PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer...



Danin
2007-06-06, 11:16 AM
...could it work? As a DM would you allow it? As a player how would you justify it? I plan on asking my DM very politely to do something like this in his next campaign and was just interested to see what everyone over here though.

My arguments in favor of it so far are:

1: A means to an ends. A shaky concept at best but no less true. If a caster has to raise a few zombies to kill a few devils who are attacking the innocent near by village, can you really blame him?

2: "Well, other people use necromancy, why can't I?". Wizards use necromancy all the time, but are they considered evil? Sure, theres bound to be a few, but I know several mages who use Fear and Ray of enfeeblement. I even saw a Cleric of Pelor raize skeletons to fight an umberhulk last week, and he is hailed as a hero!

3: "I'm no more evil than a Druid or a Ranger". Rangers dont believe in waisting anything, so when they hunt they use what they can get out of it, but they dont make use of every little bone. Me? I do, so whats the problem?

4: "Negative energy? Pfft". Good clerics are exploting positive energy to help do their dirty work. I'm exploiting negative energy to do good. I'm getting back at the bad guy with their own element. Its effective AND ironic.

So, what about you? What rulings would you make for this? Could you argue for Chaotic good? Lawfull Good?

(And yes, this post was intended to be humourous, a quality I often lack)

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 11:20 AM
It depends on your setting. The "standard" D&D world does tend to follow the assumption that undead and the creation of such is inherently evil. You don't have to do it that way, though. So yeah, if you stipulate that creating undead is not an evil act, then sure, the DN could be almost any alignment.

This is going to end up similar to the interminable "why can't there be good assassins" debate, I fear :smalleek:

the_tick_rules
2007-06-06, 11:20 AM
it could happen, take one heck of a story to pull it off.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-06, 11:30 AM
The class is non-good. It says so under the Alignment section of the class.

The problem is that in non-homebrew settings, the use of negative energy to make undead is evil, because evil is a tangible and real force in the form of negative energy. In a homebrew campaign.. If being followed around by undead is fine, the it'd be entirely possible to be a Chaotic/Lawful/True Neutral DN.

Jayabalard
2007-06-06, 11:33 AM
1. The "ends justify the means" does not fit into the good alignment, not even for chaotic good. Your good ends might balance out your alignment little bit, but the evil that you do to get there is still evil. It fits much better with a neutral or even evil alignment. This is the path that leads to ultimate evil, the people who are so convinced in the righteousness of their purpose that they will commit any evil to attain it.

2. Necromancy spells are generally evil because that's how it's defined; it's manipulating negative energy which is pretty much evil in energy form. If your DM wants to house rule it redefine how necromancy works, go for it, but otherwise you're headed back to #1.

3. Druids and rangers can be evil in alignment, so this is really a bad argument...

4. It's effective, ironic, and evil; a purely evil person would use the same evil methods to take out the same evil people; they might have different motivation, but again, that goes back to #1.

Danin
2007-06-06, 11:37 AM
It depends on your setting. The "standard" D&D world does tend to follow the assumption that undead and the creation of such is inherently evil. You don't have to do it that way, though. So yeah, if you stipulate that creating undead is not an evil act, then sure, the DN could be almost any alignment.

This is going to end up similar to the interminable "why can't there be good assassins" debate, I fear :smalleek:

*Note* - This is in a non-home brew world.

Although necromancy and, more specifically, the creation of undead is typically considered evil, is there a way to justify it? I mean, killing is typically regarded as an evil act but good characters do it all the time, how is this different?

I also intended this to be a rather light hearted, friendly debate, maybe crack some jokes to relieve some of the tension that seems to be floating around lately. I've knoticed a few arguments spring up on the boards and the last thing I want to do is start another one.

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:43 AM
You can but you should do a prestige class about it, like the malconvoker. The malconvoker are good guys who summons fiends but they dont do it the same way the bad guys does and can still remain good. The dread necromancer are supposed to be evil, I have no problem about someone good using necromancy but it should be a totally different class, a class that summon deathless instead of undead and that cant do it unless the people are willing to be raised.

Felan
2007-06-06, 11:47 AM
hmmm....

perhaps, if you ask a bunch of villagers ahead of time to "donate their bodies to science/wizardry/whatever"... maybe even give them a few gold to help their starving family, whatever... then, when they die, you animate them to help fight the forces of evil. Maybe they'd like the idea of help to "fight the good fight" even after they pass on?

Of course, keeping a ledger of proplr who have signed over their bodies to you may be a little creepy, but this is a necromancer, eh? And at least you asked permission first.

Dragonmuncher
2007-06-06, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately, this is one of those arguments that is never really resolved.


Maybe you could make it so you only raise those who agree to be raised? Then you can have a happy-go-lucky band of skeleton buddies running around with you...


But yeah, it always comes back to "is negative energy evil and positive energy good, or are they just two opposing neutral forces like fire and water."

One side says positive energy is the energy of life and happiness, while negative energy is the energy of pain and death. The other side says you can't have life without death, and besides, too much positive energy can kill one, also.

What's so evil about using poisons, instead of sticking them with swords? Sadi, from the Eddings books, is an excellent example of this.

Why can't an assassin be good? "Heros" kill people for money all the time- granted, the people are usually hideously ugly and/or cruel, but still.

It's just one of those things. I say go for it, it's your game. Just make sure they're HAPPY skeletons, all right?

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 11:49 AM
ZeroNumerous, this is exactly why the question reminded me of Assassins.

For some posters, the "Alignment: Any non-Good" entry requirement is sufficient to answer the question. It says you can't be good, so there are no good Dread Necromancers, Assassins, etc. It's the RAW.

Others aren't satisfied with that. They want to examine why the class has that entry requirement, and whether it could reasonably be changed/ignored. Some feel that alignment restrictions fall under flavor, and should be freely adjusted to fit a campaign world.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with houseruling things like this on a case-by-case basis. For instance create an identical class with a less evil-sounding flavor. Happy Face Necromancer :smallbiggrin:

Or, go for the Eberron route, where most alignment issues are blurred already. Substitute the various undead features with Deathless features. This way is a little more work though.

Both of these options, however, are based on the assumption that a player is coming to the DM with a character concept pretty much fleshed out, and that becomes the justification for finding a way around the alignment thing.

Tyger
2007-06-06, 11:50 AM
Well, if as you say, its a non-homebrew world, and the DM isn't making exceptions for the class requirements, then no, its not possible by RAW. As Zero pointed out, its a non-good class by definition.

Of course, if the DM plays with that a bit, you can certainly justify using undead and negative energy for good. Its called a rationalization, and its the way to a slow, sweet spiral into the Evil alignments. Its how most literary falls from grace happen. You are doing evil, "for the greater good" or using evil's tools against it. The problem is that it becomes too easy eventually, and then you find yourself sitting on your throne made of the bones of your vanquished enemies, staring at the living tapestry you made from their skins, wondering why this pesky group of mid-level adventurers has invaded your realm and are destroying your minions. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, almost every adventurer rationalizes grotesque violence and obscene uses of magic every single day. How many stop to actually check alignments or even intention when they happen across a group of orcs attacking the pretty maiden? The fact that those orcs are simple farmers who are chasing down that foul, but beautiful, sorceress that killed all their children isn't something that most adventurers stop to think of. Nope, adventurers are joyfully committing mass murder, extortion, theft and destruction of private property every time they leave a tavern... but its against evil folks, so its ok, right??

:wink:

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-06, 11:52 AM
The class is non-good. It says so under the Alignment section of the class.

The problem is that in non-homebrew settings, the use of negative energy to make undead is evil, because evil is a tangible and real force in the form of negative energy. In a homebrew campaign.. If being followed around by undead is fine, the it'd be entirely possible to be a Chaotic/Lawful/True Neutral DN.

Actually, negative energy is not evil, it's a neutral force. That's the reason why the 'Inflict' spells (among others that use negative energy) don't have the [Evil] descriptor, and can be cast by good clerics. Animate Dead is the exception (and could be considered WotC's stance that animating dead is an evil act, since there aren't many other [Evil] descriptor negative energy spells.

As for your arguments:

1. As has been said, the 'ends justify the means' is not in concert with a good alignment. It's like saying 'I could slaughter a village to save a city'. A good alignment character would go out of their way to find a better solution.

2. Necromancy spells are NOT generally evil. In fact, the only negative energy spells I could find that had the evil descriptor had to do with the Undead. As I've stated, good clerics can prepare the Inflict spells. Positive and Negative energies are a neutral force. Also note that in the 'Planes' section of the DMG, the negative energy plane is NOT listed as an alignment traited plane, but it's listed with the elemental trait planes.

Also, a Cleric of Pelor can't prepare Animate Dead.... Look at the cleric section in the PHB and you'll see that they can't cast spells with an alignment opposed to their own, or their deities. Evil is opposed to Pelor's good.

3. *See Jayabalard's argument above*

4. If you want to do that, use Inflict.... An evil cleric can use "Cure light wounds" to heal bad people, and a good cleric can use 'Inflict' to hurt bad people. Raising dead is specifically the realm of evil clerics, not good ones.

And the class itself has the alignment restriction.

Of course, in the end it's up to your DM.

What you could do is play a C/N character, get a bunch of hats of disguise and make your skeletons look like people so that no one knows any better. It'll work like a charm until someone in your party tries to turn undead :smallwink:

Ramza00
2007-06-06, 11:57 AM
It can happen, but

most likely you would in reality play a chaotic neutral character with good tendacies (such as Captain Jack Sparrow, willing to sacrifice a 100 strangers to save his own skin, yet willing to do many things for his friends such as )

Willing to give up immorality to save Will

Querzis
2007-06-06, 12:01 PM
It can happen, but

most likely you would in reality play a chaotic neutral character with good tendacies (such as Captain Jack Sparrow, willing to sacrifice a 100 strangers to save his own skin, yet willing to do many things for his friends such as )

Willing to give up immorality to save Will


Hum sorry but thats just pure chaotic neutral. I would even say he has evil tendencies. Jack as no good tendencies at all, neutral people usually do that for their friends. Even evil people usually do that for their friends. Its how you act with the people you dont know or the people you hate that determine your alignement, sacrificing your live for your best friend or your lover, anyone can do that: good, neutral or evil.

Human Paragon 3
2007-06-06, 12:04 PM
Could be a Nuetral Necromancer who believes he is doing good. I dont use alignment in my campaigns, so I might be a bad point of reference, but I tend to let players do whatever they want as long as it's not game-breaking. I almost never shut players down when they have a character idea they love.

Behold_the_Void
2007-06-06, 12:07 PM
The one as a means to an end really doesn't seem so bad. I see nothing wrong with raising some corpses to fend off the forces of evil. Societally maybe wrong, but I know I usually run campaigns and don't consider raising undead to be EVIL so much as societally frowned upon.

Basically, I would suggest you see if your DM is willing to do with the silly "raising undead is inherently evil" and instead have him make it a cosmically neutral (channeling negative energy) societally wrong approach. I've done that on any number of occasions myself, I've encountered no problem (aside from the Paladin not being able to smite undead, and you can always rule that the Paladin's smite channels enough positive divine energy to blast undead even though they aren't technically evil as they're mindless and merely negative energy constructs).

Jayabalard
2007-06-06, 12:11 PM
*Note* - This is in a non-home brew world.

Although necromancy and, more specifically, the creation of undead is typically considered evil, is there a way to justify it? I mean, killing is typically regarded as an evil act but good characters do it all the time, how is this different.it's not "typically considered" evil ... it's defined that way, though they leave the specifics a little nebulous.

You're forcing the spirits of the creatures that you animate into perpetual torment, speeding up the demise of the multiverse itself or something equally evil when you create undead.


Actually, negative energy is not evil, it's a neutral force. That's the reason why the 'Inflict' spells (among others that use negative energy) don't have the [Evil] descriptor, and can be cast by good clerics. Animate Dead is the exception (and could be considered WotC's stance that animating dead is an evil act, since there aren't many other [Evil] descriptor negative energy spells.Nope, it's not a neutral force, it's evil; that's why evil clerics (and neutral cleics of evil dieties) can spontaneously use inflict (negative energy) spells, while good (and neutral cleics of good dieties) spontaneously use heal (positive energy) spells.


The fact that those orcs are simple farmers who are chasing down that foul, but beautiful, sorceress that killed all their children isn't something that most adventurers stop to think of. Nope, adventurers are joyfully committing mass murder, extortion, theft and destruction of private property every time they leave a tavern... but its against evil folks, so its ok, right??that depends alot on the people playing... it doesn't take a whole lot to teach people to think before they go of killing people based on appearances.

Attilargh
2007-06-06, 12:12 PM
What you could do is play a C/N character, get a bunch of hats of disguise and make your skeletons look like people so that no one knows any better.
"I, uh, picked Leadership when we leveled up. Yeah, Leadership, that's right..." :smalltongue:

By the way, I recall seeing a lengthy thread concerning necromancy on the Wizards boards. Part of it discussed the inherent evilness of necromancy. I'll see if I can dig it up.

silvermesh
2007-06-06, 12:16 PM
the problem isn't negative energy, it's disturbing the dead. in most major religions, especially older ones, disturbing the body after death messes with the souls afterlife, and if you treat it badly enough, the soul is cursed never to move on to an afterlife. in D&D it has always been the case that raising the dead is an evil act(don't know why people think that the D&D alignment system was created by WoTC). In D&D, gods, and souls are very real things, and not up for speculation, raising the dead screws with that soul in a major way.

volunteers? "oh, yeah I'd love to be trapped in an eternity of torture trapped between planes so that you can have a slow, weak low hit die minion thats gonna last five seconds in combat. sign me up today!"

The ends justifying the means is a relatively neutral attitude, you can have this character, he can believe that he is good, and he can try to do good, but he will be neutral on paper, and treated as neutral for spells and effects. I'm not sure why this should be a major problem, he plays the same, and neutral is less affected by spells and effects than good. you do good things, but you also do bad things, because youve decided they're not as evil as they really are. you're neutral. A truly good character can find a better way of doing things that doesn't involve damning perfect strangers(and even better, volunteer friends) to an eternity of hopelessness. The body and soul are connected. You screw one you screw both.

TempusCCK
2007-06-06, 12:16 PM
Just go the Diablo 2 approach to it.

You're a mage who studies the balance of life and death, honoring the great circle of life, and through your studies you have learned to blur those lines, giving life back to the dead temporarily to be used as a means to an end.

You understand that evil people do not seek to allow life to naturally run it's course, instead using death and destruction for their own profit, and messing with the great order of things, which calls you to action against the forces of evil.

I just made a good Necromancer, thank you, and good night.

Oh, and about the eternally messing with the rest of the spirit thing, that, in my eyes, is totally optional. A zombie doesn't display much tendancies of it's former life, so what the hell does the spirit care about if it's old body is being control through arcane energies. That's just fluff that can be ture or not depending on the methods of ressurection. There's nothing in the rules of Animate Dead that say you're torturing the spirit of the dead by using the corpse.

Jayabalard
2007-06-06, 12:23 PM
Just go the Diablo 2 approach to it.

You're a mage who studies the balance of life and death, honoring the great circle of life, and through your studies you have learned to blur those lines, giving life back to the dead temporarily to be used as a means to an end.

You understand that evil people do not seek to allow life to naturally run it's course, instead using death and destruction for their own profit, and messing with the great order of things, which calls you to action against the forces of evil.

I just made a goodneutral Necromancer, thank you, and good night.Fixed that for you. Evil done in the name of good is still evil; people who follow the "ends justify the means" philosophy are neutral or evil, not good.


Oh, and about the eternally messing with the rest of the spirit thing, that, in my eyes, is totally optional. A zombie doesn't display much tendancies of it's former life, so what the hell does the spirit care about if it's old body is being control through arcane energies. That's just fluff that can be ture or not depending on the methods of ressurection. There's nothing in the rules of Animate Dead that say you're torturing the spirit of the dead by using the corpse.That explanation of why necromancy is evil might be optional, but unless you start homebrewing or houseruling, the fact that necromancy itself is evil isn't optional; if that particular explanation isn't true, then it's something equally evil (by RAW).

Not that I'm saying that it's a bad thing to houserule world where animating undead isn't evil... but you do need to keep in mind that in doing so, you've moved away from standard D&D into the real of homebrew.

Ben7el
2007-06-06, 12:31 PM
Zombies and other non intelligant undead don't disturb the Soul, I remember there was a thread about it on the Wizards Forum

I wish I knew how to search the forum though :(

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-06, 12:48 PM
Nope, it's not a neutral force, it's evil; that's why evil clerics (and neutral cleics of evil dieties) can spontaneously use inflict (negative energy) spells, while good (and neutral cleics of good dieties) spontaneously use heal (positive energy) spells.


So how come evil clerics can prepare positive energy spells, and good clerics can prepare negative energy spells? Good clerics are forbidden from preparing evil spells, but the inflict spells are NOT [Evil] (despite chanelling negative energy), and vice versa for evil clerics. The only evil negative energy spells create or affect undead.

Also, the positive and negative energy planes (where cure and inflict spells get their juice) are each just as dangerous to good creatures as they are to evil. They don't descriminate, and they also don't have an alignment trait, making them both neutral planes.

(And, IMO, I'm sure alot of evil clerics would rather sponta-cast cure spells rather than inflict, especially evil clerics of war)

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 12:59 PM
Necromancy is not evil in D&D. Specific spells in necromancy are evil, but the school as a whole is no more evil than conjuration or enchantment. There is nothing evil about ray of enfeeblement, or astral projection, or clone. They can be used by good characters with no penalty. A paladin/sorcerer who uses enervation on an enemy will not fall.

Jayabalard
2007-06-06, 01:18 PM
So how come evil clerics can prepare positive energy spells, and good clerics can prepare negative energy spells? Good clerics are forbidden from preparing evil spells, but the inflict spells are NOT [Evil] (despite chanelling negative energy), and vice versa for evil clerics. The only evil negative energy spells create or affect undead.

Also, the positive and negative energy planes (where cure and inflict spells get their juice) are each just as dangerous to good creatures as they are to evil. They don't descriminate, and they also don't have an alignment trait, making them both neutral planes.

(And, IMO, I'm sure alot of evil clerics would rather sponta-cast cure spells rather than inflict, especially evil clerics of war)They have to prepare themselves to cast a spell that is the opposite of thier nature, but doesn't totally violate their beliefs; they can do spontaneously what comes naturally to them. Channeling positive energy is natural to good clerics, channeling negative energy is natural to evil cleric. It's obviously not a neutral force.

It's not a matter of what they want to spontaneously cast, or what is most beneficial for them to be able spontaneously cast... it's what's closest to their nature.

Ramza00
2007-06-06, 01:30 PM
Hum sorry but thats just pure chaotic neutral. I would even say he has evil tendencies. Jack as no good tendencies at all, neutral people usually do that for their friends. Even evil people usually do that for their friends. Its how you act with the people you dont know or the people you hate that determine your alignement, sacrificing your live for your best friend or your lover, anyone can do that: good, neutral or evil.

Disagree, Neutral and Evil people are usually nice to their friends, they are willing to do favors for them, they are willing to give up things for them. They aren't always willing to do really big sacrifices for them.


The thing that Jack wants most of all is freedom, that is his one true goal (and the reason he stole the aztec gold, the reason he wanted the chest, and the reason he wants the fountain of youth. Death is the ultimate end of freedom, and he fears it like no other, his ultimate hell symbolized by the dead man's chest is an eternal desert, an opposite of his sea and if he dies he may return to this.

That is a very big loss, a very big sacrifice, for ones friends. Jack made his decision instinctually friends over his own want and needs, even though his lust for immortality is an unconscious fear based drive.

TempusCCK
2007-06-06, 01:33 PM
Fixed that for you. Evil done in the name of good is still evil; people who follow the "ends justify the means" philosophy are neutral or evil, not good.

This all depends on how you view good and evil really, I would say the intent to do good is good, and I think we can all agree that non-sentient undead have absolutely no effect on the body's soul, meaning that merely using negative energy to make a corpse move around for a good intent is infact good.

But I do agree with you that my necromancer fluff would suit itself equally well to neutral as to good. Good if you follow the belief that good intent is good. And not messing with the balance of the life cycle is good for everyone.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-06, 01:46 PM
They have to prepare themselves to cast a spell that is the opposite of thier nature, but doesn't totally violate their beliefs; they can do spontaneously what comes naturally to them. Channeling positive energy is natural to good clerics, channeling negative energy is natural to evil cleric. It's obviously not a neutral force.

It's not a matter of what they want to spontaneously cast, or what is most beneficial for them to be able spontaneously cast... it's what's closest to their nature.


But inflict X wounds spells are not evil spells, yet they involve channelling negative energy to harm foes. You're saying that a spell, that does not have the [Evil] descriptor, is a neutral spell, despite channelling 'evil' energy. And if (-) energy is evil, why would good deities tolerate its clerics using it? (vice versa for evil clerics and gods)

And how come the negative energy plane is NOT an evil plane? If (-) energy were evil, surely its source would be evil.

As for clerics sponta-casting, it could be interpereted that good clerics favor life (positive) energy, and evil ones favor death (negative) energy (or rather are forced to, since they don't have a choice). A neutral cleric can channel either energy of his choice, but doesn't become evil or good or doing so, he can't choose both because they're opposing forces.

Danin
2007-06-06, 02:03 PM
I also havent found any evidence that the soul is disturbed when you animate a mindless undead. You are merly using what is available to accomplish a task. Besides, what if he only used animal bodies? Now I'm not hurting logical, thinking people, merly animals.

Also, although channeling Negative energy might come natural to an evil cleric, it doesnt change the fact that negative energy is not inherently evil itself, only it has a tendency to be used by evil people.

Starsinger
2007-06-06, 02:17 PM
Creating Undead is evil because the writers wanted it that way, simply because they feel it should be evil. In Eberron, the Elves are really big on necromancy, although they use "positive energy undead" hogwash because "necromancy is evil". Necromancy being evil is one of those things I just don't agree with. It's a tool, like anything else you can do in D&D, the only spells that deserve the evil descriptor are spells like Protection From Good.

So, personally, I would allow a Good necromancer. Just like, I'd allow a Good assassin. "But they kill people!" That's what adventurers do, they kill people... except it's justified because they're green and we're not.

Wystrell
2007-06-06, 03:02 PM
The great thing about the alignment system is that, while it's a basic way of describing a character's morals, it doesn't precisely describe personality. With a good backstory, you can prove just about anything - what if your character grew up in a society that accepted everything, or grew up being able to raise the dead?

In a free-knowledge society such as the first example, nobody's there to tell you "this is bad." Or even in an animistic region, where necromancy is sometimes encouraged - it has little to do with whether you believe in helping or hurting others. In the second example, necromancy is an integral part of the person's being, if the ability showed up early on in childhood. In such a case, necromancy would be just another ability, and would not have any bearing on alignment.

In most cases, Good Necromancers only come from weird upbringings or psychosis. And either case is great for roleplay - you've either got someone very quirky, or someone insane.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-06, 03:16 PM
It's worth noting that Dread Necromancer not only raises dead, but over time becomes a Lich. Very evil.

The difference between good and nonevil is that Good doesn't use "means to an end" self-justifying logic and it doesn't compromise with evil acts to get it's job done.

For good, if a ruler is willing to oppress his people to help safety and security, how is he any better than a tyrant?
In the same vein, if a mage is willing to desecrate the sanctity of the dead to achieve his goals, how is he any better than a common graverobber?

I'm not saying it's impossible (although the RAW says thats) but you need a really good conceptualization, more than just "a means to an end" and being unorthodox to justify it.
Also, the dread necromancer class in particular might not be the best choice.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:24 PM
...could it work? As a DM would you allow it? As a player how would you justify it? I plan on asking my DM very politely to do something like this in his next campaign and was just interested to see what everyone over here though.

Yes. Yes. Easily, I raise undead to serve the purpose of good, the tools I choose to use are based on my ability to use them. If I were to use any others less good could be served.

In that order. However, remember the Dread Necro has a alignment restriction that must be waived for this, not just a general opinion restriction.


My arguments in favor of it so far are:

1: A means to an ends. A shaky concept at best but no less true. If a caster has to raise a few zombies to kill a few devils who are attacking the innocent near by village, can you really blame him?

No, in fact you should probably thanking him, though a Cleric of Pelor would have a hard time rationalizing it.


2: "Well, other people use necromancy, why can't I?". Wizards use necromancy all the time, but are they considered evil? Sure, theres bound to be a few, but I know several mages who use Fear and Ray of enfeeblement. I even saw a Cleric of Pelor raize skeletons to fight an umberhulk last week, and he is hailed as a hero!

This all makes perfect sense except for the last part, Good Clerics cannot raise undead because it has the [Evil] descriptor in it for no logical reason.


3: "I'm no more evil than a Druid or a Ranger". Rangers dont believe in waisting anything, so when they hunt they use what they can get out of it, but they dont make use of every little bone. Me? I do, so whats the problem?

What is the problem indeed?


4: "Negative energy? Pfft". Good clerics are exploting positive energy to help do their dirty work. I'm exploiting negative energy to do good. I'm getting back at the bad guy with their own element. Its effective AND ironic.

Indeed it is my friend, indeed it is.

[QUOTE=Danin;2702826]So, what about you? What rulings would you make for this? Could you argue for Chaotic good? Lawfull Good?[/QUOTE

Easily.

Also, Zero, you are wrong. Negative energy is not innately evil, nor is positive energy innately good, if was Inflict Light Wounds would have the [Evil] descriptor, and Cure Light Wounds would have the [Good] descriptor.

Personally? I don't believe in alignment restrictions for almost all classes. (Paladin and Knight being the only exceptions I can think of right now.)

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:32 PM
It's worth noting that Dread Necromancer not only raises dead, but over time becomes a Lich. Very evil. The only thing Evil about being a Lich is that the flavor text says it is an evil things to do. Therefore it's simply true in greyhawk, and WoTC's general opinion.


Also, the sanctity of the dead is a cultural concept, not a divine one. Though I do agree with it, which is why all my good necromancers warn their enemies that they forfeit any claim to burial by challenging her/him in combat.

JaronK
2007-06-06, 03:33 PM
Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer doesn't work, and is actually adressed in the Dread Necromancer class itself, if you read it. The fluff for the class states that all Dread Necromancers can't be good. Some of them want to be good, and work towards good ends, but the use of that much death and evil magic taints them, so that they detect as nuetral at best despite their intentions.

JaronK

JaronK
2007-06-06, 03:35 PM
The only thing Evil about being a Lich is that the flavor text says it is an evil things to do. Therefore it's simply true in greyhawk, and WoTC's general opinion.

Well, they do say that the process of becoming a lich requires rituals that are really really evil. I assume some virgins/babies/puppies are horrifically slain or something.

JaronK

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:37 PM
Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer doesn't work, and is actually adressed in the Dread Necromancer class itself, if you read it. The fluff for the class states that all Dread Necromancers can't be good. Some of them want to be good, and work towards good ends, but the use of that much death and evil magic taints them, so that they detect as nuetral at best despite their intentions.

JaronK

Evil magic is subjective to the idea that raising the dead is evil, when really it's no more evil than building a Golem. The flavor text can ussually not be relied upon to justifiy alignment restrictions. (See Monk, Bard, Barbarian...)

JaronK
2007-06-06, 03:38 PM
Evil magic is subjective to the idea that raising the dead is evil, when really it's no more evil than building a Golem. The flavor text can ussually not be relied upon to justifiy alignment restrictions. (See Monk, Bard, Barbarian...)

But in this case the flavor text is telling you about the specific case mentioned in the OP.

JaronK

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:38 PM
Well, they do say that the process of becoming a lich requires rituals that are really really evil. I assume some virgins/babies/puppies are horrifically slain or something.

JaronK

The process of becoming a Lich requires you to build a box for your soul. That's it. Unless the DM says otherwise.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:40 PM
But in this case the flavor text is telling you about the specific case mentioned in the OP.

JaronK

Specific? That is is not. It basically is saying. "Raise dead is evil, so you are evil for using it, end of story. You can't be good." It's an even worse rationale than the one given for the bard.

JaronK
2007-06-06, 03:53 PM
Specific? That is is not. It basically is saying. "Raise dead is evil, so you are evil for using it, end of story. You can't be good." It's an even worse rationale than the one given for the bard.

"Not all dread necromancers are evil... No dread necromancer can have a good alignment. Performing evil acts is a basic feature of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly nuetral."

Note it doesn't just say the raising dead is evil. The class slowly turns into a lich, which by the ritual to turn into one is quite evil, and they have a ton of evil spells.

JaronK

Khantalas
2007-06-06, 03:57 PM
The process of becoming a Lich requires you to build a box for your soul. That's it. Unless the DM says otherwise.

Actually, not really. The process requires rituals unspeakably evil, so evil they aren't mentioned in the Monster Manual.

The Dread Necromancer is the only way to be a non-evil lich. I think.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 03:59 PM
"Not all dread necromancers are evil... No dread necromancer can have a good alignment. Performing evil acts is a basic feature of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly nuetral."

Note it doesn't just say the raising dead is evil. The class slowly turns into a lich, which by the ritual to turn into one is quite evil, and they have a ton of evil spells.

JaronK

When you can point out what's Evil about any of the spells they get, then you have a valid point, until then I have already reasoned with everything you just posted above.

Evil acts are not a feature of the class unless you considered bad flavor text to be rule and law. Like I've always said, if something doesn't taste right, it probably isn't.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 04:01 PM
Actually, not really. The process requires rituals unspeakably evil, so evil they aren't mentioned in the Monster Manual.

Nope. According to the MM you just need your soul box and your good to go. They didn't take the time to describe any unspeakably evil ritual, so any existence of it is simply up to the DM.

JaronK
2007-06-06, 04:04 PM
What is evil:

A) Turning into a Lich requires "unspeakably evil acts." Obviously they don't want to print the puppy killing or whatever, but that's some seriously evil stuff there, whatever it is.

B) Creating undead brings negative energy into the world, which as written does bad stuff. In your homebrew world, maybe it doesn't, but in the main D&D settings, negative energy in some way encourages evil, and undead are conduits for the stuff. If you bring a lot into the world, there's more evil in the world. Dread Necromancers do it a lot more than most Wizards. Most of their spells use negative energy too.

C) Over the course of the class their class features make them more and more like undead. See point B.

D) Their class features also directly shoot negative energy into the world, from Charnel Touch to Negative Energy Burst. See B.

JaronK

Khantalas
2007-06-06, 04:04 PM
Nope. According to the MM you just need your soul box and your good to go. They didn't take the time to describe any unspeakably evil ritual, so any existence of it is simply up to the DM.

Of course they didn't describe it. It's unspeakably evil.

And it doesn't need to be a box. It can be many different kinds of shapes of containers. I liked Azalin's huge golden dragon skull, for example.

Note that I'm actually a person who would argue for days about animating undead not being evil. I did it once. Not that I succeeded, but I tried. But being a lich is evil. You perform evil rituals to be a lich. How can it not be evil?

Also, please, do edit your posts. Please.

JaronK
2007-06-06, 04:06 PM
Nope. According to the MM you just need your soul box and your good to go. They didn't take the time to describe any unspeakably evil ritual, so any existence of it is simply up to the DM.

Yes. Read the entry. It's quite clear that there are "unspeakably evil acts." They just didn't define what, for the same reason that in Stronghold Builders Guide when they create torture champers, it says "don't actually RP the torture, just roll some dice."

But yes, there are "unspeakably evil acts." Building the box is the only part that costs exp and gold.

JaronK

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-06, 04:06 PM
Nope. According to the MM you just need your soul box and your good to go. They didn't take the time to describe any unspeakably evil ritual, so any existence of it is simply up to the DM.



LICH CHARACTERS
The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.


Something tells me there's just a little bit more to it than building a box... The rules state in plain english that the ritual does exist, it's process is up to the DM. I'm not sure what the Dread Necro ability states, though, and whether or not it supercedes the MM entry.

barawn
2007-06-06, 04:08 PM
...could it work? As a DM would you allow it?

Aren't most of the arguments you're making most appropriate for a chaotic neutral character? It's someone who believes that "good" is the right way to go, but doesn't agree with the restricted methods allowed. That sounds like neutral - or at the least, bordering between CG and CN.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 04:11 PM
Meh. I give up. You people have fun with the nonsensical flavor text. I'm going to go kill the red dragon with a zombie of it's mother.

SurlySeraph
2007-06-06, 04:11 PM
Evil done in the name of good is still evil; people who follow the "ends justify the means" philosophy are neutral or evil, not good.

Grayguards don't think so! Sorry, but someone had to invoke Grayguards. I'm not going to hijack this topic into a discussion of whether the idea of Grayguards is twisted or not. Therefore, back on topic: Dread Necromancers aren't allowed to be good, and Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor. Therefore, you can't have a good Dread Necromancer and animating dead is always bad. However, nothing bans you from making a good Necromancer specialist wizard. You could even use Animate Dead as one, but using it too often should cause an alignment shift. Undead can be used for good purposes, but regardless of their souls or what you use them for, undead are inherently evil. There are exceptions to the rule that undead are always evil - baelnorns and the positive energy undead - but in general, animating the dead creates evil beings.

On negative energy: as mentioned above, negative energy isn't inherently evil. It's just inherently destructive. Evil (and some neutral) clerics can spontaneously convert to inflict spells because destroying things comes more naturally to them than creating things and/or because evil gods are more willing to let their follows destroy life than protect it. Negative energy is like explosives: it isn't inherently bad, but it's a lot easier to do bad things with it than to do good things.

Also, does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that you can have Chaotic Good Warlocks?

Danin
2007-06-06, 04:13 PM
As to the lich transformation it has already been stated that it is the only way to become a non evil lich. Now, I know liches are typically evil, but so are necromancers and is a good necromancer that turns huimself into a lich so he can battle evil for all eternity so bad? Besides, its not like he is harming anyone in becomming a lich as, to my knowledge, there are no specific rituals that involve sacrificing babies and eating virgins to become one.

And my mistake, the Cleric can't summon undead... wait, what kind of cleric was he then? I smell a side quest...

Danin
2007-06-06, 04:17 PM
Also, does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that you can have Chaotic Good Warlocks?

I doubt this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I am playing a CG Warlock at the moment. Attempting to attone for the contract his grandfather signed regarding power and descendents unto the 10th generation.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-06, 04:21 PM
When you can point out what's Evil about any of the spells they get, then you have a valid point, until then I have already reasoned with everything you just posted above.

Evil acts are not a feature of the class unless you considered bad flavor text to be rule and law. Like I've always said, if something doesn't taste right, it probably isn't.
Raising the dead involves using people's bodies without their will. You can't put a good spin on it, even if they were bad people. It's neutral, maybe, but definitely nongood.

Few of the spells they have are truly, unspekably evil, but when the only spells you cast are about pain, blood, fear, and death, then together it is not Good.

The DMG doesn't specifically say what the process of creating a phylactery is, but the fact that it states that it is unspeakably evil means that whatever the DM chooses that to be, the process must be evil. It probably involves sacrificing innocents, or some other act evil enough to sever your connection to your soul.
Also, separating your soul from your body for eternal life is evil.



I'm all for flexible alignments, but just playing a Good Necromancer because "hey, why not?" isn't a good explanation for it.
If you're not willing to differentiate between good acts and evil acts, then there's no point to an alignment system at all; just play without one and be done with it.

Koji
2007-06-06, 04:29 PM
Forgive me if it's been said before, but evil people can do good work. Being evil doesn't mean that he's twirling his mustache and happy with the misery he's causing. He could be fairly tormented by his talent, or blind to the evil aspect of it.

The main issue with necromancy, before you get into a negative/positive energy debate, is the fact that in most cultures, the dead are revered and their remains are tied to either their soul (as in the popular conception of ancient Egypt), or at the very least their memory (as in our own culture).

There are three issues that are evil beyond the metaphysical:

1) The person/monster whose body you are using has no choice concerning whether you use their body or what you make it do. You have complete control, and although the pragmatic might call it a pile of meat and nothing more, what would the deceased think?

2) Friends/relatives of the deceased might be horrified, saddened, and enraged to learn that their loved one's body is now the mindless slave to some guy they don't even know.

3) What effect does such macabre work have on the necromancer? How long can the mind and soul last under such a dark influence?

Beyond that, you have the gods and the negative/positive energy to consider.

The dread necromancer can do good work, he can fight against evil, he can defend the weak, but (depending heavily on how your DM sees things) he is, in the end, working evil.

The hardest part about necromancers is usually making them work with a party, not the ickyness of being "evil" or not.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 04:30 PM
Raising the dead involves using people's bodies without their will. You can't put a good spin on it, even if they were bad people. It's neutral, maybe, but definitely nongood.

A corpse is an inanimate object without a soul. It's not owned by the soul, therefor their is not a will to go against. Your point is moot.

EDIT: Actually, by your own definition, Enchantment is more evil than Necromancy... interesting.

de-trick
2007-06-06, 04:37 PM
dont dread necromamancer at 20th level turn into liches and liches are far off from good

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 04:41 PM
dont dread necromamancer at 20th level turn into liches and liches are far off from good This point has been brought up already, also I'd like to add, you don't have to take level 20 of the class.

Querzis
2007-06-06, 04:42 PM
Also, does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that you can have Chaotic Good Warlocks?

Not really, if I read the class description correctly you can have warlock power because of genetics. Its not because your father was evil that you are. I have no idea why they have to be chaotic though...


A corpse is an inanimate object without a soul. It's not owned by the soul, therefor their is not a will to go against. Your point is moot.

I dont know about messing up the soul, I dont want to go read all the undead description again but those corpse dont belong to you. If someone want to be buried in a graveyard near his parents, well it is evil to take his corpse to fight people. The only way raising dead is neutral is if people want to be raised as undead which sound unlikely.

Vespe Ratavo
2007-06-06, 04:48 PM
I'd allow it.

If you're doing something good, but people don't like the way you do it, you're CG. That's what I think.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 04:52 PM
I dont know about messing up the soul, I dont want to go read all the undead description again but those corpse dont belong to you. If someone want to be buried in a graveyard near his parents, well it is evil to take his corpse to fight people. The only way raising dead is neutral is if people want to be raised as undead which sound unlikely.

"The dead have no rights" While this view is cold, it is not inheretly evil. Making people uncomforable or sad =/= evil.
Also read my description earlier in the thread about enemies forfeiting their body, just as they forfeit their life.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-06, 05:06 PM
"The dead have no rights" While this view is cold, it is not inheretly evil. Making people uncomforable or sad =/= evil.
Also read my description earlier in the thread about enemies forfeiting their body, just as they forfeit their life.

Not evil, maybe, but the issue here isn't whether there could be a nonevil Dread Necromancer, it's about whether or not there could be a good Dread Necromancer.

Being good is more than just preferring good over evil, it involves acting in a way that is moral and concerned for others.

A corpse may be an "inanimate object" but it's not a chair. It is someone's body, they may have more of a connection with it than you do, and robbing their grave is more than just just taking from the junkyard.

At best, animating the dead could be compared to using a cadaver for science. It's nonevil if that body was donated to you, but if it wasn't the act is horribly amoral.

It's one thing to say that you're from a culture where animating the dead is common, but unless you're carrying around a cart full of willing corpses to use, the act of animating the dead is at least nongood.

As for enchantment, yes using domination spells to force people to act against their will is also nongood, possibly evil if you're doing so for personal gain.

mauslin
2007-06-06, 05:06 PM
Hmm, I've actually recently read a book that could be described as having a neutral good necromancer. It's quite a different setting then Greyhawk (modern times, very little direct divine intervention, magic is less powerful) but it's possible that the idea could apply.

The necromancer primarily used her abilities to summon the ghosts of people to get information, banish malvolent ghosts, and aid earthbound ghosts to the other side.

She only creates zombies two times in the entire book. One time was to locate a murdered girl's corpse (got it to partially dig its way out of the earth so a bit of a finger was visable, then got someone else to 'discover' the body and report it to the police), the second time she and a companion were captured by the cult that had killed the girl (she animated preserved animals on the shelves to freak out and attack her captors).

Both times she was horrified by the results of her actions, and dismissed the zombies back to the afterlife as soon as she could.

So yes, I would call this particular character both good and a necromancer. However, due to her extreme reluctance to use her abilities, she was a lot less effective than she could have been. She was a lot less 'powerful' then other characters of an equivilant 'level'.

Edit: If anyone's curious, the book is 'No Humans Involved' by Kelley Armstrong

puppyavenger
2007-06-06, 05:49 PM
Look To any one who thinks positive energy=good and negative=evil look at the DMG please note the lack of the evil and good descripters on the positive and negative planes, Also please note howTHE BOED says that (cure) spells are not inherently good!

that was annoying me

and Santaty(sp) of the dead is lawful not good, as they are actualy, just maggot food anyway.




bump

Querzis
2007-06-06, 06:22 PM
and Santaty(sp) of the dead is lawful not good, as they are actualy, just maggot food anyway.

Not at all, it is respecting the will of the people who died and what they wanted to do with their corpse as well as respecting the belief of other people which are both good things, not lawfull things. «Dont do something to someone if you woudnt want it to happen to you» is the golden rule as well as the rule every good guys follow no matter what and since pretty much anyone want to be respected, nobody can say not respecting the dead is a chaotic act, it is just evil or, at the very least, non-good.

The big problems here is that some people dont seems to realize that, actually, if we go by the definitions of good and evil in the D&D manuals as well as the definition of good and evil made by the UN and the definiton of most of the philosophers, 90% of the people in the world are actually neutral and can go both way. So, of course necromancers cant be good guys, but its not like there are really many good guys in the game or in real life anyway. Some people talked about good guys attacking orcs in the first page, well attacking based on apparence is actually neutral as well as those guys probably are. Hell, most of the heroes of stories are actually neutral guys who were just lucky that they always did the right things. Lets take those guys again, if those orcs were really attacking the woman just for fun well it was the right thing to stop them but they didnt knew that for sure and didnt tried to find another way to stop them or understand the situation. They were just lucky that the apparence were actually the reality.

I dont pretend to be a good guy, I know I'm not but I also know a good guy just cant be a necromancer since its disrespecting the dead. The only exception could be the necromancer mauslin described but, since she doesnt use most of the spells of her own class, I dont know if we could really call her a necromancer anyway. But i didnt read the book so I cant tell if she is really good anyway.

By the way, thats kinda the point of Grayguard. They can do and act like a lawfull neutral character while still keeping their alignement and divine power by special permission of the gods, in other word, they ARE lawfull neutral. Its just that they can keep their paladins levels and their good alignement even if they are neutral because the gods allow them to.

Serenity
2007-06-06, 07:57 PM
1) "RAW says Necromancy is Evil."
This is not an argument, and can be dismissed out of hand. If being in the RAW makes something automatically sacrosanct, we shouldn't be arguing about overpowered wizards.

2) "Negative Energy is Evil"
Wrong. Is it evil to cast Inflict on the monster threatening your friend? This argument could only hold together if you gave the associated planes alignment traits, and prevented Good Clerics from ever casting an Inflict spell, and Evil Clerics from ever casting Cure spells.

3) "Negative Energy is the force of Destruction."
Right, but this says nothing about the alignment of Necromancy. Negative Energy destroys. So does a Fireball, but you don't see that being slapped with an Evil descriptor. A sword's only conceivable use is to stab someone with it; does that mean someone is evil if he uses a sword? Negative Energy is no more good or evil than the purpose it's turned to.

4) "You're using people's bodies without their permission!"
Oh, cry me a river. They're DEAD. Dead bodies are nothing but hunks of meat and bone. Everything that was the person has moved on to another plane of existence. As long as you're not murdering people solely to raise them as zombie servitors, and as long as you're not messing with their souls, you're fine. Plus, you can use animals.

5) "You're letting more Negative Energy into the world, which will destroy it!"
BS, pure and simple. If the mere existence of undead was poisoning the world, we'd have noticed the effects already. This is conjecture, nothing more.

The only argument with any sort of validity for making Necromancy evil is the wicked, predatory natures of most undead--ghouls are an embodiment of cannibalism, for example. But Zombies, Skeletons, and other mindless undead only attack on your orders. No danger to innocents.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-06, 08:28 PM
"You're using people's bodies without their permission!"
Oh, cry me a river. They're DEAD. Dead bodies are nothing but hunks of meat and bone. Everything that was the person has moved on to another plane of existence. As long as you're not murdering people solely to raise them as zombie servitors, and as long as you're not messing with their souls, you're fine. Plus, you can use animals.
Speaking of things that aren't arguments, this is definitely not one.

What you're saying is that you don't find a problem with it, and therefore if others find a problem with it it doesn't matter. One of the traits of good, as opposed to evil or neutral, is that you are concerned with how others view things, and aren't willing to declare someone's body as your right to do with as you please without consulting them.

Good is not just not being entirely evil.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 08:45 PM
What you're saying is that you don't find a problem with it, and therefore if others find a problem with it it doesn't matter. One of the traits of good, as opposed to evil or neutral, is that you are concerned with how others view things, and aren't willing to declare someone's body as your right to do with as you please without consulting them.And somehow the Summon Monster spells, where you conjure up an being - sometimes even a sapient being, to fight and do your bidding whether it wants to or not, isn't Evil. Nor are the various Dominate spells evil.

Furthermore, if you kill some orcs, you feel free to take their things in spite of the ancient orcish tradition that the riches of the fallen be buried with their bodies. And that isn't Evil either.

Or to boil it down to the most basic level, you are a fighter. You find yourself at war with a neighboring city-state. In the course of the conflict, you chop up people's bodies with a sword in the attempt to kill them - that definitely counts as "declaring someone's body as your right to do with as you please without consulting them." You certainly aren't checking to see if they're okay with being chopped to death with a sword - because they're not okay with it, I promise. And yet, killing with swords is not Evil.

EvilElitest
2007-06-06, 08:57 PM
Well, if as you say, its a non-homebrew world, and the DM isn't making exceptions for the class requirements, then no, its not possible by RAW. As Zero pointed out, its a non-good class by definition.

Of course, if the DM plays with that a bit, you can certainly justify using undead and negative energy for good. Its called a rationalization, and its the way to a slow, sweet spiral into the Evil alignments. Its how most literary falls from grace happen. You are doing evil, "for the greater good" or using evil's tools against it. The problem is that it becomes too easy eventually, and then you find yourself sitting on your throne made of the bones of your vanquished enemies, staring at the living tapestry you made from their skins, wondering why this pesky group of mid-level adventurers has invaded your realm and are destroying your minions. :smallbiggrin:


Nicely put

In my worlds, the creation of undead is a lesser evil, so it is possible for a CG dread Necro, but he can't kill for the purpose of creating more undead.
As for assasins, i just say they can't be LG and can't kill innocents for money


Seriously though, almost every adventurer rationalizes grotesque violence and obscene uses of magic every single day. How many stop to actually check alignments or even intention when they happen across a group of orcs attacking the pretty maiden? The fact that those orcs are simple farmers who are chasing down that foul, but beautiful, sorceress that killed all their children isn't something that most adventurers stop to think of. Nope, adventurers are joyfully committing mass murder, extortion, theft and destruction of private property every time they leave a tavern... but its against evil folks, so its ok, right??

:wink:
That is an assumtion, i'd make them fall or lose aligments if they do this more than once
from,
EE

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:31 PM
And somehow the Summon Monster spells, where you conjure up an being - sometimes even a sapient being, to fight and do your bidding whether it wants to or not, isn't Evil. Nor are the various Dominate spells evil.

Furthermore, if you kill some orcs, you feel free to take their things in spite of the ancient orcish tradition that the riches of the fallen be buried with their bodies. And that isn't Evil either.

Or to boil it down to the most basic level, you are a fighter. You find yourself at war with a neighboring city-state. In the course of the conflict, you chop up people's bodies with a sword in the attempt to kill them - that definitely counts as "declaring someone's body as your right to do with as you please without consulting them." You certainly aren't checking to see if they're okay with being chopped to death with a sword - because they're not okay with it, I promise. And yet, killing with swords is not Evil.

Uh sorry but yes all of those are evil...except maybe the summon monster part cause I'm pretty damn sure they are supposed to be willing but whatever, I dont want to go check again.

But I hope you realize all those things you described have no context. Did the guy kill with a sword to save his family? Yes? Then he did an evil for a good which is neutral. Did the guy use domination to avoid having to kill someone? Yes? Then he did an evil for a good which is neutral etc...

Thats what neutrality is, the best way to describe neutrality HIS the ends justify the means. Almost all the actions we do are neutral. There is, of course, all the actions that are neither good or evil like walking but there is also things like eating animals, killing an animal for your survival, thats neutral. Killing in self-defense as well. Lying is most of the time just chaotic but it can be good or evil sometimes. For example, you tell your parent that you have a broken nose because you fell down some stairs when someone actually did that to you when he was really angry at you but he already apologized. You lie (chaotic) to protect a someone who actually hurt you (good). On the other side of the axis, telling the truth is usually just a lawfull act but can be good or evil sometimes.

You see what I mean? Roy didnt do a good actions when he was killing goblins to get to Xykon, that was a neutral actions. When he came back at bandit camp to save his team it wasnt good either, he was making up for abandonning them so it was neutral. Beating up Miko was neutral again. But Roy did goods actions when he shielded Elan from arrows, when, in origins, he talked with orcs that attacked villages and managed to stop them without hurting them, when he stood alone against a lich just to be sure that no else then him would be hurt, when he managed to find a way to keep Belkar from doing evil actions without having to kill him or put him in jail etc... So he did lots of neutral actions, of course, but if he could he would always prefer to do a good actions then a neutral one and he never did an evil action. Good guys always try to sacrifice themselves before having to hurt, disrespect or disturb anyone else.

And thats the problem with necromancers. Since their spells are evil, no matter what they does, even if its something really good like using their zombie to get people out of a house in fire: they still did an evil for a good. Thats why any necromancer that actually use their spells cant be good and thats also why I said that the one mauslin described could be an exception. A necromancer that dont use their spells unless its absolutely necessary like the necromancer he described would much rather enter the house in fire to try to save people even if its more risky for them. But, if they woudnt use their spells unless its absolutely necessary, why the hell would they become necromancers in the first place? Any necromancer that dont want to use their spells would just change class next level. So thats why REAL necromancers cant be good, because everything they do with their spells would be neutral AT BEST and would be evil often.

Serenity
2007-06-06, 11:32 PM
Speaking of things that aren't arguments, this is definitely not one.

What you're saying is that you don't find a problem with it, and therefore if others find a problem with it it doesn't matter. One of the traits of good, as opposed to evil or neutral, is that you are concerned with how others view things, and aren't willing to declare someone's body as your right to do with as you please without consulting them.

Good is not just not being entirely evil.

You are putting words in my mouth, good sir. What I said is that dead bodies are, by definition, dead. They therefore have no consciousness, no thoughts, no feelings, no soul. Therefore, in animating a body, you bring harm to no one, and can use the animated corpse to aid the cause of good.

So, yes, I don't have a problem declaring a body mine to do with as I wish. I do have problem declaring people mine to do with as I wish. There's an enormous distinction--namely, that a person is thinking, feeling, etc. while a body is a hunk of lifeless meat and bones.

Does Spidey stop superheroing because he's been painted as a villain in much of the public eye? Do the X-Men stop saving the world because mutants are reviled by huge chunks of the human race? Does the cowboy cop stop tracking down the bad guys because the Chief told him to turn in his badge? No on all counts. The good guys aren't always popular, but just because people don't like you doesn't make you evil.

Ramza00
2007-06-06, 11:34 PM
No mention of good liches (arch lich variant in LM and some wierd FR book) when this post has this many posts? Why not?

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 11:37 PM
Okay, for the last time Good =/= Nice

Good = Beneficial to others.

"You desecrated my father's grave by raising him as a skeleton!"

Sure, that's your point of view, here's mine.

"Your father is dead. His body is of no use to him, and he does not suffer from my using it."

Note: Ramza brings up a very good variant.

Side Note: I just love how most the people against Good Necromancy appear to have no perception that Law and Chaos are equal to Evil and Good in the DnD world.

Side Note 2: Just to throw it out there, if you think positive energy is good, and Necromancy is evil. You should realize by definition of the Necromancy school. Conjuration(healing) = Necromancy.

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:43 PM
You are putting words in my mouth, good sir. What I said is that dead bodies are, by definition, dead. They therefore have no consciousness, no thoughts, no feelings, no soul. Therefore, in animating a body, you bring harm to no one, and can use the animated corpse to aid the cause of good.

So, yes, I don't have a problem declaring a body mine to do with as I wish. I do have problem declaring people mine to do with as I wish. There's an enormous distinction--namely, that a person is thinking, feeling, etc. while a body is a hunk of lifeless meat and bones.

Does Spidey stop superheroing because he's been painted as a villain in much of the public eye? Do the X-Men stop saving the world because mutants are reviled by huge chunks of the human race? Does the cowboy cop stop tracking down the bad guys because the Chief told him to turn in his badge? No on all counts. The good guys aren't always popular, but just because people don't like you doesn't make you evil.


You are missing the point. You are disrespecting the will of the people who died and the belief of those people by raising them as zombie, thats evil. The only way its not evil, like we already said, is if the people are willing to be raised as zombie. Necromancy obviously isnt as bad as killing or dominating someone who is alive but it is, at the very least, as bad as stealing someone of his most prized possession. The cadavers are for some people and sometimes for the family of the guy who died, very important and they if they want it to be buried in the ancestral graveyard it is indeed evil to raise them back as zombie to fight people.

Serenity
2007-06-06, 11:45 PM
"...And raising his body helped stop a cult from unleashing an unspeakably horrifice demon on the world." (Or whatever other heroic deed you needed undead to help you do.)

I'm not saying Necromancers will ever be exalted heroes. They do some fairly uncomfortable things. But there's no sane reason they cannot be good.

Querzis, by your definition, standing against Xykon was a Neutral action; you classify taking arms against an enemy as an evil action, which balances out to neutral if done for good reasons. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as a good adventurer; you cannot be better than neutral without being a pacifist.

Serenity
2007-06-06, 11:48 PM
You are missing the point. You are disrespecting the will of the people who died and the belief of those people by raising them as zombie, thats evil. The only way its not evil, like we already said, is if the people are willing to be raised as zombie. Necromancy obviously isnt as bad as killing or dominating someone who is alive but it is, at the very least, as bad as stealing someone of his most prized possession. The cadavers are for some people and sometimes for the family of the guy who died, very important and they if they want it to be buried in the ancestral graveyard it is indeed evil to raise them back as zombie to fight people.

Certainly, there are any number of circumstances that can make animating the dead an Evil act, but the act itself is not inherently evil. We're not disturbing the dead guy. He's in heaven or hell already. We're just causing a lifeless hunk of meat to fight for us. Dead bodies are inanimate. Animating them is no different from animating an object.

((Apologies for the double post; his came in while I was putting up my last one.))

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 11:49 PM
You are missing the point. You are disrespecting the will of the people who died and the belief of those people by raising them as zombie, thats evil. No, that's Chaotic, evil implies inflicting pain(mental,physical and emotional) on someone for self-gain.

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:49 PM
Okay, for the last time Good =/= Nice

Good = Beneficial to others.

"You desecrated my father's grave by raising him as a skeleton!"

Sure, that's your point of view, here's mine.

"Your father is dead. His body is of no use to him, and he does not suffer from my using it."

Note: Ramza brings up a very good variant.

Side Note: I just love how most the people against Good Necromancy appear to have no perception that Law and Chaos are equal to Evil and Good in the DnD world.

Side Note 2: Just to throw it out there, if you think positive energy is good, and Necromancy is evil. You should realize by definition of the Necromancy school. Conjuration(healing) = Necromancy.

Well I dont care about positive or negative energy but thats because I have no idea what the hell is it supposed to mean...I really have to read the book again. Anyway: Good = benificial to everyone except maybe yourself! You make one guys sad to make 1000 happy and its still neutral. A good action doesnt disrespect, hurt or sadden anyone except maybe you.

«Side Note: I just love how most the people against Good Necromancy appear to have no perception that Law and Chaos are equal to Evil and Good in the DnD world.»

...You are still in the first edition? Definition of chaos and law changed a lot since then.

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:54 PM
No, that's Chaotic, evil implies inflicting pain(mental,physical and emotional)

Not for self-gain. That part is irrevelant. Evil implies inflicting pain...thats all. Great you raised a zombie to save a complete stranger, you didnt do it for self-gain! It was still evil to raise him, you did evil for good = neutral. And seriously I wonder if you hate chaos? Chaotic means acting on the moment and not caring about what the society tell you but doing what you think is the right thing to do. And, even if he dont care about what the other think or that nobody ever told him that necromancy was evil a chaotic good character will realize it ON HIS OWN! Chaotic good means you dont need rules to be good, think on the spot and do what is right!

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 11:54 PM
Well I dont care about positive or negative energy but thats because I have no idea what the hell is it supposed to mean...I really have to read the book again. Anyway: Good = benificial to everyone except maybe yourself! You make one guys sad to make 1000 happy and its still neutral. A good action doesnt disrespect, hurt or sadden anyone except maybe you. Then no action is good. Every action makes someone unhappy. No action is good. There is not good. According to you. Name one action that doesn't disrespect, hurt or sadden someone other than yourself if you think otherwise.


...You are still in the first edition? Definition of chaos and law changed a lot since then.

Sorry, I've only ever played 3.5, your insult is moot.

Serenity
2007-06-06, 11:55 PM
Um, there is no such thing as an action that benefits everyone. Look, I apprehended the serial killer who's been terrorizing this town! But he's not happy about going to jail, so what I did was Neutral. Robin Hood, the good Rogue archetype, steals from the rich and gives to the poor.Bet the rich aren't too happy about that, guess he's neutral after all! Hell, Ghandi probably made his family really worried during his hunger strikes, guess he's neutral too. That Paladin who dismantled the cult of Erythnul? Neutral.Hurt the cultists, pissed off a God...lots of people who his actions weren't 'beneficial' to.

The Astrologist
2007-06-06, 11:55 PM
Not for self-gain. That part is irrevelant. Evil implies inflicting pain. Okay, so you cannot defend yourself from someone murdering you, because it is evil. That makes so much sense. /sarcasm

Querzis
2007-06-06, 11:58 PM
Then no action is good. Every action makes someone unhappy. No action is good. There is not good. According to you. Name one action that doesn't disrespect, hurt or sadden someone other than yourself if you think otherwise.

Lol I named lots of them already, do you even read my post? Roy shielded Elan. He took the pain so that someone else dont have to, it a good action. It hurt, disrespected or insulted nobody else then him. Or when he talked to the orcs to avoid a fight. The orcs are happy with it, the villagers are happy, everyone is happy! And seriously it really surprise me if you cant come on your own with one action that doesnt disrespect anyone.

Querzis
2007-06-07, 12:00 AM
Okay, so you cannot defend yourself from someone murdering you, because it is evil. That makes so much sense. /sarcasm

I already said it and it just prove you are not even readin my post. You kill someone (evil) to save someone (good) = neutral. I dont see why you think its that complicated.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 07:37 AM
In defending Elan, he inconvenienced Xykon and the other attackers. Elan taking arrows would have done a lot more towards taking down one of the defenders than it did by hitting Roy--do the words 'meat shield' mean anything?

All of them, Paladins, common soldiers, and the OotS were committing an enormous neutral act (by your definition) simply by being on that wall and fighting back against the people who wanted to destroy them. Before this, the Paladins crusaded against evil, using force to bring down threats to the greater welfare; at least some of the soldiers have probably fought in a war before; and the OotS makes its living by killing monsters and taking their stuff. There's no way any of them can be Good with that preponderance of 'evil for good' actions. Under your definition, you have to be Ghandi to be good. You cannot defend yourself, you can only defend others by putting yourself in harms way and hoping that deters the attacker, you have to try to reason with everything, you have to be vegan, lest you inconvenience the animals who have to die for people to eat meat (and the other animal lovers who get angry about this)--but in doing so you inconvenience ranchers, because they have fewer customers because of you!

It may be that there are actions that can make absolutely everyone happy. But in the vast majority of situations, somebody has to be the loser. Congratulations, your definition singehandedly eliminates the possibility of a good-aligned adventurer.

Tokiko Mima
2007-06-07, 09:38 AM
The problem with being a Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer is that, at least in 3.5 RAW, virtually all undead are evil. So while it would be possible to change your alignment back to Good after you've taken Dread Necromancer levels, everytime you used it's class abilities you'd be performing works of Evil.


Could be a Nuetral Necromancer who believes he is doing good. I dont use alignment in my campaigns, so I might be a bad point of reference, but I tend to let players do whatever they want as long as it's not game-breaking. I almost never shut players down when they have a character idea they love.

Well, when you get down to brass tacks don't most people believe they are doing good for the things they care about? Even if the only thing they care about is themselves?

You could be any alignment and believe that you're good. It's a rare, rather sadistic and usually rather comic villian that doesn't have to justify their actions to themselves and is openly and avowedly evil for the sake of evil.

Ramza00
2007-06-07, 11:00 AM
You are missing the point. You are disrespecting the will of the people who died and the belief of those people by raising them as zombie, thats evil. The only way its not evil, like we already said, is if the people are willing to be raised as zombie. Necromancy obviously isnt as bad as killing or dominating someone who is alive but it is, at the very least, as bad as stealing someone of his most prized possession. The cadavers are for some people and sometimes for the family of the guy who died, very important and they if they want it to be buried in the ancestral graveyard it is indeed evil to raise them back as zombie to fight people.

Wrong that is not evil. It would be Chaoitc if you simply don't care, or it would be Lawful if you "must" do it in order to complete a higher purpose (Miko is willing to do some quite cruel things to protect what she thinks is the God's will)

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 11:02 AM
For the record, Necromancy =/= Evil. Animating the dead == Evil.

As for the whole debate, it doesn't matter if the Archangel Gabriel came down and said 'Animate those corpses for the greater good or the world will explode!!!' Animate Dead is an EVIL spell (check the descriptor... Good clerics, and clerics of good gods can't even prepare it). That's by RAW. Changing that is like changing a fireball spell to a sonicball spell on the fly because 'my character believes sonic damage is better than fire damage'. By RAW it doesn't work. By DM, anything goes. If your DM wants to alter his campaign dynamics, then do so. But keep in mind that in a normal D&D world, your character is actually non-good.

Also, honestly, how many situations do adventurers go through where they all think 'CRAP! If I had animated that bugbear, the world would not have suffered a hideous implosion!!!' In all my games (at least, the good character games), I've never once felt that the adventure would be over if only I could have summoned a skeleton...

Jayabalard
2007-06-07, 11:43 AM
"The dead have no rights" While this view is cold, it is not inheretly evil. Wrong. In a world where it's undeniable that people continue to exist after death, they continue to have rights.


No, that's Chaotic, evil implies inflicting pain(mental,physical and emotional) on someone for self-gain.so, obviously the mechanics of raising someone as a zombie involves more than just disrespecting their wishes. Since it is by definition an evil spell, and an evil act, it must involve doing something evil; the specifics of what that evil is isn't that important: whether that means you're binding their soul in a place of torment and denying them access to the afterlife for all eternity, or something else equally vile, you know from the spell description that using it is an act of evil.

If you want to move into the realm of home brew, certainly, you can change that... but then you're not talking about the same game that everyone else is playing. It's not going to be universally applicable, and arguing that it's not evil in general because you interpret it a different way (have a different opinion) than the rules is kind of silly...

Leon
2007-06-07, 11:52 AM
Arrrgh, having flashbacks to the last long thread regarding the good and bad of Necromancy......... gee did that one drag on

Starbuck_II
2007-06-07, 12:14 PM
The problem with being a Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer is that, at least in 3.5 RAW, virtually all undead are evil. So while it would be possible to change your alignment back to Good after you've taken Dread Necromancer levels, everytime you used it's class abilities you'd be performing works of Evil.

One evil action will not turn you from LG or CG to LN or CN (respectively)

You must do this in session: you must show a pattern. This is why the DMG suggests that players change alignment by showing the DM a pattern (ir should work both ways).

Starsinger
2007-06-07, 12:59 PM
The problem with being a Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer is that, at least in 3.5 RAW, virtually all undead are evil.

History lesson! Do you know why Skeletons and Zombies are Chaotic Evil, despite not having brains? (And thus, should be true neutral, since they have less cognitive abilities than animals... technically mindless creatures shouldn't have alignments at all..) In fact, before I answer the rhetorical question I posed earlier, I'd like to point out, that in previous edition(s?) Skeletons and Zombies were Neutral. They were changed to Chaotic Evil so they could be detected by Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Furthermore, simply being undead by no action of your own, such as by being a spawn, should not turn you evil. Sure, you prey on the living to survive, but don't other people? Don't adventurers prey on other intelligent living creatures for loot, experience, and food?

Furthermore, why is animating someone's body [Evil]? It's no more disrespectful than wearing a Winter Wolf's coat after you killed it. (Winter Wolf's intelligence is listed as 9... they're not animals, they're intelligent creatures.) Nor than having Dragonhide Armor. Dragons are intelligent (some more so than humanoids), why don't they have the same rights that corpses do? I'll tell you why, because the issue isn't "the body of intelligent creatures have rights not to be disturbed" but "violating the dead is a cultural topic in the real world that we don't want to touch beyond making it Evil, since that will appease the most people".

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 01:18 PM
History lesson! Do you know why Skeletons and Zombies are Chaotic Evil, despite not having brains? (And thus, should be true neutral, since they have less cognitive abilities than animals... technically mindless creatures shouldn't have alignments at all..) In fact, before I answer the rhetorical question I posed earlier, I'd like to point out, that in previous edition(s?) Skeletons and Zombies were Neutral. They were changed to Chaotic Evil so they could be detected by Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Furthermore, simply being undead by no action of your own, such as by being a spawn, should not turn you evil. Sure, you prey on the living to survive, but don't other people? Don't adventurers prey on other intelligent living creatures for loot, experience, and food?

Furthermore, why is animating someone's body [Evil]? It's no more disrespectful than wearing a Winter Wolf's coat after you killed it. (Winter Wolf's intelligence is listed as 9... they're not animals, they're intelligent creatures.) Nor than having Dragonhide Armor. Dragons are intelligent (some more so than humanoids), why don't they have the same rights that corpses do? I'll tell you why, because the issue isn't "the body of intelligent creatures have rights not to be disturbed" but "violating the dead is a cultural topic in the real world that we don't want to touch beyond making it Evil, since that will appease the most people".

I was always under the impression that mindless undead are 'Evil' so that pallies can have something to smite ;) Honestly, it makes no sense, since they're essentially golems through different means (no ability to make decisions). They SHOULD be neutral. It seems to be WotC's stance (I.E. Raw) that all undead be evil.

Also, wearing pelts as armor and such can be considered a natural progression of things (using all of an animal, nothing goes to waste and all that jazz). However, skeletons aren't animated because a ranger has ranks in survival, like pelts and skins and meat. You have to go out of your way and tap into destructive forces to bring them about, and turn them into a mockery of life. That could be where a conflict comes in between good and evil.

mauslin
2007-06-07, 01:26 PM
Regarding the neutral good necromancer I mentioned earlier, yes most of the time she sucked. She nerfed her own abilities in order to be good.
As far as why she was a necromancer when she was nerfing her own abilities, she was born with necro powers; she couldn't not have them.

Basically, she's a logical answer to the question; yes, you can have a good necromancer. By totally nerfing your abilities and sucking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I did have an idea for background that might justify a chaotic good necromancer in the D&D setting that might not have to nerf itself.

Your the lone survivor of a clan that was brutally slaugtered by X. The spirits of your kinsmen haunt you, demanding that you give them vengence.
You discover that you have necromatic powers. You go to the graves of your kinsmen, and return their restless spirits to their bodies so that they may take vengence on X with their own hands.

In that case, you really aren't disrespecting the dead by raising them, you're actually following their wishes, and seeking to give them the closure they need to pass on.
May sure X is really powerful though, because once you've accomplished your goal, your kinsmen will pass on and you won't have anymore undead.

Tokiko Mima
2007-06-07, 01:40 PM
One evil action will not turn you from LG or CG to LN or CN (respectively)

You must do this in session: you must show a pattern. This is why the DMG suggests that players change alignment by showing the DM a pattern (ir should work both ways).

Yeah. Consistantly using your Dread Necromancer class features could be construed as a pattern of some kind. Since we are agreed that they are evil actions, that would tend to lead one away from Good alignments as a matter of course.

If you only ever use your Dread Necromancer class features/spells once or twice, then you have nothing to worry about. Use them consistantly and you'll be in trouble.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 02:16 PM
Regarding the neutral good necromancer I mentioned earlier, yes most of the time she sucked. She nerfed her own abilities in order to be good.
As far as why she was a necromancer when she was nerfing her own abilities, she was born with necro powers; she couldn't not have them.

Basically, she's a logical answer to the question; yes, you can have a good necromancer. By totally nerfing your abilities and sucking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I did have an idea for background that might justify a chaotic good necromancer in the D&D setting that might not have to nerf itself.

Your the lone survivor of a clan that was brutally slaugtered by X. The spirits of your kinsmen haunt you, demanding that you give them vengence.
You discover that you have necromatic powers. You go to the graves of your kinsmen, and return their restless spirits to their bodies so that they may take vengence on X with their own hands.

In that case, you really aren't disrespecting the dead by raising them, you're actually following their wishes, and seeking to give them the closure they need to pass on.
May sure X is really powerful though, because once you've accomplished your goal, your kinsmen will pass on and you won't have anymore undead.

Sounds more like the character in the example is commiting self-sabotage for no good reason..

Here's the core spells a 'good' necromancer can't (or shouldn't if a wizard/sorc) cast:
Animate Dead, Contagion, Create Undead, Curse Water, Death Knell, Death Watch, Eyebite, Symbol of Pain

Those are some of the weaker of the necromancy spells... Here are some of the best spells that are NOT [Evil], and thus can be cast by a good character free of charge:
Bestow Curse, Blindness/Deafness, COMMAND UNDEAD, Death Ward, Destruction, Energy Drain, False Life, Enervation, Ray of Enfeeblement, among many others, and that's just core.

This is a more logical answer to the question: you can be a very powerful and good aligned necromancer, as long as your forté is NOT animating the dead.

Starsinger
2007-06-07, 03:11 PM
I was always under the impression that mindless undead are 'Evil' so that pallies can have something to smite ;) Honestly, it makes no sense, since they're essentially golems through different means (no ability to make decisions). They SHOULD be neutral. It seems to be WotC's stance (I.E. Raw) that all undead be evil.

Also, wearing pelts as armor and such can be considered a natural progression of things (using all of an animal, nothing goes to waste and all that jazz). However, skeletons aren't animated because a ranger has ranks in survival, like pelts and skins and meat. You have to go out of your way and tap into destructive forces to bring them about, and turn them into a mockery of life. That could be where a conflict comes in between good and evil.

Arguably, the same argument could be said for animating the dead. If your body is just laying there, rotting, why not animate it? If it's inappropriate for a Dragon's body to rot, why is it alright to allow a human's? Although, I would like to point out, that the creatures I mentioned were intelligent creatures. They're not animals Winter Wolves have a listed int of 9. That makes them as smart as Half-Orcs, a core race. Likewise, Dragons aren't animals either, they're intelligent creatures, too.

So, if your party included a Dragon, and he died, and you couldn't resurrect him, would you skin him to make dragonhide armor? "Hey, aren't you wearing Steve's character?" "Well yeah, he wasn't using it." Looting the body of your fellow adventurers is also desecrating the dead, and should be more heinous considering you, presumably, spent time getting to know and adventuring with this person. So how come you can take my Adamantium Fullplate, but not borrow the body? I'm not using either of them.

Which brings up the point, the dead aren't using their bodies. Speak with Dead, however, is much more tampering with the dead than animating their body. When you cast Speak with Dead, you contact the creature itself, not it's husk. But if Steve's character is happy in Elysium, why should he care if you turn his husk into a skeleton?

Although.. creating a Ghost, I can see that being evil, as that yanks Steve's soul from Elysium. Same with a Ghoul, or vampire, or other minded undead. But I don't see the harm in making zombies or skeletons.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 03:55 PM
Wrong. In a world where it's undeniable that people continue to exist after death, they continue to have rights.

so, obviously the mechanics of raising someone as a zombie involves more than just disrespecting their wishes. Since it is by definition an evil spell, and an evil act, it must involve doing something evil; the specifics of what that evil is isn't that important: whether that means you're binding their soul in a place of torment and denying them access to the afterlife for all eternity, or something else equally vile, you know from the spell description that using it is an act of evil.

If you want to move into the realm of home brew, certainly, you can change that... but then you're not talking about the same game that everyone else is playing. It's not going to be universally applicable, and arguing that it's not evil in general because you interpret it a different way (have a different opinion) than the rules is kind of silly...

Yes, by the RAW, Animate Dead is an Evil spell. That is not the argument. the argument is that this is utterly asinine, because any justification of it requires conjecture without any firm support. There is NOTHING in the RAW to support the idea that raising a zombie or skeleton 'binds souls to an eternity of torment' or any similar justification.

The dead have rights. Dead bodies do not. Animating the dead does nothing to the soul. A dead body is an inanimate object, not a person. Mindless undead are just golems by another means.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 04:14 PM
Yeah. Consistantly using your Dread Necromancer class features could be construed as a pattern of some kind. Since we are agreed that they are evil actions, that would tend to lead one away from Good alignments as a matter of course.

If you only ever use your Dread Necromancer class features/spells once or twice, then you have nothing to worry about. Use them consistantly and you'll be in trouble.

Let's take a look at just what the class features of the Dread Necromancer are, shall we?

Charnel/Scabrous/Enervating Touch: Channel Negative Energy, inflict disease, or drain levels. Nasty things, yes. But none any more inherently evil than an Evoker unleashing Fireballs and Meteor Swarms to destroy his enemies. It's all in how you use it. If a Dread Necromancer uses this to disable the warlord threatening a kingdom, he's just saved countless lives. Where's the Evil?

Rebuke Undead[/I:] An aspect of channeling Negative Energy. true, it's emblematic of evil clerics, but the forces involved are neutral, and it can be used for good.

[I]Negative Energy Burst: Negative Energy is destructive, but neutral. Like a fireball, the evil is not in itself but how it's used.

Advanced Learning: Gets Cleric and Wiz/Sorc spells. Oh, spoooky!

Mental Bastion: Resistant to sleep, stunning effects, poison, disease. Where's the evil?

Lich Body: Have we found an inherently evil ability at last? Let's take a closer look: the Dread Necromancer doesn't need to expend gold or experience to create his phylactery. This suggests that he's not using the same ritual as normal liches, so unspeakably evil acts aren't necessarily a requirement.

The one thing I'll grant you is the familiar, which has to be an evil creature. As if wizards ever pay attention to their familiars in the first place.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 04:21 PM
Arguably, the same argument could be said for animating the dead. If your body is just laying there, rotting, why not animate it? If it's inappropriate for a Dragon's body to rot, why is it alright to allow a human's? Although, I would like to point out, that the creatures I mentioned were intelligent creatures. They're not animals Winter Wolves have a listed int of 9. That makes them as smart as Half-Orcs, a core race. Likewise, Dragons aren't animals either, they're intelligent creatures, too.

So, if your party included a Dragon, and he died, and you couldn't resurrect him, would you skin him to make dragonhide armor? "Hey, aren't you wearing Steve's character?" "Well yeah, he wasn't using it." Looting the body of your fellow adventurers is also desecrating the dead, and should be more heinous considering you, presumably, spent time getting to know and adventuring with this person. So how come you can take my Adamantium Fullplate, but not borrow the body? I'm not using either of them.

Which brings up the point, the dead aren't using their bodies. Speak with Dead, however, is much more tampering with the dead than animating their body. When you cast Speak with Dead, you contact the creature itself, not it's husk. But if Steve's character is happy in Elysium, why should he care if you turn his husk into a skeleton?

Although.. creating a Ghost, I can see that being evil, as that yanks Steve's soul from Elysium. Same with a Ghoul, or vampire, or other minded undead. But I don't see the harm in making zombies or skeletons.

I wasn't refuting the fact that dead bodies are just that: empty shells. What I'm saying, is that there is a difference between looting a body of possessions and organs, and animating a skeleton. If Harry kills a wolf, skins it, eats its meat, and makes a crude idol out of its bones, that's fine and congrats to him. When it comes to animating a corpse, it takes more than just a skinning knife and a strong stomach. You have to cast an arcane or divine spell that infuses a corpse with destructive energy to bring it back to pseudo-life - that's very different than skinning a possum to make a cloak to keep you warm. I think that's where the [Evil] lies (my interperatation, anyways).

As for the difference between undead and golems, looks at the spells needed to create them: Only flesh golems (the apparent exception - a neutral entity, yet it's created from corpses and animate with an evil spell) require an evil spell to animate so good clerics won't be undertaking its construction (and good wizards/sorcs should at least be hesitant in casting the evil spell). The rest all use transmutation or wishes to animate. So both are means to the same end, but golems (minus flesh) don't require evil magic to be created.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 04:59 PM
And an evoker uses destructive energy to create flaming balls of death that kill people. But he's not evil so long as he uses it on monsters.

Negative Energy is not Evil.Yes, the RAW has classified Necromancy as Evil, but absolutely NO evidence is advanced to back up why this is so. Your argument is circular reasoning, Spike. 'Animating the dead is evil because you use the spell Animate Dead, which is evil.' That is, it's evil because it's evil. Doesn't fly.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 05:32 PM
And an evoker uses destructive energy to create flaming balls of death that kill people. But he's not evil so long as he uses it on monsters.

Negative Energy is not Evil.Yes, the RAW has classified Necromancy as Evil, but absolutely NO evidence is advanced to back up why this is so. Your argument is circular reasoning, Spike. 'Animating the dead is evil because you use the spell Animate Dead, which is evil.' That is, it's evil because it's evil. Doesn't fly.

Where in RAW does it say Necromancy is evil? This is all I found:


Necromancy: Spells that manipulate, create, or destroy life or life force. A necromancy specialist is called a necromancer.

As for my reasoning, I have yet to hear a better explanation to why it's evil that doesn't delve into society's taboos on dead bodies, which isn't even mentioned in the PHB... WotC deemed that Animate Dead is an [Evil] spell, but leaves the rest up to us for reasoning.

The only thing we have to work with in RAW is that 'If I'm good, I can't cast en [Evil] spell', and the fact that zombies and skellies are evil creatures. As such, the only proof that animating the dead is evil is because the spell that animates them it [Evil]. Until I see any other RAW proof, that's the only real argument that can be made rules-wise.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 05:43 PM
I was referring to the classification of major necromancy spells as evil, yes. My point is that the RAW is being stupid. Skeletons and zombies are utterly mindless, damn it! They are literally incapable of making value judgements for themselves. The energy that animates them is not evil. They do only what their creator tells them to do. By any objective measure, they are True Neutral in much the same way that animals are.

If you have no other argument to support yourself than 'the book says so', you don't have an argument. If a roleplaying game's RAW held the slow, ritual torture of an innocent for the purposes of unleashing a crazed demon to be good, would it be a valid argument to say 'the action is good because RAW says its good?" No; you'd call bull**** in a second if someone tried that.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 05:55 PM
I was referring to the classification of major necromancy spells as evil, yes. My point is that the RAW is being stupid. Skeletons and zombies are utterly mindless, damn it! They are literally incapable of making value judgements for themselves. The energy that animates them is not evil. They do only what their creator tells them to do. By any objective measure, they are True Neutral in much the same way that animals are.

If you have no other argument to support yourself than 'the book says so', you don't have an argument. If a roleplaying game's RAW held the slow, ritual torture of an innocent for the purposes of unleashing a crazed demon to be good, would it be a valid argument to say 'the action is good because RAW says its good?" No; you'd call bull**** in a second if someone tried that.

Actually, the majority of necromancy spells aren't evil... Only the ones that propagate or empoyer undead, and a couple of others. Major ones like enervate, slay living, are not [Evil]. I totally agree with you (as I've mentioned a few posts ago) that skellies and zombies 'SHOULD' be neutral like golems are.

I'd call bull**** if the RAW said that torture and demon worshipping were good, yes.... But since there's no set rule or guideline (or even fluff, for that matter) for why animate dead is [Evil], there's only the assumption that, for whatever reason (up to the DM I guess), making undead is an evil act. This is why this argument exists: some agree that befouling corpses with (-) energy is evil, others don't. And I'm still waiting for any RAW concrete proof other than 'the spell is evil' to why it's evil, or even proof that isn't personal opinion.

Serenity
2007-06-07, 06:00 PM
Without proof, an assumption is unfounded. There is no evidence as to why animating the dead should have the Evil descriptor. Ergo, it's stupid to have it.

'The rules say so' is simply not a meaningful argument. We're debating why the rules say what they do, and whether good necromancers are possible. I think an earlier poster had the right of it: a spell should not have the evil descriptor unless it targets an alignment.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-07, 06:59 PM
Without proof, an assumption is unfounded. There is no evidence as to why animating the dead should have the Evil descriptor. Ergo, it's stupid to have it.

'The rules say so' is simply not a meaningful argument. We're debating why the rules say what they do, and whether good necromancers are possible. I think an earlier poster had the right of it: a spell should not have the evil descriptor unless it targets an alignment.
Plenty of proof has been given, you've just chosen to disagree with every bit of it.

Animating dead uses negative energy to animate others' corpses without their will,
(As an aside: this is not just a matter of being "mean" and is markedly different than fighting in a war or killing. Those are ends, they can be done out of self-defense or against your will, which are nongood but not evil. A good person would go out of his way to avoid any unnecessary death, killing casually or without absolute necessity is at best a nongood act.)

It's not just that Animating Dead is unpleasant, it's that it is a choice of means; in the previous literary example given, the person had no choice, and only did so out of necessity, there there is a case for Good.

Doing so just because you find it interesting, or you think it is an easy way to do things, represents a willful neglect of morality for personal gain; pretty much the definition of an evil act.


Again, I will go back to the OP in that the question is whether a necromancer can be GOOD not just nonevil.


Also, the problem with most of the arguments here is that they run on the idea that objective morals can't be placed on things like Animating the Dead; which is flawed reasoning: If you can choose not to find something like Animate Dead evil based on morality or objective standards, nothing can be evil.

Danin
2007-06-07, 07:04 PM
Remember to keep things civil people, we don't want anyone degrading down to harsh words. One thing I was considering was taking a feat from Heros of Horror, Spirirt sense. It allows my character to speak with the recently deceased and, with a decent diplomacy score (which I would some how have to get as a cross classed skill) and I may be able to convince people to let me use their bodies. Would this solve a lot of the moral delemas associated with this alignment?

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 07:06 PM
Without proof, an assumption is unfounded. There is no evidence as to why animating the dead should have the Evil descriptor. Ergo, it's stupid to have it.

Agreed.


'The rules say so' is simply not a meaningful argument. We're debating why the rules say what they do, and whether good necromancers are possible. I think an earlier poster had the right of it: a spell should not have the evil descriptor unless it targets an alignment.

I suppose I sort of missed the boat (was arguing the wrong thing :smallbiggrin: )... I guess I agree with you on this one too. It sort of falls into the hands of the DM as to whether or not undead use is evil or neutral, though in some published settings (Eberron stands out), they do have some mention of undead use being evil or not (a non-evil society uses undead as part of their militia, as I recall).

Personally, I see not so much as being evil, as being non-good. Good aligned people respect life and have a concern for dignity, whereas making an undead kind of goes against that by making a mockery of life and, well, there isn't much less dignifying than being a walking corpse (non-flesh golems don't involve living things in their creation, so I see them as more of an 'ok' to build for good characters).

Tokiko Mima
2007-06-07, 07:13 PM
Let's take a look at just what the class features of the Dread Necromancer are, shall we?

Charnel/Scabrous/Enervating Touch: Channel Negative Energy, inflict disease, or drain levels. Nasty things, yes. But none any more inherently evil than an Evoker unleashing Fireballs and Meteor Swarms to destroy his enemies. It's all in how you use it.

Level/Energy Drain is ability possessed primarily by undead, and some fiends and Negative Energy outsiders. All of these creatures trend VERY heavily to Evil. Disease has a similar pattern, but more exceptions.


If a Dread Necromancer uses this to disable the warlord threatening a kingdom, he's just saved countless lives. Where's the Evil?

If you assume that the warlord is evil and the kingdom is good, the good possibly outweighs the evil, however the reverse (disable good warlord/save evil kingdom) is more likely to be fielding Dread Necromancers in the first place.


Rebuke Undead: An aspect of channeling Negative Energy. true, it's emblematic of evil clerics, but the forces involved are neutral, and it can be used for good.

As can any weapon. Moreover Good clerics CANNOT Rebuke Undead. In order to do this as a cleric you must be Neutral or Evil.. which exactly matches the alignment requirements of Dread Necromancer.


Negative Energy Burst: Negative Energy is destructive, but neutral. Like a fireball, the evil is not in itself but how it's used.

Negative energy is the type of energy used almost exclusively for Evil aligned spells, and almost never for Good aligned spells. It is not always evil, but there is no Evil type damage. Negative Energy is generally used in it's place.


Advanced Learning: Gets Cleric and Wiz/Sorc spells. Oh, spoooky!

Of the Necromancy school, mind. Not necessarily evil, but a favorite choice of evil liches and fiends the world over.


Mental Bastion: Resistant to sleep, stunning effects, poison, disease. Where's the evil?

You have me here except that it ties into the next part:


Lich Body: Have we found an inherently evil ability at last? Let's take a closer look: the Dread Necromancer doesn't need to expend gold or experience to create his phylactery. This suggests that he's not using the same ritual as normal liches, so unspeakably evil acts aren't necessarily a requirement.

The dread necromancer is becoming undead, as well as taking a template which modifies your alignment to 'Any evil.'


The one thing I'll grant you is the familiar, which has to be an evil creature. As if wizards ever pay attention to their familiars in the first place.

Agreed. Familiars are pretty useless.


Without proof, an assumption is unfounded. There is no evidence as to why animating the dead should have the Evil descriptor. Ergo, it's stupid to have it.

'The rules say so' is simply not a meaningful argument. We're debating why the rules say what they do, and whether good necromancers are possible. I think an earlier poster had the right of it: a spell should not have the evil descriptor unless it targets an alignment.

Easy answer: Undead are nearly universally 'Always Evil.' Animate dead spells create/target Evil creatures as their end result. Ergo, animating dead is an Evil act.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-07, 07:26 PM
Level/Energy Drain is ability possessed primarily by undead, and some fiends and Negative Energy outsiders. All of these creatures trend VERY heavily to Evil. Disease has a similar pattern, but more exceptions.

That's only because undead are beings of negative energy. That's like saying gold dragons are evil because fire is a destructive source and they breathe it. Also, enervation and energy drain are not evil spells.



Negative energy is the type of energy used almost exclusively for Evil aligned spells, and almost never for Good aligned spells. It is not always evil, but there is no Evil type damage. Negative Energy is generally used in it's place.

- There are more non-evil negative energy using spells than evil ones. Also, the 'UNHOLY' magic weapon trait does NOT deal negative energy. It deals typeless damage. Also, the 'UNHOLY BLIGHT' spell deals typeless damage. Demons/Devils also love to use fire spells, but that's just because it's a destructive force.


Of the Necromancy school, mind. Not necessarily evil, but a favorite choice of evil liches and fiends the world over.

Fiends don't tend to have many negative energy abilities. Unholy abilities yes, but many of those are abjuration or evocation. In fact, no demons or devils come to mind that use necromancy (-) energy spells.

....
2007-06-07, 08:05 PM
At level 20 a dread necromancer becomes a lich.

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil.

Ergo:

No good Dread Necromancers.

WillWolf
2007-06-07, 08:05 PM
Personally I think there's nothing wrong with houseruling things like this on a case-by-case basis. For instance create an identical class with a less evil-sounding flavor. Happy Face Necromancer :smallbiggrin:

Or the "Not So Evil, but Still Effective Necromancer."


Oh and personally I didn't like your reasoning there, but I agree with the end result. Personally I tend to view (most) alighment systems in how people would see you if they could look at your class selection feats, thus the NPC would see you as lawful and good if you were a paladin without even knowing anything about you.

The Astrologist
2007-06-07, 08:21 PM
At level 20 a dread necromancer becomes a lich.

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil.

Ergo:

No good Dread Necromancers.

Wrong! Someone finally pointed out something that destroys this agruement the Dread Necromancer doesn't have to pay any gold, exp, or time to create his 'Soul Box' ergo, he skips the ritual and commits no evil.

(Becoming a Lich is not evil, if it was the "Unspeakable" evil would be described and not left subject to question)

WillWolf that's saying all the detect alignment spells and abilities are metagame abilities by nature. I don't even think I have to point out how wrong that is. You are not evil because the general population thinks you are.

Khantalas
2007-06-07, 08:31 PM
(Becoming a Lich is not evil, if it was the "Unspeakable" evil would be described and not left subject to question)

You realize that BoVD had to be published with a warning label, right? And that book didn't have any unspeakable evil. Would you put unspeakable evil in an essential book?

Serenity
2007-06-07, 08:36 PM
Plenty of proof has been given, you've just chosen to disagree with every bit of it.

Animating dead uses negative energy to animate others' corpses without their will,
(As an aside: this is not just a matter of being "mean" and is markedly different than fighting in a war or killing. Those are ends, they can be done out of self-defense or against your will, which are nongood but not evil. A good person would go out of his way to avoid any unnecessary death, killing casually or without absolute necessity is at best a nongood act.)

It's not just that Animating Dead is unpleasant, it's that it is a choice of means; in the previous literary example given, the person had no choice, and only did so out of necessity, there there is a case for Good.

Doing so just because you find it interesting, or you think it is an easy way to do things, represents a willful neglect of morality for personal gain; pretty much the definition of an evil act.


Again, I will go back to the OP in that the question is whether a necromancer can be GOOD not just nonevil.


Also, the problem with most of the arguments here is that they run on the idea that objective morals can't be placed on things like Animating the Dead; which is flawed reasoning: If you can choose not to find something like Animate Dead evil based on morality or objective standards, nothing can be evil.

Let's parse your statement, shall we?

'Animating dead'--what's at issue

'uses negative energy'--negative energy is a neutral force used by good characters as well as evil. Plenty of good clerics have used the Inflict spell.

'to animate other's corpses'--that is, to cause a lifeless, mindless husk of meat and bone to walk and carry out your orders. True statement.

'without their will'--contradictory statement. Corpses have no will. Enchantment takes away peoples will. Evocation kills people without their will. Divination lets you know what someone is doing without their will. Necromancy causes an inanimate object to animate. Hmm, which of those descriptions sound more evil?

None of us have rejected objective morality. My view is perfectly consistent: animating the dead does not inherently do harm to anyone, as you are merely putting a fuel into a husk, not messing with souls, the part of people that's actually, y'know, people. Since it doesn't harm anyone, it's non-evil. If someone uses non-evil means to do good deeds he is good.

Creating ghosts: Evil, messes with the soul.
Creating ghouls and ordering them to murder hapless townsfolk: Evil, causes harm.
Creating zombie servants and using them to fight off the invading orc army: Good, harms no innocents, saves the village.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-07, 09:21 PM
Wrong! Someone finally pointed out something that destroys this agruement the Dread Necromancer doesn't have to pay any gold, exp, or time to create his 'Soul Box' ergo, he skips the ritual and commits no evil.

(Becoming a Lich is not evil, if it was the "Unspeakable" evil would be described and not left subject to question)

WillWolf that's saying all the detect alignment spells and abilities are metagame abilities by nature. I don't even think I have to point out how wrong that is. You are not evil because the general population thinks you are.
You're saying that because they only give you insufficient detail about the process of becoming a lich, you can therefore selectively ignore the only detail that they do give you.

Yes, the rules do not detail the process, just like they do not detail the source of a Sorcerer's powers, the ritual for bonding an Animal Companion; they leave it up for the individual players or DM to make up on their own, with the caveat that whatever process is used it is unspeakably evil. It could be sacrificing innocents, but it couldn't "carving a box" any more than bonding an animal companion could involve planting a seed and growing a shark tree.

If you want to make a different class with the same functional abilities but a radically different system, than there's no point in putting it up for discussion. We can't comment on whether the different morality and magic system that you've conceptualized and we don't know about can work. (Although I guarantee that you can do whatever you want, we can only comment on the common system we use.)

Jayabalard
2007-06-07, 10:37 PM
Yes, by the RAW, Animate Dead is an Evil spell. That is not the argument. the argument is that this is utterly asinine, because any justification of it requires conjecture without any firm support. Your argument that is isn't evil is based on the same sort of conjecture, and it ignores the fact that since it is by definition an evil spell, there's more going on than what the RAW spells out.


There is NOTHING in the RAW to support the idea that raising a zombie or skeleton 'binds souls to an eternity of torment' or any similar justification.Except that animate dead is an evil spell... RAW says so. THat implies that the actual in game mechanics for raising the dead must be a pretty evil act, or it wouldn't be an evil spell


The dead have rights. Dead bodies do not. Animating the dead does nothing to the soul. A dead body is an inanimate object, not a person. Mindless undead are just golems by another means.Since animate dead is an evil spell, this is obviously not the case. Casting animate dead on someone does indeed do something to the person, the soul in addition to animating the body. Otherwise, animate dead wouldn't be defined as evil, and you could freely true ressurect someone who has been raised as an undead.

thehothead
2007-06-08, 12:42 AM
Your argument that is isn't evil is based on the same sort of conjecture, and it ignores the fact that since it is by definition an evil spell, there's more going on than what the RAW spells out.

Except that animate dead is an evil spell... RAW says so. THat implies that the actual in game mechanics for raising the dead must be a pretty evil act, or it wouldn't be an evil spell

Since animate dead is an evil spell, this is obviously not the case. Casting animate dead on someone does indeed do something to the person, the soul in addition to animating the body. Otherwise, animate dead wouldn't be defined as evil, and you could freely true ressurect someone who has been raised as an undead.

That's the key word here folks, implies. Not states mind you, Implies. Implications are subject to assumptions, and in my opinion, whould be ignored.

Callix
2007-06-08, 01:36 AM
Interestin ethical and metaethical debates going on here. May I be so bold as to put a view?

*Necromancy is not evil in itself, but does contain a range of evil spells. A Good Necromancer (Wizard specialist) is perfectly possible. A LG necromancer isn't too hard. He just sticks to Scare and Ray of Enfeeblement to incapacitate, rather than kill, his opponent. Possibly even more good than an Evoker for choosing less violent path.

*The Dread Necromancer class does require the person to be evil. For one thing, there's the dread. Not the sort of epithet most good people like. Then there's the disease attack. That emulates Contagion, which, I believe, actually is an evil spell. Infecting people isn't evil. Deliberately infecting people with contagious illnesses is. And finally the lich. The only implementation of lich rituals I know is from NWN (not the most reliable source, but the best I have). This involved sacrificing a group of innocent children. The guy becoming a lich was tricked by a demon into believing that the children would come back to life, and he could use the lich powers to do good. He persuaded his brother to round up the children and keep them busy. The children didn't come back to life. There was a whole quest section around figuring out who was responsible. No-one was particularly good in this. So, lich ritual is evil. Even if you get lich gear for free, there must be some sort of transformation involved, and this is likely to include that sort of ritual. And the template would make the character evil immediately. All in all, if you want a good dead-raiser, take a look at Ebberon/BoED Deathless.

Danin
2007-06-08, 02:10 AM
Serenity, I couldn't agree more.
In addition to that statement, if your name is a reference to what I think it is, you have gained even further respect.

So, can anyone compile all the arguments for and against into one post? I would, but I'm off to my weekly gaming session... where I will be playing my Chaotic Good Warlock.

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-08, 04:17 AM
I think the best thing to do here is to come up with another prestige class.

It would be the kind of Necromancer that goes around solving the problems of the dead, and would probably hunt down and destroy most of the undead as well. This would be someone who puts balance back.

Now, if you rule that a Zombie is something that isn't distinct from a golem, it's conceivable that this character could create them as well. And also, maybe some of those souls that such a character helps decide they want to stick around, or they can't rest yet, but they can follow the character around to help him, and presumably at some point they'll be allowed to go to whatever afterlife they should go on to. Spirits like this it's concievable that they could be put into bodies to assist the Necromancer.

I'd personally rather keep the negative energy the 'unnatural' aspects of the undead, rather than using 'deathless' and positive energy undead because I like moral relativism. But it's a good way to get around the almost random arbitrary morality that D&D seems to carry.

Serenity
2007-06-08, 08:02 AM
Your argument that is isn't evil is based on the same sort of conjecture, and it ignores the fact that since it is by definition an evil spell, there's more going on than what the RAW spells out.

Except that animate dead is an evil spell... RAW says so. THat implies that the actual in game mechanics for raising the dead must be a pretty evil act, or it wouldn't be an evil spell

Since animate dead is an evil spell, this is obviously not the case. Casting animate dead on someone does indeed do something to the person, the soul in addition to animating the body. Otherwise, animate dead wouldn't be defined as evil, and you could freely true ressurect someone who has been raised as an undead.

I use no more conjecture than you do, and frankly a heck of a lot less. You have to invent a whole range of ideas like 'every time you create an undead, you slowly kill the world' none of which are stated or particularly supported by the RAW. I just have to point out that nothing that is described, and therefore a definite fact about Necromancy, is inherently Evil. Only the Evil descriptor makes it Evil, and without justification, this simply doesn't stand, anymore than the fact that, per RAW, you can travel across the world instantly if you have a long enough line of horses.

Liches are evil because they commit unspeakable acts to gain immortality. They get that much description of what makes them evil. Necromancy? Not a word, just the Evil descriptor tacked on.

Jayabalard
2007-06-08, 08:03 AM
That's the key word here folks, implies. Not states mind you, Implies. Implications are subject to assumptions, and in my opinion, whould be ignored.Sorry about not being clear, but I'm using "implies" as in "logical implication" which doesn't involve any assumptions: "A implies B" means that "if A is true, then B is true". The only "assumption" involved is that the RAW is correct, which is true by definition.

Your assumption on the other hand is that the RAW is incorrect, and your main reasoning seems to be based solely on your opinion.

Serenity
2007-06-08, 08:23 AM
Except that the RAW has often been demonstratably stupid, with massive imbalances of class power, exploits that stretch the rules past the breaking point, and everything else that invective gets poured on in these boards. My main reasoningt is based on demonstrating that the RAW nowhere states any reason why Animate Dead should be an evil spell, but simply slaps on a descriptor without justification.

Again, 'RAW says so' is not a meaningful argument. If RAW doesn't have a good reason for it, it can be safely ignored. I suppose my ultimate point is that any specifics of Necromancy are ultimately the purview of the DM. If, in your world, Necromancy requires torturing souls, than of course it's inherently evil. But until any such specifics are set, there's no logic to back it up it's evilness. If the OP's DM has not set such specifics to date, than a good Necromancer could be allowed, and these arguments could help convince him to allow it.

silvermesh
2007-06-08, 09:35 AM
The idea that disturbing the dead as evil comes from a cultural taboo is correct, and this taboo comes from religious belief about souls and gods. Now can it really be argued that the well-statted out gods in D&D don't exist in D&D?
no, it really can't. this makes these cultural taboos from religious beliefs become more than "our world taboos", they're D&D world FACT. D&D morality is based on a very broad and generally accepted good and evil definition based on real world philosophy. In a D&D world, this morality is a part of the mechanics of the world, good and evil aren't simply perspectives, but palpable forces. In a world where religion is fact, the social taboos that come from religion never become simply cultural taboo, because the religion part holds firm. You aren't committing an evil act because you don't have permission, or because you aren't respecting that persons wishes, you are committing an evil act because what he believed would happen to him does, because religion in D&D is fact. You can change the morality system in D&D if you want, but it gets really tricky if you don't carefully select your line. detection spells become quickly useless when everything can be rationalized, and most archetypal characters become a little less special. it can be done quite successfully, but you basically have to end up rewriting a lot of stuff for no good reason, so unless you are already building a campaign world around it, theres probably little point.

a characters alignment is a base sum of how he acts more than it is a dictation about how he feels or why he exists. if you do things that are evil, even for good purpose, you are still doing evil. if your evil doesn't horribly overshadow any good you do, you're probably neutral.

Starsinger
2007-06-08, 10:18 AM
Only the Evil descriptor makes it Evil, and without justification, this simply doesn't stand, anymore than the fact that, per RAW, you can travel across the world instantly if you have a long enough line of horses.

Perfect case in point... Death Watch is evil.
Deathwatch
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 30 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct).

Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.
Now, a NG Cleric who functions as a healer, in primary, can't use Deathwatch to know who needs her attention the most, in character. There's certainly the out of character "Steve just took 47 damage!" and in a level or two, she could cast Status... although that's only 1 creature/3 levels, and deathwatch is how many creatures you can see in your cone of vision. Making it, for a few levels, a superior choice for monitoring your allies' hit points, in character. Deathwatch is one of those spells which is needlessly evil.

Although, by the sanctity of RAW, it's obviously evil, because the hidden material component is the blood of a thousand babies... :eek:

Serenity
2007-06-08, 10:30 AM
The idea that disturbing the dead as evil comes from a cultural taboo is correct, and this taboo comes from religious belief about souls and gods. Now can it really be argued that the well-statted out gods in D&D don't exist in D&D?
no, it really can't. this makes these cultural taboos from religious beliefs become more than "our world taboos", they're D&D world FACT. D&D morality is based on a very broad and generally accepted good and evil definition based on real world philosophy. In a D&D world, this morality is a part of the mechanics of the world, good and evil aren't simply perspectives, but palpable forces. In a world where religion is fact, the social taboos that come from religion never become simply cultural taboo, because the religion part holds firm. You aren't committing an evil act because you don't have permission, or because you aren't respecting that persons wishes, you are committing an evil act because what he believed would happen to him does, because religion in D&D is fact. You can change the morality system in D&D if you want, but it gets really tricky if you don't carefully select your line. detection spells become quickly useless when everything can be rationalized, and most archetypal characters become a little less special. it can be done quite successfully, but you basically have to end up rewriting a lot of stuff for no good reason, so unless you are already building a campaign world around it, theres probably little point.

a characters alignment is a base sum of how he acts more than it is a dictation about how he feels or why he exists. if you do things that are evil, even for good purpose, you are still doing evil. if your evil doesn't horribly overshadow any good you do, you're probably neutral.

Except that there is no indication in RAW that animating the dead messes with the souls. Religion in D&D is fact, yes, but that a specific taboo from real world religions therefore becomes D&D fact is illogical, and simply doesn't follow. Besides which, in a number of worlds, the Gods are distant forces whose existence is indeed debateable; Divine magic in Eberron, for example, could be just that: magic.

Let's examine Jay's logic, while we're at it. 'Animate Dead is evil; therefore it torments the person's soul/slowly destroys the world'. If phrased the other way around, this would be a true and logical statement. Phrased in this order, however, the conclusion does not follow from the claim. Not every evil act torments departed souls; not every evil act slowly kills the world. So, no, there isn't a logical implication, and the fact that you have to phrase it like this proves that D&D offers no specifics on why necromancy is evil, nor even the fig leaf of the lich requiring 'unspeakably evil acts'. All it has is the Evil descriptor slapped on without explanation or justification.

Now in the first place, I don't think blurred alignments are a bad thing, which is one reason why I love Eberron. But even if I didn't, my support of Necromancy is not inconsistent with D&D morality save in removing a descriptor from a spell. As presented in RAW, casting Animate Dead doesn't harm anyone. To be evil, one must be willing to harm others for personal gain. Ergo, Animate Dead is not inherently evil, because it does not inherently harm anyone. Ergo, a good character can cast it without having committed an evil act. Ergo, a Good necromancer is possible. Animating the dead to destroy a town and enslave its villagers and generally reign terror on the world is evil. Animating the dead to protect others from invaders is good. It's a tool, a weapon, no more evil than how you use it.There can be good and evil necromancers, just as there can be good and evil Evokers (who focus on destruction), good and evil Enchanters (who focus on controlling minds), good and evil illusionists (who focus on deception), good and evil Diviners (who focus on spying)...

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-08, 11:05 AM
Perfect case in point... Death Watch is evil.
Now, a NG Cleric who functions as a healer, in primary, can't use Deathwatch to know who needs her attention the most, in character. There's certainly the out of character "Steve just took 47 damage!" and in a level or two, she could cast Status... although that's only 1 creature/3 levels, and deathwatch is how many creatures you can see in your cone of vision. Making it, for a few levels, a superior choice for monitoring your allies' hit points, in character. Deathwatch is one of those spells which is needlessly evil.

Although, by the sanctity of RAW, it's obviously evil, because the hidden material component is the blood of a thousand babies... :eek:

- In character, you shouldn't need a spell to know whether or not 'Steve' just took 47 damage... If the character says: "I've been gravely wounded by the giant and am in need of healing", what's wrong with that? The cleric is also witnessing these attacks, and should know whether or not an attack was really damaging or not. Status has the added benefit of still being useful if the party gets split up. Besides, the only info deathwatch gives you for a party member is:
Character's Dead
Character's at 4 or higher HP
Character's at 3 or less HP

That doesn't help the healer too much, it gives mostly obvious information. The only benefit is that it can tell the difference between a dead PC and a dying one. Instead of casting deathwatch, the cleric could easily just cast a cure spell and hope for the best on a fallen comerade.

Starsinger
2007-06-08, 11:26 AM
- In character, you shouldn't need a spell to know whether or not 'Steve' just took 47 damage... If the character says: "I've been gravely wounded by the giant and am in need of healing", what's wrong with that? The cleric is also witnessing these attacks, and should know whether or not an attack was really damaging or not. Status has the added benefit of still being useful if the party gets split up. Besides, the only info deathwatch gives you for a party member is:
Character's Dead
Character's at 4 or higher HP
Character's at 3 or less HP

That doesn't help the healer too much, it gives mostly obvious information. The only benefit is that it can tell the difference between a dead PC and a dying one. Instead of casting deathwatch, the cleric could easily just cast a cure spell and hope for the best on a fallen comerade.

As true as that may be, I was merely pointing out that Deathwatch could be used in an altruistic fashion, and is no more [Evil] than stabbing someone with a sword. However, killing someone with a sword, even genocide (if they're green) is okay, but Deathwatch kills babies.

Starbuck_II
2007-06-08, 01:53 PM
*The Dread Necromancer class does require the person to be evil. For one thing, there's the dread. Not the sort of epithet most good people like. Then there's the disease attack. That emulates Contagion, which, I believe, actually is an evil spell. Infecting people isn't evil. Deliberately infecting people with contagious illnesses is. And finally the lich. The only implementation of lich rituals I know is from NWN (not the most reliable source, but the best I have). This involved sacrificing a group of innocent children. The guy becoming a lich was tricked by a demon into believing that the children would come back to life, and he could use the lich powers to do good. He persuaded his brother to round up the children and keep them busy. The children didn't come back to life. There was a whole quest section around figuring out who was responsible. No-one was particularly good in this. So, lich ritual is evil. Even if you get lich gear for free, there must be some sort of transformation involved, and this is likely to include that sort of ritual. And the template would make the character evil immediately. All in all, if you want a good dead-raiser, take a look at Ebberon/BoED Deathless.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but it wasn't even required.

Ther demon tricked you.
Did you remember to summon the demon? Belias, perhaps with the book telling you how, it even gave you rod of burning hands + firebelly gut + rod of pro from [alignment] spell? (both had only 10 charges)

Anyway, in Neverwinter Nights (for those not having played it) Chapter 2: you get the quest to free these people stuck for all time because Lavander can't judge these men for their deeds.

You become the judge and jury (however, not neccesary executionor).

First: Brother the cleric: was a fool to trust his brother the Sorceror (it was a Lich Sorcerer). But all he did was read to the kids.

Second: the Lich was lied to and told to kill the children (more on this lie later).

But you find out: both brothers didn't mean to do evil.

Belias had tricked them (this is also why he was absent and his Daughter ruled for in Book of Vile Darkness). But in doing so was trapped with them till the judgement was finished.

He said, the children must die, but all the while he was laughing at the Sorceror: Lichery doesn't require bloodshed. It was funny, but cruel (I laughed hehe myself).

You see, he only summoned the Demon because he didn't know how to become a lich. All it takes is enough magic power and if you have not enough some assistance (the demon's help). That was it.

Granted, this is fearun: the land of good liches (Beahorns? Some B name) so expecting Lichery to require evil acts is insane.

I freedom both brothers and comdemned the demon, but since Lavander had no power over the demon all he can do is banish him from returning to earth for a long time.

I got the Sorceror's Phy device thing (empty but casts Santuatuary 1/day) and there souls went free. Even if the sorceror had to pay for his crimes he didn't mind.

He become Lich to exgtend his life so he can study more books. Yes, books case death :smalltongue:

....
2007-06-08, 01:57 PM
[QUOTE=The Astrologist;2710196]Wrong! Someone finally pointed out something that destroys this agruement the Dread Necromancer doesn't have to pay any gold, exp, or time to create his 'Soul Box' ergo, he skips the ritual and commits no evil.

(Becoming a Lich is not evil, if it was the "Unspeakable" evil would be described and not left subject to question)QUOTE]

I fail to see how this makes any difference. So a Dread Necromancer pays his dues to whatever Unspeakable dark powers are involved in becoming a lich by devoting his whole life to necromancy, as opposed to a normal caster who just does it because they don't want to die.

I stand by the argument that the things one must do to become a lich are so Lovecraftian in their twisted foulness that no good person can do them.

Serenity
2007-06-08, 03:42 PM
Except that you haven't proved that Necromancy is evil, so 'devoting oneself to Necromancy' doesn't prove one's evil. There is no ritual involved in the Dread Necromancer becoming a lich. He simply has such mastery over the necromantic arts that he is able to grant himself powerful undead traits. No ritual of unspeakable evil neccessary. Not to mention that many players might well multiclass well before achieving level 20.

And Spike, if no one needs a spell to tell how badly someone's hurt, what's the use of Death Watch at all?

Krrth
2007-06-08, 04:33 PM
Just as an aside, while I don't have my book sin front of me, I beleive the complete divine has something about souls and undead. As I recall, the creation on undead involves one of two options. Either binding the soul of the deceased and taking control (much like golems are bound elemental spirits), or binding a spirit from an evil plane that simply accesses the memories of the "host".

Serenity
2007-06-08, 04:47 PM
Well, then if if I played according to the rules of the Complete Divine, I would label animating the dead as an evil act, certainly. But the book is not core; it's just a specific mechanism that a DM can attach if he wants to justify making Necromancy Evil. If the DM rules, on the other hand, that animating the dead simply requires investing the body with Negative Energy, than it is not evil.

As presented in the core RAW, Necromancy is not inherently evil, because the Evil descriptor for animating the Dead has no in-core justification.

puppyavenger
2007-06-08, 09:34 PM
Random question, shoulden't making golems be evil. after all you are willingly and delibretly binding a sapient elemental being against there will to your service with no recompense till they are destroyed, which as it uses planar binding is permenant and they are probably in constant pain the entire time

Starbuck_II
2007-06-08, 09:42 PM
Random question, shoulden't making golems be evil. after all you are willingly and delibretly binding a sapient elemental being against there will to your service with no recompense till they are destroyed, which as it uses planar binding is permenant and they are probably in constant pain the entire time

Now, you have reached the root of the matter. The rules are not balanced. The designers have rules that do the same thing;yet are not treated the same.
Heck, Flesh golem uses the [evil aligned] spells and isn't evil.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-06-08, 09:51 PM
Random question, shoulden't making golems be evil. after all you are willingly and delibretly binding a sapient elemental being against there will to your service with no recompense till they are destroyed, which as it uses planar binding is permenant and they are probably in constant pain the entire timeGolems aren't sapient, and there is no indication that any of what you've just described happens.

Graverobbing is wrong, and bodies aren't just objects. This is a universal belief in all real world civilizations; if you don't believe me try digging up Arlington National and see if you're only criticized for tresspassing.
If you want to declare corpses as insignificant or inanimate, and moreover resources to be used by you, despite the fact that they were once people; than you don't have any background in any culture or reality.
Recognize that if you do, you're working in entirely new territory, and merely redeclaring morality as you see fit. There's nothing wrong with you doing that, but it's not that as though you have some pre-existing basis for doing so.

puppyavenger
2007-06-08, 09:53 PM
golems are poewered by bound earth elementals, says so under the description of "golems" in the MM, also why do you think clay golems go beserk?

Serenity
2007-06-09, 12:26 AM
Culural taboos=/=morality. Declaring corpses inanimate is declaring a fact. They are, by definition, nothing more than decaying organic matter without consciousness, thoughts, feelings, anything. Declaring the corpses themselves insignificant logically follows from that; I don't ask a flower before I pick it or a sword before I swing it. The anguish that I would cause living persons by yanking bodies out of the village cemetery is not insignificant, and that would be evil, but as an adventurer, I have no need of such graverobbing. I encounter and kill a number of creatures with the proper physiology every day, such as Hobgoblins, ogres, etc. Or perhaps in the course of culturally sanctioned tomb raiding so much practiced by adventurers--that is, of ancient tombs of 'lost' or monstrous civilizations--I find the remains of ancient soldiers, none of whom have families remaining to freak out. Thus, I can animate the dead without even mental harm to anyone.