greater good tho. :)

No, its not. Its alignment stays the same.

Any more than a magically dominated LG Paladin is or becomes evil for doing evil things while so dominated.

[Spacehamster]

No, its not. Its alignment stays the same.

Any more than a magically dominated LG Paladin is or becomes evil for doing evil things while so dominated.

Well its alignment does not matter in the slightest since you have full control over it and can choose to just use them for good if you so wish. ^^

[Malifice]

Well its alignment does not matter in the slightest since you have full control over it and can choose to just use them for good if you so wish. ^^

Yeah. I'm sure the townsfolk storming your lair with pitchforks and torches, local law enforcement officials, and the odd Paladin or two will agree with you there.

Not.

[Spacehamster]

Yeah. I'm sure the townsfolk storming your lair with pitchforks and torches, local law enforcement officials, and the odd Paladin or two will agree with you there.

Not.

And they would storm my lair cause of why? Its not like I would bring zombies and skeletons into town? So to townfolk and paladin I would be just another wizard. Beeing able to wake the dead does not have any description of making your pc stupid anywhere that I saw at least. :)

[Malifice]

And they would storm my lair cause of why? Its not like I would bring zombies and skeletons into town? So to townfolk and paladin I would be just another wizard. Beeing able to wake the dead does not have any description of making your pc stupid anywhere that I saw at least. :)

Like I said man, if you keep it quiet and on the down low then fine.

Getting those bodies and moving them in and out of town could be an issue.

Also if someone does find out, prepare to be blackmailed or worse.

[Heartspan]

Well you don't need humans do you? Use kobolds, goblins, orcs and their ilk. Or bandits. You can get plenty of corpses of things that'll try to kill you anyway. Use them. Also, if you NEED to bring a zombie into town, (and it isnt too damaged already) use gentle repose on it before you raise it. That should make it rot free for a little bit~ "oh? This is Jeoffry, he doesn't talk much."

[holygroundj]

No, its not. Its alignment stays the same.

Any more than a magically dominated LG Paladin is or becomes evil for doing evil things while so dominated.

You really really really have to keep saying "in my campaign." Nothing you are saying is RAW, and while nothing you do in your campaign is wrong, it's really had to have a conversation on a level playing field if we're using two sets of rules.


In your world animating dead is evil. necrotic energy is evil. But RAW, it's not tied to spell type or actions specifically. Take, for example, hex. Hex is not an evil spell, even though it deals necrotic energy. Same with Spare the dying.

There's nothing in the rules that says animating dead is an evil act. However, most campaigns will see this as a bad thing, and there's nothing wrong with making that a houserule.

[Louro]

Would you say that raising you recently dead sister to have sex with her is an evil act?

If you think so, then you must agree that raising the dead is an evil act, no matter if it is an elf or an orc. Just don't take it too strictly. Even a proud honorable knight can backstab an enemy if the situation requires to do so. A good character may use raise dead at a given situation but will take care of release the trapped soul after the job its done, while an evil one would enslave as many souls as he needs.

Also note that Gods in charge of "dead" are usually necromancer unfriendly. You know, mortals messing around with deity business.

[Maxilian]

Be careful, you'll apparently get DMs insisting reanimating the dead is inherently evil.

Well that depends on your character opinion, but in the end, have in mind that most NPC will react to the fact that you're a Necromancer and it won't be nice


Would you say that raising you recently dead sister to have sex with her is an evil act?

If you think so, then you must agree that raising the dead is an evil act, no matter if it is an elf or an orc. Just don't take it too strictly. Even a proud honorable knight can backstab an enemy if the situation requires to do so. A good character may use raise dead at a given situation but will take care of release the trapped soul after the job its done, while an evil one would enslave as many souls as he needs.

Also note that Gods in charge of "dead" are usually necromancer unfriendly. You know, mortals messing around with deity business.

Well Necromancy doesn't really trap the person soul, at least not most necromancers in the DnD universe, those that normally use souls are liches (that need them to stay inmortal and sane)

[Louro]

Well Necromancy doesn't really trap the person soul, at least not most necromancers in the DnD universe, those that normally use souls are liches (that need them to stay inmortal and sane)
It depends I guess. It was always that way for me, from D&D literature, 2nd edition, rolemaster and fluff. Otherwise a zombie would be the same as a meat golem.

[Maxilian]

It depends I guess. It was always that way for me, from D&D literature, 2nd edition, rolemaster and fluff. Otherwise a zombie would be the same as a meat golem.

Well is mostly seen bad, because the zombies are evil per se, if noone is controlling them, they will just stand there until something they can kill come near them...

[comk59]

You really really really have to keep saying "in my campaign." Nothing you are saying is RAW, and while nothing you do in your campaign is wrong, it's really had to have a conversation on a level playing field if we're using two sets of rules.


In your world animating dead is evil. necrotic energy is evil. But RAW, it's not tied to spell type or actions specifically. Take, for example, hex. Hex is not an evil spell, even though it deals necrotic energy. Same with Spare the dying.

There's nothing in the rules that says animating dead is an evil act. However, most campaigns will see this as a bad thing, and there's nothing wrong with making that a houserule.

Well, if you need RAW...



creating undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently


Seems rather clear-cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting the RAW that kinda says "necromancy is evil".

[Maxilian]

Well, if you need RAW...



Seems rather clear-cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting the RAW that kinda says "necromancy is evil".

also at pag 118 in the PHB says: "Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

So... yeah...

[comk59]

also at pag 118 in the PHB says: "Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies."

So... yeah...

You're right necromancy itself is not inherently evil. But creating undead is.

[RedMage125]

Be careful, you'll apparently get DMs insisting reanimating the dead is inherently evil.

Well, according to the RAW in the PHB, animating undead is "not a good act, and only evil characters use such means regularly"

So...take that how you will.

Also, skeletons and zombies are no longer mindless and are explicitly evil.

Edit: didn't even notice there was a second page to the thread, lol.

[Falling Icicle]

Also 'undead' clearly implies to me that the person you just animated is no longer dead. Dead being the state of a living creature after its soul leaves its body.

Being undead and being alive are not at all the same thing. A zombie or skeleton is simply a corpse that has been animated by necromantic energy. There's nothing in the rules that say that the soul of that person is somehow sucked out of the afterlife and forced into their body when that happens. If it were, why are zombies and skeletons so stupid and lack all of the knowledge of the deceased? The way it is described, it sounds to me like the necromancer is effectively giving the body a fake soul, a crude mimicry of life that falls well short of the real thing. It's just enough to let the corpse shamble around and fight, but little else.

Now, there are undead which definitely do involve trapped and tormented souls, like specters and wraiths. Those undead tend to be significantly more powerful and more intelligent than zombies, and I would agree that the creation of those types of undead would be a morally questionable act even in the best of circumstances. But a simple skeleton or zombie? No.



I dont know about you, but I wouldnt be entirely happy to have my family members brought back from death in a state of undead servitude to a Necromancer. Fairly sure this would raise the ire of not just the families involved, but law enforcement and many religious institutions as well.

Just because something offends someone's sensibilities doesn't mean that it's evil. That said, only a foolish or desperate necromancer goes around raising the corpses in the local graveyard. A smart necromancer raises the bodies of creatures that the townsfolk don't care about - like all those orcs, goblins, gnolls, etc. that adventurers kill all the time.

[Falling Icicle]

Seems rather clear-cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting the RAW that kinda says "necromancy is evil".

It says that creating undead is "not a good act." That doesn't mean it is always evil. It can also be a neutral act, depending on the circumstances.

[Envyus]

It should be noted that any Necromancers don't have permanent control over their undead. If they don't keep refreashing the spell on the undead under their control they become the hostile. They are hostile unless the creator while they are under his control tells them not to be.

[Malifice]

Being undead and being alive are not at all the same thing. A zombie or skeleton is simply a corpse that has been animated by necromantic energy. .

Nope. Because then the people who used to be those corpses would still be dead.

They arent dead anymore. Theyre undead. They are not just simple constructs. That doesnt mean they are alive either.

Messing with someone who has died, enslaving them and turning them into an evil being (against their will) isnt even close to a good act, and in my campaigns comes with repurcussions.

[Louro]

This is so stupid.

Creating an undead is an evil act, as you are creating an "evil by nature" being. Can be helpful and admissible? Probably.
Can you make a world in which undead creation is a common thing? Of course you can, but unless you change the entire conception of morality it will still be an evil act, by definition.

The "trapped soul" thing is the most common way to represented it. On zombies the soul just fuels the body while on wraiths it is also forced to bring some intelligence and emotions. This option also brings a lot of side effects to the table.

[Fwiffo86]

like all those orcs, goblins, gnolls, etc. that adventurers kill all the time.

Killing them is evil. Adventurers are usually nothing more than glorified murderers wearing the delicately thing veil of heroism.

[RedMage125]

Killing them is evil. Adventurers are usually nothing more than glorified murderers wearing the delicately thing veil of heroism.

One detail you may have missed in your 5e PHB under alignments is the fact that Orcs and the like are now "inherently evil". Evil humanoids were made by evil gods to be their servants and were not invested with the same level of free will as a human, elf, dwarf, etc. They are now "inherently evil" in the same way as dragons, demons, etc.

I think this was to cut down the moral quandaries and debates throughout D&D of whether or not killing orc women and children is morally acceptable. An orc baby fresh from the womb will ping as Evil under the scrutiny of a Paladin or a Detect Evil and Good spell.

*drops microphone*

[OldTrees1]

The "Necromancy is/is not Evil" debate will never have a resolution. Both opinions are self consistent (and thus will not be convinced otherwise) and it is a topic that RAW has frequently said "It is up to the DM" so any RAW "evidence" will be rejected unless it confirms a held belief.

Personally, at my table, I have Necromancy be unaligned and have what you do be what matters.
Some other tables do likewise, some other tables rule it EVIL, some other tables do a third thing.

[Xetheral]

One detail you may have missed in your 5e PHB under alignments is the fact that Orcs and the like are now "inherently evil". Evil humanoids were made by evil gods to be their servants and were not invested with the same level of free will as a human, elf, dwarf, etc. They are now "inherently evil" in the same way as dragons, demons, etc.

I think this was to cut down the moral quandaries and debates throughout D&D of whether or not killing orc women and children is morally acceptable. An orc baby fresh from the womb will ping as Evil under the scrutiny of a Paladin or a Detect Evil and Good spell.

*drops microphone*

In my book all it says are that orcs are inclined towards evil. It says nothing about having less free will. It doesn't compare them to demons and devils at all.

Free will is mentioned in the context of the PC races being given free will to choose their moral path, but even if you extrapolate from that that orcs were given less free will to choose their moral path (a conclusion I dispute), all that implies is that fewer orcs will choose the path of good. It doesn't mean that orcs are more evil than they were in previous editions.

[RedMage125]

The "Necromancy is/is not Evil" debate will never have a resolution. Both opinions are self consistent (and thus will not be convinced otherwise) and it is a topic that RAW has frequently said "It is up to the DM" so any RAW "evidence" will be rejected unless it confirms a held belief.

Personally, at my table, I have Necromancy be unaligned and have what you do be what matters.
Some other tables do likewise, some other tables rule it EVIL, some other tables do a third thing.

I generally deviate from RAW very little. And I go with what the RAW says. And nowhere has it ever said "ALL Necromancy is evil". But rather "animating undead is an evil act" (in 3.x).

I've even come up with concepts for a non-evil necromancer who animates undead (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335215-Character-Concepts-Non-Evil-Necromancer) in 3.5. Now, that character is still commiting evil acts when he animates undead. But he himself is not Evil. I suggest reading the thread for more information if you care, the arguments are not worth going back into here.

Bottom line is, even if undead animation is evil, the person doing it may not be, even under a strict RAW ruling.

[Eslin]

This is so stupid.

Creating an undead is an evil act, as you are creating an "evil by nature" being. Can be helpful and admissible? Probably.
Can you make a world in which undead creation is a common thing? Of course you can, but unless you change the entire conception of morality it will still be an evil act, by definition.

The "trapped soul" thing is the most common way to represented it. On zombies the soul just fuels the body while on wraiths it is also forced to bring some intelligence and emotions. This option also brings a lot of side effects to the table.

Well, no. The most common way to represent it is the soul stays in the afterlife and you reanimate the body, being able to force several souls with a third level spell when even expensive single target ninth level spells can't force a soul back to its body is ridiculous.

[Ashrym]

Animating dead is not a good act and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

That's directly from the PHB on page 203 under necromancy. Other necromancy spells are not evil, animating dead is not necessarily evil but definitely not good, animated dead are listed as evil, and only evil casters use the spells frequently. We can rationalize why that last point it true but it's ultimately true for a reason.

Necromancy clearly isn't evil but it seems to be a tool for evil used by evil so I think players can expect to be expected to justify using spells that create undead because that is the default perception unless the DM has changed that default somehow.

[Eslin]

Animating dead is not a good act and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

That's directly from the PHB on page 203 under necromancy. Other necromancy spells are not evil, animating dead is not necessarily evil but definitely not good, animated dead are listed as evil, and only evil casters use the spells frequently. We can rationalize why that last point it true but it's ultimately true for a reason.

Necromancy clearly isn't evil but it seems to be a tool for evil used by evil so I think players can expect to be expected to justify using spells that create undead because that is the default perception unless the DM has changed that default somehow.

Rulebooks also keep implying poisons are evil, despite that obviously not being true. D&D is kind of weird about this sort of thing.

[Xetheral]

Rulebooks also keep implying poisons are evil, despite that obviously not being true. D&D is kind of weird about this sort of thing.

Doesn't the considerable disagreement about poisons in the other thread suggest that the evilness of poisons is debatable? Just like the evilness of raising the dead is apparently debatable?

[hawklost]

Rulebooks also keep implying poisons are evil, despite that obviously not being true. D&D is kind of weird about this sort of thing.

Why is it you continue to attempt to use rules from the rulebooks only when it suits your arguements but completely disregard them when they explicitly state your argument is false?

If you don't like the rules as written, then you don't have to use them, but talking about how 'this is in the rules' and then ignoring others because you don't like them is just silly.

[Eslin]

Doesn't the considerable disagreement about poisons in the other thread suggest that the evilness of poisons is debatable? Just like the evilness of raising the dead is apparently debatable?

Different reasoning though. Necromancy's a more intricate debate since there are no hard answers or real world parallels, while people just keep insisting D&D poisons are evil because they mix them up with real world poisons. One's an interesting discussion, the other's people being wrong due to kneejerk association.

Lots of debate doesn't actually mean the subject's in any doubt. I won't draw the obvious real world parallels here, but people spent huge amounts of time debating whether to give certain groups equality with others and that doesn't mean the side arguing for inequality had any merit.


Why is it you continue to attempt to use rules from the rulebooks only when it suits your arguements but completely disregard them when they explicitly state your argument is false?

If you don't like the rules as written, then you don't have to use them, but talking about how 'this is in the rules' and then ignoring others because you don't like them is just silly.
I disregard them when they don't make sense. If the rules said everyone had to honk three times and spin around until they're dizzy to perform a short rest I'd ignore that on the grounds of being stupid, just like I treat a damage boost on weapon hits from coating them in a special liquid as morally no different from using a magic weapon because it clearly isn't any different.

[Ashrym]

Necromancy's a more intricate debate since there are no hard answers or real world parallels

Zombies are very much part of real world parallels. It's a common horror movie archetype that's spanned decades for reference.

It's also still part of religions, but I don't want to bring religious debate into the discussion.

Similar horror is visible in modern media whether it's a book, tv series, or movie.

I disagree that there isn't a parallel to which we can compare.

[Eslin]

Zombies are very much part of real world parallels. It's a common horror movie archetype that's spanned decades for reference.

It's also still part of religions, but I don't want to bring religious debate into the discussion.

Similar horror is visible in modern media whether it's a book, tv series, or movie.

I disagree that there isn't a parallel to which we can compare.
Real world wise the media portrayals of zombies are contagious apocalypse causing creatures very different from the things you reanimate as henchmen.
And I said real world parallels, not media parallels.

[Ashrym]

Real world wise the media portrayals of zombies are contagious apocalypse causing creatures very different from the things you reanimate as henchmen.
And I said real world parallels, not media parallels.

What's the point in omitting perception based on media other than it doesn't fit your argument?

[Eslin]

What's the point in omitting perception based on media other than it doesn't fit your argument?
The media portrayals aren't in any way a useful comparison for D&D zombies, most work far too differently. The point to omitting them is that poisons exist and so attitudes to poison use exist, while there are no historical or present attitudes to raising the dead because we can't do it.

[Xetheral]

Different reasoning though. Necromancy's a more intricate debate since there are no hard answers or real world parallels, while people just keep insisting D&D poisons are evil because they mix them up with real world poisons. One's an interesting discussion, the other's people being wrong due to kneejerk association.

And what about the people who think through the issue, and still decide to treat poison in D&D as morally identical to real world poisons? (e.g., our discussion here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18645175&postcount=39)


Lots of debate doesn't actually mean the subject's in any doubt. I won't draw the obvious real world parallels here, but people spent huge amounts of time debating whether to give certain groups equality with others and that doesn't mean the side arguing for inequality had any merit.

If there is lots of debate, claiming that the subject is not in any doubt is effectively claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable.

[Eslin]

And what about the people who think through the issue, and still decide to treat poison in D&D as morally identical to real world poisons? (e.g., our discussion here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18645175&postcount=39)



If there is lots of debate, claiming that the subject is not in any doubt is effectively claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. There are plenty of examples in real life that we're all aware of in which there is a massive amount of debate but one side is completely incorrect. It happens.

Now, people aren't logical, I'm fine with NPCs treating poison use as wrong just as I'm fine with them treating sex before marriage as wrong, there are plenty of things that aren't bad that are treated as bad by people who don't know any better. But putting a poison that does extra damage every time you injure someone with your weapon being in any way morally different than using a magic weapon which does extra damage every time you injure someone with it? I can confidently say I am completely correct in saying that the two are morally indistinguishable.

[silveralen]

Real world wise the media portrayals of zombies are contagious apocalypse causing creatures very different from the things you reanimate as henchmen.

Not really? They can't make more or themselves by default, but beyond that the shambling around, killing any living creature it encounters bit is accurate. Necromancers have a bunch of rapid dogs on a leash, they will slaughter anyone they see the moment his control slips. I mean, remember if he just forgets to give his zombie an order, or the zombie completes a task and he doesn't assign it a new one, it will kill anything that happens by. That's just how zombies are.

[Xetheral]

If there is lots of debate, claiming that the subject is not in any doubt is effectively claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable.Which is exactly what I'm saying. There are plenty of examples in real life that we're all aware of in which there is a massive amount of debate but one side is completely incorrect. It happens.

I for one disagree with you, and yet see no reason for me to believe your claim that I'm being unreasonable.


But putting a poison that does extra damage every time you injure someone with your weapon being in any way morally different than using a magic weapon which does extra damage every time you injure someone with it? I can confidently say I am completely correct in saying that the two are morally indistinguishable.

They're only indistinguishable if, as part of your playstyle, you choose to allow the game mechanics to influence your determinations of in-character morality. For everyone with playstyles where in-character morality is not informed by the game mechanics, poison and magic weapon damage have nothing to do with each other.

[Eslin]

Not really? They can't make more or themselves by default, but beyond that the shambling around, killing any living creature it encounters bit is accurate. Necromancers have a bunch of rapid dogs on a leash, they will slaughter anyone they see the moment his control slips. I mean, remember if he just forgets to give his zombie an order, or the zombie completes a task and he doesn't assign it a new one, it will kill anything that happens by. That's just how zombies are.

Except that replication/apocalypse is the point of them, a sharp contrast to the reanimated servant thing.

[silveralen]

Except that replication/apocalypse is the point of them, a sharp contrast to the reanimated servant thing.

I think the "going on a rampage, slaughtering helpless people" is kinda the point. They aren't a reanimated servant, they are an evil reanimated killing machine only held back in their murderous impulses by your magic.

[Eslin]

I think the "going on a rampage, slaughtering helpless people" is kinda the point. They aren't a reanimated servant, they are an evil reanimated killing machine only held back in their murderous impulses by your magic.

Except that they're much more commonly seen in the reanimated and used as a servant aspect - and in either case, it's definitely not the self replication/apocalypse/mirroring of humanity thing that defines current zombies.

[silveralen]

Except that they're much more commonly seen in the reanimated and used as a servant aspect

.... maybe in your homebrewed setting, but they are literally the most common "we need to kill this evil thing" in most settings, only being rivaled by goblins/orcs. Like... clearing out a crypt of undead is one of those really iconic things.

[Eslin]

.... maybe in your homebrewed setting, but they are literally the most common "we need to kill this evil thing" in most settings, only being rivaled by goblins/orcs. Like... clearing out a crypt of undead is one of those really iconic things.

What? No. In a setting where that's even slightly likely, you have people dismembering or burning their dead to prevent that kind of thing.

And in any case, still has a completely different focus to present media zombies.

[silveralen]

What? No. In a setting where that's even slightly likely, you have people dismembering or burning their dead to prevent that kind of thing.

Again, you might think it should work like that, but it doesn't always. People used to think vampires and other undead could spontaneously arise back in the more superstitious parts of earth's history, they didn'tstop burrying bodies in favor of burning them as a general norm. Burial is a thing that happens even in settings like ravenloft canonically. So... yeah.

[Ashrym]

The media portrayals aren't in any way a useful comparison for D&D zombies, most work far too differently. The point to omitting them is that poisons exist and so attitudes to poison use exist, while there are no historical or present attitudes to raising the dead because we can't do it.

I disagree.

Most people don't use poisons. Those that do use them for herbicides and pesticides. Killing people with poison is something they experience by media to make the comparison. The reality is that it's a low rate. United States from 1999-2005 -- "The overall rate for the period was 0.26/million/year."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19514882

Resuscitation is measured in percentages instead of per million, common practice, and work often enough to see percentages. It's also controversial enough that DNR orders exist and debates about the right to die also exist.

http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@adt/documents/downloadable/ucm_449081.pdf
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186668
http://www.worldrtd.net/de/term/dnr-do-not-resuscitate-orders

And there is continued improvements in medical techniques.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041721_medical_breakthrough_corpse_revival_resusci tation.html#

It's clear that reviving the dead is more common than poisoning to kill, so your premise is incorrect. It's also clear that we see more of either on media than in personal experience, unless you are trying to propose you've saved more lives by resuscitation than you've seen in media.


It's not the zombie portrayals that we're really looking at. It's the act of creating zombies in the first place. Zombie apocalypse is more recent of a trend and typically older versions were related to evil witch doctors, black magic, and voodoo or mad scientists. Frankenstein can be viewed as either a construct (flesh golem) or zombie as reanimated corpses and comes from European folklore. The mad scientist approach to bringing back zombies was common and we saw things like that from HP Lovecraft and the evil magic guy in Wes Craven's The Serpent and the Rainbow.

Short version: Media is what gives our perspective on real life or fiction in most cases and should not be ignored. Attempts to revive the dead are real and more common than poisoning. Evil people creating zombies exist in media.

[RedMage125]

I disregard them when they don't make sense.

That's all well and good, and that's your perogative in your game.

But you seriously need to get around this idea you have (not just in this thread) that your opinions are somehow so vital and universal that they hold any weight with anyone else as fact.

By all means, pick and choose from the RAW what to use and what to disregard. But please, stop insisting that the rules themselves are somehow mistaken or inadequate because your preference is different.

[Falling Icicle]

Nope. Because then the people who used to be those corpses would still be dead.

They arent dead anymore. Theyre undead. They are not just simple constructs. That doesnt mean they are alive either.

Messing with someone who has died, enslaving them and turning them into an evil being (against their will) isnt even close to a good act, and in my campaigns comes with repurcussions.

The BODY is now undead. That has nothing to do with the soul. Something can affect one without affecting the other, especially once the soul has already departed for the afterlife and left the body behind.

From p. 272 of the MM in the description of skeletons it states, "Whatever sinister force awakens a skeleton infuses its bones with a dark vitality, adhering joint to joint and reassembling dismantled limbs. This energy motivates a skeleton to move and think in a rudimentary fashion, though only as a pale imitation of the way it behaved in life. An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past, although resurrecting a skeleton restores its body and soul, banishing the hateful undead spirit that empowers it."

Animating a skeleton has no effect on a creature's soul. It puts an undead spirit in the body instead. If the corpse is later resurrected, that undead spirit is kicked out so that the creature's real soul can move back in to its former home.

[holygroundj]

"Not good" is not the same as evil. There's literally a third option RAW in DnD.

It's called Neutral.

Yes, it says only evil spellcasters use the spell frequently, although I'd even quibble with that. And some things are taboo because people are idiots, and don't actually understand how they work. See the real world for certain taboo things in culture that have been changing.

This is the way I see it, and I know it's just my interpretation:

NPCs don't like animate dead because they see a zombie and thing, "Heck, I don't want to be a zombie, that looks like it would suck, existing like that." Except it's not them. And it's not our world where we don't have "proof" of what happens when you die; in DnD, the afterlife is provable and real. So when a humanoid dies, it has a soul and that goes somewhere. But culturally, it seems like people still care what happens to the bodies.

But, outside of culturally imposed moralities, there's nothing inherently evil with any form of energy, even necrotic.

[silveralen]

But, outside of culturally imposed moralities, there's nothing inherently evil with any form of energy, even necrotic.

Per the Monster Manual p 272 and p 315


When skeletons encounter living creates, the necromatic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless commanded otherwise.


The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters.

The magic which reanimates undead is inherently evil by RAW. If you use it... well you aren't good. If you use it very carefully and only for the good of others you still end up neutral, just as if you constantly tried to summon and bind demons/devils.


NPCs don't like animate dead because they see a zombie and thing, "Heck, I don't want to be a zombie, that looks like it would suck, existing like that."

Or because those undead will immediately try to kill them if ever given the opportunity, because their default state is killing people. For a peasant, that's terrifying. Sure, a wizard or fighter might be inherently scary because they can, but most people don't kill others on a whim. The undead will.

[Spacehamster]

Did not think this would turn into such a philosophical debate when I asked what ppl thought of the necro subclass! :D

[Heartspan]

I think the main issue is this: golems, undead, clockworks. They ALL scare people and seem evil. Depending onthe society, golemancy may be acceptable. But necromancy, ( and i play necromancers good and evil alot) its scary and GROSS. Zombies are moving rotting fleshbags that are kept moving through magic. So not only do you have the "unnatural imitation of life" factor that is a debate on its own, you have the fact that a zombie is a walking monument of pestilence. That in and of itself says something of the people who make them. Skeletons are a little better, but you're still using a corpse, and that is the main problem.

[silveralen]

Did not think this would turn into such a philosophical debate when I asked what ppl thought of the necro subclass! :D

Yeah, it is because things like undead armies vary greatly in power depending on the DM and setting.

[hawklost]

There is a major difference between a Golem and Undead

Golem without Orders - Nice big statue
Undead without Orders - Killing machine

So, if mister caster creates 100 Golems and then decides to have a heart attack, the golems don't really do much.

If Same mister caster creates 100 Undead and then decides to have a heart attack, the undead will kill any living thing they see.

And yes, I know that if a Golem is told to kill things it sees it will follow those instructions indefinitely but then that was the casters will, not the Golem doing it whether the caster wants it to or not.

[kaoskonfety]

The core rules expressly defining Zombies and similar mindless undead as evil is interesting, I'd be curious if it was a game design choice, a review of the moral systems, hold over from prior editions or "making them hunger for the flesh of the living is cool". If they cannot make decisions and cannot make moral choices but are still evil because of their animating force... what does this imply about alignments in general? The Celestials? Fiends... Hungry tigers? Are tigers evil when they hunger for the flesh of the living? Are the PC's?

"Zombies are dangerous" arguments feel legit but a bit weak - tannery chemicals, nitroglycerine, swords and tigers are also dangerous - any anyone that leaves any of these unattended near common folk is irresponsible or evil. If we are using skeletons to mine rather than sending living men down there is it still evil to make them? Is it evil to be using slaves for the same job when you have both options?

"Zombies are gross and people hate thinking about them" a good argument against using them where people will see them or interact with them, which is why most modern animal slaughtering facilities are placed well outside of cities - they are gross and people hate thinking about them. Does being gross make making them evil?

How often would you say most PC's use animate dead in a city or town? Or cast cloud kill, conjure celestial, or dominate person? would it not be more of a dungeon survival thing and you stop using them (destroy them, dismiss them, what have you) before heading home to drink ale and enjoy the inns many other simple comforts? (unless the celestial is quite insistent they would also like a beer...)

As I understand it spells no longer have alignment descriptors so animate dead is not itself 'evil' as per the rules unless you DM totally decides it is - in Ravenloft styled setting for example it TOTALLY IS - stop animating MORE of the dead, we have enough problem. Any setting where the powers of death are lorded over exclusively or primarily by evil gods it may also be judged "evil" to dabble in them due to association.

There is also NOTHING stopping the DM from declaring casting the spell is generally a good act either - maybe animated dead is drastically preferable to whatever naturally happens when you leave bodies in the sun (the necrotic energy keeps out say, an evil sentient fungus that also uses the dead bodies as fuel for their growth so they can finish consuming the plane of existence, a rent in the world to the positive material reanimates all the dead as (some sort of positive energy horror) unless they are animated deliberately with negative energy first and then burned...).

Now I want to write a setting where necromancy is our best weapon against some encroaching evil/apocalypse. Bother.

[Doug Lampert]

Did not think this would turn into such a philosophical debate when I asked what ppl thought of the necro subclass! :D

The necro subclass is exceedingly strong, unless held in check by an assumption that people in the setting respond to necromancers and their undead with an unthinking KILL! KILL! KILL! response.

But that unthinking KILL! KILL! KILL! response is EVIL unless the undead creation itself is inherently EVIL and thus justifies the unthinking KILL! KILL! KILL response.

This ties into the "actual" morality (in game) of necromancy since morality in game is at least somewhat knowable, and if killing necromancers isn't justified then attempts to do so are exactly the sort of thing PCs should fix and LG paladins resist. And if the "actual" in game morality is EVIL, then PCs should be leading the way to kill the necromancer and take his stuff.

The utility of the subclass is inherently tied to the morality of necromancy to such an extent that any debate about the utility can't be answered till after you've dealt with the morality.

[hawklost]

-snip-
How often would you say most PC's use animate dead in a city or town? Or cast cloud kill, conjure celestial, or dominate person? would it not be more of a dungeon survival thing and you stop using them (destroy them, dismiss them, what have you) before heading home to drink ale and enjoy the inns many other simple comforts? (unless the celestial is quite insistent they would also like a beer...)


The debate usually goes off on Undead = Evil because people like to demand that they are not and that they should be able to make an army of them and not have anyone complain about it (Either of dead enemies or 'useless' dead).

They attempt to point out that it should not be evil because morals in dnd are different or it should not be evil because of spell alignments not existing.

Then they like to say that DnD is broken because the Skeleton army is far better than a peasant army of the same number.

Whether or not they are bringing the army of undead into a town is not really the problem with most people. Its that they inherently will not accept that bringing evil being into the world is effectively an evil act, even if you attempt to use the evil for good reasons.


-snip-
As I understand it spells no longer have alignment descriptors so animate dead is not itself 'evil' as per the rules unless you DM totally decides it is - in Ravenloft styled setting for example it TOTALLY IS - stop animating MORE of the dead, we have enough problem. Any setting where the powers of death are lorded over exclusively or primarily by evil gods it may also be judged "evil" to dabble in them due to association.

You are correct that even the Animate Dead spell is not an evil alignment spell, but there are quotes in the PHB that state that using such a spell is not a good act and that only evil people do it often.

The undead that are created are also evil by the fact that the MM says they are. So someone using necromancy to bring undead about are bringing evil into the world, which would be seen as an evil act.

This is by the Core books statements. Someone who wishes to do differently can do so if the DM says so, but the Core states one way. (Houserules are awesome and I support them, just not in debates about how dnd works by Core)

Now, does it matter that people are evil in DnD? Not really, I think a group or individual who is evil in a game but goes after a greater evil for some reason (maybe wants to be the evil overlord so they help take the old one down) is great RP. But someone who goes around torturing people or creating undead and then tries to claim to be good or even Nutrual if they do it very often is something a lot of forum goers disagree with. The End does not Justify the Means when it comes to Good

[archaeo]

Just as an aside, if I'm the DM, and my player is Eslin, I'm going to let him play a Necromancer, either from a culture in which animate dead is considered ethically acceptable, or as an iconoclast willing to buck the trend. It's an interesting character concept and has lots of interesting effects on the setting, but the main thing is that my player wants to play a Necromancer, and I would prefer that my players get to do what they want to do. Plus, the animate dead rules and other spells allow for a lot of fun drama the DM has on tap.

What I wouldn't be cool with is someone who abuses necromancy every time they play a caster because their characters always make optimal decisions and the optimal thing to do if you're a caster is to find a way to create a private army. If they then back this up with a lot of talk about how regarding necromancy as evil is illogical and therefore ridiculous, I'd be inclined to just ask them to find a new game.


Then they like to say that DnD is broken because the Skeleton army is far better than a peasant army of the same number.

I mean, "the same number" here is a pretty tepid critique. The number of skeletons a single Necromancer can control is limited by the system, whereas the number of peasants the PCs can conscript is only limited by the setting.

There is also the side benefit that hiring mercenaries is something that will often be on the table in any given game, whereas Necromancy either requires a DM willing to play along or, as evidenced by this thread, a very long argument about the ethics of reanimating the dead.

[Shining Wrath]

For OP: Necromancers are inherently quite powerful but your DM's world matters a lot, more so than for any other Wizard archetype. In Eberron, for example, if you are in Karranath having undead minions is very meh, but travel next door where the Silver Flame rules and they'll kill you so dead on sight traveling about with a pack of zombies.

In my world, creating undead is not inherently evil and does not affect the soul of the departed. However, some churches and all fey view undead as an abomination. If your travels take you into the Wild Places where the fey rule, you are going to face troubles. If you go into any large city, you will likely be confronted by an adherent of one of the churches who preach against the undead. Anywhere else you go, you'll just have the usual "Leave those things outside, I don't want them stinking up my inn!" sorts of prejudice.

EDIT: Since all your creations are evil by definition, if you let them slip from your control, you are responsible for the evil they wreak. This means that a non-evil necromancer has to have precautions in place against his or her incapacity. If you go down in a fight (dead, not just unconscious) your minions are *free* - and likely to side with whoever in the battle appears to be the most evil.