Roleplaying How to justify playing a Cleric with Necromancy spells as a good player ! [Archive]

Carric Darkbard

2015-06-23, 06:42 PM

Hi all, this is my forst post here on this awesome site :biggrin: !

I had that chat with one of my gaming fellow recently. I was looking in the different spell schools, and came up with the necromancy school. As I was still choosing for a class I wondered that if it would be possible to play a good cleric with necromancy spells. As an evil cleric it would be easy to justify, but as a good cleric ... We didn't find a good background to justify a good cleric to perform necromancy ... for good !
It's hard to think of a fellow group of adventurers scouting a dungeon with a bunch of undead following them. Or having a king rewarding the group ... and the undead for rescuing the princess ...

My main lead was that a cleric with medicine affinity (like an healer/doctor/surgeon) would be more please to "play" with corpses and use it for fighting evil. What about social acceptance of someone raising dead for "good" purposes ?

Sooo..... I'm open to suggestion ! Let's debate :tongue:

Magic Myrmidon

2015-06-23, 06:54 PM

There's been a loooooot of discussion on this point in the GitP forums in the past. The view that I agree with is that necromancy simply isn't evil. Reanimating a body, to me, is not really any different from, say, anmating a suit of armor or something, as long as you aren't trapping a soul or killing people to CREATE bodies to animate.

If you mean necromancy in general, the school is simply the manipulation of life forces (if I remember correctly). This isn't necessarily evil, either. In fact, I think there are some spells that actually heal or grant temporary HP to people that are actually necromancy, which is pretty much what most people envision lawful good clerics to typically do.

So, in the end, it's really setting-based. If a setting says that zombies can only be created by trapping souls, or twisting the will of an individual, or something like that, well, it is hard to justify. But just taking the spells and their functionality at what they do, there's nothing really evil about them at all.

Ralanr

2015-06-23, 08:44 PM

Most if not all ressurection spells are tagged as necromancy.

Food for thought

Demidos

2015-06-23, 08:50 PM

There's been a loooooot of discussion on this point in the GitP forums in the past. The view that I agree with is that necromancy simply isn't evil. Reanimating a body, to me, is not really any different from, say, anmating a suit of armor or something, as long as you aren't trapping a soul or killing people to CREATE bodies to animate.

If you mean necromancy in general, the school is simply the manipulation of life forces (if I remember correctly).

Good points, and usually i'd agree, but I had a realization while reading this -- the reanimation of a body doesn't really seem to be manipulation of any life-forces, but rather of an inanimate object, thus implying the ''trap the soul'' thing which fed straight to the whole reanimation is evil.

Anyway, there's obviously always a way around a problem (especially fluff ones), so it would be interesting to fluff it as using a piece of your own soul to animate the dead bodies.

Food for thought.

Gurka

2015-06-23, 09:20 PM

Either A: Corpses are nothing but decaying organic matter without souls, and thus it's neither good nor evil to reanimate them. Just in poor taste, maybe.

or B: The souls remain trapped within, so you select only sinners and bad bad men to reanimate, that they may work in the service of the light, and continue their penance beyond the grave.

Capac Amaru

2015-06-23, 09:35 PM

1.) its the churches job to take care of the souls of its followers

2.) The churches are the worlds front line of defense against the undead, and you must know your enemy

3.) The healing arts require knowledge of the dead and dying

4.) Undeath might be used as a form of penance, or the faithful may volunteer their bodies after death (like mummified guardians)

Safety Sword

2015-06-23, 09:57 PM

1.)

4.) Undeath might be used as a form of penance, or the faithful may volunteer their bodies after death (like mummified guardians)

This might be related to the "why" of necromancy being perceived as evil. You take away the choice of the soul to return or for the family to bury the body according to custom.

In a world where you only need to body and the soul to be willing to restore life with magic, not having the body is a real issue!

If you agreed to being undead, then I guess that stigma would be removed.

goto124

2015-06-23, 09:57 PM

Safety Sword

2015-06-23, 10:06 PM

Thing is, will the NPCs believe you're good?

If they still see you as evil, that's a lot of trouble even if you're good.

Yea, you brought up social acceptance, which is highly dependant on the DM (who controls the NPCs that make up the society).

I introduced a "good" necromancer in a campaign once and he was killed before he even had a chance to explain himself.

The perception of necromancy as evil was a real killer for him.

GiantOctopodes

2015-06-23, 10:17 PM

Yeah, as with most things, it's as evil as it is believed to be, it's mainly about the setting. There are a vast number of things that others find unacceptable on a sliding scale, and whether your Cleric's order finds them to be evil depends on the order. The same is true of the populace at large, and their opinions may differ on the matter. Thus, in many ways, it's more a matter of "what are the consequences of this action" than "is it evil". D&D 5E reflects the growing moral ambiguity of our time by not having Alignment matter for things like Detect Evil or Protection from Evil anymore, too, so it's not like being evil has a mechanical consequence any longer.

Be aware that regardless, many Druids in particular and other orders may consider Undead a perversion of the natural way of things, and attack and destroy on sight. It's not just the populace at large you need to worry about, it's the opinions and reactions of your fellow party members, so be sure to discuss the matter with them as well.

Fundamentally, though, you're taking the remains of other's beloved son, monther, brother, or whatever, and puppeteering them in a mockery of life wholly subservient to your will, having them take actions that in no way honors or reflects the individual that once inhabited that form. It's potentially hugely disrespectful, though if you do it to the corpses of the monster races you slew in battle it's possible that the only ones who would care are others of that race, and you might be fine with pissing all of them off anyway.

If you're concerned about the morality of it, you might also want to ask if you can reflavor the necromancy spells into something similar. Have your character create puppets or automatons that resemble living beings and animate those, using the same stats but saying they're creatures of straw and wood rather than flesh and blood.

Carric Darkbard

2015-06-24, 08:34 AM

If you're concerned about the morality of it, you might also want to ask if you can reflavor the necromancy spells into something similar. Have your character create puppets or automatons that resemble living beings and animate those, using the same stats but saying they're creatures of straw and wood rather than flesh and blood.

That's a good idea ! Instead of 'animate dead', it could be 'create puppet' (or something like that) and the mats could be straws for skeletons and mud for zombies. Like Kankurou (http://www.leafninja.com/fullbio.php?p=Kankurou) from the anime Naruto.

I'll suggest that to my DM.

Thank you for the brainstorm ! :cool:

FatherLiir

2015-06-24, 10:33 AM

Become a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Waukeen; The Undead serve as a strong labor source that allows for economic growth in both reducing injuries to living workers, increasing education opportunities for the general public by fulfilling manual labor roles, reduces thievery and embezzlement in the workplace. Others may frown upon your use of the deceased for such roles but that doesn't stop you from being a chummly fellow, you are just very practical about literally everything ever. :smallbiggrin:

When people accuse you of violating the deceased rights, you show them the trade contract where you paid good money for use of their body after death, and that the corpse is officially yours under law.

Citan

2015-06-24, 10:45 AM

Hi !

Interesting question. :) I'm not expert in the perception of necromancy in D&d mythology, as far as I'm concerned it's just another way of magic.

You could for example say that...
1) You're studying necromancy as this is one of the best way to understand life mechanics, and you aim to be the best "non-magical" healer in the world...

2) Your aim is to give lost souls another chance at accomplishing their "life goal", thus reviving/zombifying only souls that ask to.

3) You're striving to protect your kingdom from a great evil (like a foreign army), and you focus on the greater good by using zombies to fight on the front, thus preserving the lifes of the living...

Things like that. Really, it depends on the settings of your campaign, but I really feel it's feasible.
With that said, sure, if one of the first things you do when arriving somewhere is raising villagers's dead on the motive you need a personal guard, there is a good chance they won't see the "good" of your way. :smallbiggrin:

And obviously this sort of dubious "good way" won't be understood by the majority, far from it, as most only judge a book by its cover.

Malifice

2015-06-24, 10:51 AM

I dunno man. If you came home to find that id reanimated your dead mum or wife as a mindless flesh craving zombie, it's pretty apparent that that isn't a 'good' act.

Even leaving aside the horror of the whole thing, the creature is an evil murderous monster that would kill and devour children if it could that is only kept in check by your magic. It's no different to summoning and controlling Devils or demons.

In most iterations of DND (inclising tbis one) animating and controlling the dead is expressly called out as 'not a good' act. I might be able to conceive a neutral aligned necromancer (using dark means out of a sense of practicality) but even that is walking a fine line.

In my campaigns Id certainly gradually change a good aligned PC towards evil if he dabbled in necromancy, no matter his intentions.

Your mileage may vary.

Carric Darkbard

2015-06-24, 10:55 AM

Yeah, I'm leaning to that point of view ! But I would raise my foes instead of dead relatives ! I didn't tought of a business with cheap labor ... but that could be fun :belkar: ! As far as social acceptance don't lead to unions and undead syndicates, i'm fine with that ! :biggrin:

Malifice

2015-06-24, 11:11 AM

Inevitability

2015-06-24, 01:18 PM

I've played around with the idea of a community dedicated to the ideals of service and piety. People would be reanimated after their death to continue serving their loved ones. It would be possible to 'opt out' of this though, which would result in your body being cremated, but people who choose to do so would be looked down upon.

It's an interesting idea, and should be able to count as CN/CG.

Somewhat more related to the question; show your DM some of Eberron's Deathless stuff. Deathless are basically undead that are animated by positive energy, rather than negative, which gives them some living traits and gets around the whole 'undead are evil' stigma. Try to convince him to let you animate those instead. Mechanically, nothing would have to change.

Mcdt2

2015-06-24, 01:40 PM

It's possibly worth noting that, way back in 1st/2nd Edition, all healing was Necromancy. See, Necromancy was explicitly defined as manipulating life energy, both for good and for ill. For some reason 3rd changed healing spells to Conjuration. I could see this working thematically (then again, basically anything can be fluffed into being Conjuration), except they kept the Inflict line being Necromancy.

Fwiffo86

2015-06-24, 03:42 PM

I would put forth this option as we have clerics of a death goddess in the game we play, and I will use them as an example.

The clerics of the dead have access to necromancy for the purpose of ending undead entirely. The clerics perform burial rites strictly for the purpose of preventing the corpses from being used in such a manner. (consider a reverse form of raise dead). The clerics do not speak. The dead no longer have voices, and neither do they. They study the undead they encounter, looking for weakness and what magics enable it. A cleric of this type would never animate a corpse, as it is sacrilegious to the departed and their faith. Spells of necromancy that do not animate the dead, are subject to use as appropriate in the course of their duties. Returning Undead to actual dead, and putting the body at peace.

All life ends. It is a temporary gift granted by the gods. Undeath is a perversion of that gift. Death... is the softest kiss.

AbyssStalker

2015-06-24, 04:23 PM

Yeah but even desecrating the bodies of your dead foes to use them for your own purposes is still 'not good' even if your intentions were pure.

Seen GoT when the walkers animate the wildlings to add to their undead army (to repel the human invaders from their land)? Or when the Mountain is reanimated as Robeet Strong? Under any illusion watching either scene that these were 'good' things to do?

Neutral at best, and even that's a stretch.

To be fair, game of thrones runs on both sides of this, remember Beric? He was perfectly alright when he was resurrected. How would you feel if the Watch decided to animate their own dead to combat the walkers (Not sure how, just hypothetically), it really depends on use, but in a way, you are right, it should really only be a "good" deed if, persay, the corpse agreed to it or if you are forced to use it to prevent evil. Trivial use of necromancy should be avoided in any case, and should be considered a neutral act or worse.

Unless it is a society that has no customs regarding burial of its dead, or has customs that inter-weave with necromancy.

goto124

2015-06-24, 09:05 PM

Unless it is a society that has no customs regarding burial of its dead, or has customs that inter-weave with necromancy.

The GM will have to make/change his setting to this sort of society if you want to play a good Necromancer in your game without the hassle of being labelled evil in-universe.

That, or the entire adventure takes place in a dungeon with nothing but monsters.

There's a lot of setting dependance, and includes rather non-traditional changes. Best to read the DM's notes.

Malifice

2015-06-24, 10:12 PM

To be fair, game of thrones runs on both sides of this, remember Beric? He was perfectly alright when he was resurrected. How would you feel if the Watch decided to animate their own dead to combat the walkers (Not sure how, just hypothetically), it really depends on use, but in a way, you are right, it should really only be a "good" deed if, persay, the corpse agreed to it or if you are forced to use it to prevent evil. Trivial use of necromancy should be avoided in any case, and should be considered a neutral act or worse.

Unless it is a society that has no customs regarding burial of its dead, or has customs that inter-weave with necromancy.

There is still a philosophical dilemma with employing an 'evil' act to achieve a 'good' outcome. A person may murder a baby with the purest of intentions, but that still doesn't make the child killing itself 'good'.

As a hypothetical, if a Paladin traveled through time to stand over someone like Iggwilv, Tsass Tham, or Manshoons infant cradle and then murdered that villain as a baby to save tens of thousands of lives, they would fall and lose that status. It's an intentional act of evil (albeit one with a pure intent). It's the act itself that we assess, not the justification or intent of the act.

For real life examples look at things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also Dresden and others). Clear, intentional and unambiguous war crimes and acts of State sanctioned terrorism - directed at mainly civilians. Combined, those three attacks killed half a million or so people - mainly women and children. Notwithstanding the intent of those acts (primarily the removal of Germany and Japan from the war, and ending WW2) they were (and remain) evil acts.

'The ends justify the means' said no Lawful Good person ever.

Wartex1

2015-06-24, 10:28 PM

Travelling back in time to kill someone who's basically the most evil being ever wouldn't necessarily be evil at all. Context is definitely important. Using the same logic, killing him without the time travel would still be evil

And for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are thousands of other reasons why those were justified. It wasn't just to end the war, but prevented further casualties from standard combat. In addition, if military bases were targeted, then Japan would be a prime target for a Russian invasion.

You can't compare actions in a vacuum. Intent and consequences are perfectly acceptable to justify what could be considered evil.

EDIT:

Here's another example.

Say, killing sentient beings is evil. Roy Greenhilt is Lawful Good. However, Roy Greenhilt kills Goblins. Roy also might have killed Thog as well. Roy "killed" Xykon too at one point.

Malifice

2015-06-24, 10:50 PM

Travelling back in time to kill someone who's basically the most evil being ever wouldn't necessarily be evil at all. Context is definitely important. Using the same logic, killing him without the time travel would still be evil

Yes it is. Killing a defenseless baby is an evil act. Your subjective intent could be pure, but the act itself is evil.

While there is debate about the existence of objective good and evil IRL, 'good and evil' exist as an objective force in DnD. Thats our default meta- philosophical position.

You can subjectively justify baby murder all you want (and sincerely believe in the righteousness of your cause), but when you die, you go to Hell/ the Abyss whatever.

And for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are thousands of other reasons why those were justified. It wasn't just to end the war, but prevented further casualties from standard combat. In addition, if military bases were targeted, then Japan would be a prime target for a Russian invasion.

Again - you miss the point. No-one argues the intent of the act was evil. Its the act itself that was evil.

Genocide, rape, mass murder and so forth doesnt suddenly become 'less evil' because you 'are doing it for good reasons'. The act is (and always will be) evil.

You can't compare actions in a vacuum. Intent and consequences are perfectly acceptable to justify what could be considered evil.

No, they're not. Intent is different from the act. Intent is subjective. The act is objective.

You can always perform an evil act with the intent to achieve a good outcome. But the intended outcome does not itself render the prior act 'good'.

Say, killing sentient beings is evil. Roy Greenhilt is Lawful Good. However, Roy Greenhilt kills Goblins. Roy also might have killed Thog as well. Roy "killed" Xykon too at one point.

And if he wasn't killing them in self defense (or the defense of others) he's committed an evil act.

Wartex1

2015-06-24, 10:57 PM

Intent is just as important as the act itself. You even said that it's not evil if it's killing in self-defense or the defense of others.

Travelling back in time to kill a mass murderer before he kills half of the world's population is in defense of others. That's the intention, defending others.

Malifice

2015-06-24, 11:04 PM

Intent is just as important as the act itself. You even said that it's not evil if it's killing in self-defense or the defense of others.

Youre confusing cause with effect. Theyre different things.

Travelling back in time to kill a mass murderer before he kills half of the world's population is in defense of others. That's the intention, defending others.

Again - youre confusing cause with effect. Although this time it's technically retrocausality, but its basically the same thing.

Im not saying you cant justify the killing of that baby to potentially save lives in the future. You most certainly can. You can have the purest of intent when performing an evil act. This is where 'the ends justify the means' saying comes from.

I'm saying that your subjective justification of an act of evil, doesnt make the act of evil itself a good act. Your intentions could be pure, but the act itself is still evil. The evil act may be 'justified' in your mind in order to achieve a noble cause, but it still remains evil.

Wartex1

2015-06-24, 11:09 PM

Cause and effect are deeply connected. The cause behind something is because of its effect. If I kill someone out of self-defense, the effect is defending myself. The intent is also to defend myself.

You're also implying that good and evil are objective, and that acts, which are completely derived from intention, are to be considered separately from the intention.

Again, you can't compare actions in a vacuum.

Chromascope3D

2015-06-24, 11:13 PM

I made a Wayang oracle in Pathfinder that specialized in necromancy. The way I characterized it is that whenever a wayang dies, the soul empties the vessel and becomes a shadow, and whenever a new wayang is born, essentially, whenever a new empty vessel is created, the shade reverts back into a soul. Thus, the culture is very much centered around death and rebirth, and while I personally characterized the culture (and thus him by extension) as being very respectful of bodies, even in death (i.e. he chastised the party for suggesting they use the corpse of a recently deceased goblin to trigger a trap), he could get away with utilizing the incorporeal side of necromancy (i.e. ghosts and shadows), because he wasn't controlling them per se, but simply conjuring and asking requests of them, as they were essentially alive in their own way.

So, in other words, it depends entirely upon the situation and setting, as some cultures simply view it differently.

I would put forth this option as we have clerics of a death goddess in the game we play, and I will use them as an example.

The clerics of the dead have access to necromancy for the purpose of ending undead entirely. The clerics perform burial rites strictly for the purpose of preventing the corpses from being used in such a manner. (consider a reverse form of raise dead). The clerics do not speak. The dead no longer have voices, and neither do they. They study the undead they encounter, looking for weakness and what magics enable it. A cleric of this type would never animate a corpse, as it is sacrilegious to the departed and their faith. Spells of necromancy that do not animate the dead, are subject to use as appropriate in the course of their duties. Returning Undead to actual dead, and putting the body at peace.

All life ends. It is a temporary gift granted by the gods. Undeath is a perversion of that gift. Death... is the softest kiss.
Does 5th edition have the Repose domain? Because that essentially describes Repose. Does 5e still have domains? I've never actually played it, I just clicked on this thread cuz it looked interesting. :smalltongue:

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-24, 11:16 PM

There are a few ways I like to play a cleric that uses necromancy but is still good.

Necromancy isn't evil, sure raising the undead migt be, but necromancy isn't really evil. Calling necromancy evil is like calling divination chaotic neutral.

Using the dark arts to protect others. If I know about them then I'll know how to counter them. Sure necromancy is bad but I'll do anything to help my cause. Cleric and the Warlock are pretty much the same thing when it comes to fluff.

Accidental. Seriously, I'm trying to cast Guiding Bolt but I keep getting Ray of Sickness (or whatever spell). I don't know what's going on anymore.

Ignore spell schools. We really don't need them all that much.

Malifice

2015-06-24, 11:26 PM

Cause and effect are deeply connected. The cause behind something is because of its effect. If I kill someone out of self-defense, the effect is defending myself. The intent is also to defend myself.

Actually it's the other way around. Your self defense is the effect flowing from the cause (you being attacked).

You're also implying that good and evil are objective, and that acts, which are completely derived from intention, are to be considered separately from the intention.

In DnD, objective good and evil exist (as determined subjectively by the omnipotent DM). In the real world the matter is up for philosophical debate.

Again, you can't compare actions in a vacuum.

I'm not ignoring context. I'm simply saying (when objective good and evil are in place) the context and subjective reasoning doesn't change the objective act itself. When you justify an act of evil by saying 'its for a good cause' it doesn't suddenly make the act itself 'good'. It may help you personally sleep better at night however.

If the inverse was true than any act (no matter how vile or depraved) can be subjectively justified as 'good'.

Lets look at an organised crime boss. He frequently murders rivals and people that have crossed him, and engages in other illicit activities including racketeering, pimping, stand over tactics and so forth. He does this to provide for his family and protect them from reprisals from other rival gangsters. He is a loving and caring father, and cant 'leave' the mob for various reasons (they'll probably kill him if he does). Also - (in his view) his actions actually keeps the streets free from petty criminals thanks to his control of the cities crime. Accordingly he views himself as a 'good' man. Is he?

Subjectively (in his own mind) for sure.

How about objectively? What outer plane does he go to after death (which may very well surprise him)? Does the alignment on his character sheet (likely L or NE) reflect his own thoughts on his subjective morality (almost certainly not).

Note I'm not saying you can't have a necromancer who runs around animating once living people as murderous undead creatures thinking he's a good man, thinking and justifying to himself that he only does what he does for good ends. I am saying that the alignment on that dudes charachter sheet will end in a capital 'E' no matter how he justifies it to himself subjectively or for what noble purpose he had in mind when commuting the evil in the first place.

Angrymob

2015-06-25, 02:34 AM

Hi, I made an account just to reply to this since I find the topic particularly compelling :smallsmile:. I have been playing a "good aligned" wizard/cleric necromancer for quite some time and I have been really enjoying it! I will say that I love moral questions and gray morality, and I've never been a fan of the strict alignment system or inherent evil, so it depends on how your dm views some of this stuff. I like to think of necromancy as just another tool that can be used for good or evil.

For my character I decided to make him young and somewhat naive. He was raised by a family that would probably be considered evil by most people, although I like to think of them as more neutral. He was taught the family tradition of necromancy but he ran away from his family and is now using his abilities to do the most good that he can. There have been some very interesting conversations between him and other characters in the party who view necromancy to be more evil but so far it's made for some great roleplaying.

Best of luck in your campaign! :smallbiggrin:

Magic Myrmidon

2015-06-25, 04:03 AM

Accidental. Seriously, I'm trying to cast Guiding Bolt but I keep getting Ray of Sickness (or whatever spell). I don't know what's going on anymore.

I really like this idea. Could be good for laughs, or even good for serious stuff if it hints at some later intrigue/mystery.

ThermalSlapShot

2015-06-25, 08:19 AM

I really like this idea. Could be good for laughs, or even good for serious stuff if it hints at some later intrigue/mystery.

Yeah, I get tired of the same old fluff after all these years and coming up with weird things like this has helped keep things fresh.

Carric Darkbard

2015-06-25, 08:48 AM

You figured out that my idea was more on the use of the Raise Dead (or animate dead) spell. It seems that this spell is meant only for "evil oriented" player. Or, like my DM said, you'll have to have a talk with the group before performing such a spell if you don't want your pally to pop your creations !

You can have rules like, animate only dead monsters. Like raising dead monsters, like goblins, kobolds, orcs or whatever monsters is more acceptable than raising humans or other common races.