Is Necromancy Evil?

[Thrasher92]

I have been watching Nerdarchy Youtube videos and a few of them keep bringing up the subject of "Is Necromancy Evil?" specifically in relation to raising zombies, skeletons, mummies, etc.

My personal opinion is that you are using dead bodies as tools to fight enemies. The common argument is that undead are by default evil and when you are creating them you are bringing evil into the world... therefore it is an evil act.

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil? Would you allow a necromancer PC who wants to make an army of zombies?

[lianightdemon]

This depends entirely on the lore of undead in your game.

Zombies and skeletons tend to be the most tame of the undead, with the simple reanimation of the corpse. This assuming the soul of the corpse is no longer there. However there is still the moral implication that your preventing the corpse from decaying naturally, and even though your using it as a tool, remember that was once a person for good or evil they had people who loved them. How would you feel if one of your family member's who died was being used by someone as a weapon?

The gods of light generally see this as terrible action even if used for good. Mummies generally are intended as guardians if their crypt is disturbed so they are generally willing.

Now depending on the lore sometimes it can be even worse, in one game I played when undead were created the soul of that person was pulled back into the dead corpse preventing them from going to the afterlife. This allowed for intelligent undead with their full class abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Zombies and skeletons tend to be the most tame of the undead, with the simple reanimation of the corpse. This assuming the soul of the corpse is no longer there. However there is still the moral implication that your preventing the corpse from decaying naturally, and even though your using it as a tool, remember that was once a person for good or evil they had people who loved them. How would you feel if one of your family member's who died was being used by someone as a weapon?
I view it as, it's not unlike organ donation: a bit gross and unpleasant to think about, but nonetheless something I'm O.K with, because it uses the dead to save the living. That zombie is taking the place of a living soldier, thus protecting them from death.

[Arcangel4774]

There's a fun thread I saw (somebody can find/link it if they now how) in which somebody detailed a guy who used his ancestors spirits to inhabit corpses that would fight alongside him. They were willing and he could freely talk to them as well.

There's a cartoon movie from 2014 called The Book of Life. It has a a similar feel during parts of the movie, to the posts I mentioned.

They described through the necromancer having conversations with his ancestors. Like he summons a zombie warrior thay his grandma inhabits.
Grandma: oh Georgie your looking so thin. Let grandma make you cookies.
Necromancer: Thanks grandma but there's kind of an evil demon to deal with.
Grandma: Nonsense, there's always time for some of grandma's cookies....

[NecroDancer]

It's not evil but if you lose control of your undead you could accidentally cause a minor zombie apocalypse. It's not evil but it's super risky.

[Desamir]

It's a complicated question and the answer varies from table to table. Here is what the book says:


School of Necromancy

Most people see necromancers as menacing, or even villainous, due to the close association with death. Not all necromancers are evil, but the forces they manipulate are considered taboo by many societies.


Necromancy

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

I play a Chaotic Good Necromancer Wizard in one of my games. He believes that using evil spirits to do good deeds is an "ends justify the means" situation. It can be an interesting conflict.

[Desamir]

There's a fun thread I saw (somebody can find/link it if they now how) in which somebody detailed a guy who used his ancestors spirits to inhabit corpses that would fight alongside him. They were willing and he could freely talk to them as well.

There's a cartoon movie from 2014 called The Book of Life. It has a a similar feel during parts of the movie, to the posts I mentioned.

They described through the necromancer having conversations with his ancestors. Like he summons a zombie warrior thay his grandma inhabits.
Grandma: oh Georgie your looking so thin. Let grandma make you cookies.
Necromancer: Thanks grandma but there's kind of an evil demon to deal with.
Grandma: Nonsense, there's always time for some of grandma's cookies....

One of my favorite D&D greentexts. http://i.imgur.com/mBDtmQm.png

[Vogonjeltz]

I have been watching Nerdarchy Youtube videos and a few of them keep bringing up the subject of "Is Necromancy Evil?" specifically in relation to raising zombies, skeletons, mummies, etc.

My personal opinion is that you are using dead bodies as tools to fight enemies. The common argument is that undead are by default evil and when you are creating them you are bringing evil into the world... therefore it is an evil act.

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil? Would you allow a necromancer PC who wants to make an army of zombies?

Most people see that kind of necromancy as evil, yes. (PHB spell school descriptions)

Bah ninjas. The ends don't justify the means however, the very claim that they do is an evil notion.

[Tanarii]

Since only Evil casters create undead frequently, if you're planning to do that, yes, by the PHB you should choose an Evil alignment. Of course, it might be the evil behavior you regularly engage in ... otherwise you might be quite the compassionate guy.

It's kind of an outlier in the way 5e alignment works IMO. It's similar to 'Druids will not wear metal armor'. It's less a statement of a restriction, and more a statement of just the way things are. A common way of thinking by an entire group of people.

[Isaire]

One of my favorite D&D greentexts. http://i.imgur.com/mBDtmQm.png

Thanks for linking that, was a good read! Would be a hard character to play sadly

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I see no evil in delaying the rotting of a body for a few hours to use it as cannon fodder.

If you are pulling spirits from heaven I suppose we'd have to talk.

What you do with my body when I am dead is your problem.

If you can use my dead family's bodies for whatever good so be it....

FWIW I beat Baldur's Gate one entangle spell and one group of helpful skeleton "meat shields" at a time.

[Sigreid]

I view it as, it's not unlike organ donation: a bit gross and unpleasant to think about, but nonetheless something I'm O.K with, because it uses the dead to save the living. That zombie is taking the place of a living soldier, thus protecting them from death.

Well, if I'm the soldier that gets to be a bit safer because a zombie horde is taking the shock troop role, you're the best bloody bloke I know. :smallsmile:

[Finback]

To me, it's ultimately about the purpose for said reanimation. Is your goal to amass personal power, through using undead minions to attack? Probably evil. Is it raising the dead/communicating with spirits to solve a greater evil? Then it could be good.

I made a druid/necromancer who raises animals slain by poachers, who then sets them to hunt down the poachers in order to bring peace and balance to his woods. Is that really an evil act? That would depend on other factors - were the poachers only getting food for their family? Or were they killing to harvest body parts for the black market?

It can be blurred further by larger factors - an evil lich might be the unlikely ally against abominations from eldritch space; but generally, if a PC is raising them to help fight for a greater good, I'd be hard pressed to call it "evil". Now, NPCs might consider it that way though. "DUDE, PUT MY GRANDMA BACK."

[LudicSavant]

Would you consider it evil?

In the case of most settings, certainly no moreso than other things in the typical adventurer's arsenal (such as enchantment or conventional violence). Even most of the settings that claim necromancy is evil fail to actually establish any particularly coherent reason why it's worse than other tools of violence or control in D&D, instead relying on little more than bias, tradition, and color coding.

They simply don't pass a sniff test. For example, take the argument "zombies are evil, necromancy makes zombies, therefore necromancy is evil." There are at least two glaring flaws with this argument.

1) The first issue is that the premise is often simply assumed rather than justified. What makes zombies evil in the first place? This tends to either be A) not established at all, B) conditional upon their means of use rather than inherent (for instance, "zombies eat people" can easily be negated by responsible use of zombies), or C) a reason that also does not pass a sniff test (like "they're animated by harmful energy" which is equally true of creatures animated by positive energy or, say, fire elementals). In all three cases, the argument fails.

2) Necromancy has many functions other than creating undead. For example, Resurrection is a Necromancy spell. Ergo, an indictment of creating undead (even if such a thing were somehow justified, which it usually isn't) would not construe an indictment of necromancy in general.

[Naanomi]

Probably somewhat setting dependent as well

[Dalebert]

Depends on what exactly is going on when you do it. 5e leaves most of the fluff up to the DM. If all you're doing is the equivalent of animate object but on a dead body, basically just telekinetic energy moving it around, then it's hard to imagine how that's evil.

However, it's necromancy. It's not evocation or whatever Telekinesis and Animate Object spells are. Presumably there's something more complex going on there. Are you...

* Pulling the spirits of humanoids who have moved on back to this plane to inhabit the bodies?
Maybe they're in a confused fugue state due to their rotting brain or due to strange planar issues which explains why they seem largely mindless. Or maybe their minds and spirits are actually damaged by the process of dying and being pulled back. Maybe it's like being insane and it's a kind of torture for them. Maybe they were at peace and now they're inhabiting a rotting body and being compelled to obey orders. Maybe they don't want to obey you but if they don't, the spell inflicts unimaginable pain upon them. Maybe they're the tortured souls of Orcus' domain and he sent them back because they finally broke and are his most loyal victims and serving a necromancer is a kind of reprieve from the tortures of Hell.

* Pulling some other spirit of something much more alien than anything that was ever a humanoid?
Maybe the spirits have evil plans. They serve you hoping you'll eventually lose control or die, allowing them to carry out the plans of some other being. Maybe this being is hoping the power he grants will corrupt you.

Now it's very easy to handwave all that away based on the stats of zombies and skeletons and the relatively simple spell descriptions and just say "Nah. they're basically just fleshy robots--empty shells. There's nothing going on in there."

To that I say "BOOOORING." Why don't you want there to be cool stuff going on with necromancy?

[Tanarii]

They simply don't pass a sniff test. For example, take the argument "zombies are evil, necromancy makes zombies, therefore necromancy is evil." There are at least two glaring flaws with this argument.

You've missed the two most common assumed reasons:

1) It defiles the dead. It's (at the minimum) disrespectful to the corpses of something that was once alive. It's certainly horrifying for any living relatives.

2) It prevents the souls of the dead from passing on properly.

Also, 'evil energy' tends to tie into #1. Because if it's evil, it absolutely defiles the corpse.

(I'm talking about undead generically for the second. I can't remember anything in 5e that says having your body animated traps the soul.)

[LudicSavant]

You've missed the two most common assumed reasons No, I haven't. Both things you mentioned are covered under my original statement.


1) It defiles the dead. It's (at the minimum) disrespectful to the corpses of something that was once alive. It's certainly horrifying for any living relatives. This is exactly the sort of thing that is covered by bias, tradition, and color-coding. It's similar to saying, for instance, that doing an autopsy or donating organs makes you an inherently evil monster because it defiles corpses. It's a real argument that real people make... and it's based purely on bias, tradition, and color-coding.


2) It prevents the souls of the dead from passing on properly. In many settings I've seen that had this, it fell under either the category of "often bad, conditionally okay" or occasionally even "isn't actually worse" once the details of passing on were actually laid out.

There may, of course, be exceptions. This too is covered by my original statement.



Also, 'evil energy' tends to tie into #1. Because if it's evil, it absolutely defiles the corpse.

See point #1. You begin with the premise "because it's evil." This is of course a circular argument. "It's evil because it's evil" does not provide the person reading your argument with a reason to believe that it is evil.

[jas61292]

I think you have to remember what necromancy actually is. When you create a skeleton, you are not simply using force to control a body telekinetically. That would not be necromancy. No, necromancy is the magic of the energies of life and death. If you are granting life to a corpse, it is because you are literally imbuing it with life energy. And that life energy has to come from somewhere. While the exact mechanic may be setting dependent, a few ways this could be include infusing it with innately evil negative energy, forcing a soul back into a corpse against its will, or draining life energy from other creatures in this world. All of which can easily be seen as evil.

Frankly, I think you will be hard pressed to explain it away as not being an act of evil, and most attempts I see of people trying to do just that, looking only at the end result, and conveniently forget that this is necromancy, and not evocation or transmutation.

[Sception]

While setting specific, there isn't really such a thing as 'mindless undead' in 5e. Skeletons are, what, int 6? And zombies are above animal intelligence. If they're inherently evil in your setting, then you've created intelligent, malignantly evil undying horrors, and yeah, that's pretty evil. But even if they're not inherently evil in your setting, you're creating intelligent creatures, and enslaving them in the same act. Still pretty evil.

Not that a neutral character couldn't do so with reservations, or even a good character if under duress, but yeah, it's hard to argue that casting 'animate dead' isn't an evil act in 5e on some level.


Back in 3.5 it was basically a non-issue, as skittles and zombles were mindless and amoral. Sure, they detected as evil on account of being animated with negative energy, but they didn't really think or do anything apart from what they were told. Further, even the 'desecrating grandma' argument didn't apply, since what 3.5 necromancer in their right mind bothered with humanoid skeletons and zombies? That biz was templates, by the time you could even cast it there were much more useful monster corpses lying around that nobody was using/burying/mourning. So some folks might grump at you, but there was really no justification behind it.

I miss those days.

[Dalebert]

It's a cool spell. For just one 3rd level slot a day, you can have four minions doing your bidding as a bonus action. It's understandable that people would look for justifications for the things they want to do.

[Sigreid]

In the case of most settings, certainly no moreso than other things in the typical adventurer's arsenal (such as enchantment or conventional violence). Even most of the settings that claim necromancy is evil fail to actually establish any particularly coherent reason why it's worse than other tools of violence or control in D&D, instead relying on little more than bias, tradition, and color coding.

They simply don't pass a sniff test. For example, take the argument "zombies are evil, necromancy makes zombies, therefore necromancy is evil." There are at least two glaring flaws with this argument.

1) The first issue is that the premise is often simply assumed rather than justified. What makes zombies evil in the first place? This tends to either be A) not established at all, B) conditional upon their means of use rather than inherent (for instance, "zombies eat people" can easily be negated by responsible use of zombies), or C) a reason that also does not pass a sniff test (like "they're animated by harmful energy" which is equally true of creatures animated by positive energy or, say, fire elementals). In all three cases, the argument fails.

2) Necromancy has many functions other than creating undead. For example, Resurrection is a Necromancy spell. Ergo, an indictment of creating undead (even if such a thing were somehow justified, which it usually isn't) would not construe an indictment of necromancy in general.

Don't forget that elemental summoning is generally not labelled as evil, even though it is the straight up enslavement of an intelligent being.

Edit: And kidnapping. I forgot you were also kidnapping them. Mr. and Mrs. Fire elemental are having a nice evening at home and Poof! Mommy is gone and forced to fight by some arrogant prick in a pointy hat.

[Naanomi]

This is exactly the sort of thing that is covered by bias, tradition, and color-coding. It's similar to saying, for instance, that doing an autopsy or donating organs makes you an inherently evil monster because it defiles corpses. It's a real argument that real people make... and it's based purely on bias, tradition, and color-coding.

See point #1. You begin with the premise "because it's evil." This is of course a circular argument. You cannot demonstrate that something is evil by beginning with the premise "it's evil."
The difference is that in the default DND cosmology, evil isn't a cultural determined thing, it is an active and (in some ways) measurable cosmic force. It is a place. Creatures can be made of it.

So if you ask an angel 'hey is this evil' and he says 'yes', it isn't because angelic culture opposes necromancy for traditional reasons, its because that act empowers capital 'E' Evil on at least a small scale

[LudicSavant]

Don't forget that elemental summoning is generally not labelled as evil, even though it is the straight up enslavement of an intelligent being.

Indeed. As I said, most settings simply do not justify Necromancy being any worse than Conjuration or Enchantment or anything else.


The difference is that in the default DND cosmology, evil isn't a cultural determined thing, it is an active and (in some ways) measurable cosmic force. It is a place. Creatures can be made of it. The question, then, would be whether this force referred to as "evil" is referring to the same concept as moral evil, or whether it is simply an additional definition for the same word.


So if you ask an angel 'hey is this evil' and he says 'yes', it isn't because angelic culture opposes necromancy for traditional reasons, its because that act empowers capital 'E' Evil on at least a small scale

Sure it is. The fact that the measurable cosmic force is referred to as Evil is part of language, which is part of culture. It could just as easily have been named "energy A." The angel's culture instead decided to label the force as Evil. Another culture could decide to name the force literally anything else.

Also, see point #1: You appear to have simply assumed that the energy was evil. You did not actually provide a reason that the energy was evil. Simply saying "it's evil because it's evil" is a circular argument.

You cannot simply look at the phenomena's name to evaluate the phenomena in order to make a coherent argument that that thing is immoral.

[Sception]

Conjuration only borrows things. You're not bringing an evil intelligence into being. And the summoned creatures goes right back to where it was, in the same state it was, no matter what happened while summoned, so it's not quite the same as putting a creature under indefinite domination.

There's definitely ethical problems with summoning elementals or fey, but not on the same level as creating the undead.

[Naanomi]

The default planar cosmology (the great wheel) isn't one of subjective morality as the real world; objective moral truths exist and are known to some (but not most) inhabitants in the universe. I can decant 'evil', put it in a bottle, measure its effects and the effects other things have on its presence. There are beings (sprites) that can objectively sense its presence in people.

You can argue that you disagree with that model, think it is stupid, and that your home versions of the setting doesn't have that moral absolutism characteristic, but it is an assumption inherent in the larger planescape inspired setting.

Though the gehreleth of the universe are perfectly happy if you want to keep telling people that this 'so called evil' is just a natural type of energy and they should not worry about increasing its presence in the world on 'culturally bound moral grounds', and that any rumored effect that has on your afterlife disposition is coincidental and unfounded

[Sigreid]

Conjuration only borrows things. You're not bringing an evil intelligence into being. And the summoned creatures goes right back to where it was, in the same state it was, no matter what happened while summoned, so it's not quite the same as putting a creature under indefinite domination.

There's definitely ethical problems with summoning elementals or fey, but not on the same level as creating the undead.

Still slavery. And you don't know what you've done to its psyche. There may be hundreds of thousands of ementals with PTSD whose friends and family know they will never be the same again.

[LudicSavant]

Conjuration only borrows things. You're not bringing an evil intelligence into being. And the summoned creatures goes right back to where it was, in the same state it was, no matter what happened while summoned, so it's not quite the same as putting a creature under indefinite domination.

There's definitely ethical problems with summoning elementals or fey, but not on the same level as creating the undead.

Another argument that seems to have begun with the premise "it's evil" in order to come to the conclusion that it's evil.

There are a few pressing questions you would need to answer in order to make your case convincing for your setting. Why is the intelligence you created evil? And even if it is evil for whatever reason, why does that matter if you can control all of its actions and then destroy it when you're done with it?

[Sigreid]

Another argument that seems to have begun with the premise "it's evil" in order to come to the conclusion that it's evil.

There are a few questions you need to answer in order to make your case convincing for your setting. Why is the intelligence you created evil? And even if it is evil for whatever reason, why does that matter if you can control all of its actions and then destroy it when you're done with it?

Well, the classic answer from ages past was that the body is animated by a minor spirit fragment left behind and powered by energy from the negative material plane. As such, it knows only the hunger for life energy to fill the gaping chasm the conduit of negative energy leaves in them.

The negative energy that powers it is inherently evil because it is made of pain and hunger.

[Naanomi]

Well, the classic answer from ages past was that the body is animated by a minor spirit fragment left behind and powered by energy from the negative material plane. As such, it knows only the hunger for life energy to fill the gaping chasm the conduit of negative energy leaves in them.

The negative energy that powers it is inherently evil because it is made of pain and hunger.
Actually... classically negative energy isn't good or evil in and of itself, same with positive energy. However, forcing negative energy into the prime material (particularly when doing so in a way that supplanted positive energy) caused damage to the plane itself, even in minute amounts, which was one of the reasons Magic that manipulated negative energy was inherently 'evil'

[LudicSavant]

"It hungers for the flesh of the living" is a spooky way of saying... it eats living things just like almost every other creature.

[sir_argo]

Creating zombies is unquestionably evil... because it's gross.

Case in point, pickled beets are also evil and so is anyone who likes them.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I have been watching Nerdarchy Youtube videos and a few of them keep bringing up the subject of "Is Necromancy Evil?" specifically in relation to raising zombies, skeletons, mummies, etc.
This depends on what, exactly, Zombies, Skeletons, Mummies, etc are in your cosmology.

In default 5th edition, creating them is a mildly evil act and creating them regularly is the domain of those with evil alignment. Technically, this was supposed to be true in 3rd edition, but 3rd gave no real justification for it. However, in 5th Edition those zombies, skeletons, etc, require you to renew your control every twenty four hours or they default to killing any living things they see, including humanoids. Every time you make one, you are creating the potential for multiple murders over years, decade, centuries. And you can't just say "Oh, I'll renew it every day". Sooner or later you'll be too sick to travel or you'll accidentally give an order that causes your minions to spread out too much to reach in time or, most unavoidably, you'll die. And then they'll kill people. Making skeletons, zombies, etc is reckless and willfully negligent.

Now, some might argue that with proper care you can reduce the risks, and that's true. That's why it specifies regularly casting it is the domain of the evil. Since you'll never remove the risks entirely, you can get away with a few casts as a last resort (as long as you don't then order the undead to do evil things), but only the evil make a habit of continuously risking the lives of others.

In summation, making skeletons and zombies in 5th edition is rather like putting up minefields. Maybe doing it once or twice, with proper precautions taken to protect civilians is okay, but doing it all the time is going to result in innocent blood on your hands. You might be able to play a non-evil character who does it, but if so, making undead all the time is going to be their character flaw that prevents them from being as good as they could be.

[Malifice]

I have been watching Nerdarchy Youtube videos and a few of them keep bringing up the subject of "Is Necromancy Evil?" specifically in relation to raising zombies, skeletons, mummies, etc.

My personal opinion is that you are using dead bodies as tools to fight enemies. The common argument is that undead are by default evil and when you are creating them you are bringing evil into the world... therefore it is an evil act.

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil? Would you allow a necromancer PC who wants to make an army of zombies?

How would your family feel if I used dark unholy magic to animate your goodly dead sisters corpse to be my unquestioning [evil and murderous] slave and concubine?

Like; If I were to head down the local graveyard, dig up a persons corpse and turn that corpse into a puppet (attaching strings to it like a marionette) does that seems totally 'morally good' or even 'morally neutral' to you?

Now what if instead of attaching strings, I used unholy energy, all in full knowledge I was creating a murderous evil monster?

You're not just summoning an evil monster like say a Diabolist would (and I'm pretty sure Demon summoning is widely regarded as evil) - you're actively creating a brand new evil monster. And desecrating a corpse by pumping it full of unholy energy and making it do... 'things' as your slave. And also likley causing immense emotional pain to the family of the dead person. All in one hit.

Only in a DnD forum are the ethics of things like necromancy, genocide and child murder debated.

[LudicSavant]

How would your family feel if I used dark unholy magic to animate your goodly dead sisters corpse to be my unquestioning [evil and murderous] slave and concubine?

This is similar to saying "how would you feel if I used dark and unholy magic to Fireball your innocent family for my amusement." Obviously that feels bad. That's also obviously not the only circumstance in which Fireball can be utilized.

If this is somehow not obvious to you, consider looking up, say, the Karrnathi and Aereni from D&D canon, who both utilize necromancy in very different ways from what you are describing.


In default 5th edition, creating them is a mildly evil act and creating them regularly is the domain of those with evil alignment. Technically, this was supposed to be true in 3rd edition, but 3rd gave no real justification for it. However, in 5th Edition those zombies, skeletons, etc, require you to renew your control every twenty four hours or they default to killing any living things they see, including humanoids. Every time you make one, you are creating the potential for multiple murders over years, decade, centuries. And you can't just say "Oh, I'll renew it every day". Sooner or later you'll be too sick to travel or you'll accidentally give an order that causes your minions to spread out too much to reach in time or, most unavoidably, you'll die. And then they'll kill people. Making skeletons, zombies, etc is reckless and willfully negligent.

Your argument is akin to saying that using fire is an inherently evil act because eventually someone will unintentionally start a fire.

There is absolutely nothing in that description you gave that requires the caster to be negligent. For example, it would not be reckless or negligent to animate skeletons and zombies in a controlled setting for, say, the purpose of studying them. You would then destroy them when you're done with them, just as surely as any non-negligent person would put out their campfire when they're done with it.

[Malifice]

"It hungers for the flesh of the living" is a spooky way of saying... it eats living things just like almost every other creature.

Zombies are just like us eh?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbn1wELZlB8

The above video is a demonstration of how LE deals with necromancers in their midst.

[Arkhios]

In a vacuum, raising up deceased creatures' lifeless bodies as tools to cause destruction upon your foes is no more evil than slinging fireballs at them.

If a creature is dead, what/how does it care?
Besides, who said the raised creature had to be someone who once had a family? Why couldn't you raise the body of a, say an owlbear? Will you hurt its feelings too?

[jas61292]

And also likley causing immense emotional pain to the family of the dead person.

This is huge. Its easy to say "so what? that's just a cultural thing, and not inherently bad." But evil is all about doing things for yourself at the expense of others, and there are more ways to hurt someone than just physically. Emotional pain is still pain. When you stop caring about that and only think about the fact that it is useful to you, you are evil. Period.

[LudicSavant]

This is huge. Its easy to say "so what? that's just a cultural thing, and not inherently bad." But evil is all about doing things for yourself at the expense of others, and there are more ways to hurt someone than just physically. Emotional pain is still pain. When you stop caring about that and only think about the fact
that it is useful to you, you are evil. Period.

The entire point is that there is not necessarily such an expense to others, not even in the sense of emotional pain.

For example, a Karrnathi family might feel great pride in having their deceased animated. A Karrnathi individual might stipulate that they wish to be raised in their will. An Aereni might spend their entire life trying to prove themselves worthy of being made an undead. These are all examples from D&D canon.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, I haven't. Both things you mentioned are covered under my original statement.

This is exactly the sort of thing that is covered by bias, tradition, and color-coding. It's similar to saying, for instance, that doing an autopsy or donating organs makes you an inherently evil monster because it defiles corpses. It's a real argument that real people make... and it's based purely on bias, tradition, and color-coding.

In many settings I've seen that had this, it fell under either the category of "often bad, conditionally okay" or occasionally even "isn't actually worse" once the details of passing on were actually laid out.

There may, of course, be exceptions. This too is covered by my original statement.



See point #1. You begin with the premise "because it's evil." This is of course a circular argument. "It's evil because it's evil" does not provide the person reading your argument with a reason to believe that it is evil.

It isn't the Necromancers corpse to have. The one, and only, setting I've seen where this is even considered remotely non-evil was Planescape Torment, wherein you could sell the rights to your body to a group that would revive it as a zombie upon your death

Necromancy in any other context is an act of selfish aggression, hence, always evil. Motives don't excuse actions.

[LudicSavant]

It isn't the Necromancers corpse to have. The one, and only, setting I've seen where this is even considered remotely non-evil was Planescape Torment, wherein you could sell the rights to your body to a group that would revive it as a zombie upon your death

Necromancy in any other context is an act of selfish aggression, hence, always evil. Motives don't excuse actions.

Do you realize that you just made the case that there exists at least one context where it is not evil, and therefore is, by definition, not inherently evil? :smallconfused:

If you can think of even one exceptional condition, that means it's conditional, not inherent.

[comk59]

I look at it this way, personally. YMMV obviously. Negative Energy is not inherently evil, but it is inherently destructive. Even Demons, immortal beings of pure evil and suffering, are hurt by it.

You are taking a mortal body, and giving it life with Negative Energy. That Negative Energy is not good for the body it is curently inhabiting, constantly eating away at it. And that body is intelligent. Its every moment is pure, unholy agony. And it is bound to forever serve the creature that created it.

And we know that undead will mimic what it did in life, so clearly there is still some fragment of the original in there somewhere. Screaming, begging for it to end.

Just my take on it though. Not interested in getting into a debate over how I run my games.

[LudicSavant]

The one, and only, setting I've seen where this is even considered remotely non-evil was Planescape Torment, wherein you could sell the rights to your body to a group that would revive it as a zombie upon your death

Well then, you're saying right there that you don't think it's evil in all situations.

It seems to me that at least some of the "inherently evil" crowd is confused about the difference between "always" and "usually."

If you can think of even one case where it is not evil, then it is not always evil. So, if you don't think that it's evil for a Karrnathi patriot to vow to defend her country until her bones are ground to dust, or for a Planescape: Torment character to make a voluntary contract to be animated, or for an Aereni Paladin to seek membership in the Undying Court, or for a Cleric of Boccob to study the undead who donated their body to science in controlled lab circumstances in order to better understand the nature of life and magic, or for a boddhisattva guardian to delay passing on into the afterlife for one thousand years to defend the sealed tomb of an ancient evil from those who would free it, or any other possible scenario within the realms of imagination, then it's not inherently evil.

[Osrogue]

"It hungers for the flesh of the living" is a spooky way of saying... it eats living things just like almost every other creature.

What would you call it if you bought the last turkey in the supermarket, the day before thanksgiving, and through it in the dumpster as you walked out the door? Zombies don't need food or drink to survive so they shouldn't be compared to animals. Their sole purpose is to kill and destroy, and they want to kill and destroy. Though they gain nothing for it. For comparison, Slaads are chaotic neutral despite the fact that they go full xenomorph on other humanoids, because their life cycle is largely dependent on implanting chestbursters in people, and there really isn't any way around it.

[LudicSavant]

What would you call it if you bought the last turkey in the supermarket, the day before thanksgiving, and through it in the dumpster as you walked out the door? Zombies don't need food or drink to survive so they shouldn't be compared to animals. Their sole purpose is to kill and destroy, and they want to kill and destroy. Though they gain nothing for it. For comparison, Slaads are chaotic neutral despite the fact that they go full xenomorph on other humanoids, because their life cycle is largely dependent on implanting chestbursters in people, and there really isn't any way around it.

I'd say that your analogy doesn't make a lick of sense, because the question is whether the animator is evil, not the creature.

I'd also say that you're referencing setting-specific fluff and pretending it applies to all of D&D canon, even though there are very clear examples of this not being the case in many settings.

I'd also say that this...


Their sole purpose is to kill and destroy ...is clearly not true in every canon D&D setting of which I am aware. They can be ordered to do all kinds of things other than kill or destroy.

[Malifice]

If you can think of even one case where it is not evil, then it is not always evil.

I cant think of even one case where it is not evil.

[hymer]

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil? Would you allow a necromancer PC who wants to make an army of zombies?

As has been pointed out, it's quite campaign dependent. I usually have the raising of undead be quite evil. A non-evil necromancer is too much like a sparkly vampire.

[Malifice]

They can be ordered to do all kinds of things other than kill or destroy.

Leaving aside the fact that they are animated by an 'unholy black magic' that the caster must use, the social implications of defiling a dead body, and the implications of forcing a being into slavery (and the evil alignment on undead creatures generally) I can order a summoned Demon to do other things than kill or destroy.

You seem to conflate alignment with [the ends sought]. It's [the means you use] that determine your alignment (and vice versa).

For example, my noble Elf Paladin could raid Menzoberazzan with an army, then round up all survivng Drow males and send them to the gas chamber, toss the screaming children on the fire as an example to others (nits make lice) and deliver the female Drow to my Elf army as comfort women (to increase morale) before hanging them once the men were finished. You know; engage in outright genocide.

Seeing as there are other Drow cities out there, I then raise the Drow as undead soldiers to serve as reinforcements.

My intent (my genuine intent) is to end Drow attacks on the surface, eradicate the Drow menace and bring peace. Im genuinely of the belief Im a good person, and that my actions are necessary for the greater good. I genuinely think I am good. I genuinely work towards what I think are a good end.

My actions are clearly evil. My alignment is (clearly) LE. I wind up in the Nine Hells on death.

Your actions matter, not your intent for those actions.

[Arkhios]

You know, once upon a time, witchcraft (a.k.a. "magic" the majority of people didn't understand), whether it was used to cure or harm, was considered so evil that practitioners were torched for it.
In other words, one could consider cure wounds as evil. As much as raising a decaying corpse to do your bidding. It's just a tool. It's not a person anymore (if it even was a person in the first place - you could raise a dog, or cow, or pig, or a frikkin' owlbear as a zombie).

Methods of magic are not inherently evil. It's the motives behind the use of magic that determine its purpose.

[Malifice]

It's just a tool. It's not a person anymore

Cool man. Next time you're at a friends wake, put this theory into practice. Pull the corpse out of the coffin, tie some ropes around its arms, and make it dance like a puppet in front of your dead mates family.

Dont forget to explain your theory to them. Im sure they'll agree.


Methods of magic are not inherently evil.

I urge you to read the PHB again. The magic used to animate the dead is called out as being inherently evil.


It's the motives behind the use of magic that determine its purpose.

Actions count. Motives dont.

[Arkhios]

Cool man. Next time you're at a friends wake, put this theory into practice. Pull the corpse out of the coffin, tie some ropes around its arms, and make it dance like a puppet in front of your dead mates family.

Dont forget to explain your theory to them. Im sure they'll agree.



I urge you to read the PHB again. The magic used to animate the dead is called out as being inherently evil.



Actions count. Motives dont.

And here you go, delightfully ignoring the other half what I said. It's all a matter of perspective of who determines what as good or evil.

[Herobizkit]

One of my favorite D&D greentexts. http://i.imgur.com/mBDtmQm.png

This is the coolest steez I have read in a very long time. Thank you for sharing it.

One of my own players wants to be a (not evil) Death priest "necromancer" of Jergal; this is a great way for him to Animate Dead and for me to RP a BUNCH of random people. ^_^

[Malifice]

And here you go, delightfully ignoring the other half what I said. It's all a matter of perspective of who determines what as good or evil.

If you determine if you're good or evil, then you can raise an army of zombies and be whatever alignment you want to be.

Heck, I can murder and eat a baby and be Lawful Good if I say so.

[Arkhios]

If you determine if you're good or evil, then you can raise an army of zombies and be whatever alignment you want to be.

Heck, I can murder and eat a baby and be Lawful Good if I say so.

I'm not saying I would determine what's evil or not. I'm saying the society does that.

Did the "white witches" think themselves as evil? Yeah, probably not. The society did, because they did witchcraft, and "witchcraft is evil". Evil-doers get torched.

Likewise, the society could consider necromancy as acceptable. You, as the practitioner don't have to be evil if the act itself isn't considered evil where you were born. Outsiders may believe quite differently. Still, that doesn't suddenly make you an evil person.

Society determines what's right or wrong, good or evil.
That serves as a guideline to the motives of that society.
Motives serve as guideline to the actions of the people.
Yes, actions count. But so does the motives. And the society.

[Herobizkit]

And here you go, delightfully ignoring the other half what I said. It's all a matter of perspective of who determines what as good or evil.For sake of argument, in a standard (pre-5e) D&D cosmology, the amount of Good or Evil a person does can be measured. If you do sufficient Good and Evil, you begin to emanate literal Good and Evil, like... say, radiation poisoning. This can be detected by spellcasters and Paladins and various items.

It looks as though 5e has veered way from Alignments as a descriptive 'tag', choosing to focus solely on consecrated or desecrated areas as being Good and Evil.

But, as others have posted, the standard D&D world assumes that necromancy is at the very least "not good" and to do so frequently is "evil". So, unless your DM says otherwise, that's the way it goes..

[arrowed]

A couple of points:
1) Mythologically speaking undead are, by and large, unpleasant. Vampires, wendigos, and wights etc are generally portrayed as either malevolent or at the least obsessively vengeful in the stories I am familiar with. Either they've returned as undead due to Evil behavior, a curse, or traumatic circumstances. I imagine the viewpoint of D&D towards necromancy is largely based on the beliefs of the various myths it borrows from.

2) In the mechanics of the game, there is a distinct difference between the spells animate dead and animate objects. Both spells create 'creatures' with intelligence, wisdom and charisma scores, but one is necromancy and the other is transmutation. One produces undead, the other constructs. There is a difference between casting animate objects on a skeleton instead of animate dead. Even if you aren't mechanically preventing a soul from going to the afterlife with animate dead, you are doing more than making the bones move.

But ultimately D&D 5E's just not a massively well-defined system in terms of ethics and metaphysics. It's going to vary by setting.

[StoicLeaf]

yay! this thread is my first anniversary for "can necromancy be good?"!

Anyway.
If you're playing in faerun then no.
Negative energy seeks out to destroy life, destroyed undead leak the energy that animated them into the surrounding area, desacrating it, resulting in a wide array of unwanted effects...
It's bad business. Higher level necromancy spells seemingly bind the recently deceased to their dead corpses.. It's douchiness for the sake of it. At least if you run someone through with a sword or disintegrate them they can go to heaven. or hell. And ultimately, because the pos and neg energy planes are so vitally tied into life and death, most necromancers, ultimately, seek to conquer life as the final lesson of their craft. And liches aren't good people. Some people will then bring up baelnorns, "bla" I say, because even baelnorns need to be sustained by souls, the difference is is that they have morons willing to sacrifice themselves. The mechanics remain the same; consume a soul, lengthen your life.

If you aren't playing a specific setting ...
I don't think getting into general arguments about the subject is useful, because there is no right answer; morality can be argued as you see fit.
At the end of the day, your group needs to decide how the setting works and whether the society you live in regards it as an evil or not.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm with Arkhios and LudicSavant on this. I don't think Necromancy is inherently evil.

To those talking about reviving the body of someone at a wake or funeral or such, I think you're missing the point entirely. The fact that they're having a wake/funeral at all means they care about the person's body after they've died.

So, here's a suggestion - how about the Necromancer just restrict himself to corpses whose families didn't care about them (before or after death)? Or who had no friends or family to mourn them?

Or, even better idea, how about we use monster corpses?

I mean, if you're set on using human corpses, you could even make the same offer to people as the guys in Planescape Torment - and effectively buy their bodies after they die (or maybe pay their relatives if they're already dead).

[Malifice]

I'm not saying I would determine what's evil or not. I'm saying the society does that.

Did the "white witches" think themselves as evil? Yeah, probably not. The society did, because they did witchcraft, and "witchcraft is evil". Evil-doers get torched.

Likewise, the society could consider necromancy as acceptable. You, as the practitioner don't have to be evil if the act itself isn't considered evil where you were born. Outsiders may believe quite differently. Still, that doesn't suddenly make you an evil person.

Society determines what's right or wrong, good or evil.
That serves as a guideline to the motives of that society.
Motives serve as guideline to the actions of the people.
Yes, actions count. But so does the motives. And the society.

So you're saying slavery was 'morally good' when society practiced it?

If I move to a society that condones murder or rape than it's morally good for me to practice that? That means if I move to an orc Village it would be morally good of me to butcher, kill, rape and murder.

So why then are orcs chaotic evil?

I'm sorry mate I don't buy it. A society that embraced the creation of undead, or rape or murder or slavery, wouldn't be good.

You're conflating 'good' with 'socially acceptable'. They're not the same thing.

[Malifice]

I'm with Arkhios and LudicSavant on this. I don't think Necromancy is inherently evil.

To those talking about reviving the body of someone at a wake or funeral or such, I think you're missing the point entirely. The fact that they're having a wake/funeral at all means they care about the person's body after they've died.

So, here's a suggestion - how about the Necromancer just restrict himself to corpses whose families didn't care about them (before or after death)? Or who had no friends or family to mourn them?

Or, even better idea, how about we use monster corpses?

I mean, if you're set on using human corpses, you could even make the same offer to people as the guys in Planescape Torment - and effectively buy their bodies after they die (or maybe pay their relatives if they're already dead).

Is it less evil to murder or enslave people that were not cared about during life?

Is defiling the corpse of a homeless man and turning it into an evil monster, any different from defiling the corpse of a loving family man?

I mean don't get me wrong, I agree with all of the justifications people are making here. I'd of course let your PC make the same justifications when they defiled a dead person's corpse and created their undead monster.

And then I would then change your alignment to evil.

[Arkhios]

So you're saying slavery was 'morally good' when society practiced it?

If I move to a society that condones murder or rape than it's morally good for me to practice that? That means if I move to an orc Village it would be morally good of me to butcher, kill, rape and murder.

So why then are orcs chaotic evil?

I'm sorry mate I don't buy it. A society that embraced the creation of undead, or rape or murder or slavery, wouldn't be good.

You're conflating 'good' with 'socially acceptable'. They're not the same thing.

That's a rather black and white point of view you have. Not-evil ≠ Good. Not-good ≠ Evil. There's neutral ground there, too.

Question: Would you consider voodoo-priests as evil then? Even if their people didn't?

[Malifice]

That's a rather black and white point of view you have. Not-evil ≠ Good. Not-good ≠ Evil. There's neutral ground there, too.

Question: Would you consider voodoo-priests as evil then? Even if their people didn't?

If we're discussing real life voodoo priests im not going to discuss real-life religions.

And for the record very few people are 'good' or 'evil'. Most people are morally neutral, perhaps with some leanings one way or the other.

When you're walking down the street and see a homeless man leaking blood and lying face down on the ground, a good person generally goes out of his way to help him. A neutral person walks on past. An evil person was probably the guy that stabbed him.

Most people walk on past. They've conducted studies on this.

A good person goes out of their way to help others, with no thought of gain for themselves. They are kind and merciful and just even to strangers. Be honest with yourself; how many people do you know that fit this bill?

An evil person either goes out of their way to harm others or doesn't care if people are harmed by their actions. They are either sociopaths or monsters that simply don't care if people get hurt as long as they get what they want or achieve their end goal. Unfortunately many player characters tend to gravitate towards this. The main reason being it's hard to have empathy for fictional nonplayer character. Plus due to the nature of the game that we play, killing is often convenient and rewards you more than leaving the person alive.

A neutral person sits in the middle. They don't go out of their way to help others (particularly strangers), but they are not callous enough to allow others to be harmed by their actions.

A necromancer is no better or worse than a necrophiliac. They use the bodies of dead people for their own gain. They defile them in an even more horrific manner.

I'm morally neutral in real life. If I were to come over to your house and find the animated the bodies of several dead women wandering about your place as your undead slaves I would be rightly horrified. Only a person utterly lacking in any empathy could think anything different. And people utterly lacking any empathy are evil in my books.

[Dr. Cliché]

Is it less evil to murder or enslave people that were not cared about during life?

Your earlier argument would certainly suggest this - as you specifically talked about the effects on the relatives of the deceased.

Also, who said anything about murdering them? :smallconfused:



Is defiling the corpse of a homeless man and turning it into an evil monster, any different from defiling the corpse of a loving family man?

See above.

Also, given that the undead will be under the Necromancer's complete control, what makes it evil exactly? Wouldn't that depend on the purpose for which it is used?

[Necroticplague]

A necromancer is no better or worse than a necrophiliac. They use the bodies of dead people for their own gain. They defile them in an even more horrific manner.

I'm morally neutral in real life. If I were to come over to your house and find the animated the bodies of several dead women wandering about your place as your undead slaves I would be rightly horrified. Only a person utterly lacking in any empathy could think anything different. And people utterly lacking any empathy are evil in my books.

And why is 'defiling ' a corpse intrinsically evil? Arguably, the normal consumption of meat requires damaging a corpse in a much more severe manner, but I don't see (many) arguments that that's inherently Evil. If you're O.K with flaying the skin and stripping the muscle off a dead cow (i.e, eating meat and wearing leather), is it really any worse to use it's bones to continue to plow the field after you do so? I stand by my earlier statements that it's unpleasant and a bit gross, but not necessarily evil. Just like how I'd rather not think too much about the exact process that goes from a cow to my hamburger, but don't feel horrible for eating meat, so to can I be O.K. with a skeletal laborer or soldier, even if I'd rather not dwell too much on who that used to be, or the process that produced it.

Also, empathy for what? The dead can't have any feeling to empathize with. Having empathy for a corpse makes as much sense as having empathy for a statue. It looks human, but by the time you get to animating it, it's nothing more than a pile of various material. It's exactly as alive as a statue (i.e, not remotely, even though it looks human).

[Malifice]

Your earlier argument would certainly suggest this - as you specifically talked about the effects on the relatives of the deceased.

Also, who said anything about murdering them? :smallconfused:



See above.

Also, given that the undead will be under the Necromancer's complete control, what makes it evil exactly? Wouldn't that depend on the purpose for which it is used?

So in your view, necrophilia is not evil?

Like; it's morally neutral or morally good to defile a corpse for your own ends?

Before you answer, remember our necromancer is not just defiling the corpse for his own ends. He's doing so using unholy Black Magic, in an act the players handbook clearly says is evil. In addition, his defiling of the corpse results in the creation of an evil monster. An evil monster that hungers for the flesh of other people.

But hey, as long as he is only doing it to a homeless guys body, that's okay.

Dude, it is morally repugnant. If you want to play the kind of person lacking any empathy who thinks it's a good idea to do it for 'a greater good', be my guest. If you want to play necromancer who can justify is being a good thing, and uses those undead to fight evil creatures, go for it.

In my campaigns your character will be evil.

[Malifice]

And why is 'defiling ' a corpse intrinsically evil?

Remind me to never get you a job down at the morgue.

[ChampionWiggles]

I wouldn't consider necromancy evil. That being said, I wouldn't consider it good either. There's not really much I can see for a good character to be using necromancy and still maintaining a good alignment, though there are some select scenarios I could see that could make the argument valid.

Honestly, the question of if its evil or not comes from what is done with the animated corpse, in my opinion. If the animated undead are used for killing or building up an evil army, then obviously yes. But is it morally wrong for your wizard to animate a dead corpse in the dungeon so that its animated remains can open the door that is obviously trapped? Would it not be the moral high ground to have something that's undead get killed again to preserve the life of your party member or someone else?

It's a morally grey area to me and it depends on the intentions/actions of the animator, since they're the ones who decided what the reanimated corpse does. If we were talking necromancy that brought back zombies/skeletons that wouldn't be controlled, then yea, it'd be evil to me, since they'd be left to their primal urges and nothing else.

[Necroticplague]

Remind me to never get you a job down at the morgue.

Excellent use of an ad-hominem based on poor choice of words/punctuation, instead of actually addressing the argument.

[Logosloki]

There may be questions of morality and ethics within a given society but with the exception of a few spells Necromancy is not evil.

The second edition complete book of necromancy states that "At the very least, the majority of necromancers should be considered rigidly neutral. The large remainder of necromantic practitioners are profoundly evil."

But let's be honest. When most people say Necromancy they mean making undead, not the art as a whole. Which in the case of D&D, with few campaign exceptions, is very much on the Evil end of the spectrum. How evil it is depends on the setting and the DM.

Frankly I like necromancy the most when it is about what sacrifices a player will make. Necromancy is an art of the precipice. A player or NPC walks that fine line between vague normalcy (for a fantasy world), Complete social exclusion and the slow decline into depravity. Probably why I enjoyed the wardstone chronicles so much.

[Malifice]

Why do I bother?

Look, animate some homeless child's body. Send it into your enemies homes. Have it terrify and kill them. When it's done recall it to your side and round up all of the survivors. Kill their children and animate them as your new undead slaves. Soon you will have an army of undead children that you can use as your weapon against the forces of evil.

As long as you're doing it for the greater good, and they are the evildoers, then of course you are a good person.

And you can believe that to your grave. Maybe even beyond should someone else follow your example.

[Dr. Cliché]

So in your view, necrophilia is not evil?

It's certainly not a good act, but nor is it particularly evil. I mean, I'd rather someone was a necrophiliac than a rapist or a child molester.


Like; it's morally neutral or morally good to defile a corpse for your own ends?

I guess Mother Nature must also be evil - as she spends every moment defiling all those corpses you lovingly buried.



Before you answer, remember our necromancer is not just defiling the corpse for his own ends. He's doing so using unholy Black Magic, in an act the players handbook clearly says is evil. In addition, his defiling of the corpse results in the creation of an evil monster. An evil monster that hungers for the flesh of other people.

Given that the PHB has laughable ideas as to what constitutes evil, I'm disinclined to take its word that Necromancy is evil just because.

Frankly, Enchantment spells seem vastly more evil.

Also, you keep wittering on about creating evil monsters that hunger for the flesh of others. You know that they're under the Necromancer's control, right? So, unless he decides to sick them on children for giggles, their wanting human flesh or whatever is entirely irrelevant.


But hey, as long as he is only doing it to a homeless guys body, that's okay.

See this:

http://officiallyscrewed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Moving-The-Goalposts.jpg

This is what you're doing.

You can't argue that Necromancy is bad because it's cruel to the deceased's friends and relatives, and then also say that it's just as cruel even if they don't have any friends or relatives.



Dude, it is morally repugnant.

Oh joy, we're back to circular reasoning.


In my campaigns your character will be evil.

"FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE JEDI ARE EVIL!"

[Necroticplague]

Why do I bother?

Look, animate some homeless child's body. Send it into your enemies homes. Have it terrify and kill them. When it's done recall it to your side and round up all of the survivors. Kill their children and animate them as your new undead slaves. Soon you will have an army of undead children that you can use as your weapon against the forces of evil.

As long as you're doing it for the greater good, and they are the evildoers, then of course you are a good person.

And you can believe that to your grave. Maybe even beyond should someone else follow your example.
All the Evil in that comes from the murder, not the animation. You could just as easily be "Animate some homeless child's body. Send it out to the fields to work tirelessely in place of the sick/injured sons. Now you've saved the family that would have starved."

Also, side note, paying evil unto evil is still paying evil.

[Dr. Cliché]

Why do I bother?

Look, animate some homeless child's body. Send it into your enemies homes. Have it terrify and kill them. When it's done recall it to your side and round up all of the survivors. Kill their children and animate them as your new undead slaves. Soon you will have an army of undead children that you can use as your weapon against the forces of evil.

As long as you're doing it for the greater good, and they are the evildoers, then of course you are a good person.

And you can believe that to your grave. Maybe even beyond should someone else follow your example.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/wicker-man-1973-001-burning-man-00m-osw.jpg?itok=KyirCHa6

Just let us know when you've finished burning that strawman.

[Toofey]

When I DM many uses of Necromancy are considered evil, namely creating undead. Spells that kill permenantly are unplesant to consider, but really that's what everyone who kills for any reason in the real world is doing so if we can consider cops, soldiers, people acting in self defense etc.... not evil, that shouldn't qualify.

Meanwhile, on the question of un-dead, I draw the fluff that say's it's evil from the spells themselves. Look at animate objects, it's 5th level, requires concentration, and lasts a minute. By comparison Animate dead which is both instant and permanent is only 3rd level.

Where does this extra energy come from. Clearly the being spirit is used in some way creating this animating force. When I DM this Permanently destroys the person's own spirit, preventing them from reaching their own afterlife, or from being raised. (A particularly nasty twist but one which I make sure my players are aware of)

Spells like Speak with Dead, which is actually what the word 'Necromancy' means. Are useful and not viewed negatively.

[Malifice]

Excellent use of an ad-hominem based on poor choice of words/punctuation, instead of actually addressing the argument.

Actually it's not ad hominem. It was a sarcastic inference to make you consider your own point.

If defiling bodies for your own ends is not considered morally wrong, why do we consider it morally wrong?

Why do we consider a necrophiliac as being morally abhorrent?

And I refute your position comparing animals and humans. Animals cannot be charged with criminal offences against other animals including humans. Animals lack the same moral agency as humans. A dog that viciously mauls a human does not get charged with an offence. A human that viciously mauls a dog, does.

At this stage is probably appropriate to insert a caveat. In real life I am an existentialist. And somewhat of a post-modernist. And a Cartesian dualist. Personally I do not believe in objective good and evil. Personally I believe what you and I would consider alignment in a dungeons and dragons sense to be entirely subjective.

Dungeons and dragons the game clearly infers the existence of objective good and evil. I make my point from that basis.

[Thrasher92]

I think my original idea of what I want to do with the spell isn't an evil act.

I wanted to go fight some orcs and goblins in a cave. After defeating the first group I wanted to help the party out with some meat shields so I figure casting Animate Dead to make some zombie orcs or goblins can be a relatively neutral act. They bodies are going to defend my allies and attack my enemies, and after I'm done I'm gonna destroy them and leave them in the cave where they originally died (Don't wanna walk into town with a bunch of undead).

I know my DM might disagree with me but I figured I would float this idea over the forum before I try it on Saturday. I'm supposed to be a Neutral Good Wizard, and I don't wanna change my alignment or make any big decisions that would conflict with it.

Anyway, that's why I started this thread.

[Dr. Cliché]

Where does this extra energy come from. Clearly the being spirit is used in some way creating this animating force. When I DM this Permanently destroys the person's own spirit, preventing them from reaching their own afterlife, or from being raised. (A particularly nasty twist but one which I make sure my players are aware of)

Couldn't you do that with any spell though?

I mean, I could say that Fireball also utterly destroys the souls of anyone it kills. Now it's an evil spell, too.

Hell, I could say that every heal spell you casts steals life from someone else in the world. Or that Revify destroys the souls of 10 random people to bring that one guy back. How many people have you murdered to keep the party healthy, Mr. Life Cleric?

[Malifice]

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/wicker-man-1973-001-burning-man-00m-osw.jpg?itok=KyirCHa6

Just let us know when you've finished burning that strawman.

I'm serious.

I want to start a company that is devoted towards spreading charity in the world. We will spread food and donations to starving children around the world. Kinda like Oxfam.

I've crunched the numbers and instead of hiring actual living employees, animating an undead army of employees would let me save a hell of a lot of money. Money that I can use to help even more starving children.

Luckily the local orphanage has Just been hit by a plague. Those orphaned kids are homeless and no one's going to miss them. They're already dead. They're just going to rot in the ground if I don't take those corpses.

Morally good? Morally neutral? Or f****** abhorrent?

[Malifice]

I think my original idea of what I want to do with the spell isn't an evil act.

I wanted to go fight some orcs and goblins in a cave. After defeating the first group I wanted to help the party out with some meat shields so I figure casting Animate Dead to make some zombie orcs or goblins can be a relatively neutral act. They bodies are going to defend my allies and attack my enemies, and after I'm done I'm gonna destroy them and leave them in the cave where they originally died (Don't wanna walk into town with a bunch of undead).

I know my DM might disagree with me but I figured I would float this idea over the forum before I try it on Saturday. I'm supposed to be a Neutral Good Wizard, and I don't wanna change my alignment or make any big decisions that would conflict with it.

Anyway, that's why I started this thread.

Going by the PHB, animating undead is an evil act. That's the RAW answer.

[Malifice]

Couldn't you do that with any spell though?

You could indeed. The rules however state animating the undead is never a good act. They clearly infer that animating the undead is an act of evil.

Sidebar page 203.

It's about the only act that the rules specifically and explicitly state are more or less evil. Rape and murder don't even get such a distinction.

[LudicSavant]

I'm with Arkhios and LudicSavant on this. I don't think Necromancy is inherently evil.

To those talking about reviving the body of someone at a wake or funeral or such, I think you're missing the point entirely. The fact that they're having a wake/funeral at all means they care about the person's body after they've died.

So, here's a suggestion - how about the Necromancer just restrict himself to corpses whose families didn't care about them (before or after death)? Or who had no friends or family to mourn them?

Or, even better idea, how about we use monster corpses?

I mean, if you're set on using human corpses, you could even make the same offer to people as the guys in Planescape Torment - and effectively buy their bodies after they die (or maybe pay their relatives if they're already dead).

I'll do you one better.

A necromancer can ensure that the entire process is both consensual and mutually beneficial for all parties involved.

Consider the following case:

- The family approves.

- The person being animated approves.

- A contract is drawn up which all parties involved find agreeable.

- The animated creature is ordered to accomplish the objectives the person had before they died, stipulated in their will or contract.

- The animated creature is destroyed after completing its task, and moves onto the afterlife properly (if there is even a desirable afterlife to move on to, or if the soul is still connected to the undead at all. This varies a great deal by setting).

- Responsible safety precautions are enacted in case of lost control (if lost control is even dangerous in the first place; this varies based on setting). Animated dead are to be handled by highly skilled and licensed professionals.

- The culture views the animated as inspirations, who are so dedicated to helping their communities that they will do all they can to further its interests even after the reaper takes them. Just as a good person would be honored for being an organ donor, or donating their body to science, so too is one of the animated. The idea that this is "defiling a body" is seen by this culture as a backwards idea similar to witch hunts, or refusing autopsies. To call it a "desecration" is to dishonor the gift the deceased has left for those behind in their sacred bones. Also, they find the idea of being buried 6 feet under for wormfood gross, offensive, and a waste of good plots of land.

- Bonus points: The undead aren't even ugly (http://img14.deviantart.net/5de3/i/2007/292/c/8/painted_skull_by_mreyna.jpg). In this culture, a skeleton is polished, preserved, painted, and signed during the ritualistic memorial service, a commemorative work of art celebrating the life of the deceased and all those who valued them, a moving tribute to their life.

[Necroticplague]

I'm serious.

I want to start a company that is devoted towards spreading charity in the world. We will spread food and donations to starving children around the world. Kinda like Oxfam.

I've crunched the numbers and instead of hiring actual living employees, animating an undead army of employees would let me save a hell of a lot of money. Money that I can use to help even more starving children.

Luckily the local orphanage has Just been hit by a plague. Those orphaned kids are homeless and no one's going to miss them. They're already dead. They're just going to rot in the ground if I don't take those corpses.

Morally good? Morally neutral? Or f****** abhorrent?

Well, by doing so, you help several people, while harming none, so it seems like a neutral act at worst, and likely a good one.

[Fearan]

I'm serious.

I want to start a company that is devoted towards spreading charity in the world. We will spread food and donations to starving children around the world. Kinda like Oxfam.

I've crunched the numbers and instead of hiring actual living employees, animating an undead army of employees would let me save a hell of a lot of money. Money that I can use to help even more starving children.

Luckily the local orphanage has Just been hit by a plague. Those orphaned kids are homeless and no one's going to miss them. They're already dead. They're just going to rot in the ground if I don't take those corpses.

Morally good? Morally neutral? Or f****** abhorrent?
So, how exactly did you pull off such a feat, considering, that Animate Dead spell require you to control your undead employees with constantly being in 60 ft from them and spending bonus actions for this?

[Malifice]

Well, by doing so, you help several people, while harming none, so it seems like a neutral act at worst, and likely a good one.

Dude what? You would be cool with me using unholy necromantic magic to animate an army of orphaned children as my evil soulless flash eating monstrous undead slaves... In order to save money?

Hire people. Or better yet engage people for free. Volunteers. Good people.

Have you ever heard of the saying 'the ends do not justify the means'?

I'm out. Screw this. It's pointless arguing morality with people who are totally cool with animating children as their evil undead slaves.

[Fearan]

Dude what? You would be cool with me using unholy necromantic magic to animate an army of orphaned children as my evil soulless flash eating monstrous undead slaves... In order to save money?

Hire people. Or better yet engage people for free. Volunteers. Good people.

Have you ever heard of the saying 'the ends do not justify the means'?

I'm out. Screw this. It's pointless arguing morality with people who are totally cool with animating children as their evil undead slaves.

I assume, the whole point of the discussion is to find out, what exactly is "unholy" in the necromantic magic. Would using necromantic magic, while worshipping Orcus count as "holy" necromantic magic?

[Sigreid]

The entire point is that there is not necessarily such an expense to others, not even in the sense of emotional pain.

For example, a Karrnathi family might feel great pride in having their deceased animated. A Karrnathi individual might stipulate that they wish to be raised in their will. An Aereni might spend their entire life trying to prove themselves worthy of being made an undead. These are all examples from D&D canon.

You guys should consider watching the movie Fido. The touching story of a boy and his zombie.

[Malifice]

So, how exactly did you pull off such a feat, considering, that Animate Dead spell require you to control your undead employees with constantly being in 60 ft from them and spending bonus actions for this?

The same bonus action controls the lot of them. Also once given an order the undead creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.

Also I'm a fifth level necromancer, and 11th level warlock. That gives me an awful lot of fifth level slots to use on animate dead every 24-hour period. 5 per casting, with enough time for 8 Short rests a day (Plus eight hours sleep because I'm human), gives me around 27 slots.

I should be able to get around 135 evil zombie children slaves working tirelessly in my factory.

For the greater good of course. I'm not a monster.

[Millstone85]

Negative Energy is not inherently evil, but it is inherently destructive. Even Demons, immortal beings of pure evil and suffering, are hurt by it.The same could be said of every damage type except poison, since it is the only one demons are immune to. Similarly, angels can take radiant damage. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I could see the marked connection between the Lower Planes and the Negative Energy Plane being explained by the forces of evil finding that necrotic stuff to their liking, rather than necrotic energy itself being the pure distilled essence of cosmic evil. This view is helped by the fact that while the Shadowfell is ruled by the evil Dark Powers, the Feywild isn't exactly ruled by good entities. Then again, pretty much everything else in D&D goes against that view.


Mummies generally are intended as guardians if their crypt is disturbed so they are generally willing.
Once deceased, an individual has no say in whether or not its body is made into a mummy. Some mummies were powerful individuals who displeased a high priest or pharaoh, or who committed crimes of treason, adultery, or murder. As punishment, they were cursed with eternal undeath, embalmed, mummified, and sealed away. Other times, mummies acting as tomb guardians are created from slaves put to death specifically to serve a greater purpose.Well, that certainly isn't the default lore in 5e. But ignoring that bit and the whole evil necrotic energy business, I could see "And now my corpse's watch begins" as a dignified use of undeath.

[pwykersotz]

No, necromancy is not inherently evil. Raise Dead is a staple of Life Clerics who are by and large among the 'goodest' of the good.

Animating the dead on the other hand...

I consider the undead to be pure evil because that is exactly what they were created to explain. Read the foreword to Curse of Strahd, for example. The strength of these monsters is that they show us our own darkness in horrifying ways. Justifying it is just a way of excusing that darkness without confronting it.

Of course, it's also fun to invert the trope and make them actually be the good guys all along in some rare cases, but just making them tools or neutral is a cop-out to me. It's boring and without value at that point. You shouldn't spend your time justifying why they aren't evil, you should spend your time justifying why they are. Don't make a necromancer wizard and pretend to yourself that you want to be all sweetness and light. You're aiming for an ironic twist if you want a good necromancer, and the irony doesn't exist without the reality of you controlling terrible darkness. Own that journey. Embrace it, and make it interesting.

[Malifice]

I assume, the whole point of the discussion is to find out, what exactly is "unholy" in the necromantic magic. Would using necromantic magic, while worshipping Orcus count as "holy" necromantic magic?

Pick up your Monster manual. The entry for skeletons and zombies tells you that they are animated by unholy magic.

This is backed up by the players handbook which also says that the creation of undead is most definitely not good and almost certainly evil.

Look man I'm done. If your campaign world is totally cool with paladins animating an army of undead orphans to work in his charity sweatshop then have fun with that.

As a dungeon Master I would certainly change his alignment to evil. Without hesitation. I would also have a mother of one of those orphans turn up at the factory. I'd role-play the entire scene.

[Dr. Cliché]

You could indeed. The rules however state animating the undead is never a good act. They clearly infer that animating the undead is an act of evil.

Sidebar page 203.

It's about the only act that the rules specifically and explicitly state are more or less evil. Rape and murder don't even get such a distinction.

The fact that it doesn't consider rape or murder to be evil acts does rather undermine that argument.


I'm serious.

I want to start a company that is devoted towards spreading charity in the world. We will spread food and donations to starving children around the world. Kinda like Oxfam.

I've crunched the numbers and instead of hiring actual living employees, animating an undead army of employees would let me save a hell of a lot of money. Money that I can use to help even more starving children.

Luckily the local orphanage has Just been hit by a plague. Those orphaned kids are homeless and no one's going to miss them. They're already dead. They're just going to rot in the ground if I don't take those corpses.

Morally good? Morally neutral? Or f****** abhorrent?

Neutral at worst. Though I suppose an argument could be made for good.

See, I'm now picturing a sad individual (perhaps quite young himself) who has never been good with people, but still wants to help the children:

He chose the orphanage because he thought the starving children might relate better to their own. He packs them off with food and sends them into the city, following just close enough behind to see their good work. But, for some reason, the kids in the city keep running away from them. He tries calling after them, but it's no use.

Then there are the adults who smash his little skeletons, spilling their precious food. Fresh tears roll down his cheeks every time he sees a fresh pile of shattered bones, the bread they carried now half-buried in the muddy street.

He weeps even more when he sees the fresh bodies of the city's children. Sometimes, he even recognises them. Why did they have to run away? If they'd just taken his food, they could still be alive. But he wipes the tears from his eyes and animates the new body, replacing one of the many smashed that day. He takes a loaf of fresh bread from his pack, places it in the thing's bony arms, and sends it on his way.

If he could save even a single child, then it would be worth it.

[Fearan]

The same bonus action controls the lot of them. Also once given an order the undead creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.

Also I'm a fifth level necromancer, and 11th level warlock. That gives me an awful lot of fifth level slots to use on animate dead every 24-hour period. 5 per casting, with enough time for 8 Short rests a day (Plus eight hours sleep because I'm human), gives me around 27 slots.

I should be able to get around 135 evil zombie children slaves working tirelessly in my factory.

For the greater good of course.

Well, not sure, how it's handled in 5e, but in the realm of D&D 3,5 you're committing (per day) 2 acts of empowering "Energy A" (for "Angels") and 27 acts of empowering "Energy B" (for "Baatezu") Ask your resident cleric, if it's balanced. Hire plenty of adventurers, in case Big Red Dudes with Horns and Pitchforks show up.

[Cybren]

The fact that it doesn't consider rape or murder to be evil acts does rather undermine that argument.

Necromancy is something that the game calls direct attention to via mechanics, so a commentary on the morality of it is necessary. On top of that, it is something that doesn't exist, so the player has no frame of reference to its intrinsic morality. Additionally, "rape and murder" are not 'sex and killing' but specifically 'unlawful (ie, bad) sex and killing', so defining them as evil would be redundant.

[Fearan]

The fact that it doesn't consider rape or murder to be evil acts does rather undermine that argument.
Sidebar on p 203 deals with schools of magic. What does rape and murder have in common with that?

[Malifice]

The fact that it doesn't consider rape or murder to be evil acts does rather undermine that argument.



Neutral at worst. Though I suppose an argument could be made for good.

See, I'm now picturing a sad individual (perhaps quite young himself) who has never been good with people, but still wants to help the children:

He chose the orphanage because he thought the starving children might relate better to their own. He packs them off with food and sends them into the city, following just close enough behind to see their good work. But, for some reason, the kids in the city keep running away from them. He tries calling after them, but it's no use.

Then there are the adults who smash his little skeletons, spilling their precious food. Fresh tears roll down his cheeks every time he sees a fresh pile of shattered bones, the bread they carried now half-buried in the muddy street.

He weeps even more when he sees the fresh bodies of the city's children. Sometimes, he even recognises them. Why did they have to run away? If they'd just taken his food, they could still be alive. But he wipes the tears from his eyes and animates the new body, replacing one of the many smashed that day. He takes a loaf of fresh bread from his pack, places it in the thing's bony arms, and sends it on his way.

If he could save even a single child, then it would be worth it.

Man that is a totally cool character concept.

He's evil.

[Frogosaurus]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I was a fan of the old Scarred Lands setting, particularly the neutral city of Hollowfaust. Hollowfaust is run by necromancers, and the city (with its relatively low population, isolation that makes acquiring mercenaries or allies difficult), and hostile neighbors uses necromancy in order to survive - as soldiers and as manual labor. The culture of the city looks at using the bodies of their dead much the same way that the Fremen of Dune look at recycling of body water - it's a necessity to keep the community alive and thriving.

[Malifice]

Sidebar on p 203 deals with schools of magic. What does rape and murder have in common with that?

I was referring to the players handbook. The only action it calls out as being evil specifically is the animation of undead.

[Fearan]

I was referring to the players handbook. The only action it calls out as being evil specifically is the animation of undead.
It doesn't. Not a good act =/= evil act. In PHB. I understand, that in your campaigns animating the undead is evil. Ok, I'm fine with that. It is not a general rule, though.

[Malifice]

Additionally, "rape and murder" are not 'sex and killing' but specifically 'unlawful (ie, bad) sex and killing', so defining them as evil would be redundant.

Mate, I've seen flat-out genocide, infanticide, and even (after this thread) an evil undead orphan powered sweatshop be defined as 'morally good'.

Not morally neutral mind you, morally good.

Redundancy is the least of our problems.

Of course given the nature of people who play the game that we do, it is to be expected.

[Naanomi]

I'm totally cool with non-evil necromancers, even the occasional good one. Neutral or even Good characters sometimes undertake evil actions, and while intent isn't everything it counts for something in the alignment system. We need to keep the discussion about *necromancers* themselves and *necromancy(or at least creating undead)* appropriately distanced

A character whose culture was totally fine with undead, was taught from birth it was a sacred duty to serve after death, took every precaution to ensure no undead escaped their control, never once used 'their undead' for selfish or harmful purposes... easily a neutral or perhaps even good character.

But on a cosmological scale are they tipping the balance ever more minutely towards evil every time they cast the spell; by feeding its dark patrons, introducing harmful negative energy into the world where it doesn't belong, perhaps unknowingly creating risks of when their undead may escape their control... cosmological evil which is tied to alignment wheel evil... which is the only way the term makes sense in your classic DnD setting

[Malifice]

It doesn't. Not a good act =/= evil act. In PHB. I understand, that in your campaigns animating the undead is evil. Ok, I'm fine with that. It is not a general rule, though.

Try again. This time with context. Then put it to a vote.

The players handbook clearly and unambiguously infers that the animation of living creatures as undead monsters is evil. It is never something done by a good person. The entry for the undead created by the spell clearly spelt out the fact that they are powered by evil and unholy energy. They have evil alignments. You are defining and desecrating the body of a living person in a worse manner than that of a necrophiliac. You are binding this evil monster that you have created into a form of slavery.

Screw it. Have fun in running your undead child slave powered sweatshops.

[Fearan]

I'm totally cool with non-evil necromancers, even the occasional good one. Neutral or even Good characters sometimes undertake evil actions, and while intent isn't everything it counts for something in the alignment system. We need to keep the discussion about *necromancers* themselves and *necromancy(or at least creating undead)* appropriately distanced

A character whose culture was totally fine with undead, was taught from birth it was a sacred duty to serve after death, took every precaution to ensure no undead escaped their control, never once used 'their undead' for selfish or harmful purposes... easily a neutral or perhaps even good character.

But on a cosmological scale are they tipping the balance ever more minutely towards evil every time they cast the spell; by feeding its dark patrons, introducing harmful negative energy into the world where it doesn't belong, perhaps unknowingly creating risks of when their undead may escape their control... cosmological evil which is tied to alignment wheel evil... which is the only way the term makes sense in your classic DnD setting

This. Orcus smiles whenever you create a zombie. It doesn't make you Evil.

[ThisIsZen]

Hey, guess what, when we discuss examples which are designed from the bedrock to be abhorrent, they look abhorrent! Amazing, that.

Malifice: Being a person who wants to stay involved in the community, I make contact with a local magic practitioner and draw up a contract (possibly consulting with the mayor's office or another qualified functionary) which states that, upon my death, I am to be animated as a zombie and put to work doing infrastructure work around the city for as long as my body is capable of the work. I am a consenting individual and the mage I involve in this is one I know to be trustworthy and not an "army of undead" megalomaniac. If you want, we could even make the contract enchanted and magically binding so my body HAS to be put to the tasks I specify.

Is animating my corpse a neutral act given these circumstances? Not a good act, simply not an evil one. If it isn't, then what makes it an evil act?

EDIT: Also, dude, if you stopped designing deliberately ridiculous examples, forcing them to the centre of discussions, then declaring your opponents morally abhorrent for disagreeing with you, you might ACTUALLY get some decent conversation. Just saying. The aggressiveness isn't helping anyone.

[Millstone85]

I miss 4e's depiction of the Shadowfell. The souls of all the departed would transit by it before reaching the afterlife and it was the lawn of the Raven Queen, a neutral psychopomp. Kinda like the Fugue Plane in FR. It was more about death than evil, and even undeath there could be interpreted in a purgatorial way. It even had days and nights, just with gloomy weather.

[tieren]

If necromancy were not inherently evil, would the PC's be evil for attacking skeletons and zombies they come across without first learning their goals and motivations?

[EvilAnagram]

Ask your DM. Does animating dead involve forcing the unwilling souls of the dead into corpses for the purpose of accomplishing mundane tasks? Then it's evil. Does it burn the very souls of the creatures you animate? Evil. Are the entities in constant pain? Evil. Are you literally just puppeteering a sack of bones? Neutral.

[Fearan]

Try again. This time with context. Then put it to a vote.

The players handbook clearly and unambiguously infers that the animation of living creatures as undead monsters is evil. It is never something done by a good person.
Page, please. I can't see it on my p 203.



The entry for the undead created by the spell clearly spelt out the fact that they are powered by evil and unholy energy.

Unholy, huh. Again. I'm doing it in the name of my sacred patron. How's that unholy?


They have evil alignments.
Sure. That's why you control it.


You are defining and desecrating the body of a living person in a worse manner than that of a necrophiliac.

Nope. You are pushing your own prejudice on other people's worlds/campaigns/characters.



You are binding this evil monster that you have created into a form of slavery.

I'm sending this necrotic construct to fulfill the goal of it's creation.



Screw it. Have fun in running your undead child slave powered sweatshops.
While retaining my CG alignment. MWAHAHAHAHA!

[ThisIsZen]

If necromancy were not inherently evil, would the PC's be evil for attacking skeletons and zombies they come across without first learning their goals and motivations?

Given that skeletons and zombies are generally mindless, and self defense is a valid justification for fighting INTELLIGENT things, I don't think so. It would depend on context, of course.

Encountering some ancient skeletons in a dungeon, say on a quest to retrieve a MacGuffin to save the world? Yeah, probably safe to bust them up.

Wandering into town and slaughtering all the manual labor zombies on sight? You're probably a bit of a jerk, man, they were just helping with the infrastructure.

[Fearan]

Wandering into town and slaughtering all the manual labor zombies on sight? You're probably a bit of a jerk, man, they were just helping with the infrastructure.
Damn luddites. Send a guard team to apprehend them.

[Tanarii]

Going by the PHB, animating undead is an evil act. That's the RAW answer.
Minor correction:
The PHB says creating undead is not a good act.
It says that only evil casters do it frequently.

That's slightly different.

So a good caster would generally avoid it.

A neutral caster might do it once in a while, either justifying it despite it not being a good act, or just being aware it's not a good act and accepting it occasionally.

An evil caster would be willing to do it frequently, if they had both the means and desire.

Edit: the important thing here is the way it's phrased is to tell a player how to appropriately role-play their alignment in regards to necromancy. Just like 'Druids will not wear metal armor.' Like I said, for what 5e Alignment is intended to be, it's kinda weird, but it does still fit if you realize the direction it's flowing.

[Malifice]

Malifice: Being a person who wants to stay involved in the community, I make contact with a local magic practitioner and draw up a contract (possibly consulting with the mayor's office or another qualified functionary) which states that, upon my death, I am to be animated as a zombie and put to work doing infrastructure work around the city for as long as my body is capable of the work. I am a consenting individual and the mage I involve in this is one I know to be trustworthy and not an "army of undead" megalomaniac. If you want, we could even make the contract enchanted and magically binding so my body HAS to be put to the tasks I specify.

Is animating my corpse a neutral act given these circumstances? Not a good act, simply not an evil one. If it isn't, then what makes it an evil act?

No.

Its as morally neutral as voluntarily accepting someone to be your slave on the condition they first become mindless and then change their alignment to neutral evil. With the addition of unholy 'sinister necromantic... dark magic... [that] imbues it with evil.' That last line is straight from the monster manual.

We're not talking about creating a construct here. Undead are not constructs. They are dead people brought back from death (But not also back to life) via the direct application of unholy sinister necromantic dark magic that turns what's left of you into a monster.

It is not a good act. It's not a neutral act. It would be enough to make a paladin fall in third edition and earlier in my campaigns. As to whether is evil enough to justify a change in alignment for the spellcaster is a different story. I'd certainly strongly consider it.

[tieren]

Encountering some ancient skeletons in a dungeon, say on a quest to retrieve a MacGuffin to save the world? Yeah, probably safe to bust them up.



How is that different from the infrastructure zombies? Supposedly these could be infrastructure skeletons meant to maintain the tomb.

Even something like a mummy. If there are good mummies, guarding the tomb of a good ancient king tasked with keeping a powerful artifact away from evil forces, if you bust in and destroy them all and steal it aren't you the evil forces?

[ChampionWiggles]

edit: Also, dude, if you stopped designing deliberately ridiculous examples, forcing them to the centre of discussions, then declaring your opponents morally abhorrent for disagreeing with you, you might actually get some decent conversation. Just saying. The aggressiveness isn't helping anyone.


thank you!

[Fearan]

No.

Its as morally neutral as voluntarily accepting someone to be your slave on the condition they first become mindless and then change their alignment to neutral evil. With the addition of unholy 'sinister necromantic... dark magic... [that] imbues it with evil.' That last line is straight from the monster manual.

We're not talking about creating a construct here. Undead are not constructs. They are dead people brought back from death (But not also back to life) via the direct application of unholy sinister necromantic dark magic that turns what's left of you into a monster.

It is not a good act. It's not a neutral act. It would be enough to make a paladin fall in third edition and earlier in my campaigns. As to whether is evil enough to justify a change in alignment for the spellcaster is a different story. I'd certainly strongly consider it.

Not someone. Something. Mindless undead are not people brought back from death, they are corpses imbued with dark and sinister and yadda yadda magic. Enough to make a paladin fall, no argues. Not enough to turn every necromancer into EEEEVIL!

[Malifice]

Look fellas I put my own justification in as to why I think it's evil. That's how it flies in my campaigns. If yours is different more luck to you.

To the OP; ask your DM.

I'll bail now and let everyone get back to discussing how genocide is totally acceptable as long as it's done for the greater good.

[NecroDancer]

I honestly wonder what alignment a character would be if the character did good deeds and went out of his way to help people (Volenteering at soup kitchens, donating 50% of his wealth to charity, running into burning building to save kids, ect) . The characters only flaw was that he has no respect for dead bodies and regularly turns them into zombies. He basically believes that all living things should be respected, protected, helped, and forgiven but doesn't give a sh*t about things that are dead.

[Fearan]

Look fellas I put my own justification in as to why I think it's evil. That's how it flies in my campaigns. If yours is different more luck to you.

To the OP; ask your DM.

I'll bail now and let everyone get back to discussing how genocide is totally acceptable as long as it's done for the greater good.

Jeez, we've got it - that's how it works in your campaigns. We are not discussing your campaigns. We're not insulting you (you, on other side...). Also, that is the fourth post which contains you "bailing out". could you please be a little more consistent?

[Tanarii]

Look fellas I put my own justification in as to why I think it's evil. That's how it flies in my campaigns. If yours is different more luck to you.Then you disagree with the PHB, which says it's not a good act. It's obviously usually or often an evil act, if only evil casters will do it regularly. But the hard limit is that it's never good. Or are you choosing to interpret not a good act = evil act?


I'll bail now and let everyone get back to discussing how genocide is totally acceptable as long as it's done for the greater good.Strawman. Exaggeration. Unreasonable extension of arguments being made.

[Solunaris]

I'll bail now and let everyone get back to discussing how genocide is totally acceptable as long as it's done for the greater good.

Well, my party and I did once have to slaughter every single dragon in existence to keep a dragon god from devouring the material plane.

[ThisIsZen]

How is that different from the infrastructure zombies? Supposedly these could be infrastructure skeletons meant to maintain the tomb.

Even something like a mummy. If there are good mummies, guarding the tomb of a good ancient king tasked with keeping a powerful artifact away from evil forces, if you bust in and destroy them all and steal it aren't you the evil forces?

Well, certainly possible, in the first case. I just mean that if you're in the tomb and the skeletons are swinging at you, and you're on a quest of import, then the skeletons gotta go. The infrastructure zombies aren't hurting anyone and the only real reasons you'd have for killing them would be either jerkitude or "ahh undead" kneejerking, neither of which actually, like, accomplishes anything?

I mean, yes, if the skeletons were maintaining the tomb, then it'll probably fall into disrepair after, but you needed the Macguffin to save the world, ultimately. If the skeletons aren't attacking you, then why even waste the effort to break them? They become a background detail at that point.

Also, mummies are intelligent, so parley is definitely possible there. If your need is great and an agreement can't be reached, you might have to kill the mummy anyway, but that's mostly just regrettable.

I think the crux of it is: in a majority of contexts that adventurers USUALLY encounter mindless undead, destroying them isn't an evil act, because they're effectively just negative energy constructs. (This of course assumes that necromancy isn't inherently evil.) In some contexts, it's at the very least a jerk move, and it's much more about context when dealing with intelligent undead. (Note, even if necromancy itself isn't evil, some forms of intelligent undead may still be - I'd be hard pressed to call a ghoul neutral, for instance.)

Malifice: Which brings us back to "it's evil because it's evil." That's clearly not a satisfactory answer for a number of people in this thread, and that's not because we all want to populate undead sex dungeons with our necrophiliac assassin zombies, it's just not compelling reasoning. Plus, it's not even really borne out by the rules - as others have said, animating the dead is a NOT-GOOD act, which is NOT the same thing as an evil act.

It's also setting dependent in the extreme, but I feel like that's a bit of a non-starter, debate-wise.

EDIT: How many times have you left this thread in quick succession now, always throwing an insult over your shoulder?

[Fearan]

I honestly wonder what alignment a character would be if the character did good deeds and went out of his way to help people (Volenteering at soup kitchens, donating 50% of his wealth to charity, running into burning building to save kids, ect) . The characters only flaw was that he has no respect for dead bodies and regularly turns them into zombies. He basically believes that all living things should be respected, protected, helped, and forgiven but doesn't give a sh*t about things that are dead.

Any. I doubt, this character is a Paladin material. because Orcus, and he's hardly chaotic evil, because he doesn't look like COMPLETE MONSTROSITY, SEND ADVENTURERS AFTER HIM. Other then that - whatever. Not enough information on a game world.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Good and Evil are subjective, and are not universal concepts within 5e (as was the case in the 3e era). One being might say Necromancy is evil while another would argue that only certain aspects of Necromancy are evil, and yet a third would say that Evil doesn't exist and Necromancy is merely one method of harnessing magical power.

[ThisIsZen]

In the interest of providing a bit of "In MY setting" detail here, undeath is actually primarily a gift from the God of Death in my campaign world. It was a method for transcending/overcoming death gifted to the first lover of the God of Death - the method for becoming essentially a lich. The more traditionally evil forms of undeath (ghouls, ghasts, vampires, the classic method of obtaining lichhood) were perversions of that initial gift.

A lot of cultures still have a death taboo that prevents widespread use of low-level necromancy, but especially in the clergy of the God of Death you get a lot of intelligent undead - the temple is run at the highest level by an accord of liches.

Obviously, I'm interested in non-evil necromancy, so that's WHY, but that's how I handled it myself.

[Tanarii]

Good and Evil are subjective, and are not universal concepts within 5e (as was the case in the 3e era).
It's strongly implied that 5e Alignments are not subjective, but rather objective. Just broad, and easily adaptable as a roleplaying tool. That's not the same thing as subjective.

For example, a player can write Lawful Evil on her character sheet, then proceed to have the PC take what she wants within the limits of tradition, loyalty or order. The PC might justify this as for the greater good and honestly believe that they are a chaotic good style of person person, doing what their conscience tells them to better the world. But the player (should) know better, and writes the objective alignment of Lawful Evil on the character sheet, because that's the typical but not required behavior they are planning to actually use as an RP tool for making in-character decisions.

Similarly, if you're going to raise undead regularly as a PC, choose an evil alignment. The PHB has already told you, the player, that only evil casters do this regularly. If you're going to do it only infrequently, maybe choose a neutral alignment. But don't choose good, because the PHB has already told you, the player, that this is not a good act.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to justify the objectively not good action that only evil casters do frequently. Leave that justification in your PC's internal thoughts, in D&D-land. The PHB tells you the player how it works objectively, so select the PC's objective alignment appropriately.

[Sception]

There are a few pressing questions you would need to answer in order to make your case convincing for your setting. Why is the intelligence you created evil?

The intelligence you create is evil because the monster manual says so. House rules & setting-specific variant fluff can change the morality of anything.

"In my setting, celestials are evil and devils are good rebels wrongfully imprisoned, so opening a gate to hell and releasing all of its denizens into the mortal realm is a good act, therefore a spell which does just that shouldn't be considered evil in the core game's default setting."

[fishyfishyfishy]

It's strongly implied that 5e Alignments are not subjective, but rather objective. Just broad, and easily adaptable as a roleplaying tool. That's not the same thing as subjective.

I don't recall any such implication and I feel like you're projecting your own personal view as fact without providing supporting evidence.

[Tanarii]

I don't recall any such implication and I feel like you're projecting your own personal view as fact without providing supporting evidence.
Necromancy Creating undead is not a good act, and only evil casters do it frequently.

Doesn't get much more objective than that.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Necromancy is not a good act, and only evil casters do it frequently.

Doesn't get much more objective than that.

Really? Can you point out where in the book it states this? I think you'd resolve the entire discussion of you could show us.

[comk59]

I don't recall any such implication and I feel like you're projecting your own personal view as fact without providing supporting evidence.

Noooot really? If alignment was subjective, then would Orks be evil? Would Hobgoblins? They genuinely believe what they're doing is good.

Now, homebrew all you want (I know that I nix their god enforced alignment thing in my games), but in the core rules they are evil.

[Fearan]

Really? Can you point out where in the book it states this? I think you'd resolve the entire discussion of you could show us.

phb p 203 sidebar. That was quoted repeatedly

[Millstone85]

For example, a player can write Lawful Evil on her character sheet, then proceed to have the PC take what she wants within the limits of tradition, loyalty or order. The PC might justify this as for the greater good and honestly believe that they are a chaotic good style of person person, doing what their conscience tells them to better the world. But the player (should) know better, and writes the objective alignment of Lawful Evil on the character sheet, because that's the typical but not required behavior they are planning to actually use as an RP tool for making in-character decisions.I agree that's how alignment is supposed to work as a RP tool in 5e, the way the PHB initially presents it. By the player, for the player, neither the PC or the DM's call.

But then, as Malifice has demonstrated several times in this thread, a DM will come and tell the player "Your character's alignment is now XY because of what they did in my campaign". And why would they not? There are creatures that can read your alignment, including a warlock familiar. There are magic items that require an alignment for attunement. There are even Outer Planes that force an alignment shift.

Even the game designers couldn't make up their mind.

[Malifice]

I don't recall any such implication and I feel like you're projecting your own personal view as fact without providing supporting evidence.

For starters the PHB expressly says that creating undead is not a good act.

Your character (and you) can subjectively think it's a good act as much as he (and you) damn well wants to, but he's (objectively, according to the PHB) wrong.

Also if alignments were subjective, why bother with them at all? When I dungeon Master and role-play an orc, what does the fact that the alignment section saying 'chaotic evil' mean to me?

Would you be cool with me the dungeon Master role-playing a lawful good paladn as a murdering rapist?

If alignments were subjective there would be no need for them to have a description in the alignment section. You could just write what ever you wanted in the alignment section, and then just play whatever you wanted regardless of what you wrote down.

I feel like I'm doing a post modern critique here.

Actually more accurately this is a critique of post-modernism.

[Tanarii]

Really? Can you point out where in the book it states this? I think you'd resolve the entire discussion of you could show us.PHB 203.

You're right, this this question should have been resolved on the first page. Anyone claiming that animating the dead is a good act, or that non-evil casters should do it frequently, is wrong. Per RAW.

It's unambiguous. Flexible enough to allow non-evil casters to infrequently do it, but also make it highly unlikely that a good person would even do that without other reasons. E.g. maybe due to their other personality traits coming in to play, such as a Bond.

Remember, 5e Alignment isn't a 'one evil act and you're out' system. It's one possible motivation among several. Just because it's objective doesn't mean their behavior will always consistently be within the typical behavior at all times. (That's also in the PHB, p122)


I agree that's how alignment is supposed to work as a RP tool in 5e, the way the PHB initially presents it. By the player, for the player, neither the PC or the DM's call.

But then, as Malifice has demonstrated several times in this thread, a DM will come and tell the player "Your character's alignment is now XY because of what they did in my campaign". And why would they not? There are creatures that can read your alignment, including a warlock familiar. There are magic items that require an alignment for attunement. There are even Outer Planes that force an alignment shift.

Even the game designers couldn't make up their mind.If a DM came to me telling me to do that I'd listen to his arguments, decide if he was right, and if so change my alignment. If not, I wouldn't. A PCs Alignment is generally not got anything to do with the DM, so why does he care what I'm using as a RP tool? (If he doesn't care for the in-character actions I'm choosing to make because I'm being an asshat, address that instead.)

I agree there are some places in the game where it still matters, or can be force changed. The optional rule for Outer Planes environmental effects, for example. But if a DM tires to force change it against a players will, he's not only being an asshat, he's also doing something that's almost completely pointless. That's just an 'I'm right, you're wrong' power trip. Why would you want to keep playing with someone like that?

[Necroticplague]

Dude what? You would be cool with me using unholy necromantic magic to animate an army of orphaned children as my evil soulless flash eating monstrous undead slaves... In order to save money?

Have you ever heard of the saying 'the ends do not justify the means'?
Sure, why not? It's not as if you're doing any harm to anyone, then what's wrong with what you're doing? The zombies under under your control, and you aren't harming either the children (who no longer exist, being that they're dead), or their families (who don't exist), or anyone else, so what's wrong?

'The ends do not justify the means' only applies if we assume that making undead is an evil act. Since we're currently arguing that very fact, such an assumption is invalid. If we don't make that assumption, then there isn't an evil means, to you just have a neutral mean (animating undead) used to support a good end. You're essentially arguing circularly ('animating undead is evil, ergo this is evil, ergo animating undead is evil').

The PhB only says that animating undead isn't good. That doesn't mean it's evil.

Side notes: undead don't have to eat, their corpse doesn't have a soul regardless of animation, 'flesh-eating' describes most heterotrophs, and can they really be evil if they're just doing menial labor without harming anyone?

[pwykersotz]

I am constantly reminded that for anyone wanting to understand the factions of Sigil, participation in the playground is a solid start. :smalltongue:

[Malifice]

PHB 203.

You're right, this this question should have been resolved on the first page. Anyone claiming that animating the dead is a good act, or that non-evil casters should do it frequently, is wrong. Per RAW.

It's unambiguous. Flexible enough to allow non-evil casters to infrequently do it, but also make it highly unlikely that a good person would even do that without other reasons. E.g. maybe due to their other personality traits coming in to play, such as a Bond.

Remember, 5e Alignment isn't a 'one evil act and you're out' system. It's one possible motivation among several. Just because it's objective doesn't mean their behavior will always consistently be within the typical behavior at all times. (That's also in the PHB, p122)

While I agree with this, id certainly be raising eyebrows at anyone who is creating an undead orphan powered sweatshop!

:smallsmile:

I guess when I role-play my lawful good gods of Celestia, they tend not to view as their utopia a land of rainbows and undead flesh eating evil orphans. They'd much rather you... you know; do the right thing. Particularly when doing the right thing is the hardest thing.

You can plead you are doing for the greater good all you want. You can continue to do so as you get booted down to the lower planes.

I certainly don't have a problem with a good aligned PC creating a necromantic army for the greater good. I'm not standing in the way of his agency telling him what he can or cannot do. As the arbiter of objective alignment I will be changing his alignment to evil though. The character probably still thinks he's a saint. That's just how things go.

[Tanarii]

I am constantly reminded that for anyone wanting to understand the factions of Sigil, participation in the playground is a solid start. :smalltongue:
This is why when I talk about a group of adventures making a knowledge check to recall a fact, a group check is the best way to represent the resulting arguing over said facts. :smallbiggrin:

[Frogosaurus]

The economic impact of a factory of undead workers is interesting. Your profit margins would be higher, because your labor costs would be lower. This would have a disruptive impact on your chosen industry. This could result in any/all of a range of outcomes, from becoming a local monopoly as your opponents are driven out of business, to owners of similar businesses deciding to fire their living laborers and replace them with undead. This latter option, if done on a large enough scale, has significant implications for a citywide (or nationwide, or worldwide) economy and society.

And, of course, all those newly-unemployed workers aren't going to be happy. You may find yourself the target of a pitchfork and torch-wielding mob that wants to burn the necromancer not because he's evil (per se), but because "all those skeletons are taking our jobs."

[NecroDancer]

This is why I'm not a fan of using alignments

[fishyfishyfishy]

phb p 203 sidebar. That was quoted repeatedly

Well that's what I get for only reading the first few posts before replying to the thread!

[Malifice]

The economic impact of a factory of undead workers is interesting. Your profit margins would be higher, because your labor costs would be lower. This would have a disruptive impact on your chosen industry. This could result in any/all of a range of outcomes, from becoming a local monopoly as your opponents are driven out of business, to owners of similar businesses deciding to fire their living laborers and replace them with undead. This latter option, if done on a large enough scale, has significant implications for a citywide (or nationwide, or worldwide) economy and society.

And, of course, all those newly-unemployed workers aren't going to be happy. You may find yourself the target of a pitchfork and torch-wielding mob that wants to burn the necromancer not because he's evil (per se), but because "all those skeletons are taking our jobs."

Economic rationalisation of why an 'evil undead orphan powered sweatshop' is not morally good. I love it.

:smallsmile:

Where is the doomsday clock at the moment again?

[Tanarii]

The economic impact of a factory of undead workers is interesting.
I wouldn't think it would be sustainable, given the cost of keeping a 5th level caster on the payroll for every 4 zombies or skeletons.

[Frogosaurus]

I wouldn't think it would be sustainable, given the cost of keeping a 5th level caster on the payroll for every 4 zombies or skeletons.

Well, that's why you need inexpensive student loans for necromancer's college; need to increase the supply of casters. (Not for those flashy evokers, or untrustworthy illusionists, mind you; just for the necromancers). But yes, the 1:4 ratio makes it hard to scale up.

[Tanarii]

Well, that's why you nee,d inexpensive student loans for necromancer's college; need to increase the supply of casters. (Not for those flashy evokers, or untrustworthy illusionists, mind you; just for the necromancers).That wouldn't help much when they'd need to go get 6500 XP by adventure first, with many of them dying along the way. Also retaining them when they could make a couple of thousand GP in a single adventuring day at that level would be prohibitively expensive.

(Gotta love extending D&D PC economics to the entire in-game world. :smallyuk: )

[Millstone85]

when I role-play my lawful good gods of CelestiaThat is to say, never. You should never do that. Because then it leads to...
As the arbiter of objective alignment... which is a role probably nobody at the table recognizes you. Storyteller? Yes. Referee? Yes. Moral guru? No.

The rules encourage you to do it but it is a trap.

[Malifice]

This is why I'm not a fan of using alignments

Theyre remarkably simple. Do evil acts and youre evil. Do good acts and you're good.

The means counts - never the ends. Actions speak louder than words. More evil has been done in the name of the greater good than in the name of anything else.

From a players perspective, choose an alignment that will be the filter through which you'll largely determine your actions. If your actions to start to deviate from that choice, change your alignment or change your actions.

Its the same for dungeon Masters when they are playing there NPCs and monsters.

When dealing with causation from player character actions I find it useful to reward good actions and punish evil ones. I'll happily change a player characters on alignment to match one that he's playing, more often than not with a warning first. This is indicative of how the gods see him if nothing more. Of course my game world assumes the existence of deities, and objective alignments corresponding to related outer planes of existence.

YMMV

[Malifice]

That is to say, never. You should never do that. Because then it leads to...... which is a role probably nobody at the table recognizes you. Storyteller? Yes. Referee? Yes. Moral guru? No.

The rules encourage you to do it but it is a trap.

I'm not there to tell the players what is good and evil in the real world. Although I certainly reserve the right to hold a particular view depending on the actions of the players in the real world. My role in the game world with relation to alignments is to determine what is and is not objectively good and objectively evil.

This make me a fantasy moral arbiter, not a real one. I'm certainly not submitting that I'm objectively correct in the real world.

Heck like I said earlier I'm an existentialist Cartesian dualist bordering on full-blown solipsism. I'm not even persuaded the real world exists. For all I know genocide could be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

In the fantasy world that I run however, it's not.

[Millstone85]

This make me a fantasy moral arbiter, not a real one.That's a very difficult division to make. You are the first to manifest your outrage whenever anyone points out that "orc: usually chaotic evil" means that racism is a far more correct position to hold in most D&D worlds than in the real one, to say nothing of gnolls being literal demonic spawn that should be slaughtered to the very last.

[Dr. Cliché]

Man that is a totally cool character concept.

Thank you.


He's evil.

*Slams head onto keyboard*

[Steampunkette]

Ultimately it comes down to two things: Cosmology and Culture.

Within the D&D universe evil is an abject force that exists. It creates and destroys and does so only with malicious intent in all cases. Any cultural system of "Good" or "Evil" is based entirely on a way of describing that force through actions that empower, weaken, or neither strengthen nor damage that force.

That evil resides in the Nine Hells, the Abyss, and other Evil-Aligned planes. Places where the ground you stand on is made of concentrated cruelty and wickedness. There are also Good-Aligned planes and the like, but herein lies the Objective Force in the universe that is "Good" or "Evil"

Beyond those planes, beyond the outer planes, are the Positive and Negative energy planes that enfold all other realms and give to them life and death.

And... that's literally all that the DMG says on Negative Energy and it's plane. Nothing about how it is evil or corruptive or how Positive Energy and it's plane are good and constructive. Just that the two of them grant life and death to all other planes of existence...

In earlier editions, Negative Energy wasn't explicitly "Evil" in nature, but instead "Opposite". Got some Darkness? Well now it's lit. Got a Living Creature? Well now it's Dead. Got a Corpse? Not anymore! It was a negative of our reality in the same way a photograph negative is. Of course, in Earlier Editions Cure Wounds was Necromancy because it was about manipulating Life and Death rather than conjuring up Energy of one kind or another.

Good and Evil reside in the Outer Planes. Life and Death are beyond them, according to 5e. The PHB says raising the dead isn't Good but it doesn't say it's evil. It does say that only those who are evil use such spells frequently. So is it a Neutral, but detestable, act that is used primarily by those who don't care one way or the other? Is it an issue of social taboo that the dead aren't animated and only those who already seek evil things perform the act thinking it inherently as evil as they?

Or is the moral function of raising the dead context dependent?

Earlier in the thread someone made the judgement that "The ends justify the means" is always wrong. But it clearly isn't. To kill is always wrong. Unless you're killing someone who is trying to kill you or someone else. Or killing in a series of other predefined situations where we accept that the act is justified because of the outcome. Cutting someone open with a scalpel is wrong, even if you intend to help them, unless you've got permission. Taking an object from someone's home is not okay, unless they give you authority to do so. Etc etc etc.

There's been some stirrings of "Part of the soul gets trapped" but there's nothing about that in 5e. Not in the spell or otherwise. In fact the description in the Monster Manual of Zombie explicitly states that there is no vestige of the former self. It is devoid of thought or imagination and will stand still and rot away... unless something comes close enough to kill. More on that, later.

The second issue lies in the harm it does to friends and family. This is because we view corpses as possessions. They "Belong" to the people who knew the person that once inhabited it. Depending on the society involved, or amount of time since the person died, this might no longer be an issue. If the person has no living relatives the bones/corpse/whatever could be considered abandoned for the purposes of possession and property rights. Or the family may choose to give the body over to others in a transfer of ownership whether by trade or by gift. And of course contract could modify either of those issues. Context Dependent: Theft.

Then comes the issue of "Defilement" of a corpse... which is culturally dependent. Burning bodies for cremation would seem to be a defilement of the corpse in some cultures, while leaving them in the open for carrion birds to strip away the flesh is sacred. Some things are pretty universally reviled, like necrophilia, but anything else is going to be an issue of cultural context. In a society where animating the dead is a defilement you will never get permission to animate the body from the owners, and that society will probably consider animating the dead a combination of theft and destruction of property on a particularly grand scale. But it's not always going to be an issue. In Sigil, for example, Or Karrnath in Eberron (Both worlds are mentioned in the DMG). So we're back to Context Dependent: Destruction of Property and Theft.

So! As long as you've got permission from the family, or the owner of the body in a cosmology in which ownership is retained by the soul, and it's not culturally considered a Defilement: The means are not inherently evil. It's not a Good Act, as the PHB makes mention, but it's not evil, either.

At least... not the act of doing so.

Once created, the zombie is mindless per the Monster Manual. It has no will or intent but will kill if something comes close enough to be killed by it if it is uncontrolled. So long as it is controlled it follows orders exactly, performing every act in a graceless and jerky fashion. It will not kill or harm others without provocation and does so only to defend itself... while it is controlled. It is when you lose control of a Zombie that it becomes a free-roaming danger. So you've created something through willful knowledge that is evil and will kill unless you maintain control over it. Surely -that- is an evil act?

Maybe... maybe not. Is having sex with a fiend, by its very nature, an evil act? If you and the fiend love each other and are married or otherwise follow all appropriate customs, is it evil to have sex with that fiend? The result of a human and a fiend mating is a Cambion. Evil beings who seek to subjugate others. If you raise that Cambion child to follow the laws of the land, even if it -wants- to go out and murder/conquer/whatever, does that ameliorate the evil of having knowingly taken part in the creation of an evil being?

Even if the being is, by it's nature, evil are you responsible for evil unless the creature does evil? Not thinks or believes or craves but actively -does- evil?

So the act of raising a zombie, evil as it may be, is probably not evil itself. Certainly not -good- but not evil. And because it is a mindless being that isn't -actually- alive, destroying it if you do lose control over it isn't evil, either.

So long as zombies are created with consent and controlled in a society which does not consider their existence to be defilement or anathema: It's not evil so long as you're able to ensure their destruction in the event of loss of control. Even if they are, by nature, evil.

The same, however, cannot be said of intelligent undead like Skeletons, Wights, Ghouls, Ghasts, and Mummies. If you maintain control over them they certainly can't harm anyone without your permission, but as beings with intelligence and the ability to communicate you are creating actual slaves that have minds of their own.

The same can be said of any creature you Conjure or use Enchantment magic to control. You are committing an evil act so long as slavery is considered evil... Unless the target of such controls is a consenting individual you've stripped them of their free will. Whether it's Charm Person or Conjure Fey. Hags are, by their nature, hateful and evil creatures that don't form friendships with anyone and only act to serve themselves or cruelty and pain... But the second you Conjure Fey up a Green Hag (CR 3) she's Friendly to you and your party and follows orders.

So! It's not a GOOD act to raise a Zombie. But it's only evil if you do it the wrong way. Now we move on to the Ends and whether they justify the means. For any evil act to be considered justified, the outcome must be particularly good to justify it. Case in point: Killing in defense of others. Some things cannot be Justified, like Slavery. Because there simply is no "End" good enough to make up for taking away people's free will and forcing them to serve. Essentially the Ends justify the means unless there is no justification for the evil being done.

So do the Ends justify the Means when it comes to Zombies? Yes. Absolutely. This isn't even a reasonable question. If raising a Zombie isn't evil then any positive end absolutely justifies doing something that isn't evil. Whether it's guarding a town, tilling a field, or washing dishes (with very thick gloves on!) the ends justify the means 'cause there's no justification needed. Even if you're raising Zombies to fight the ends justify the means so long as those ends are Just. If you're raising zombies to subjugate the populace then of course the ends don't justify the means 'cause the end ain't Just to begin with.

TLDR:
Raising Zombies or Unintelligent Undead: Not Evil unless you do it in an evil manner and/or for evil ends.

Raising Intelligent Undead: Always Evil. Because you're enslaving a sapient being.

In 5e D&D.

[Dr. Cliché]

Steampunkette, the only point I'd contend is in regard to the slavery aspect for skeletons. Mainly because I'm uncertain as to what exactly is being enslaved.

"This energy motivates a skeleton to move and think in a rudimentary fashion, though only as a pale imitation of the way it behaved in life. An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past"

Wouldn't this make them more akin to constructs? I mean, the Shield Guardian just above the Skeleton entry has Int 7 (one more than the skeleton has). Would using those be slavery as well?

[Malifice]

That's a very difficult division to make. You are the first to manifest your outrage whenever anyone points out that "orc: usually chaotic evil" means that racism is a far more correct position to hold in most D&D worlds than in the real one, to say nothing of gnolls being literal demonic spawn that should be slaughtered to the very last.

In my game:

For most races the stated alignment in the M forms nothing more than cultural tendencies. Orcs can be lawful good.

Ditto outsiders for different reasons. Despite being comprised of the very stuff of the outer planes, Good outsiders can fall and evil outsiders can be redeemed. Its very rare though. Exceptionally rare to the point of being almost unheard-of.

Dragons are similar being created with the alignments corresponding to their color. It's nearly as rare finding an evil silver dragon as it is finding a fallen angel. It's possible though.

Animals, constructs and undead are not moral agents. Animals are unaligned, Constructs are whatever their creator program to be (exceptions exist for free willed constructs) and the very fact the undead are no longer alive strips them of all empathy, even if they are capable of something resembling free will. What ever they once had that was their capacity to demonstrate empathy is replaced by sinister dark necromantic magic, presuming theyre anything more than mindless monsters to begin with.

The most 'moral' state an intelligent undead can possibly hope for is something akin to the worst human psychopath, dialled up a notch. Not just lacking in emotion and the ability to relate, but having that lack of emotion replaced with something sinister and unnatural. They care about living things less than you care about the lives of the bugs that splash on your windscreen.

They don't have free will any more than they have life. Just a foul mockery of it.

[Toofey]

Couldn't you do that with any spell though?

I mean, I could say that Fireball also utterly destroys the souls of anyone it kills. Now it's an evil spell, too.

Hell, I could say that every heal spell you casts steals life from someone else in the world. Or that Revify destroys the souls of 10 random people to bring that one guy back. How many people have you murdered to keep the party healthy, Mr. Life Cleric?

Why yes, if you modified fireball to permanently destroy souls that would be an evil act, and that's fairly obvious. But that's also not the actual point I made.

It's also worth noting that in those cases there's no obvious gain from the loss compared to other spells. Lets face it "animate dead" is overpowered when compared on a pure spell level basis with other similar spells. You could say other spells have the effect of permanently destroying someone's soul, but there's nothing about those spells to make you think that. In the case of Animate Dead as I previously expressly outlined there's a specific reason to think that's the case.

[GungHo]

I know a lot of folks have weighed in, but I really think it depends on the metaphysics of your particular world. In Pathfinder (I know it's not 5e but it's an example that people understand it), for example, animating dead would be evil due to the way undead are flavored in that setting. You're fiddling with negative energies, pieces of souls, and the like, which is why the evil descriptor is on certain spells. In some versions of FR, it'd also be evil (they change the "laws" of that world so often it's hard to remember). In other worlds, the body is a shell and negative energy or whatever is just energy. Culturally, you might be in a taboo area, but it's not a metaphysical problem because fooling with corpses, negative energy, etc, is not a metaphysical problem, it's a matter of what you're doing with them. If you're playing in a game and you don't know, ask the GM how it works. If you're running the game, you get to decide. However, it's one of those things that requires consistency, and you don't get to back out of it later when Guy Friendly raises the entire graveyard to use as day laborers and you want to say he's doing it wrong.

[Steampunkette]

Steampunkette, the only point I'd contend is in regard to the slavery aspect for skeletons. Mainly because I'm uncertain as to what exactly is being enslaved.

"This energy motivates a skeleton to move and think in a rudimentary fashion, though only as a pale imitation of the way it behaved in life. An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past"

Wouldn't this make them more akin to constructs? I mean, the Shield Guardian just above the Skeleton entry has Int 7 (one more than the skeleton has). Would using those be slavery as well?

Possibly. Though intelligent score isn't the important part. This is:

"Although they lack the intellect they possessed in
life, skeletons aren't mindless. Rather than break its
limbs attempting to batter its way through an iron
door, a skeleton tries the handle first. If that doesn't
work, it searches for another way through or around
the obstacle."

It shows they have Reason. Now a Giant Owl has similar intellect so it might be justified in that they're, essentially, animal intelligences? But there's a second important part.

"An animated skeleton retains
no connection to its past, although resurrecting a
skeleton restores it body and soul, banishing the hateful
undead spirit that empowers it."

It has a Spirit. A specific entity that you're binding to the bones. Which implies that it exists beyond the skeleton and is being enslaved and bound to it.

So it's definitely an arguable case.

[jas61292]

So I keep seeing people rationalize the enslavement of creatures like zombies because they are mindless. I'm sorry, but are you sure you are on the right section of the forums? Because if you have actually read the 5e monster manual, I'm curious where you get that mindless idea from. Thier mental stats are better than some beasts, but I never see people trying to argue that animals are mindless. Skeletons are even less mindless (somewhat ironically if you think about it), with them being smarter and wiser than some PCs I have played with.

If you want to try and argue it is not evil to create and control these creatures, go ahead. I will disagree, but I will acknowledge when you make a good point. But if your argument hinges on the creatures having no real intelligence or free will, that is simply not true. They are not mindless, and if given the opportunity, they will do evil things.

[Cybren]

From the skeleton description:


Whatever sinister force awakens a skeleton infuses its bones with a dark vitality...
and from zombies:


Sinister necromantic magic infuses the remains of the dead...


So I suppose you could argue that means that only left handed casters are creating undead, I think they were going for a different usage of "sinister"

[Dr. Cliché]

Possibly. Though intelligent score isn't the important part. This is:

"Although they lack the intellect they possessed in
life, skeletons aren't mindless. Rather than break its
limbs attempting to batter its way through an iron
door, a skeleton tries the handle first. If that doesn't
work, it searches for another way through or around
the obstacle."

It shows they have Reason. Now a Giant Owl has similar intellect so it might be justified in that they're, essentially, animal intelligences? But there's a second important part.

"An animated skeleton retains
no connection to its past, although resurrecting a
skeleton restores it body and soul, banishing the hateful
undead spirit that empowers it."

It has a Spirit. A specific entity that you're binding to the bones. Which implies that it exists beyond the skeleton and is being enslaved and bound to it.

So it's definitely an arguable case.

Is it possible that the text is referring to spirit? As opposed to a spirit, if you see what I mean.

If you have to bind a spirit to the bones to animate them, you'd think that would be given more than a passing mention. As it is, the earlier text seems to imply that the magic itself is what gives it the semblance of life (hence my construct analogy).


Why yes, if you modified fireball to permanently destroy souls that would be an evil act, and that's fairly obvious. But that's also not the actual point I made.

It really is. You literally refluffed it to make it much more evil . . . and then argued that it was an evil spell as a result.


It's also worth noting that in those cases there's no obvious gain from the loss compared to other spells. Lets face it "animate dead" is overpowered when compared on a pure spell level basis with other similar spells.

Okay, let's look at the example you gave: Animate Dead vs Animate Objects.

Animate Dead is lv3, whilst Animate Objects is lv5. Also, Animate Dead is non-concentration, lasts for 24hrs (without a recast) and can't be dispelled.

However:
- Animate Dead takes 1 minute (10 rounds) to cast. So, if you need it in combat, tough luck.
- Animate Dead has a range of 10 feet, compared to 120ft for Animate Objects (probably redundant, given the above, but worth noting).
- Animate Dead requires the corpse of a small/medium humanoid. Animate Object can be done with just about anything. Carry a bag of pebbles around for when you need them.
- Animate Objects can animate up to 10 objects at once, whilst even a Necromancer can only do 2 with Animate Dead.
- Animated Objects can fly.
- (Tiny) Animated Objects have twice the bonus to hit than skeletons and do only slightly less damage. But there's 10 of them.
- Animate Objects can be used to reenact that scene from Beauty and the Beast. :smallwink:

Animate Objects is also just far less faff in general. With Animate Dead, you *can* build up a small army, but then you also have to worry about arming them, controlling them (including when not in combat), making sure they don't get in the way, making sure they don't terrify the locals, using your spell slots to stop them eating the locals etc.

It's arguable that the rewards are worth the extra effort, but it's certainly vastly easier to just animate some pebbles when you need them and have them nibble your enemy to death.

[Steampunkette]

So I keep seeing people rationalize the enslavement of creatures like zombies because they are mindless. I'm sorry, but are you sure you are on the right section of the forums? Because if you have actually read the 5e monster manual, I'm curious where you get that mindless idea from. Thier mental stats are better than some beasts, but I never see people trying to argue that animals are mindless. Skeletons are even less mindless (somewhat ironically if you think about it), with them being smarter and wiser than some PCs I have played with.

If you want to try and argue it is not evil to create and control these creatures, go ahead. I will disagree, but I will acknowledge when you make a good point. But if your argument hinges on the creatures having no real intelligence or free will, that is simply not true. They are not mindless, and if given the opportunity, they will do evil things.

"A zombie retains no vestiges of its former self,
its mind devoid of thought and imagination. A
zombie left without orders simply stands in place
and rots"

Animals think about food and how to acquire it. About mating. About avoiding danger. Zombies? They have no thoughts. No ideas. No imagination. Their Intelligence Score represents their ability to interact with the world around them, not their ability to think rationally.

A common Orc is only slightly more intelligent than a Giant Owl, but has a complex society, language, thoughts, feelings, ideas, needs, wants, and understanding of hierarchy that indicates a super-ego to keep them from acting in a way that will cause other Orcs to kill them.

Zombies don't. Zombies are mindless.

[Millstone85]

In earlier editions, Negative Energy wasn't explicitly "Evil" in nature, but instead "Opposite". Got some Darkness? Well now it's lit. Got a Living Creature? Well now it's Dead. Got a Corpse? Not anymore! It was a negative of our reality in the same way a photograph negative is. Of course, in Earlier Editions Cure Wounds was Necromancy because it was about manipulating Life and Death rather than conjuring up Energy of one kind or another.I had no idea and I find this very amusing.

Personally, I would just have gone with undeath as imperfect healing/resurrection/immortality. A lich would seek youth everlasting, using life magic to that end, but only manage to be a walking corpse.


In my game: For most races the stated alignment in the M forms nothing more than cultural tendencies. Orcs can be lawful good.So you are probably ignoring the pull of Gruumsh that all orcs, even the rare LG ones, are supposed to feel in their blood. Well, what if someone wants to run a campaign where the undead aren't animated by unholy power, just a magic connected to life and death, and many religiously or culturally important places are guarded by them, without that painting the necromancers who raised them in any wrong light? Will you say it is not your campaign and anything is possible, but make it clear you see that particular anything as absurd?

[Tanarii]

TLDR:
Raising Zombies or Unintelligent Undead: Not Evil unless you do it in an evil manner and/or for evil ends.

Raising Intelligent Undead: Always Evil. Because you're enslaving a sapient being.

In 5e D&D.
Nope. The PHB says you are wrong.

In 5e:
Animating Dead not good no matter what.
Animating Dead frequently, only evil casters do it.

It's about frequency, not usage.

I'm being overly literal on purpose. :smallwink:
Edit: To be clear, I think the PHB statement about 'only evil casters do it frequently' definitely strongly implies usage, or possibly justification, is relevant to why a non-evil caster might infrequently take this 'not a good action'. My real point here was the PHB is very specific that the 'not a good action' and 'only evil casters frequently' apply to so-called mindless undead created via Animate Dead.

[Steampunkette]

Nope. The PHB says you are wrong.

In 5e:
Animating Dead not good no matter what.
Animating Dead frequently, only evil casters do it.

It's about frequency, not usage.

I'm being overly literal on purpose. :smallwink:
Edit: To be clear, I think the PHB statement about 'only evil casters do it frequently' definitely strongly implies usage, or possibly justification, is relevant to why a non-evil caster might infrequently take this 'not a good action'. My real point here was the PHB is very specific that the 'not a good action' and 'only evil casters frequently' apply to so-called mindless undead created via Animate Dead.
I didn't say that it was Good, Tanarii.

I said it wasn't Evil under specific circumstances.

Though why is it that only evil casters do it Frequently? Is it a question of culture and context? Is it a risk of dehumanization or dissociation from other people?

Interesting philosophical questions.

[Sirithhyando]

I have been watching Nerdarchy Youtube videos and a few of them keep bringing up the subject of "Is Necromancy Evil?" specifically in relation to raising zombies, skeletons, mummies, etc.

My personal opinion is that you are using dead bodies as tools to fight enemies. The common argument is that undead are by default evil and when you are creating them you are bringing evil into the world... therefore it is an evil act.

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil? Would you allow a necromancer PC who wants to make an army of zombies?

If you dont mind reading in french, here's a text about necromancy (http://www.aidedd.org/univers/necromancie/). It present necromancy being an other type of energy to fuel spells. Though it's use is seen as evil by certain, it isn't to some others. The use of this energy make a certain strain on the body of the user. The text says that a spellcaster who uses this kind of energy feel the same as someone who's dying. Anyway, i wont traduce it but if you can read it, it's a great text and a great take on what necromancy is. After reading that text, i dont feel that necromancy is evil straight from the start.

[Xyril]

Conjuration only borrows things. You're not bringing an evil intelligence into being.


Can you justify this statement? If we're limiting ourselves to D&D, I suppose a citation to part of the rule book that states that all undead created by necromancy possess an independent, evil intelligence that was created by the necromancy, and not simply a repurposing of the dead creature's original intelligence.

If we're not limiting ourselves in D&D, why does necromancy necessarily bring an evil intelligence into being? In various (mostly non-Western) cultures, there are myths and religious traditions involving the summoning of the spirits of the dead, or the reanimation of the bodies of the dead, in which the act isn't considered inherently evil, and the returned dead isn't expected to be any more (or less) evil than he was in life. As several have alluded to already, it seems like a lot of people are working under the assumption that because the mythology of white people have only ever conceived of necromancy as evil, there can be no conceivable setting in which necromancy can be good.



And the summoned creatures goes right back to where it was, in the same state it was, no matter what happened while summoned, so it's not quite the same as putting a creature under indefinite domination.


So all conjuration spells have a hard time limit, and all necromantic spells have none?

Also, you already asserted that all undead have a newly created, evil intelligence. And as was illustrated in the comic, that intelligence can break free of the domination, or in fact the necromancer may intend from the beginning to create the undead and to release him from magical subjugation. By that metric, creating an undead guy to be your buddy and giving that new creature full control over his new (un)life seems much, much less evil than mindraping some poor elemental to do your bidding, no matter how well you patch him up before dumping him back home.



There's definitely ethical problems with summoning elementals or fey, but not on the same level as creating the undead.

That's true. If we accept your assertion that all undead are new beings who didn't have any sort of life before they were created, then enslaving elementals or fey is morally speaking far worse.


Here's a question for everyone: Putting aside the fact that murdering someone means sending him to the land of eternal puppies and orgies, can killing ever be good?

[Tanarii]

I didn't say that it was Good, Tanarii.

I said it wasn't Evil under specific circumstances.Yes. And the PHB agrees with you, the act itself is just 'not good'. But my point is that isn't the complete picture. No matter what, only an evil caster will use the spells frequently, no matter how 'Evil under specific circumstances' or 'not good' it may be. Per the PHB. Any other non-evil wizard won't do it frequently. Period.


Though why is it that only evil casters do it Frequently? Is it a question of culture and context? Is it a risk of dehumanization or dissociation from other people?

Interesting philosophical questions.
Absolutely. Lots of room for moral extrapolation there. As is the reason(s) that non-evil wizards won't do it frequently, no matter what.

[Sception]

Can you justify this statement? If we're limiting ourselves to D&D, I suppose a citation to part of the rule book that states that all undead created by necromancy possess an independent, evil intelligence that was created by the necromancy, and not simply a repurposing of the dead creature's original intelligence.

from the 5eSRD -

"SKELETON - Medium undead, lawful evil" - regardless of the original alignment of the target corpse while living

"STR: 10 (+0) DEX: 14 (+2) CON: 15 (+2) INT: 6 (-2) WIS: 8 (-1) CHA: 5 (-3)" - regardless of the characteristics, particularly the mental characteristics, of the target corpse while living. Again, note the intelligence, 5e skeletons are not mindless like 3e ones.



"If we're not limiting ourselves in D&D
then it's whatever you want entirely according to whatever source or setting you're in. "Is Necromancy Evil?" is an entirely fictional question because necromancy is an entirely fictional concept, and the answer only exists within a given particular fictional context. Default 5e has an answer to this, and the answer for the Animate Dead spell is yes, but any given GM's home setting may have a different answer to that if the nature of the spell and the creatures it creates are different.

Again, if in your setting celestials are tyrants and devils good aligned rebels against them, then opening a gate to hell to release the devils trapped there into the world is a good act. But in generic 5e, doing so would be evil.

If your lore varies from the game default, then lore-specific questions like 'what magic is evil' of course also changes.

Why are you asking this like it's an objective real world question? Undead aren't real. Spirits aren't real. Magic, including Necromancy, isn't real. In the real world, necromancy isn't evil, because it isn't anything.



So all conjuration spells have a hard time limit, and all necromantic spells have none?
The thread, despite the generic title, clearly isn't asking whether false life or ray of enfeeblement is evil. No, the necromancy school is not, by default, evil in 5e. Just those spells which create evil undead creatures.


And as was illustrated in the comic
Can't answer any questions about a comic, I mussed have missed that post. As with most arbitrary alignment threads, this one ballooned into an ugly and pointless mess in approximately zero seconds.


Here's a question for everyone:?
Off topic.

[Frogosaurus]

can killing ever be good?

There are some folks occupying a swath of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq participating in the killing of whom I feel was a good act.

[Grayfigure]

Pick up your Monster manual. The entry for skeletons and zombies tells you that they are animated by unholy magic.

This is backed up by the players handbook which also says that the creation of undead is most definitely not good and almost certainly evil.

Look man I'm done. If your campaign world is totally cool with paladins animating an army of undead orphans to work in his charity sweatshop then have fun with that.

As a dungeon Master I would certainly change his alignment to evil. Without hesitation. I would also have a mother of one of those orphans turn up at the factory. I'd role-play the entire scene.

Don't let em get to you Malifice. It's just a bunch of people playing the Semantics game for the sake of more power/counterpoint/gits and shiggles trolling.

At the end of the day, the PHB is RAW. It's the base ruleset beneath every sourcebook, dnd game world, and world escape idea. Any other ideas concerning the possible ramifications of dubious morality when viewed by societal lenses and agenda lace viewpoints is moot. What people decide in their homebrew campaign worlds does not change the RAW.

@Fearen, if you are truly wanting to do this, my best advice is to entreat with your DM about the possible Alignment change because just springing this decision on him/her leaves you open to an alignment change if he/she mandates, and all the semantic arguements here will leave you with no justifiable leg to stand on if your DM decides to pursue this.

[Newtonsolo313]

I'm gonna have to go with only s little bit evil. I mean the players kill everything you put in front of them how is killing any different from raising the dead. The stuff they are referencing is fluff. It's not a rule. Actual rules don't use the word often only guidelines. People make very good points that are not semantic arguments for why it isn't evil. Stop insulting people because they don't share your opinion on this point. They aren't trolling they are making legitimate points. They aren't in it for ****b giggles or power and saying that they are only discredits your point.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Your argument is akin to saying that using fire is an inherently evil act because eventually someone will unintentionally start a fire.There is absolutely nothing in that description you gave that requires the caster to be negligent. For example, it would not be reckless or negligent to animate skeletons and zombies in a controlled setting for, say, the purpose of studying them. You would then destroy them when you're done with them, just as surely as any non-negligent person would put out their campfire when they're done with it.
No, because fire is not a kill-bot that actively seeks to kill the living. And fire will burn out eventually if you die or are otherwise prevented from returning while it's sealed away in a safe location, while the undead will persist indefinitely. Generations down the line they can be killing people after all record of who you are is lost. They're very different things.

Like I said, you can probably get away with doing it a few times, under controlled circumstances, but if you keep doing it regularly, something will go wrong. And let's be realistic. Nobody only creates undead under controlled circumstances to study them. They use them for things, even if the things are as simple as cheap labor.

[Steampunkette]

"Something will go wrong"

Something will go wrong is a Slippery Slope argument. Because A occurs B and C must occur even if not causally linked to A.

Something could go wrong is more accurate. And that's why we take precautions for if something goes wrong. But if "Something could go wrong" was enough reason to never do something none of us would drive cars.

Sometimes you take risks. Usually they're fairly calculated. But something could always go wrong.

[Desamir]

No, because fire is not a kill-bot that actively seeks to kill the living. And fire will burn out eventually if you die or are otherwise prevented from returning while it's sealed away in a safe location, while the undead will persist indefinitely. Generations down the line they can be killing people after all record of who you are is lost. They're very different things.

Like I said, you can probably get away with doing it a few times, under controlled circumstances, but if you keep doing it regularly, something will go wrong. And let's be realistic. Nobody only creates undead under controlled circumstances to study them. They use them for things, even if the things are as simple as cheap labor.

All that means is that animating the dead is risky, and possibly reckless. That alone doesn't make it evil.

A Ranger taming a wild lion is risky and reckless for pretty much the same reasons.

[Laereth]

Ask your DM. Does animating dead involve forcing the unwilling souls of the dead into corpses for the purpose of accomplishing mundane tasks? Then it's evil. Does it burn the very souls of the creatures you animate? Evil. Are the entities in constant pain? Evil. Are you literally just puppeteering a sack of bones? Neutral.

I'm quoting this as I haven't seen anybody bring it up, but to me this feels like how things should be adjudicated (regarding the evilness of creating undead).
It thus becomes more or less setting dependent.

However in the base D&D setting undead have an evil alignment, even simple minded skeletons / zombies, they are not unaligned (such are beasts). I feel like even if the reason is not explicited there must be one (i.e. hunger for the flesh of the living or what not) and that is part of the reason why it is noted as "not good" and that "only evil casters do it frequently". When you raise skeletons / zombies you are in fact bringing more evil into the world, not unlike demon summoning.

But then again this is setting dependent. Change the alignment of zombies to unaligned to fit your setting if you'd like to have a civilization that uses undead as cheap labor or fluff it out that is has no connection to the soul and is just a body animated by necrotic energies or w/e and it might become morally neutral. In bog standard D&D however, I feel the assumption is that creating undead is "not good" and at best a risky business given the nature of what you are bringing to life.

[Sception]

I was always a fan of the 'Magic of Incarnum' lore when it comes to what soulstuff is, how it works, what distinguishes living creatures from undead, etc. Which makes the creation of undead creatures ~very~ evil, though individual spellcasters casting 'animate dead' might not actually be aware of what they were doing.

[Desamir]

My main takeaway from this thread:

Necromancy is definitely evil
But so is just about everything else the average player does in D&D
Therefore it's a moot point.

I'll continue to play Good necromancers, and many of you will continue to dungeon crawl, slay "monsters", and use Charm/Dominate spells, with Chaotic Good written proudly on your sheets. :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

People keep referencing Demon Summoning, but that's not even possible via a PHB spell, is it?

[Desamir]

People keep referencing Demon Summoning, but that's not even possible via a PHB spell, is it?

Just one: Gate.

[Sception]

I'll continue to play Good necromancers, and many of you will continue to dungeon crawl, slay "monsters", and use Charm/Dominate spells, with Chaotic Good written proudly on your sheets. :smallwink:

Stop making assumptions. I personally play Lawful Evil characters almost exclusively, and am frankly annoyed at your attempts to jack evil's gimmicks. What's next, good Assassins? Blackguards? Investment Bankers?

[Tanarii]

Yeah, nothing wrong with playing an Evil necromancer. Or Evil Party. Just don't make it hackneyed backstabbing everyone & unable to work with people lonely-with-no-friends evil. Hell, it doesn't even need to be that malevolent. The PHB Background Ideals give plenty of Evil motivations that don't require any of that. In fact, the PHB Background Flaws (which aren't associated with Alignments) have more 'abandon / backstab your party & friends' things on them than the 'Evil' Ideals do.

Edit: Honestly, the idea that Evil Alignments must be the 'bad' guys and PCs must be good heroes is a weird new thing for D&D anyway. D&D has a proud tradition of morally grey and even evil heroes, that can (somewhat) play nice with others, especially when it comes time to take down the evil bad guys.

[arrowed]

So, I'm going to try and summarize the arguments I've seen for and against on this thread. I'll probably miss some. And when I say necromancy, I specifically mean animating undead for this post. D&D would be quite different if Raise Dead was an inherently evil spell :smallbiggrin:
Necromancy is evil:

The PHB states it to be morally dark
It destroys/corrupts souls
It involves slavery in some way
Uncontrolled undead will kill living creatures
Using negative energy damages the world
Animating dead makes the cosmic forces of evil stronger

Necromancy is not necessarily evil:

The PHB's wording states that it can never be good, but not that it is always evil
This varies by campaign setting. There is little that implies this RAW
Whether or not this is the case depends on whether the undead are sentient/not robots. RAW is not clear on this
Taking proper precautions counters this factor
(I don't think there have been any counterarguments to this one yet, but I don't think that there is RAW text to support the statement).
The undead can be used to do good, which balances the scales or better


Personally, I have to agree that the written word of the PHB defines creating undead as an evil act. Thus RAW animate dead is inherently evil. However ignoring that one piece of text I would say the rest of the game allows for neutral and even good use of undeath. The text asserts a 'fact' that is not inherently obvious or supported by the rest of the literature. Although in many cases undeath is portrayed as a state of suffering or one inherently harmful, there is a counterexample: the revenant.
The monster manual, on page 259, describes the revenant thusly: 'A revenant forms from the soul of a mortal who met a cruel and undeserving fate.' Part of it's descriptive text is entitled 'divine justice', and it's alignment is true neutral. This is a canonically non-evil undead, implied to be created by some measure of divine intervention. Considering that such creatures exist, can undead still be declared inherently evil? Can their creation be declared fundamentally wrong if it occurs via divine action? (I'll admit there is nothing saying it isn't exclusively evil gods, but the first line of text strongly implies a measure of compassion in the selection process.)
I'll tie up my spiel with a comparison: energy. Nuclear power involves taking death-causing rocks out of the ground and using them in a fashion that can be devastating when it goes wrong. It can taint land horrifically for years, and by depleting the amount of radioactive material in the earth, speeds the eventual cooling of earth's core. Yet nuclear power can provide a huge yield for relatively little fuel, being much more efficient than coal and the like. That power can be used to do all sorts of good things, but if it existed in the d&d 5e 'verse, would it be evil? Objectively?

Sorry for my verbose post, I find the question very interesting. :smallredface:

[Laereth]

People keep referencing Demon Summoning, but that's not even possible via a PHB spell, is it?

No its not (unless you count using Gate to bring a demon in). I was only referencing it as a concept.



My main takeaway from this thread:

Necromancy is definitely evil
But so is just about everything else the average player does in D&D
Therefore it's a moot point.



Necromancy (at least for me) is only evil with regards to creating undead. Using necromantic magic to defend yourself (say casting Blight on a creature trying to kill you) is no less different than stabbing it with a pike or filling it with arrows.



I'll continue to play Good necromancers, and many of you will continue to dungeon crawl, slay "monsters", and use Charm/Dominate spells, with Chaotic Good written proudly on your sheets. :smallwink:

The good necromancer is an interesting concept, I however feel that neutral might be more interesting ? As in I feel it is easier for a neutral character to rationalize bringing an undead to life to fight the greater evil without it seeming strange or forced.

[Sception]

Just one: Gate.

Also Find Familiar, Find Steed

[NecroDancer]

My main takeaway from this thread:

Necromancy is definitely evil
But so is just about everything else the average player does in D&D
Therefore it's a moot point.

I'll continue to play Good necromancers, and many of you will continue to dungeon crawl, slay "monsters", and use Charm/Dominate spells, with Chaotic Good written proudly on your sheets. :smallwink:

Good for you! Play your character how you want to!

[Millstone85]

Just one: Gate.
Also Find Familiar, Find SteedPlanar Ally too.


there is a counterexample: the revenant.Also, ghosts count as undead and can be any alignment. So not only do we have a canonically non-evil undead, we also have a canonically good undead.

[Desamir]

Stop making assumptions. I personally play Lawful Evil characters almost exclusively, and am frankly annoyed at your attempts to jack evil's gimmicks. What's next, good Assassins? Blackguards? Investment Bankers?
I did say "many of you" not "all of you" didn't I? :smallwink:

If we assume that a Good Paladin is someone who protects the innocent by slaying evil, doesn't seem far-fetched to have a Good Assassin who does the same thing.

I got nothing for Investment Bankers though, the PHB says pretty clearly that an evil alignment is required to take a level in that class. It's the only alignment requirement in 5e, super weird.

[Cybren]

Planar Ally too.

Also, ghosts count as undead and can be any alignment. So not only do we have a canonically non-evil undead, we also have a canonically good undead.

Those arent the same class as undead as zombies or skeletons though

[Steampunkette]

Those arent the same class as undead as zombies or skeletons though

They're not, no. But it does point to the fact that something being undead is not necessarily evil in and of itself. That being undead doesn't make one evil or require one -to- be evil.

Which goes a long way toward the idea that undeath isn't inherently evil on it's face.

[Cybren]

Right, but the question was always around the sort of undead that necromancers willfully create to serve their interests. Those are explicitly stated as being evil, and the creation thereof is called out as not-good and only done regularly by the evil

[Desamir]

The good necromancer is an interesting concept, I however feel that neutral might be more interesting ? As in I feel it is easier for a neutral character to rationalize bringing an undead to life to fight the greater evil without it seeming strange or forced.

My current character has a dream of a post-scarcity world where all manual labor is done by undead, and poverty and hunger have been subsequently eradicated. He's constantly working towards that goal.

He also spends his downtime running a free clinic for the destitute.

Neutral implies some amount of self-interest. It would be difficult to justify writing "neutral" down on a character that dedicates his life to altruistic causes. An alignment system where that type of character is neutral strains the suspension of disbelief, IMO.

[Millstone85]

Right, but the question was always around the sort of undead that necromancers willfully create to serve their interests. Those are explicitly stated as being evil, and the creation thereof is called out as not-good and only done regularly by the evilBy the PHB, necromancers are makers of malevolent beings. I do not contest that.

I am just saying that if you want to refluff things a bit for your campaign, there are precedents.

[Naanomi]

Ghosts and Revenants and the like are undead that 'just happen', no one is casting a spell to create them. They may even be considered (for a very broad, planar use of the word) 'natural'. Even if skeletons and zombies were neutral (which they are not), the magic used to create them could still be evil. Like a child concieved by rape may not be evil, but the process that created it was. We can't confuse the two.

[Deleted]

By the PHB, necromancers are makers of malevolent beings. I do not contest that.

I am just saying that if you want to refluff things a bit for your campaign, there are precedents.

I'll just drop this here...

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

Let this sink in before anyone get's uppity about refluffing things or about always evil = evil... And do note, alignment back in 3e was a lot stricter.

[Vogonjeltz]

Do you realize that you just made the case that there exists at least one context where it is not evil, and therefore is, by definition, not inherently evil?

If you can think of even one exceptional condition, that means it's conditional, not inherent.

To the contrary, I gave an example of a 2nd edition video game wherein a fairly warped society didn't really consider the question because it was so normalized. As the question leads to "what is evil?" and we have an objective definition of that for 5th edition, it really doesn't matter what any given person or groups opinion is in any setting, let alone one from an entirely different edition of the game (and not to mention for which there are in-game reasons to think that they're just deluding themselves.


Well then, you're saying right there that you don't think it's evil in all situations.

It seems to me that at least some of the "inherently evil" crowd is confused about the difference between "always" and "usually."

If you can think of even one case where it is not evil, then it is not always evil. So, if you don't think that it's evil for a Karrnathi patriot to vow to defend her country until her bones are ground to dust, or for a Planescape: Torment character to make a voluntary contract to be animated, or for an Aereni Paladin to seek membership in the Undying Court, or for a Cleric of Boccob to study the undead who donated their body to science in controlled lab circumstances in order to better understand the nature of life and magic, or for a boddhisattva guardian to delay passing on into the afterlife for one thousand years to defend the sealed tomb of an ancient evil from those who would free it, or any other possible scenario within the realms of imagination, then it's not inherently evil.

Do you realize that you already responded to the exact same quote immediately prior?

I pointed to a group that didn't think they were evil, and even then they're actually quite evil because in practice no one except the destitute and desperate would sign that contract; they basically coerce the poor or downfallen who would otherwise perish from starvation. That screams evil. A coercive environment basically dictates that no contract is voluntary.


The fact that it doesn't consider rape or murder to be evil acts does rather undermine that argument.

Citation? PHB clearly defines those actions as evil by virtue of what it defines good and evil as (PHB 122).


It doesn't. Not a good act =/= evil act. In PHB. I understand, that in your campaigns animating the undead is evil. Ok, I'm fine with that. It is not a general rule, though.

That is exactly what not good means. It's a euphemism for evil. Neutral means having no moral connotation whatsoever. The PHB is leaves room that there are Necromancers who study the school but don't engage in animation of the undead. Those guys are potentially not evil. Anyone who does a bunch of corpse raising? Evil.


Earlier in the thread someone made the judgement that "The ends justify the means" is always wrong. But it clearly isn't. To kill is always wrong. Unless you're killing someone who is trying to kill you or someone else. Or killing in a series of other predefined situations where we accept that the act is justified because of the outcome. Cutting someone open with a scalpel is wrong, even if you intend to help them, unless you've got permission. Taking an object from someone's home is not okay, unless they give you authority to do so. Etc etc etc.

Two things wrong here:
1) You're incorrectly conflating Killing with Murder.
2) You've gotten the meaning of "the ends do not justify the means" wrong.

Murder is a subtype of killing, in the same way that Socrates is a subtype of man. Not all men are socrates, nor are all killings murder.

The ends do not justify the means quite literally means that an intended goal does not excuse the methods of getting there. If the methods are evil, it does not matter what the ends are.

If one were to accept that the ends justify the means, than literally any action could be justified by virtue of some idealized theoretical outcome. i.e. There becomes no such thing as good or evil.

Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil characters surely would delude themselves into thinking that this is so, but delusions of grandeur have no place in an ethical debate.

[Newtonsolo313]

My current character has a dream of a post-scarcity world where all manual labor is done by undead, and poverty and hunger have been subsequently eradicated. He's constantly working towards that goal.

He also spends his downtime running a free clinic for the destitute.

Neutral implies some amount of self-interest. It would be difficult to justify writing "neutral" down on a character that dedicates his life to altruistic causes. An alignment system where that type of character is neutral strains the suspension of disbelief, IMO.
This might be just because of my worldview but I think that's more good than most paladins.

[Desamir]

This might be just because of my worldview but I think that's more good than most paladins.

That's generally why I think this entire discussion is moot. One can argue until they're blue in the face that necromancy is evil, and it has absolutely zero impact on what alignment I write down on my character sheet.

Alignment in 5e is a tool that helps you define your motivations. If my character uses undead to save lives and protect the innocent, then I'm going to write down Good, per page 122. If he uses them to conquer and murder, then I'm going to write down Evil, per page 122.

If the alignment system fails to accurately describe the motivations of your character, then it ceases to be useful.

That's all there is to it.

[Millstone85]

I'll just drop this here...

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

Let this sink in before anyone get's uppity about refluffing things or about always evil = evil... And do note, alignment back in 3e was a lot stricter.I don't know what this will do for my case but...
4e had an epic destiny where you become an archlich (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich), basically lichdom with none of the unsavory details.
And I would sooner consider that than a good-aligned succubus.
Edit: Not that I would never consider a good-aligned succubus. It is just further along on my strange-concept scale.

[Deleted]

I don't know what this will do for my case but...
4e had an epic destiny where you become an archlich (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich), basically lichdom with none of the unsavory details.
And I would sooner consider that than a good-aligned succubus.
Edit: Not that I would never consider a good-aligned succubus. It is just further along on my strange-concept scale.


Sex leads to attachment, attachment leads to love, love leads to the good side...

[Millstone85]

Sex leads to attachment, attachment leads to love, love leads to the good side...That sounds like an angelic counterpart to the succubus. A cupid, perhaps, that would be all grown-up and a counselor of the flesh as much of the heart. What a succubus on a path to salvation might aspire to become one day, at which point she would no longer be a succubus.

[sir_argo]

I've read through these many posts and there seems to be a two main themes.

1- is that there are no exceptions, evil is evil.
2- that if I can name one exception, then the whole is not evil.

Neither is correct. I think we can all agree that murder is evil. But one can come up with a rationalization on a particular murder that isn't evil. You open up your child's room and there's a man in there about to stab your child. I think that "murdering" that guy would not be an evil act. But that's an exception, not the rule. Murder, in general, is still evil.

Necromancy is not good.
Animating or creating undead is evil.
There are exceptions, but they should pass the sniff test.

[Naanomi]

Alignment isn't just a role playing aid, from a setting perspective. It at least in part represents your association with the grand cosmos forces that shape at least part of the multiverse. It determines where you are likely to end up when you die, and may determine how denizens of the outer planes treat you. Writing 'neutral' on your charitable necromancer character's sheet is at least in part a recognition that from an Outer Planes perspective you are not welcome in the Upper Planes due to your behavior (whether from a mortal perspective it seems justified or not).

Is killing always evil? No, because angels do it and don't fall. The same is arguably not true for animating the dead

[Deleted]

I've read through these many posts and there seems to be a two main themes.

1- is that there are no exceptions, evil is evil.
2- that if I can name one exception, then the whole is not evil.

Neither is correct. I think we can all agree that murder is evil. But one can come up with a rationalization on a particular murder that isn't evil. You open up your child's room and there's a man in there about to stab your child. I think that "murdering" that guy would not be an evil act. But that's an exception, not the rule. Murder, in general, is still evil.

Necromancy is not good.
Animating or creating undead is evil.
There are exceptions, but they should pass the sniff test.

1- Evil is always Evil, except when it isn't.
2- See number 1

[Zene]

It's a tool. Like anything else, it can be used for good or evil. Te tool itself is neither.

[Newtonsolo313]

Alignment isn't just a role playing aid, from a setting perspective. It at least in part represents your association with the grand cosmos forces that shape at least part of the multiverse. It determines where you are likely to end up when you die, and may determine how denizens of the outer planes treat you. Writing 'neutral' on your charitable necromancer character's sheet is at least in part a recognition that from an Outer Planes perspective you are not welcome in the Upper Planes due to your behavior (whether from a mortal perspective it seems justified or not).

Is killing always evil? No, because angels do it and don't fall. The same is arguably not true for animating the dead
Seriously from a mortal perspective? The mortal perspective is the only perspective that matters. A guy is good because we believe him to be good not because some stuck up angel deems him good. That sort of perspective doesn't mean anything on the material plane where you have to be a high level mage who may not even exist in your setting yet to even meet an angel. The character is pretty clearly good except for necromancy at the moment. he is likely to slip towards evil(not because of necromancy but because communism slowly slips toward dictatorship) but he is not evil right now. If he is truly good I could see a him as a city official that has to deal with the church of pelor or whatever busting down his door every five seconds while struggling to make sure the undead stay binded. It's a stressful life he might not go to a favorable afterlife but he has done the right thing. That in my opinion is the epitome of good one who would give up their life and afterlife for others

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

You seem to be confused about what the word "Always" means. An "Always" or "Inherently" statement is falsified by a single exception. A "Generally" or "Usually" or "Sometimes" statement would not be falsified by a single exception.

The word always quite literally means "without exception."


1. every time; on every occasion; without exception;

Ergo, if an exception exists, it is not always evil.

[Naanomi]

I disagree. One of the great conceits of the planescape setting (and thus the default larger setting built on its framework) is that the universe doesn't care what you think. 'Primes' everywhere have opinions justifying their actions, declaring their view of reality correct and right and just. And the rest of the universe laughs at their ignorance. No amount of 'I'm doing it for the greater good' saves you from the Pits of Carceri, the Archon doesn't want to hear your arguments about how much the zombie production line is improving production... ideas about subjective morality from a setting perspective lie somewhere between willful ignorance and unforgivable hubris.

And although 5e has less mechanics that rely on it, it is here too. Sprites don't detect 'how justified you and your society feel about your behavior', it detects Evil. The magic items that care about the alignment of their weilder don't care about how much their moral scheme aligns with their own, it is reading universal absolutes. When you are infected with lycanthrope, you don't become 'grumpy-you', you become evil. You can make a setting where this is completely untrue... most homebrew setting probably do. But the default setting does not.

Angels are not jerks with a stuffy intolerant culture; they are born knowing their place in the cosmos, as is every other outsider (and many other planar beings), a system that is instinctually known and agreed upon by an uncountable number of beings. It isn't arbitrary... or if it is it is arbitrary on an unimaginable scale

In the DnD cosmology 'good' and 'right' are not always the same thing

[Steampunkette]

Two things wrong here:
1) You're incorrectly conflating Killing with Murder.
2) You've gotten the meaning of "the ends do not justify the means" wrong.

Murder is a subtype of killing, in the same way that Socrates is a subtype of man. Not all men are socrates, nor are all killings murder.

The ends do not justify the means quite literally means that an intended goal does not excuse the methods of getting there. If the methods are evil, it does not matter what the ends are.

If one were to accept that the ends justify the means, than literally any action could be justified by virtue of some idealized theoretical outcome. i.e. There becomes no such thing as good or evil.

Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil characters surely would delude themselves into thinking that this is so, but delusions of grandeur have no place in an ethical debate.

It's almost like you didn't read what I said... allow me to restate it in two sentences.

The ends must justify the means or the means must justify the end in any context. Some ends and some means are unjustifiable.

[Newtonsolo313]

I disagree. One of the great conceits of the planescape setting (and thus the default larger setting built on its framework) is that the universe doesn't care what you think. 'Primes' everywhere have opinions justifying their actions, declaring their view of reality correct and right and just. And the rest of the universe laughs at their ignorance. No amount of 'I'm doing it for the greater good' saves you from the Pits of Carceri, the Archon doesn't want to hear your arguments about how much the zombie production line is improving production... ideas about subjective morality from a setting perspective lie somewhere between willful ignorance and unforgivable hubris.

And although 5e has less mechanics that rely on it, it is here too. Sprites don't detect 'how justified you and your society feel about your behavior', it detects Evil. The magic items that care about the alignment of their weilder don't care about how much their moral scheme aligns with their own, it is reading universal absolutes. You can make a setting where this is completely untrue... most homebrew setting probably do. But the default setting does not.

Angels are not jerks with a stuffy intolerant culture; they are born knowing their place in the cosmos, as is every other outsider (and many other planar beings), a system that is instinctually known and agreed upon by an uncountable number of beings. It isn't arbitrary... or if it is it is arbitrary on an unimaginable scale

In the DnD cosmology 'good' and 'right' are not always the same thing

Well in that case I would rather be a "right" person then a "good" one as a good one seems to be alluding to medieval Christianity values while right is based of the plight of beings who spend there lives struggling to survive. An outsider just doesn't get that sort of stuff they don't have to work they aren't born with the same vices and virtues that humans have. It doesn't matter how many demons or angels believe in the system the only people that matter are people and people alone.

[Malifice]

So you are probably ignoring the pull of Gruumsh that all orcs, even the rare LG ones, are supposed to feel in their blood.

No, I dont ignore that. Gnolls have something similar too.

They're generally pulled towards chaos and evil. They still have the choice however, and the pull isnt universal.


Well, what if someone wants to run a campaign where the undead aren't animated by unholy power, just a magic connected to life and death, and many religiously or culturally important places are guarded by them, without that painting the necromancers who raised them in any wrong light? Will you say it is not your campaign and anything is possible, but make it clear you see that particular anything as absurd?

They can run that campaign if they want, but thats clearly not how the rules and fluff as presented operate. Undead are powered by 'sinister' magic. It is not a 'good' act creating them. You are (invariably) creating an evil monster, and desecrating a body (and possibly enslaving or desecrating a spirit or soul as well).

Remember, these are not constructs we're talking about here. They are undead - creatures that are neither alive and not dead. There is a difference between the two (constructs and undead). The former is a programmed robot. The latter is the desecrated corpse of a person, that has had an evil spirit forced into it via the operation of sinister magic, to create an evil murderous monster.

If in your games you want to run it differently, then go nuts.

[Naanomi]

Well in that case I would rather be a "right" person then a "good" one as a good one seems to be alluding to medieval Christianity values while right is based of the plight of beings who spend there lives struggling to survive. An outsider just doesn't get that sort of stuff they don't have to work they aren't born with the same vices and virtues that humans have. It doesn't matter how many demons or angels believe in the system the only people that matter are people and people alone.
I'm sure that many people choose to be 'right' over being 'good' by the moral system of the Cosmos (probably the origin of most fallen celestials). You can be a Chaotic Neutral character who is highly moral, but you are still Chaotic Neutral by the useful meaning of the term. And the Universe itself (not the demons or angels or Gods or anyone in it, the very nature of reality) may very well punish you for your 'wrong' perception of what is Good in the universe with an eternity in some unpleasant lower plane.

[Millstone85]

or if it is it is arbitrary on an unimaginable scaleBecause how would the characters imagine that the great arbiter of cosmic good and evil, the judge of a thousand thousands worlds, is a nerd hiding behind a cardboard screen?

Seriously, it seems that as a DM you do not just have to play the gods, you have to play God. How does anyone manage that?

[Deleted]

You seem to be confused about what the word "Always" means. An "Always" or "Inherently" statement is falsified by a single exception. A "Generally" or "Usually" or "Sometimes" statement would not be falsified by a single exception.

The word always quite literally means "without exception."



Ergo, if an exception exists, it is not always evil.

In D&D it is always evil and an exception exists, because the D&D world is a fictitious universe that doesn't play by the rules.

The 3.5 Succubus Paladin for example.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus

Alignment: Always Evil

Just how things roll.

[Malifice]

Though why is it that only evil casters do it Frequently? Is it a question of culture and context? Is it a risk of dehumanization or dissociation from other people?

Leaving aside the fact you are desecrating a corpse by forcing a 'hateful spirit' into it via the use of 'sinister magic', you are invariably creating a murderous evil monster in so doing.

Its akin to tormenting a person until they become a sociopathic evil serial killer (albeit one under your control). Or wilfully creating an evil murderous robot by imprisoning a tormented spirit in it as your slave.

The caster might (in their heart of hearts) believe what they are doing is good. But in my books, it isnt.

Re your Cambion example, Cambions are not invariably evil, nor are they slaves to anyone. Creating a Cambion by sleeping with a Fiend who you love is no more evil than sleeping with an Orc that you love and loving and raising your Half Orc child. Your child in both instances is a slave to no-one and capable of making its own choices. With love and guidance, it may very well become a staunch champion of good, and an example to others of its kind.

Undead simply cant do this. They lack empathy (not being alive) even should they have the capacity for independent thought. A human can feel empathy for the cow that produced the steak it eats and become a vegetarian, and seek the humane treatment of animals. A vampire OTOH feels no empathy for the human child it kills and eats. The concept is alien to it.

[Newtonsolo313]

I'm sure that many people choose to be 'right' over being 'good' by the moral system of the Cosmos (probably the origin of most fallen celestials). You can be a Chaotic Neutral character who is highly moral, but you are still Chaotic Neutral by the useful meaning of the term. And the Universe itself (not the demons or angels or Gods or anyone in it, the very nature of reality) may very well punish you for your 'wrong' perception of what is Good in the universe with an eternity in some unpleasant lower plane.

The most useful meaning of the system should be good guys vs bad guys. Not the distribution of souls into there relevant afterlife. What system you are expressing is suspiciously close to the way Christianity works or is said to work. That sort of system I despise as it rewards people for the wrong things and then uses them to justify stupid social taboos or laws.

[Steampunkette]

Leaving aside the fact you are desecrating a corpse by forcing a 'hateful spirit' into it via the use of 'sinister magic', you are invariably creating a murderous evil monster in so doing.

Its akin to tormenting a person until they become a sociopathic evil serial killer (albeit one under your control). Or wilfully creating an evil murderous robot by imprisoning a tormented spirit in it as your slave.

The caster might (in their heart of hearts) believe what they are doing is good. But in my books, it isnt.

Re your Cambion example, Cambions are not invariably evil, nor are they slaves to anyone. Creating a Cambion by sleeping with a Fiend who you love is no more evil than sleeping with an Orc that you love and loving and raising your Half Orc child. Your child in both instances is a slave to no-one and capable of making its own choices. With love and guidance, it may very well become a staunch champion of good, and an example to others of its kind.

Undead simply cant do this. They lack empathy (not being alive) even should they have the capacity for independent thought. A human can feel empathy for the cow that produced the steak it eats and become a vegetarian, and seek the humane treatment of animals. A vampire OTOH feels no empathy for the human child it kills and eats. The concept is alien to it.

... did... did you even read the post or did you look for something to willfully misinterpret?

Desecration, as you're remarking on it, is a cultural rather than de-facto function of reality. Cambion are Any Evil in the book, not neutral, not good, not any alignment but predominantly evil: Any Evil. Zombies are not animated by a spirit of any kind and are mindless so "enslaving" them is no different from using a robot to do manual labor. I even specified the differences between raising a Zombie versus a skeleton or other intelligent undead -with- a malevolent spirit.

Your book is your book, but using the core rulebooks I provided a clear series of statements that support animation of zombies as a neutral rather than evil action.

People love citing the part in the book where it states that it's not a good act. That phrase could have been "Is an evil act" with less letters. The devs chose to write "Not Good" for a reason. It's Neutral.

Or, at least, it can be in appropriate circumstances.

[LudicSavant]

In D&D it is always evil and an exception exists, because the D&D world is a fictitious universe that doesn't play by the rules.

The 3.5 Succubus Paladin for example.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus

Alignment: Always Evil

Just how things roll.

3.5e alignment labels are misleading as hell. I can see how you would make that mistake, but it is, nonetheless, a mistake.

The 3.5e glossary definition of the game term "Alignment: Always X" explicitly specifies that it really means "this creature is born with X alignment, but can change that alignment later in its life, so creatures of this type are not actually always alignment X."

Ergo, WotC explicitly stated that succubi are not always evil. They said that they are always born evil.

They also explicitly state that that the above rule only applies to specific settings, not to all D&D worlds.

[Laereth]

People love citing the part in the book where it states that it's not a good act. That phrase could have been "Is an evil act" with less letters. The devs chose to write "Not Good" for a reason. It's Neutral.

They also saw fit to include text to specify. If the act was completly neutral it would be described just as any other spell. They don't specify if fireball is evil or not.

[Steampunkette]

True, Laereth. But people also don't spend days arguing about the moral implications of Fireballs because their personal morality has nothing to say about it one way or the other.

And they DIDN'T specify that using enchantments to control people's actions was evil... clearly an oversight.

[Naanomi]

The most useful meaning of the system should be good guys vs bad guys. Not the distribution of souls into there relevant afterlife. What system you are expressing is suspiciously close to the way Christianity works or is said to work. That sort of system I despise as it rewards people for the wrong things and then uses them to justify stupid social taboos or laws.
Why should it be good guys VS bad guys? How does a Sprite's ability to detect evil work at all in that system? 'I don't like you so you magically detect as Evil' isn't useful to anyone. How does the Tome of Vile Darkness choose who to smite? The Dark Powers of Ravenloft slowly corrupt you to badguyness with their gifts? You can dislike the assumptions underlying the system, rail against its unfairness, but it is the way the cosmology is set up.

You see the echos of definitive, real evil and good everywhere, not just in the structure and inhabitants of the outer planes: there are elemental princes of good and evil; not because every element happens to have a powerful jerk in its midst, they are echoing genuine and powerful influences in the world. When a Celestial falls, it physically transforms... because it's very substance was made of Good it is now incompatible with.

In the same way, animating the corpses of the dead using magic is capital-E 'Evil', even if you are not a 'bad guy'... whether it is because it creates and evil immortal being that you will eventually lose control of, or because making negative energy 'flow upstream' damages the cosmos, or just no reason at all besides inscrutable Cosmic law... Evil, by the only useful definition of the word.

[Laereth]

True, Laereth. But people also don't spend days arguing about the moral implications of Fireballs because their personal morality has nothing to say about it one way or the other.

And they DIDN'T specify that using enchantments to control people's actions was evil... clearly an oversight.

Maybe an oversight. Or maybe that in both fireball and enchanment the discretion is left to the DM and player to determine if the use is evil, akin to how Obi-Wan duped the Stormtroopers with his Mind Trick (enchanment - neutral) while the Emperor used his Lightning to torture Luke (evocation - evil).

While they saw fit to provide context for the creation of undead. Even if it is jsut a few lines.

In the end all of this is moot since a DM can decide what he wants in his/her campaign.

[Steampunkette]

I feel like mind control, regardless of how benign, is probably evil.

[Sigreid]

I feel like mind control, regardless of how benign, is probably evil.

Mind control that allows you to save the world without caving in some poor sod who is just doing his job's skull is probably not evil. It can turn evil real fast, but there are several cases where it wouldn't be including the one I just mentioned, or keeping someone who is out of his mind crazy from hurting anyone else, while also not hurting them.

[Naanomi]

I feel like mind control, regardless of how benign, is probably evil.
Professor X and Magneto go down the hall. Government G-Man has the keys to the door with the mutant registry they are after. Magneto prepares to kill him, and Professor X says 'unnecessary'... mind controls him to open the door, wipes his memory of the event, and he goes home that night to his loving family

Who was the moral character there?

[Steampunkette]

Mind control that allows you to save the world without caving in some poor sod who is just doing his job's skull is probably not evil. It can turn evil real fast, but there are several cases where it wouldn't be including the one I just mentioned, or keeping someone who is out of his mind crazy from hurting anyone else, while also not hurting them.

A magic Roofie is still a Roofie. You're still invading someone's mind and forcing them to comply with your wishes without their permission. Probably the most invasive form of magic there is. You could make a good argument about the ends justifying the means, there, though.

[pwykersotz]

Well in that case I would rather be a "right" person then a "good" one as a good one seems to be alluding to medieval Christianity values while right is based of the plight of beings who spend there lives struggling to survive. An outsider just doesn't get that sort of stuff they don't have to work they aren't born with the same vices and virtues that humans have. It doesn't matter how many demons or angels believe in the system the only people that matter are people and people alone.

That becomes a trickier worldview when you take into account that by believing that way and encouraging others to do the same, you are partly responsible for those whose souls go to the lower planes after death. Of course, that's not something that your character would care about if he didn't know about the outer planes, but if we're talking on a cosmological scale, it's worth considering.

[Sigreid]

To me there's a huge difference between forcing you to do what I want and neutralizing a threat without resorting to deadly force.

That said, I'd bet 9/10 times enchantments are used it amounts to either theft or forced slavery. Most enchanters are probably not as nice of people as they think they are.

[Steampunkette]

Professor X and Magneto go down the hall. Government G-Man has the keys to the door with the mutant registry they are after. Magneto prepares to kill him, and Professor X says 'unnecessary'... mind controls him to open the door, wipes his memory of the event, and he goes home that night to his loving family

Who was the moral character there?

Nightcrawler. Who teleported past the door and deleted the Mutant Registry.

Both of the people you used in the example did, or would do, terrible things. One being "Less Evil" than the other doesn't make it not evil.

[Malifice]

Desecration, as you're remarking on it, is a cultural rather than de-facto function of reality.

The actual real Gods of DnD might have something to say about that.

Desecration is defined as: The act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

In a reality where Gods exist, desecration and consecration is an objective thing. You're not just destroying or defiling something that annoys a bunch of people (a church). You're literally offending a God.


Cambion are Any Evil in the book, not neutral, not good, not any alignment but predominantly evil: Any Evil.

Irrelevant mate. The Monster Manual lists them as fiends. The Monster Manual notes that while Fiends are 'always evil' they can (with great effort) have a change of heart and be good and have a good alignment (at which time they cease being fiends). Same deal with Celestials (they can become evil).

Angels can fall (see Erinyes and Asmodeus). Demons can repent or change alignments also (see Grazzt and other examples). Its exceedingly rare, but it happens.

Your Cambion offspring has a choice. A hard choice sure, but a choice nonetheless. With the correct guidance and upbringing it can reject its fiendish blood, and serve as a shining beacon to others, and a champion of good.

Zombies and Skeletons dont have that choice. The only choice is made by you creating them in full knowledge that in order to do so you need to desecrate a corpse (in violation of the edicts of Good faiths and deities) with unholy and sinister black magic, and that the monster you create is invariably evil as a consequence.

I mean; I can get with a wanna be necromancer who deludes himself into thinking his Zombies are just 'mindless constructs' (using the same rationale you use here). But the objective reality is they arent. A cursory glance at the MM tells me they arent mindless constructs. They're clearly evil undead monsters animated by sinister black magic.


Zombies are not animated by a spirit of any kind and are mindless so "enslaving" them is no different from using a robot to do manual labor.

Nope. That would make them constructs. You keep drawing a comparison between them, but they are not the same thing. What the rules say:

Undead are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse. Undead include walking corpses, such as vampires and zombies, as well as bodiless spirits, such as ghosts and specters

Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs.

Undead type containts a strong inference (horrifying state of undeath, unholy curse) while contstructs are depicted as mindless automata.

Incidentally, if a Zombie was nothing more than a mindless automata, its alignment would be 'unaligned'. Check the alignment section of the MM to confirm. They arent unaligned. Theyre evil. They're not just mindless unaligned constructs. They're evil undead monsters.


I even specified the differences between raising a Zombie versus a skeleton or other intelligent undead -with- a malevolent spirit.

You're not using a malevolent spirt agreed; you're just imbuing the corpse with (quoting the Zombie entry of the MM) 'sinister necromantic... dark magic... [that] imbues it with evil.'

That clearly is not a neutral act. You're intentionally using 'sinister dark magic' to create an 'evil monster'. Youre desecrating a body in so doing (in a world were desecration is an actual offence to actual Gods that actually exist).

[Naanomi]

Although it should be noted that the concept of Cosmic Good and Evil is above even the Gods in the Great Wheel Cosmology

[Arkhios]

Having let it sink in for a while now and reading the quite reasonable discussion points here and there, I'm willing to change my standing to agree that animate dead is evil act. BUT one, or just a few occasional uses doesn't change your alignment to evil. Frequent (as in daily) use does.

However, it seems odd that most people here associate Necromancy as "enslaving undead" only. It's not. As said, raise dead and (true) resurrection are also Necromancy, and these spells are frequently sought out, and provided, by people of various alignments, evil, good, or in between.

And the list of non-evil necromancy spells doesn't end there: Spare the dying (cantrip) is clearly of "good" intent, Gentle Repose is honorable towards the dead, Speak With Dead is at the very least in the neutral ground (and could be used to ask permission before animating).
My point being, while the list above is not exhaustive, it's a spell-by-spell question, rather than whole school, whether or not necromancy is evil.

My conclusion, necromancy - as a school - is mostly neutral, perhaps with a tendency towards evil-ish spells, but not outright evil.

[jas61292]

The most useful meaning of the system should be good guys vs bad guys. Not the distribution of souls into there relevant afterlife. What system you are expressing is suspiciously close to the way Christianity works or is said to work. That sort of system I despise as it rewards people for the wrong things and then uses them to justify stupid social taboos or laws.

I disagree with this. As has been said, good is not necessarily right. And I fully believe that is a universal truth, both in D&D, AND in real life. What is the nice, compassionate, caring thing, is not always what is needed to have the best outcome. That's simply a fact. And I don't think a system that allows that to be the case is an issue at all. Trying to make it "good guys vs bad guys" misses the fact that not all heroes are "good guys" and not all villains are "bad guys." And, as such, you shouldn't be rewarded simply for being good.

Rather, I think the issue is that a lot of players, despite being perfectly OK doing evil things, hate the idea of being labeled as evil. They want to be the guy who does bad things for good ends, and believes the ends justifies the means, but they don't want to be called out on the fact that this is exactly what the evil guys do. And I think this is largely due to the notion that they assume the heroes are the "good guys" when that simply need not be the case. If you want to be the guy who kills, steals, tortures and defiles without a second thought, and not caring who it hurts, but you are only do so if you think it will lead to the best outcome, that's fine. You can play that. And yes, you can still be the hero of the story. But you are not chaotic good. You are evil. And that is fine.

To be fair, I do think another major contributor to this is the fact that many DMs will tell their players they cannot be evil, even when that is not really what they mean. What I believe most DMs who say this actually mean is that they expect their players to be the heroes, not the villains. But, because they say evil, this helps contribute to the large number of players who get used to playing evil, but do not want to actually be called out on it.

The most recent character I played myself was kinda like this. He was fairly religious, and believed that people should not do evil, not because it hurt others, but because of the effect it would have on their own soul in the afterlife. However, due to events in his past, he believed he had done so much evil that he was beyond redemption, and as such he no longer had any qualms about doing evil, so long as it was for the greater good. The only thing he was absolutely against was corrupting other (especially kids) into being like him. Yes, all his goals were ultimately good. He wanted to help people and make the world a better place. But he was not blinded by this fact. He knew the things he was doing to achieve his goals. He didn't try to rationalize it away and pretend it was fine. He (and I) fully acknowledged that he was absolutely evil. But he was still a hero. In other words, he was often right, even though he was rarely good.

While this character was definitely an extreme version of this concept, I think the general idea actually applies to a lot of player characters. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest it is the most common kind of character I have seen people play. I feel it is just a fear of or aversion to the word "evil" being on your character sheet that makes people try and change the system to allow them to be good, when they clearly are not.

[Desamir]

And although 5e has less mechanics that rely on it, it is here too. Sprites don't detect 'how justified you and your society feel about your behavior', it detects Evil. The magic items that care about the alignment of their weilder don't care about how much their moral scheme aligns with their own, it is reading universal absolutes. When you are infected with lycanthrope, you don't become 'grumpy-you', you become evil. You can make a setting where this is completely untrue... most homebrew setting probably do. But the default setting does not

The only one of these examples that is still valid in 5e is the few magic items that care about alignment. Sprites don't have any kind of alignment detection. "Detect Evil and Good" detects celestials and fiends now.

If you want to call an altruistic necromancer that does good deeds all day "Evil" for the purpose of those magic items, go right ahead. By that logic, I can be a saint all day, but as long as I raise zombies I qualify for the Talisman of Ultimate Evil.

At that point, the alignment system has ceased to be useful.

[jas61292]

The only one of these examples that is still valid in 5e is the few magic items that care about alignment. Sprites don't have any kind of alignment detection. "Detect Evil and Good" detects celestials and fiends now.

While you are correct on how Detect Good and Evil works, that is irrelevant. Sprites have the ability "Heart Sight," which explicitly tells them a creatures alignment if they fail a save.

[Desamir]

While you are correct on how Detect Good and Evil works, that is irrelevant. Sprites have the ability "Heart Sight," which explicitly tells them a creatures alignment if they fail a save.

I see that now, but I stand by the rest of my statement. An alignment system that does not accurately represent the motivations of your characters has ceased to be useful.

For example: say that my good wizard becomes afflicted by Vampirism, which flips his alignment to evil. If I act exactly as I did before--the same altruism, selflessness, and desire to protect the innocent--but I reach those noble ends by using the animate dead spell, I'm living up to my new evil alignment. Does that seem logical?

[pwykersotz]

I see that now, but I stand by the rest of my statement. An alignment system that does not accurately represent the motivations of your characters has ceased to be useful.

For example: say that my good wizard becomes afflicted by Vampirism, which flips his alignment to evil. If I act exactly as I did before--the same altruism, selflessness, and desire to protect the innocent--but I reach those noble ends by using the animate dead spell, I'm living up to my new evil alignment. Does that seem logical?

You're only able to say that because you're washing away any implication of wrongdoing from undead even when it's explicitly stated. It's up to the DM to determine the negative consequences of the continuous summoning of undeath, but the moral implications are in black and white. Say the same thing, but replace using animate dead with any other non-good/bordering on evil act. For example, if you reach those noble ends by stealing or extorting family heirlooms from poor families, and then selling those to fund your crusade of good...not just once, but over and over, are you non-evil?

If animate dead has no other impact on the universe other than the exact words of the spell, then yeah it should be neutral. But that sidebar creates an opportunity for the actions in the universe to mean something and to explore deeper questions in game. I accept that not all people use it for that, it's just very boring to me otherwise. At that point, why even have the undead?

[Steampunkette]

The actual real Gods of DnD might have something to say about that.

By all means: Link me or quote them. But don't declare your opinion as theirs.


Desecration is defined as: The act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

In a reality where Gods exist, desecration and consecration is an objective thing. You're not just destroying or defiling something that annoys a bunch of people (a church). You're literally offending a God.

Sure. So long as the gods care. Again, show me where they care within the canon. Until then it's just your opinion that you're conflating with absolute fact. Kelemvor hates the undead, and might consider it desecration and evil wicked awfulness but if the other gods don't: Is it factually evil 'cause Kelemvor doesn't like it or not? If Azuth doesn't give two figs does that impact it's immutable truth? Interesting question.



Irrelevant mate. The Monster Manual lists them as fiends. The Monster Manual notes that while Fiends are 'always evil' they can (with great effort) have a change of heart and be good and have a good alignment (at which time they cease being fiends). Same deal with Celestials (they can become evil).

Angels can fall (see Erinyes and Asmodeus). Demons can repent or change alignments also (see Grazzt and other examples). Its exceedingly rare, but it happens.

Your Cambion offspring has a choice. A hard choice sure, but a choice nonetheless. With the correct guidance and upbringing it can reject its fiendish blood, and serve as a shining beacon to others, and a champion of good.

Whether it has a choice or not is irrelevant "Mate". You are creating an evil creature. From the moment it is born it is a selfish, cruel, hateful, monster until it reaches the age where it's advanced enough to make that choice. I could slap a helm of opposite alignment on a Zombie and then it'd be good aligned, choice or not. It, and the Cambion, are both evil at creation which is where the comparison is made, not twenty years later when something changes.



Zombies and Skeletons dont have that choice. The only choice is made by you creating them in full knowledge that in order to do so you need to desecrate a corpse (in violation of the edicts of Good faiths and deities) with unholy and sinister black magic, and that the monster you create is invariably evil as a consequence.

Again, you use the term Desecrate as if it has meaning in this discussion. Until you've got something more than "Well I think therefore it is" you might wanna ditch that angle of debate. As to the magic being "Unholy" that's another term that means nothing. Clerics can use magic from their Gods (Good, Neutral, or Evil) to animate the dead, rendering the idea that it's unholy completely pointless. And there's no such thing as "Black Magic" in 5e. Only Divine and Arcane. Black magic is a colloquialism that, gasp! Is based in Cultural Context.



I mean; I can get with a wanna be necromancer who deludes himself into thinking his Zombies are just 'mindless constructs' (using the same rationale you use here). But the objective reality is they arent. A cursory glance at the MM tells me they arent mindless constructs. They're clearly evil undead monsters animated by sinister black magic.

Nope. That would make them constructs. You keep drawing a comparison between them, but they are not the same thing. What the rules say:

Undead are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse. Undead include walking corpses, such as vampires and zombies, as well as bodiless spirits, such as ghosts and specters

Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs.

They're not constructs, no. I never claimed they were. I did claim that Zombies are Mindless. Because the book says they have no thoughts or imagination.



Undead type containts a strong inference (horrifying state of undeath, unholy curse) while contstructs are depicted as mindless automata.

Incidentally, if a Zombie was nothing more than a mindless automata, its alignment would be 'unaligned'. Check the alignment section of the MM to confirm. They arent unaligned. Theyre evil. They're not just mindless unaligned constructs. They're evil undead monsters.

Again, from the MM: They have no thoughts or imagination and follow orders exactly as given. That's mindless. Evil, but without thought. They don't think and nothing goes through their head. Though that makes me wonder how they -could- be evil in alignment since there's no intent behind any of their actions. They're not Selfish because they don't want anything, they're not hateful because that requires cognizant thought... doesn't make sense.



You're not using a malevolent spirt agreed; you're just imbuing the corpse with (quoting the Zombie entry of the MM) 'sinister necromantic... dark magic... [that] imbues it with evil.'

Yup! Just like a Cambion is born imbued with evil, hence the comparison between the two. You know the child will be evil incarnate, regardless of any choice they might or might not make later, and you still made the choice to bring it into the world.


That clearly is not a neutral act. You're intentionally using 'sinister dark magic' to create an 'evil monster'. Youre desecrating a body in so doing (in a world were desecration is an actual offence to actual Gods that actually exist).

Right back to Desecration and the assumption that animating corpses pisses off the Gods. You're big on that one. As to "Sinister Dark Magic" I kinda laugh at it, 'cause 5e doesn't consider stealing a creature's free will to be evil and, really, that's about as existential a threat as possible and it's castable at level 1.

You'd think some gods would be pissed off about that.

Clearly, though, we're never going to find a middle ground, here, Malifice. I've laid out my case and I feel like it's pretty solid, based on what the books give us. I hold that animating the dead isn't necessarily an evil act so long as certain conditions (Mostly cultural, some cosmological) are met, no matter how distasteful it might seem. You hold that it's evil because it fits your interpretation of the text. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

[LudicSavant]

You're only able to say that because you're washing away any implication of wrongdoing from undead even when it's explicitly stated. It's up to the DM to determine the negative consequences of the continuous summoning of undeath, but the moral implications are in black and white. Say the same thing, but replace using animate dead with any other non-good/bordering on evil act. For example, if you reach those noble ends by stealing or extorting family heirlooms from poor families, and then selling those to fund your crusade of good...not just once, but over and over, are you non-evil?

The issue with the "it's stated to be evil" argument is that everyone who passed Logic 101 knows that this argument begs the question.

In case you're unfamiliar with that term, "Begging the question (https://www.google.com/search?q=begging+the+question&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

The evidence outside of the claim itself fails to corroborate the claim, as you yourself have stated:


If animate dead has no other impact on the universe other than the exact words of the spell, then yeah it should be neutral.

[pwykersotz]

The issue with the "it's stated to be evil" argument is that everyone who passed Logic 101 knows that this argument begs the question.

In case you're unfamiliar with that term, "Begging the question (https://www.google.com/search?q=begging+the+question&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

The evidence outside of the claim itself fails to corroborate the claim, as you yourself have stated:

But we're not building this from the ground up. We're following the rules and then extrapolating. This isn't a logical proof, this is a sidebar rule in the game. It doesn't need evidence to be true, the onus is on us to provide the evidence because it is stated to be true.

[pwykersotz]

The OP did not ask "how can we extrapolate to make necromancy evil?" The OP asked "is necromancy evil?" To simply assume an answer beforehand begs the question, and fails to address the topic of discussion.

Let me start by saying that I'm largely in agreement with the spirit of your comments. Debate over the how and why are excellent and shouldn't be shut down. However, allow me to answer it in original context since you've requested it.

-----

I was curious what all of you thought about this. Would you consider it evil?

Yes, because the rules say it is evil. My personal opinion also lines up with this, I think the undead are a wonderful narrative device that are done a disservice by taking away their horror and their evil.
-----

Now that the question is answered in original context, that I would consider it evil both by the rules and by my personal flavor preferences, we have two options. Take the rest of the rules of the game as well as fluff and try to see if the rule matches it , or "beg the question" and try to figure out how the rule might be correct within the context of the rule. I have chosen the second one of these, because D&D has a LOT of fluff. Much of it is contradictory. I believe I can justify almost anything (see the thread on Illusions and Optics for how multiple systems can easily be justified by the current rules). That makes a strictly logical pursuit of some great truth in the game fairly useless. Instead I'd like to make the rule useful and interesting. Of course, I also respect that the rule can simply be banished and other systems can be used, which is why I added the head-nod to neutrality as you yourself noted.

Edit: Huh...the post disappeared.

[LudicSavant]

Edit: Huh...the post disappeared.
Weird. Reposting.


But we're not building this from the ground up. We're following the rules and then extrapolating. This isn't a logical proof, this is a sidebar rule in the game. It doesn't need evidence to be true, the onus is on us to provide the evidence because it is stated to be true.

The OP did not ask "how can we extrapolate to make necromancy evil?" The OP asked "is necromancy evil?" To simply assume an answer beforehand begs the question, and fails to address the topic of discussion.

[Aeson]

Nope. That would make them constructs. You keep drawing a comparison between them, but they are not the same thing. What the rules say:

Undead are once-living creatures brought to a horrifying state of undeath through the practice of necromantic magic or some unholy curse. Undead include walking corpses, such as vampires and zombies, as well as bodiless spirits, such as ghosts and specters

Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs.
You say that golems are the iconic construct. You know what perhaps the most iconic golem is? The flesh golem, better known as Frankenstein's monster. Would you care to explain what the difference between a flesh golem and a reanimated corpse is?

[pwykersotz]

You say that golems are the iconic construct. You know what perhaps the most iconic golem is? The flesh golem, better known as Frankenstein's monster. Would you care to explain what the difference between a flesh golem and a reanimated corpse is?

Not weighing in on the point one way or another, but you realize that's a direct monster manual quote, right? Page 6.

[Malifice]

The only one of these examples that is still valid in 5e is the few magic items that care about alignment. Sprites don't have any kind of alignment detection. "Detect Evil and Good" detects celestials and fiends now.

If you want to call an altruistic necromancer that does good deeds all day "Evil" for the purpose of those magic items, go right ahead. By that logic, I can be a saint all day, but as long as I raise zombies I qualify for the Talisman of Ultimate Evil.

At that point, the alignment system has ceased to be useful.

Actaully, it appears in the class system as well.

Oathbreaker Paladins must be evilly aligned. You cant be one if you're good or neutral.

[Malifice]

You say that golems are the iconic construct.

Nope. The MM says that. Im just quoting it.


You know what perhaps the most iconic golem is? The flesh golem, better known as Frankenstein's monster. Would you care to explain what the difference between a flesh golem and a reanimated corpse is?

The same difference between Frankensteins monster (a Flesh Golem) and Dracula (an undead monster).

One of the two is a neutral construct (using flesh instead of metal or stone) and one is an evil undead monster. Open your MM to confirm if you dont believe me. Flesh Golem (N Construct). Zombie (NE Undead).

Barring the social ramifications of using dead body parts to build it, the Golem doesnt require the enslavement of a tortured spirit (like with a skeleton), or the channeling of 'sinister evil black magic' to empower it (zombies and skeletons). I can use the arm of a person to construct a flesh golem, and raise the body of the person used. I cant do that with an undead creature. The creature whose body I convert into an undead creature cannot be raised while I use its body as a vessel for my evil magic.

The creature I create is also neutral (golem) and not an evil flesh eating monster (zombie).

Incidentally, here are the construction requirements in 3E:

The pieces of a flesh golem must come from normal human corpses that have not decayed significantly. Assembly requires a minimum of six different bodies—one for each limb, the torso (including head), and the brain. In some cases, more bodies may be necessary. Special unguents and bindings worth 500 gp are also required. Note that creating a flesh golem requires casting a spell with the evil descriptor.

Assembling the body requires a DC 13 Craft (leatherworking) check or a DC 13 Heal check.

CL 8th; Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, caster must be at least 8th level; Price 20,000 gp; Cost 10,500 gp + 780 XP.

In 3E you still had to pump the thing with an objectively evil spell (animate dead) to awaken the thing.
5E is a little more forgiving.

[Nightcanon]

You could indeed. The rules however state animating the undead is never a good act. They clearly infer that animating the undead is an act of evil.

Sidebar page 203.

It's about the only act that the rules specifically and explicitly state are more or less evil. Rape and murder don't even get such a distinction.

Some interesting arguments in this thread. Of course, by RAW, animating the dead is defined as Evil, with all the caveats that usually attend D&D alignment discussions. The Western literary traditions that in which D&D has its roots, which in turn have roots in Western religious and folklore traditions consider interfering with the dead to be a Bad Thing. Dissection for purposes of increasing anatomical knowledge was illegal for centuries in Europe, and even today with modern concepts of consent the subject of what can be done to a body after death can be tricky (requests for autopsies, organ donation etc). Certainly, if animating dead bodies requires dark, unholy, evil magic then it is an Evil act; equally it is possible to envisage a situation in which, with his last breath, a dying Paladin begs a wizard ally to animate his corpse to fight a demon, or a setting in which a LG society comemorates such an event in the state religion, and grieving relatives take comfort that their loved one (with full consent) continued to serve even after death in the same way that friends and relatives of organ donors do today. Perhaps animating the corpse frees the soul from the mortal plane and permits it to travel to the afterlife; perhaps the body being used for the common good atones for the sins of the flesh commited in life. Such a society might not reflect the pseudomedieval outlook of standard D&D settings, but they aren't impossible.

[Necroticplague]

Barring the social ramifications of using dead body parts to build it, the Golem doesnt require the enslavement of a tortured spirit (like with a skeleton), or the channeling of 'sinister evil black magic' to empower it (zombies and skeletons).
Actually, all golems, including Flesh ones, use an enslaved elemental spirit to fuel them. The page 167 MM.

This process binds the spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creature


The creature I create is also neutral (golem) and not an evil flesh eating monster (zombie).Zombies, as undead, don't need to eat. In addition "flesh eating" actually describes most creatures. Even herbivorous animals consume the flesh of plants. So can we quite it with that repeated idiotic pathos?

[ThisIsZen]

Mostly just popping in to say that, by RAW, a one-time animation of the dead is explicitly not evil, simply also not good. One can talk about implications all day, but it is explicitly spelled out in the p203 sidebar that animating the dead is simply a non-good act unless performed frequently.

If the devs had intended to say it was an evil act, they would've said so. Saying it's a non-good act uses more words, which means in a sense they actually spent more on the ink costs of production in order to specifically NOT declare it as evil.

EDIT: This is mostly just to counter the occasional summary post made here that, if I had to guess, reaches the conclusion that animating corpses == evil mostly because that's how it's been in previous editions.

[Sception]

A one time casting of animate dead or create undead isn't generally a great expenditure of resources, and keeping undead pets around specifically requires the frequent casting that, by RAW, only evil characters would do.

[Dr. Cliché]

Citation? PHB clearly defines those actions as evil by virtue of what it defines good and evil as (PHB 122).


Ask Malifice. I just responded to what he said (which was that the PHB defined Animate Dead as evil, but not murder or rape).


When you are infected with lycanthrope, you don't become 'grumpy-you', you become evil.

Technically, it depends on the type of lycanthrope.

If you're infected by a weretiger, you become afflicted with neutrality. I guess you just become really apathetic or something.

If you're infected by a werebear, you become afflicted with goodness. Somehow. Maybe you were bitten by Winnie-the-Pooh.

And yeah, I'm aware that I've brought this up before. I'll stop harping on about it when it starts making a lick of sense.

[ChubbyRain]

I was wondering what they put cure wounds under this edition, it used to be necromancy.

But Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Res all are necromancy spells.

So is astral projection funny enough.

So necromancy isn't evil. What you do with necromancy is or is not evil.

A lot of spells can quickly be refluffed or a wizard/sorc/cleric can know a version of the spell that works differently as fluff is like silly putty and can be reshaped without changing the mechanics.

\thread

[Newtonsolo313]

I disagree with this. As has been said, good is not necessarily right. And I fully believe that is a universal truth, both in D&D, AND in real life. What is the nice, compassionate, caring thing, is not always what is needed to have the best outcome. That's simply a fact. And I don't think a system that allows that to be the case is an issue at all. Trying to make it "good guys vs bad guys" misses the fact that not all heroes are "good guys" and not all villains are "bad guys." And, as such, you shouldn't be rewarded simply for being good.

Rather, I think the issue is that a lot of players, despite being perfectly OK doing evil things, hate the idea of being labeled as evil. They want to be the guy who does bad things for good ends, and believes the ends justifies the means, but they don't want to be called out on the fact that this is exactly what the evil guys do. And I think this is largely due to the notion that they assume the heroes are the "good guys" when that simply need not be the case. If you want to be the guy who kills, steals, tortures and defiles without a second thought, and not caring who it hurts, but you are only do so if you think it will lead to the best outcome, that's fine. You can play that. And yes, you can still be the hero of the story. But you are not chaotic good. You are evil. And that is fine.

To be fair, I do think another major contributor to this is the fact that many DMs will tell their players they cannot be evil, even when that is not really what they mean. What I believe most DMs who say this actually mean is that they expect their players to be the heroes, not the villains. But, because they say evil, this helps contribute to the large number of players who get used to playing evil, but do not want to actually be called out on it.

The most recent character I played myself was kinda like this. He was fairly religious, and believed that people should not do evil, not because it hurt others, but because of the effect it would have on their own soul in the afterlife. However, due to events in his past, he believed he had done so much evil that he was beyond redemption, and as such he no longer had any qualms about doing evil, so long as it was for the greater good. The only thing he was absolutely against was corrupting other (especially kids) into being like him. Yes, all his goals were ultimately good. He wanted to help people and make the world a better place. But he was not blinded by this fact. He knew the things he was doing to achieve his goals. He didn't try to rationalize it away and pretend it was fine. He (and I) fully acknowledged that he was absolutely evil. But he was still a hero. In other words, he was often right, even though he was rarely good.

While this character was definitely an extreme version of this concept, I think the general idea actually applies to a lot of player characters. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest it is the most common kind of character I have seen people play. I feel it is just a fear of or aversion to the word "evil" being on your character sheet that makes people try and change the system to allow them to be good, when they clearly are not.
but if the character the OP is talking about isn't right as in a "murder people to save others" way. he is right in a "break social taboos to usher in a utopia" way. thats chaotic not evil. he's not without compassion simply because he makes some zombies to work in infrastucture. if you are saying that something is evil because it makes you go to a worse afterlife then evil is an entirely different concept in d&d than in real life.