The Code of the Sixth Schools (How to not be evil necromancers)

[Genth]

So a character in an upcoming game is a Necromancer. In a setting where the Undead Horde has got its proverbials together and have created a 'Necrocracy', toppling several kingdoms and becoming a serious threat. So, being a Necromancer is not a nice place to be, especially one who is not evil. I'm playing him as quite a LN character - focused strongly on the 'proper order of things' - which includes the undead being tools, not being in charge. This is kind of the theme for the whole school he comes from (and is, incidently and slightly cliche'd-ly, the last student of) and I'm working on a set of rules. Would like to get feedback and ideas for more rules:

Key to note first is that the idea of never making undead is simply not a part of this code - this is about how necromancers should comport themselves in the setting, and basically requires the foundational belief that the Undead can be useful and should be used in useful ways.

The Code of the Sixth School
1) Skiāzoī (Negative Energy) is the most dangerous form of energy in all existence.
2) As we treat fire, we must treat Skiāzoī tenfold.
3) Never allow Skiāzoī to linger in this world for longer than necessary
4) Keep control of your creations at all times. If you lose control, ensure its destruction.
5) The Skiāzoī which begats itself, the Shadows, are anathema and must never be created.*
6) The creation of intelligent undead is permitted only to allow for wisdom and guidance – and then only with the consent of the soul.
7) Wash your hands.


*This refers, just as a note to all the nasty incorporeal undead that make copies of themselves

[The Viscount]

I like the central idea you have here, and I want to help you refine it so I'm going to ask several questions.

Does rule 5 apply to creatures like vampires and wights, who corporeally make more, and Mohrgs and related creatures that don't spawn more of the same, but kill others and turn them into zombies?

Does rule 3 mean that you should destroy any undead you encounter running about on their own if you cannot subjugate them? What about undead that do not need to kill living beings to survive, and do not seem actively harmful?

What is the procedure for if you encounter a fellow practitioner who claims to be in control, but clearly isn't? For example, say a foolish necromancer has rebuked a vampire, and then is snared by dominating gaze. Or maybe just a ghoul who sneaks off to feast while its master sleeps. Are you bound to kill it?

I feel like a good thing to solidify this concept is something along the lines of "Skeletons and Zombies (etc) are mindless, and so are only as evil as the being controlling them."

For Rule 6 there are many intelligent undead that exist in states of "pain" caused by either their state or their desire to feed off of living creatures. As such I feel it best that there exist some approved list or guidelines for what is acceptable to animate someone as. There's a messy unclear issue here about what happens to the personality of the soul, since almost every undead is evil of some sort (the only exception I know is ghost).

Does the credo state that it is natural to exert control over the will of an intelligent undead, especially one created to advise? Is it a good thing, a necessary evil, or an infringement on the freedom of others?

[Calthropstu]

I like the central idea you have here, and I want to help you refine it so I'm going to ask several questions.

Does rule 5 apply to creatures like vampires and wights, who corporeally make more, and Mohrgs and related creatures that don't spawn more of the same, but kill others and turn them into zombies?

Does rule 3 mean that you should destroy any undead you encounter running about on their own if you cannot subjugate them? What about undead that do not need to kill living beings to survive, and do not seem actively harmful?

What is the procedure for if you encounter a fellow practitioner who claims to be in control, but clearly isn't? For example, say a foolish necromancer has rebuked a vampire, and then is snared by dominating gaze. Or maybe just a ghoul who sneaks off to feast while its master sleeps. Are you bound to kill it?

I feel like a good thing to solidify this concept is something along the lines of "Skeletons and Zombies (etc) are mindless, and so are only as evil as the being controlling them."

For Rule 6 there are many intelligent undead that exist in states of "pain" caused by either their state or their desire to feed off of living creatures. As such I feel it best that there exist some approved list or guidelines for what is acceptable to animate someone as. There's a messy unclear issue here about what happens to the personality of the soul, since almost every undead is evil of some sort (the only exception I know is ghost).

Does the credo state that it is natural to exert control over the will of an intelligent undead, especially one created to advise? Is it a good thing, a necessary evil, or an infringement on the freedom of others?

There is also the baelnorn, and there is a goddes of love and undead who is true neutral whos followers believe in eternal love even beyond death. The intelligent undead they create do not have to be evil.

[Genth]

I like the central idea you have here, and I want to help you refine it so I'm going to ask several questions.

Does rule 5 apply to creatures like vampires and wights, who corporeally make more, and Mohrgs and related creatures that don't spawn more of the same, but kill others and turn them into zombies?

Not directly - the Shadows thing is something quite specific - the ones who corpreally make more of themselves can be stopped, theoretically, by mass action. Part of the story will be that there was once a city which had a shadow-pocalypse, and this is more about that. It's also interesting because the 'ultimate anathema' undead is not the most powerful one, but it is the most pure expression of negative energy extant on a material plane


Does rule 3 mean that you should destroy any undead you encounter running about on their own if you cannot subjugate them? What about undead that do not need to kill living beings to survive, and do not seem actively harmful?
Don't forget Rule 1 - Negative energy is absolutely insanely dangerous, and should be extinguished if it is not controlled and being used. Absolutely destroy uncontrolled undead you find. Probably is the most important part of the day-job


What is the procedure for if you encounter a fellow practitioner who claims to be in control, but clearly isn't? For example, say a foolish necromancer has rebuked a vampire, and then is snared by dominating gaze. Or maybe just a ghoul who sneaks off to feast while its master sleeps. Are you bound to kill it?
Explain they're not in control, then destroy their undead. You do not give leniency, nor understanding when you're dealing with negative energy


I feel like a good thing to solidify this concept is something along the lines of "Skeletons and Zombies (etc) are mindless, and so are only as evil as the being controlling them."

This is fair, and often used, but for this game, I do want to keep the idea that they may be mindless, and possibly not evil - but they're incredibly dangerous and leaving them to hang around eats away at the universe in a problematic way.


For Rule 6 there are many intelligent undead that exist in states of "pain" caused by either their state or their desire to feed off of living creatures. As such I feel it best that there exist some approved list or guidelines for what is acceptable to animate someone as. There's a messy unclear issue here about what happens to the personality of the soul, since almost every undead is evil of some sort (the only exception I know is ghost).

Intelligent undead can IIRC have the Alignement of their mind. But yeah, it wouldn't exactly be appropriate to bring back grandma as a vampire just in order to tell her kids where the special family sword was lost.


Does the credo state that it is natural to exert control over the will of an intelligent undead, especially one created to advise? Is it a good thing, a necessary evil, or an infringement on the freedom of others? Control is relative and contextual. Rule 6 is very, VERY dependent on rule 3. You don't bring back an advisor to rely on for ever. So you can allow them freedom for a few days before ensuring they don't outstay their welcome. The part where you destroy them again, if they're unwilling, is a necessary evil, (also why you be careful about who you bring back that way)

[Extra Anchovies]

The Code of the Sixth School
1) Skiāzoī (Negative Energy) is the most dangerous form of energy in all existence.
2) As we treat fire, we must treat Skiāzoī tenfold.
3) Never allow Skiāzoī to linger in this world for longer than necessary
4) Keep control of your creations at all times. If you lose control, ensure its destruction.
5) The Skiāzoī which begats itself, the Shadows, are anathema and must never be created.*
6) The creation of intelligent undead is permitted only to allow for wisdom and guidance – and then only with the consent of the soul.
7) Wash your hands.


*This refers, just as a note to all the nasty incorporeal undead that make copies of themselves

Oh, this is good. Might be cribbing this for a character of my own at some point.

Regarding rule 6: some intelligent undead (e.g. mummies, mohrgs, and ghouls) are not stated to retain the mind that their body had in life, some (e.g. allips, bodaks, and wights) have an almost unrecognizably twisted version of the mind they once had. Do these fall into the "never permitted" category, with only template intelligent undead like vampires or ghosts being acceptable because they had/have a soul to get permission from?

Another thought: negative energy is one of the inner planes. Is that seen by your character as an error in the gods' creation of the multiverse, or does the code only apply to the material plane?

[Geddy2112]

How does the code interact with all the necromancy spells that don't deal with undead? Examples:blindness/deafness, touch of fatigue, false life, bestow curse.
I would assume any that use negative energy would be banned, but do the others even come up? Is this power shunned by the rest of the world due to its ties to undead?

[Xar Zarath]

Does your setting also have an aristocracy of the undead? Not just in terms of vamps and such but the true, powers of undeath like nightshades and such. Would these be lords of the negative energy willingly treat with your necromancers and such or are they above it all?

Moreover is healing back in necromancy in your setting instead of conjuration? That way, it allows for more greying of necromancy within the setting itself.

[Genth]

Oh, this is good. Might be cribbing this for a character of my own at some point.

Regarding rule 6: some intelligent undead (e.g. mummies, mohrgs, and ghouls) are not stated to retain the mind that their body had in life, some (e.g. allips, bodaks, and wights) have an almost unrecognizably twisted version of the mind they once had. Do these fall into the "never permitted" category, with only template intelligent undead like vampires or ghosts being acceptable because they had/have a soul to get permission from?

Another thought: negative energy is one of the inner planes. Is that seen by your character as an error in the gods' creation of the multiverse, or does the code only apply to the material plane?

The intelligent undead one is a bit of an interesting conundrum. I suppose there could be very very limited circumstances where you need to make one. If you keep control of them as well, can they truly be said to be intelligent?

As for the Negative Energy thing, it comes from a misreading I had of the pathfinder guide to the planes. I thought it said the Negative energy plane was sentient and inimicable to existence itself.


How does the code interact with all the necromancy spells that don't deal with undead? Examples:blindness/deafness, touch of fatigue, false life, bestow curse.
I would assume any that use negative energy would be banned, but do the others even come up? Is this power shunned by the rest of the world due to its ties to undead?

Actually they're all fine because you use the negative energy once and it goes away. Like how a lightning bolt is no longer there after its dealt the damage, enervation is gone as soon as the levels have been drained.


Does your setting also have an aristocracy of the undead? Not just in terms of vamps and such but the true, powers of undeath like nightshades and such. Would these be lords of the negative energy willingly treat with your necromancers and such or are they above it all?

Moreover is healing back in necromancy in your setting instead of conjuration? That way, it allows for more greying of necromancy within the setting itself.

This is up to the GM really. But I suspect the Necrocracy do not get on with the sixth school. They certainly don't get on with my character.

[ace rooster]

Oh, this is good. Might be cribbing this for a character of my own at some point.

Another thought: negative energy is one of the inner planes. Is that seen by your character as an error in the gods' creation of the multiverse, or does the code only apply to the material plane?

Yeah I like it too.

You could run it that negative energy is needed in the process of death. That way, negative energy is needed for the material to function without just exploding. If you need negative energy, it needs a source and a sink, which is what the elemental planes are in my settings. You then think of it like the elemental plane of fire. Needs to be there, useful, but probably not a good idea to let it loose on the material too much. Many of the same considerations with regard to undead actually apply to fire elementals too, so you could have a very similar code for fire mages.

[Anonymouswizard]

So a character in an upcoming game is a Necromancer. In a setting where the Undead Horde has got its proverbials together and have created a 'Necrocracy', toppling several kingdoms and becoming a serious threat. So, being a Necromancer is not a nice place to be, especially one who is not evil. I'm playing him as quite a LN character - focused strongly on the 'proper order of things' - which includes the undead being tools, not being in charge. This is kind of the theme for the whole school he comes from (and is, incidently and slightly cliche'd-ly, the last student of) and I'm working on a set of rules. Would like to get feedback and ideas for more rules:

Key to note first is that the idea of never making undead is simply not a part of this code - this is about how necromancers should comport themselves in the setting, and basically requires the foundational belief that the Undead can be useful and should be used in useful ways.

This is cool. I personally prefer non-undead making necromancers (the best idea for a necromancer I've heard is one that serves the dead, helping ghosts finish their business and moving on in peace). I do suggest moving away from the black-robbed skulls all over look necromancers tend to have, just because it tends to scream evil and is a bit cliché. There's loads of symbols you could use for necromancy apart from skulls, the scythe is obvious, but there's also the sword, the shovel, a wheel, at least a handful of flowers, various insects... I only recommend avoiding the bones because it'll allow you to avoid at least some notice.


The Code of the Sixth School
1) Skiāzoī (Negative Energy) is the most dangerous form of energy in all existence.

I assume that this is the basic belief, from which all other rules arise? Because, even though the reality in most D&D (or Pathfinder) universes is a bit more complex, it's actually a more accurate view than your standard necromancer has.


2) As we treat fire, we must treat Skiāzoī tenfold.

Yeah, it's basic, and I don't see anything wrong with it.


3) Never allow Skiāzoī to linger in this world for longer than necessary

Good, but it could get complex depending on how negative energy is defined. Are diseases negative energy? (at least some GMs do rule that this is the case) if so, how does this interact with diseases keeping some species in check? What about bodies decaying? I like the intent, but the wording might have to be altered depending on how the setting works.


4) Keep control of your creations at all times. If you lose control, ensure its destruction.

This will cause a common sense rule, which I'll label 4a:

'Never create an undead stronger than you are.'

I mean, I love the rule, it just has a few implications (more weak undead over fewer strong undead).


5) The Skiāzoī which begats itself, the Shadows, are anathema and must never be created.*

It's interesting, and it's probably not going to cause a lot of problems. What kind of stable person creates the magical equivalent of grey goo anyway?


6) The creation of intelligent undead is permitted only to allow for wisdom and guidance – and then only with the consent of the soul.

What does 'wisdom and guidance' mean? It seems there's probably a loophole here, although the spirit of the rule is easy to understand.


7) Wash your hands.

But the rest of me is allowed to stink?

[OldTrees1]

The code seems to only deal with the topic of undeath and not even all of that topic. What about the topic of death? Necromancers control death: they can directly cause it, postpone it, or even reverse it(all the more so if Resurrection returns to Necromancy).

With artificial control over the natural, one has to ask about when it is proper. When is it time to use death rather than merely lethal means? When is it time to change someone's time of death be it making it sooner, later, or never. When is it time to reverse death?

[Albions_Angel]

The code seems to only deal with the topic of undeath and not even all of that topic. What about the topic of death? Necromancers control death: they can directly cause it, postpone it, or even reverse it(all the more so if Resurrection returns to Necromancy).

With artificial control over the natural, one has to ask about when it is proper. When is it time to use death rather than merely lethal means? When is it time to change someone's time of death be it making it sooner, later, or never. When is it time to reverse death?

I think at that point you fall under regular laws. If you kill someone, be it through negative energy or a great big pointy stick, hopefully its justified. But if its not, then law enforcement takes over. Murder is murder.

As for preventing death, well whats the issue there? Genuine question. Would the state take issue with that? Would someone else? Is that lingering negative energy? If so, is it necessary?

The point of having blanket laws (do not kill, dont let negative energy linger longer than it has to) is because if you try to define them, you actually CREATE more loopholes. With blanket statements, you can use a judge and jury (or however the criminal system works in your world) to answer those questions on a case by case basis.

Brian the Necromancer prolongs the life of his butler to serve him as he becomes a lich. The state has issue with that. The state throws Brian in magical jail. Ryan the Necromancer stops by a town suffering from a natural plague. He casts necromantic spells to prevent people from dying and then waits for a cleric to come by and heal everyone. He then dismisses the death wards. The state gives him a warning to be careful and lets him on his merry way. Xi Ann the Necromancer recalls a dead relative to life. This is trickier ground and the state is worried that while Xi Ann was good about it, someone else might get the same idea and open the flood gates, starting their own risen army and pissing off the god of death. They put Xi Ann on trial, examine the evidence and motives, and make a judgement that probably enters common law, setting a precedent for future cases.

[OldTrees1]

I think at that point you fall under regular laws. If you kill someone, be it through negative energy or a great big pointy stick, hopefully its justified. But if its not, then law enforcement takes over. Murder is murder.

As for preventing death, well whats the issue there? Genuine question. Would the state take issue with that? Would someone else? Is that lingering negative energy? If so, is it necessary?

-snip-

You are confusing Laws with Laws. The legality of a thing speaks nothing about whether that thing should or should not be done.

Necromancers control more than just merely lethal weapons, they control death itself. So the question arises when should we use death itself and when should we use merely lethal weapons.

Likewise Necromancers can postpone death indefinitely and even reverse death. Is there a problem with removing and reversing a natural part of life? If so when is it a problem and when is it not a problem?

[Hecuba]

Skiāzoī
This is getting a bit into the minutiae of world-building, but I would avoid a deliberately exotic word for something that is subject to the general common-to-the-language-of-play convention. It allows quick establishment of a concept, but can prevent the concept from sitting seamlessly in the setting: decoupled exotic terms don't tend to persist in living languages. Cultures that have beliefs in magic don't have strange, exotic words for it - they use words with cultural and linguistic histories matching the practice.

This can be ways to work such a term in without the issues involved. My preference would be making it a specialized term from an prestige academic prestige language (much like much of western science uses Latin). But you need to make a point to establish the prestige language and add other incidental examples of the same. The key is to make sure that this one word is not the only thing that is used in Common that seems foreign.

If you take that route, you probably also might consider dropping the accentuation (unless you are going so far as to have direct communication in the academic prestige language).

You may also want to have a non-prestige term for it. I may refer to Rosa foetida when discussing the plant with a judge at a garden show, but when I show my garden I'll generally call it a Persian Yellow Rose. In this case, I would recommend calling it Miasma or Decay (especially if you maintain a connection between negative energy and disease)



3) Never allow Skiāzoī to linger in this world for longer than necessary
I would revise 3 a bit: negative energy is a natural part of existence (at least in the standard cosmology). It does have a normal place in "this world".

3) Skiāzoī must not be allowed to linger outside its natural place, lest it bring forth a blight.

[Genth]

This is cool. I personally prefer non-undead making necromancers (the best idea for a necromancer I've heard is one that serves the dead, helping ghosts finish their business and moving on in peace). I do suggest moving away from the black-robbed skulls all over look necromancers tend to have, just because it tends to scream evil and is a bit cliché. There's loads of symbols you could use for necromancy apart from skulls, the scythe is obvious, but there's also the sword, the shovel, a wheel, at least a handful of flowers, various insects... I only recommend avoiding the bones because it'll allow you to avoid at least some notice.
Mmmhmm, the only obvious symbol is that his sword hilt is made from bone (has to be in order to be his arcane focus) and that's wrapped up in leather.


I assume that this is the basic belief, from which all other rules arise? Because, even though the reality in most D&D (or Pathfinder) universes is a bit more complex, it's actually a more accurate view than your standard necromancer has.
Yeah, It's absolutely informed by my reading of D&D cosmology, where the Negative Energy Plane seems to be a kind of primordial annihilator.



Good, but it could get complex depending on how negative energy is defined. Are diseases negative energy? (at least some GMs do rule that this is the case) if so, how does this interact with diseases keeping some species in check? What about bodies decaying? I like the intent, but the wording might have to be altered depending on how the setting works. Literally negative energy pulled from the negative energy plane, by force of magic.




This will cause a common sense rule, which I'll label 4a:

'Never create an undead stronger than you are.'

I mean, I love the rule, it just has a few implications (more weak undead over fewer strong undead).

That is a good rule. I will steal it. Although Astraeus' personal tactics revolve around a few middling powerful undead. Like Skeleton Bears.




It's interesting, and it's probably not going to cause a lot of problems. What kind of stable person creates the magical equivalent of grey goo anyway? The cackling, black and skull robed necromaniac?




What does 'wisdom and guidance' mean? It seems there's probably a loophole here, although the spirit of the rule is easy to understand. Yup. This is definitely a rule open to interpretation :D




But the rest of me is allowed to stink? Are you sticking other parts of you into corpses?! O.o


The code seems to only deal with the topic of undeath and not even all of that topic. What about the topic of death? Necromancers control death: they can directly cause it, postpone it, or even reverse it(all the more so if Resurrection returns to Necromancy).

With artificial control over the natural, one has to ask about when it is proper. When is it time to use death rather than merely lethal means? When is it time to change someone's time of death be it making it sooner, later, or never. When is it time to reverse death?
The Sixth school are wizards, and wizards don't get the cure spells, so that question is slightly moot. At any rate, the rules of the sixth school do directly and specifically deal with Undeath and the creation of such. The other rules around magic classed in the necromancy school are beyond the scope of these rules.


This is getting a bit into the minutiae of world-building, but I would avoid a deliberately exotic word for something that is subject to the general common-to-the-language-of-play convention. It allows quick establishment of a concept, but can prevent the concept from sitting seamlessly in the setting: decoupled exotic terms don't tend to persist in living languages. Cultures that have beliefs in magic don't have strange, exotic words for it - they use words with cultural and linguistic histories matching the practice.

This can be ways to work such a term in without the issues involved. My preference would be making it a specialized term from an prestige academic prestige language (much like much of western science uses Latin). But you need to make a point to establish the prestige language and add other incidental examples of the same. The key is to make sure that this one word is not the only thing that is used in Common that seems foreign.

If you take that route, you probably also might consider dropping the accentuation (unless you are going so far as to have direct communication in the academic prestige language).

You may also want to have a non-prestige term for it. I may refer to Rosa foetida when discussing the plant with a judge at a garden show, but when I show my garden I'll generally call it a Persian Yellow Rose. In this case, I would recommend calling it Miasma or Decay (especially if you maintain a connection between negative energy and disease)

Yeah, using poor greek translations for names of things is a hang up of mine. Not gonna defend it, but I find it enjoyable. "Animus" is often used, you could easily substitute that in if you're using these rules.



I would revise 3 a bit: negative energy is a natural part of existence (at least in the standard cosmology). It does have a normal place in "this world".

3) Skiāzoī must not be allowed to linger outside its natural place, lest it bring forth a blight.
Eh, I see where you're coming from, but "This World" I always kinda saw as refering to the Material Plane?

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

All of this feedback is awesome! And obviously I have no problem with people cribbing it for their own use!

[Hecuba]

Yeah, using poor greek translations for names of things is a hang up of mine. Not gonna defend it, but I find it enjoyable. "Animus" is often used, you could easily substitute that in if you're using these rules.

It doesn't particularly need defending: coupled with a similar specialist word for positive energy and similar elements, it could make a powerful tool indeed. My comment was mostly a very long-winded caution about straining immersion if you don't handle it carefully.


Eh, I see where you're coming from, but "This World" I always kinda saw as refering to the Material Plane?
Arguably, disease (or at least those dieseases not linked to positive energy a la quasi cancerous growth you get on the positive energy plane) and disease represent the natural influence of negative energy in the world. Contagion is a necromancy spell after all.

[Genth]

Arguably, disease (or at least those dieseases not linked to positive energy a la quasi cancerous growth you get on the positive energy plane) and disease represent the natural influence of negative energy in the world. Contagion is a necromancy spell after all.

Yes, but you don't consider a campfire the same thing as elemental fire from the plane of fire, do you? Contagion is an interesting point though - that form of disease might be considered something else, hmm

[No brains]

Do the people who created this law have any feeling about the deathless creature type? Do deathless even exist in their world? I feel like it could be interesting to explore how the allowed existence (or even the possible creation) of deathless affect the world. Would the proliferation of positive energy be a completely good thing, or could it be seen in time to be just as bad for the world as copious negative energy?

I'm also curious if these laws would permit crusades to exterminate undead on other planes. Undead living in the negative energy plane itself aren't a danger to the world of the material plane, but would these people see them as a potential threat should the ever leave?

How do they feel about creatures that are not undead but have connections to negative energy and shadow planes? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head are automatons, who are mindless constructs that are animated with shadow power.

I also have an interesting encounter for you: An intelligent undead creature will not allow itself to be destroyed or controlled, but would be willing to be raised/resurrected. Would your necromancers:

A) Pay for its resurrection because it eliminates a source of negative energy and is a good thing to do?

B) Make the undead foot the bill for the spell? If they do, would they allow the undead time to gather the funds before or after resurrection, or do they just break it if its currently broke?

or C) Just destroy it based on the fact that it's probably stained with negative energy and maybe insane from its time as an undead inclined toward evil?

So far, I like what you have very much! I hope my questions help you develop this even more!

[Genth]

Do the people who created this law have any feeling about the deathless creature type? Do deathless even exist in their world? I feel like it could be interesting to explore how the allowed existence (or even the possible creation) of deathless affect the world. Would the proliferation of positive energy be a completely good thing, or could it be seen in time to be just as bad for the world as copious negative energy?

I'm also curious if these laws would permit crusades to exterminate undead on other planes. Undead living in the negative energy plane itself aren't a danger to the world of the material plane, but would these people see them as a potential threat should the ever leave?

How do they feel about creatures that are not undead but have connections to negative energy and shadow planes? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head are automatons, who are mindless constructs that are animated with shadow power.

I also have an interesting encounter for you: An intelligent undead creature will not allow itself to be destroyed or controlled, but would be willing to be raised/resurrected. Would your necromancers:

A) Pay for its resurrection because it eliminates a source of negative energy and is a good thing to do?

B) Make the undead foot the bill for the spell? If they do, would they allow the undead time to gather the funds before or after resurrection, or do they just break it if its currently broke?

or C) Just destroy it based on the fact that it's probably stained with negative energy and maybe insane from its time as an undead inclined toward evil?

So far, I like what you have very much! I hope my questions help you develop this even more!


Well, the game is Pathfinder based, so I don't think deathless is a thing. However: the Sixth School aren't religious, they're wizards. Negative Energy isn't dangerous because it's evil, it's dangerous because it's REALLY DANGEROUS. Positive energy arguably could be seen as being very dangerous as well, so could be opposed by the Sixth School in much the same way.

Likewise, they're not going to call for crusades because they're not a church. Undead on the shadow and negative energy planes are not dangerous in the same way - they don't eat away at the fabric of the material world when they're not in it.

Well, since they're focused on the negative consequences of the energy itself, they probably wouldn't draw a line between undead and negative-energy charged constructs.

As for your encounter... Astraeus would probably escort it to the nearest church for reanimation. Probably wouldn't be too teared up if they just blew it up. No skin off his back.