Is this an "evil action"?

[NecroDancer]

Assuming a necromancer wanted to make a flesh golem but lacked the body parts they decided to hire some adventures to collect bodies.

So the adventures decided to give the necromancer the corpses of ever humanoid that they kill during regular adventures (assuming the adventurers are always adventuring for the forces of good).

Now the necromancer won't harm innocents and the adventurers only bring the bodies of their enemies. The flesh golem is being made as an assistant/guardian and not for any malicious reasons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Assuming a necromancer wanted to make a flesh golem but lacked the body parts they decided to hire some adventures to collect bodies.

So the adventures decided to give the necromancer the corpses of ever humanoid that they kill during regular adventures (assuming the adventurers are always adventuring for the forces of good).

Now the necromancer won't harm innocents and the adventurers only bring the bodies of their enemies. The flesh golem is being made as an assistant/guardian and not for any malicious reasons.
Are you asking about evil as regards the necromancer, or evil as regards the adventurers filling up a few cart loads of dead bodies to provide to the necromancer?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Morally grey, unless they have reason to believe the necromancer plans to do something untoward with the golem afterwards.

In years past, there used to be grave robbers that would steal the freshly dead in order to deliver them to medical students so that they'd have something to practice on, which in turn improved the likelihood of living patients surviving surgeries. Many people back then despised these robbers for taking their departed loved ones, but most today would consider their actions necessary, if dark.

Desecrating your victims certainly isn't good, but to what end? Is that act of amorality worth the outcome? Is it forgivable in light of what the necromancer may accomplish?

[Unoriginal]

Assuming a necromancer wanted to make a flesh golem but lacked the body parts they decided to hire some adventures to collect bodies.

So the adventures decided to give the necromancer the corpses of ever humanoid that they kill during regular adventures (assuming the adventurers are always adventuring for the forces of good).

Now the necromancer won't harm innocents and the adventurers only bring the bodies of their enemies. The flesh golem is being made as an assistant/guardian and not for any malicious reasons.


It's not more evil than a necromancer animating an undead, which is not an evil act.

It's not a good act either. It's just an act.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's not more evil than a necromancer animating an undead, which is not an evil act.

It's not a good act either. It's just an act.

Gonna agree here. Seems very neutral if nobody is harmed.

[lunaticfringe]

No.

If we are going by the description of Golems in the book the are animated by an elemental spirit not Necromancy. You aren't creating undead, you made a Golem.

[dickerson76]

The answer may be guided by the religious/cultural beliefs of the PCs. If dead bodies are just organic material, then it doesn't seem evil at all. If there is any thought that part of the soul may still inhabit or be connected to the body, you may get a different answer. There are usually religious/cultural beliefs that are directly related to how people care for or dispose of a corpse. What is the norm in your world? How did it get that way?

[NRSASD]

How evil are necromancers in your setting? Can necromancy be morally grey, or even good?

In my setting, necromancy and necromancers are capital E Evil. There is such a thing as "necessary evils", but a necessary evil is not the same thing as neutral.

If the golem is intended only as an assistant/guardian and the adventurers' opponents' souls are not involved in the process of making a flesh golem, then I'd say this is just an act.

If building the golem out of corpses has no more effect on the corpses' souls than building the golem out of clay would, it's really no different than the PCs just harvesting some exotic clay. Even if the necromancer is evil, the PCs are just being the salespeople and thus aren't morally tainted by dealing with him.

Granted, the corpses' families may want revenge because Uncle Fred wasn't given a proper burial.

[Unoriginal]

No.

If we are going by the description of Golems in the book the are animated by an elemental spirit not Necromancy. You aren't creating undead, you made a Golem.

Necromancy isn't evil either, as described by the PHB.

[lunaticfringe]

Necromancy isn't evil either, as described by the PHB.

Yes I know but people still label it as such and it is an easy target. Flesh Golems side step the issue entirely by virtue of not being necromantic at all, just creepy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes I know but people still label it as such and it is an easy target. Flesh Golems side step the issue entirely by virtue of not being necromantic at all, just creepy. My old friend, Frank N. Stein, the original flesh golem, would like a quiet word with you. He doesn't think he's creepy. We hope you'll be there at Herman Munster's house, at five o'clock sharp. Bring your tap dancing shoes (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Young+Frankenstein+tap+dance&view=detail&mid=A43326C2B007059BFC68A43326C2B007059BFC68&FORM=VIRE).

[Unoriginal]

My old friend, Frank N. Stein, the original flesh golem, would like a quiet word with you. He doesn't think he's creepy. We hope you'll be there at Herman Munster's house, at five o'clock sharp. Bring your tap dancing shoes (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Young+Frankenstein+tap+dance&view=detail&mid=A43326C2B007059BFC68A43326C2B007059BFC68&FORM=VIRE).

Actually, Frankenstein's creature would probably have considered himself creepy.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Actually, Frankenstein's creature would probably have considered himself creepy.

Most of the creature's life was spent trying to prove that he wasn't a monster, and failing miserably because he was all too human. He certainly didn't see anything wrong with his creation, and in fact requested that the same method be repeated so that he could be with someone who could accept him for who he was.

Though the real monster was ultimately Frankenstein, who tried to play god and then got cold feet way too late in the process. The Modern Prometheus indeed.

[Biggstick]

The answer may be guided by the religious/cultural beliefs of the PCs. If dead bodies are just organic material, then it doesn't seem evil at all. If there is any thought that part of the soul may still inhabit or be connected to the body, you may get a different answer. There are usually religious/cultural beliefs that are directly related to how people care for or dispose of a corpse. What is the norm in your world? How did it get that way?

Dickerson is asking the right questions. It all depends on the norms of your world in regards to it being an evil action. If bodies are merely considered waste once the person is dead, this is no big deal. If the bodies are kept around so that they might be potentially resurrected (or brought back to life in some way) later on, it would probably be a bigger deal that you're taking them to a Necromancer.

[Unoriginal]

Most of the creature's life was spent trying to prove that he wasn't a monster, and failing miserably because he was all too human. He certainly didn't see anything wrong with his creation, and in fact requested that the same method be repeated so that he could be with someone who could accept him for who he was.

Though the real monster was ultimately Frankenstein, who tried to play god and then got cold feet way too late in the process. The Modern Prometheus indeed.

Actually most of the creature's life was spent deliberately ruining Frankenstein's life and killing people to get back at his creator thoughtlessly creating him and then not taking responsibility.

While he did want to have a second creature to be around, he was all too aware how terrifying and weird he was to humans, and part of his woes was how his creator condemned to forever be a pariah simply by creating him.

Calling Frankenstein the "real monster" is a way too big simplification of a complexe issue. While he definitively has his faults, and was certainly not a nice person, the creature knowingly decides to kill people out of existential angst and spite. While one can certainly sympathize with him, the creature is ultimately the monstrous one, not because of his appearance, but because of his choices and how he choose to spend his life.

Rather than a Modern Prometheus, Frankenstein is more of a flawed, weak God being confronted by his Modern Adam

[NecroDancer]

Thanks for the replies. I had a discussion with my friend and we both thought is was morally grey but I wanted to get a second opinion on the idea.

A better question would be this: can you make a flesh golem out of dragons/Angels/fiends?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Actually most of the creature's life was spent deliberately ruining Frankenstein's life and killing people to get back at his creator thoughtlessly creating him and then not taking responsibility.

While he did want to have a second creature to be around, he was all too aware how terrifying and weird he was to humans, and part of his woes was how his creator condemned to forever be a pariah simply by creating him.

Calling Frankenstein the "real monster" is a way too big simplification of a complexe issue. While he definitively has his faults, and was certainly not a nice person, the creature knowingly decides to kill people out of existential angst and spite. While one can certainly sympathize with him, the creature is ultimately the monstrous one, not because of his appearance, but because of his choices and how he choose to spend his life.

Rather than a Modern Prometheus, Frankenstein is more of a flawed, weak God being confronted by his Modern Adam

My god, someone else actually read the book.

The creature's behavior was also something of trial and error without a guiding hand, a human morality skewed on a lack of upbringing and a history of abuse and disappointment. As is sadly true in real life, it gave him all the makings of a serial killer. Even here, however, he often sought meaning and a chance at redemption, though the creature also rejected attempts at reconciliation out of anger for his situation. It wasn't until Frankenstein's passing that the creature appeared to have realized how meaningless all that anger was.

While Frankenstein certainly wasn't an 'evil' person by most definitions, he was blinded by his own ambitions and unwilling to admit to himself the results of his own actions. His primary sin was arrogance, as unlike his creation, he had a lifetime of care and a good upbringing that may have taught him that he was superior to his fellow man (though this is more reading into the situation and was in no way present in the book). While the creature eventually did awful things in response, it was Frankenstein who began the cycle- even perpetuating it by refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

The creature's hatred for itself seems steeped in two facets- internalized from his treatment of the hands of those around him, and his abandonment by his creator. It did not seem to come from any disgust for the method by which he was created, or at least I did not parse that from my reading.

[lunaticfringe]

My old friend, Frank N. Stein, the original flesh golem, would like a quiet word with you. He doesn't think he's creepy. We hope you'll be there at Herman Munster's house, at five o'clock sharp. Bring your tap dancing shoes (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Young+Frankenstein+tap+dance&view=detail&mid=A43326C2B007059BFC68A43326C2B007059BFC68&FORM=VIRE).

While I strive to not judge others based on appearance, i'm fairly certain I'd be creeped out (at least initially) by a flesh golem. You are a better human than I. Also don't trust F's Monster, he's got issues:

Argh Emotions! Wait! I'll just kill people, that'll fix everything.

[NecroDancer]

My god, someone else actually read the book.

The creature's behavior was also something of trial and error without a guiding hand, a human morality skewed on a lack of upbringing and a history of abuse and disappointment. As is sadly true in real life, it gave him all the makings of a serial killer. Even here, however, he often sought meaning and a chance at redemption, though the creature also rejected attempts at reconciliation out of anger for his situation. It wasn't until Frankenstein's passing that the creature appeared to have realized how meaningless all that anger was.

While Frankenstein certainly wasn't an 'evil' person by most definitions, he was blinded by his own ambitions and unwilling to admit to himself the results of his own actions. His primary sin was arrogance, as unlike his creation, he had a lifetime of care and a good upbringing that may have taught him that he was superior to his fellow man (though this is more reading into the situation and was in no way present in the book). While the creature eventually did awful things in response, it was Frankenstein who began the cycle- even perpetuating it by refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

The creature's hatred for itself seems steeped in two facets- internalized from his treatment of the hands of those around him, and his abandonment by his creator. It did not seem to come from any disgust for the method by which he was created, or at least I did not parse that from my reading.

I barely remember the book but I still remember the one part when FM became buds with a blind old dude.

[furby076]

So two acts are happening
1) Necromancer is getting asking for bodies from adventurers. If he tells them to not kill innocent people, and to only bring him the bodies of regular "bad" critters - then he has not done anything evil
2) Adventurers are killing creatures. As we know, in DnD, killing is not an evil act unless you are killing innocents. So as long as they players re doing the regular good/neutral adventure stuff, they are also not doing evil.

Now some will argue that necromancy is an evil act - but that's a different discussion.

[MrStabby]

Not that evil.

There may be some minor issues. Who owns the corpses? Can they be owned? If they become property of a relative and the adventurers walk off with them then theft may be considered evil - albeit a mild evil in the scheme of things. Not taking available loot is also unlikely to cross the players' minds. Probably as much an issue of law as good and evil though.

[Sigreid]

It depends.

If they are just using the bodies after the fight, no.

If the reason they are picking the fight with the humanoids is to get the body parts. Yes.

[sir_argo]

Creating a flesh golem is not evil. Necromancy is, as a school of magic, not evil. Creating undead is evil because, depending on how you read the spells/monster descriptions, either you are placing an evil spirit into the corpse or alternately trapping the former living soul. The former comes from the monster manual; the later is just an inference from the description that a zombie or skeleton understands the languages it knew in life, which insinuates the spirit in the body is either the former occupant or at least a piece of it.

But creating a flesh golem does none of that. So... not evil. But after you release him on the village and he kills dozens of people... back to evil.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I personally think the desecration of corpses for profit is mildly evil, even if they were your enemies. But even if I'm the DM, the only opinion that matters is that of any beings that are powerful and motivated enough to do something about it. 5E seems to have no inherent, objective "good" or "evil" that the world in the form of spells, abilities and magic items react to.

[Temperjoke]

I feel it's neutral up to the point that they start searching out people to kill and hack up to trade for beer money, then it becomes an evil act. Otherwise it's a "well, let's do something useful with these people we killed for a good reason, instead of just leaving the bodies everywhere to rot and become potential biohazards" sort of thing.

[Malifice]

Necromancy isn't evil either, as described by the PHB.

AFB but doesnt the PHB expressly call it out as evil?

[sir_argo]

AFB but doesnt the PHB expressly call it out as evil?


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 man societies.

Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.
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.

Necromancy isn't evil. Healing and Resurrection are not evil. Only creating undead is specifically listed as "not good" and "only evil casters use such spell frequently".

[NRSASD]

Making a flesh golem out of dragon parts? Certainly possible, but it's unlikely to be different in stats from a regular human flesh golem. If it is different, I'd argue it's no longer a flesh golem.

Making a flesh golem of fiend/angel parts? Not really possible, because unless I'm mistaken demons and angels leave no remains on the Prime Material once you kill them. They vanish in a burst of light/puff of smoke/etc. and re-materialize on their home plane. I suppose one could go to their home plane and harvest body parts there, but by then there are easier and better things one could be doing besides building flesh golems.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.sir_argo, we thank you for the PHB cite and stand back to watch the usual fireworks that alignment discussions bring to themselves.

[Sir cryosin]

So on the topic of necromancey. IRL I'm not religious and I would say my alignment is neutral good. But I love playing necromancer type classes in games. And I have always seen animate dead skeletons and dead body's as infusioning them with magic and using them as puppet's. I have never thought or seen that. Trapping there souls in there body or placing corrupted Souls into dead body's. Now for using necromantic spells. I've has always been of mind it no different then casting a fireball. They are spell that do different things and are not evil only the person that use them for evil purposes.
But then again I don't believe there is a thing as good and evil only morally questionable based off of society rules.



So to the OP No I don't think the necromancer using dead body's as materials to craft a flesh Golem as evil. He's just simply using materials to craft a item. I mean how could necromancy be evil if God created Adam who at first is the embodiment of a flush Golem. God created Adam as a keeper of Garden of Eden. But I'm going to stop because I don't want to cause any religious debates sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry.

[GPS]

So on the topic of necromancey. IRL I'm not religious and I would say my alignment is neutral good. But I love playing necromancer type classes in games. And I have always seen animate dead skeletons and dead body's as infusioning them with magic and using them as puppet's. I have never thought or seen that. Trapping there souls in there body or placing corrupted Souls into dead body's. Now for using necromantic spells. I've has always been of mind it no different then casting a fireball. They are spell that do different things and are not evil only the person that use them for evil purposes.
But then again I don't believe there is a thing as good and evil only morally questionable based off of society rules.



So to the OP No I don't think the necromancer using dead body's as materials to craft a flesh Golem as evil. He's just simply using materials to craft a item. I mean how could necromancy be evil if God created Adam who at first is the embodiment of a flush Golem. God created Adam as a keeper of Garden of Eden. But I'm going to stop because I don't want to cause any religious debates sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry.
Wait, you mean my puppy-fur coat is ok because I just used materials to craft an item? What a relief! I was worried people would start calling me Cruella Deville.

I'm not sure if you're really getting alignment. It's a built in part of the game that adheres to game rules. While there may be a lot of ambiguity, the alignment of some actions is just straight up told to you by the sourcebooks. If the PHB says creating undead is evil, it's evil. I get that you're saying it's not the spell that's evil, just the user, but frankly it doesn't matter. The spell cannot exist without users, and whether users are using it for things that seem good or things that seem evil, the book says using it is evil. There's not really any room for debate when the proof comes with a page number. Feel free to houserule otherwise.

Edit: my bad, said "raising the dead" when I meant creating undead. Also you may wanna refresh the page before responding, I edit my posts waaaay too much if I haven't seen anyone respond yet.

[Sir cryosin]

Wait, you mean my puppy-fur coat is ok because I just used materials to craft an item? What a relief! I was worried people would start calling me Cruella Deville.

I'm not sure if you're really getting alignment. It's a built in part of the game that adheres to game rules. While there may be a lot of ambiguity, the alignment of some actions is just straight up told to you by the sourcebooks. If the PHB says raising the dead is evil, it's evil. I get that you're saying it's not the spell that's evil, just the user, but frankly it doesn't matter. The spell cannot exist without users, and whether users are using it for things that seem good or things that seem evil, the book says using it is evil. There's not really any room for debate when the proof comes with a page number. Feel free to houserule otherwise.

Hey if you want to make a fur coat out of puppy fur sure. Hell we birth cows just to kill them before they are a year old AkA Veal. Some people will hate your because of your coat but hey. They can't criticize you. With there leather products. Make up made from shark fin, or the hundreds of trees killed no murdered just for the papers used in the law suit. So sure injoy that puppy fur coat I won't be talking to you.

Now that book also say drows, tiflings, half orc's, any PC race in volo's are evil as well. But we can play them as LG,NG,CG. The book also say this is all just guide lines and do what you want.

This is why I hate alignment conversations. But there is no good and evil there is only morally wrong based on the social set of rules for a civilization.

[Unoriginal]

But there is no good and evil there is only morally wrong based on the social set of rules for a civilization.

Debatable.

D&D 5e defines being evil as being deliberately malevolent in general, and being good as being deliberately benevolent in general.

For exemple, most orcs are pretty malevolent, being ruthless, prone to violence, and generally enjoying hurting people weaker than them. The social rules for their civilization are based around that, and the orcs will not deny that what they do is malevolent and that they are hurting weaker people for run and to rise up in the ranks.

[Squiddish]

Well, making one from angel parts is definitely evil, since it means killing a fairly large number of angels.

[GPS]

Hey if you want to make a fur coat out of puppy fur sure. Hell we birth cows just to kill them before they are a year old AkA Veal. Some people will hate your because of your coat but hey. They can't criticize you. With there leather products. Make up made from shark fin, or the hundreds of trees killed no murdered just for the papers used in the law suit. So sure injoy that puppy fur coat I won't be talking to you.

Now that book also say drows, tiflings, half orc's, any PC race in volo's are evil as well. But we can play them as LG,NG,CG. The book also say this is all just guide lines and do what you want.

This is why I hate alignment conversations. But there is no good and evil there is only morally wrong based on the social set of rules for a civilization.
Racial descriptions almost always have the caveat "usually" before the alignment.

[Sir cryosin]

Debatable.

D&D 5e defines being evil as being deliberately malevolent in general, and being good as being deliberately benevolent in general.

For exemple, most orcs are pretty malevolent, being ruthless, prone to violence, and generally enjoying hurting people weaker than them. The social rules for their civilization are based around that, and the orcs will not deny that what they do is malevolent and that they are hurting weaker people for run and to rise up in the ranks.

But that still part of my point the rules in the book is a social set of rules. We're everyone say here is what WE deam is "Evil". Evil is defined by the person's likes and dislikes. Is a shark attacking a surfer Evil, what about a hippo killing a man? What about hurracanes, volcano's, floods, blizzards, ECT ECT... Good and evil is a concept created by humans to justify action's we take against each other.

[IShouldntBehere]

In a Vacuum, assuming nothing in the setting cares about corpses and how they're treated relative to souls? No. However if the group is regularly wracking up enough kills of people to fill cartloads to build giant flesh monsters, chances are you've got something at least a little evil going or strongly non-good. Your average band of not-terrible people should just not getting those kind of kill streaks unless every square inch of countryside is covered in bandits that fight to the death.

[GPS]

But that still part of my point the rules in the book is a social set of rules. We're everyone say here is what WE deam is "Evil". Evil is defined by the person's likes and dislikes. Is a shark attacking a surfer Evil, what about a hippo killing a man? What about hurracanes, volcano's, floods, blizzards, ECT ECT... Good and evil is a concept created by humans to justify action's we take against each other.
Beasts and non sentient creatures are unaligned in D&D.

[Unoriginal]

But that still part of my point the rules in the book is a social set of rules. We're everyone say here is what WE deam is "Evil". Evil is defined by the person's likes and dislikes. Is a shark attacking a surfer Evil, what about a hippo killing a man? What about hurracanes, volcano's, floods, blizzards, ECT ECT... Good and evil is a concept created by humans to justify action's we take against each other.

I don't understand your point, sorry. Non-sapient animals in 5e are unaligned, and natural phenomenons have no morality.

Yes, good and evil are human concepts in our world. In D&D, sapience is required for those concepts to exist, true, but we're talking about a setting where there are sapient incarnations of those concepts, and those incarnations are often older than beings like humans.

[Sigreid]

Well, making one from angel parts is definitely evil, since it means killing a fairly large number of angels.

They were dead when I got here...

[pwykersotz]

Yeah, I'd probably call that evil. The problem with all these technicalities is that they ignore the whole point of morality. It's not a system to be gamed. In fact, anytime you try to say "technically..." you are probably being immoral and trying to justify it.

The desecration of the dead, the encouraging of PC's to kill foes instead of incapacitating them, these create a feedback loop of evil that can start as negligible and grow quickly.

Now, just to cause yet more contention and make sure nobody agrees with me, it would be a different matter entirely if you made the flesh golem out of the unused parts of animals that were hunted for food.

[Vogonjeltz]

Necromancy isn't evil either, as described by the PHB.


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

So, although your statement is true in the sense that the entire school isn't evil, the one aspect that people colloquially mean when they say necromancy is.

That makes your claim fundamentally (and egregiously) misleading.

For the OP, flip to the page on flesh golems in the Monster Manual. Look at their alignment, read the entry describing how they are made.

Are there any arguments that it's not evil which aren't risible?


So two acts are happening
1) Necromancer is getting asking for bodies from adventurers. If he tells them to not kill innocent people, and to only bring him the bodies of regular "bad" critters - then he has not done anything evil
2) Adventurers are killing creatures. As we know, in DnD, killing is not an evil act unless you are killing innocents. So as long as they players re doing the regular good/neutral adventure stuff, they are also not doing evil.

Now some will argue that necromancy is an evil act - but that's a different discussion.

It's not about the victim, it's the activity. Most killing done by adventurers is in self defense (i.e. a monster attempts to kill them). If the adventurers actually start the violence, that's when it might become evil.

Aside from the evil act of animating the dead, the matter of corpse acquisition might be evil depending on the circumstances involved. If the adventurers are going out to deliberately kill creatures in order to get bodies, yeah, probably evil. If they're grave robbing to get bodies, evil.

If they just bring a cart with them in the normal course of their activities (for carrying any form of loot) and then decide to also bring the bodies because that creepy Necromancer in the last tower on the left wanted a bunch of corpses and, hey we just got ambushed by goblins, might as well cart them back, that'd be almost neutral ... except it doesn't take a Sage to figure out that a Necromancer wants corpses to make them into evil bloodthirsty abominations which will stalk the land murdering helpless innocents.

As clear moral hazard as ever there was.


So on the topic of necromancey. IRL I'm not religious and I would say my alignment is neutral good. But I love playing necromancer type classes in games. And I have always seen animate dead skeletons and dead body's as infusioning them with magic and using them as puppet's. I have never thought or seen that. Trapping there souls in there body or placing corrupted Souls into dead body's. Now for using necromantic spells. I've has always been of mind it no different then casting a fireball. They are spell that do different things and are not evil only the person that use them for evil purposes.
But then again I don't believe there is a thing as good and evil only morally questionable based off of society rules.

Given that you can't resurrect someone who has been turned undead (Raise Dead, Resurrection spell, and True Resurrection all require an hour to cast and the body of the creature; True Resurrection can only create a new body if the previous one no longer exists...not the case if they're undead).

So, yeah, turning a creature undead effectively prevents it from being brought back to life until said undead is destroyed. The soul is in the afterlife as per normal for your setting, but it's definitely desecrating the body and inflicting an ongoing harm (prevention of restoration to life) against the owner of that body.

Animating dead is, therefore, a clear violation of the victim's body.


Hey if you want to make a fur coat out of puppy fur sure. Hell we birth cows just to kill them before they are a year old AkA Veal. Some people will hate your because of your coat but hey. They can't criticize you. With there leather products. Make up made from shark fin, or the hundreds of trees killed no murdered just for the papers used in the law suit. So sure injoy that puppy fur coat I won't be talking to you.

Now that book also say drows, tiflings, half orc's, any PC race in volo's are evil as well. But we can play them as LG,NG,CG. The book also say this is all just guide lines and do what you want.

This is why I hate alignment conversations. But there is no good and evil there is only morally wrong based on the social set of rules for a civilization.

Although animals in D&D are unaligned, in reality it's been clearly established in numerous case studies that Animals have a demonstrable sense of injustice. They know when something wrong has been done. They do not have civilization, nor is civilization or any form of social rules required to have a sense of morality.

Most morality is founded on the simple premise of what a normal would view as acceptable or unacceptable if they were the victim, with the obvious caveat that some harms are unavoiadable (animals must eat, animals must be clothed).

Eating a puppy, or skinning it for clothing, might be considered acceptable if there were no reasonable alternatives available and the outcome of choosing not to do so was death. Even still, refraining from inflicting harm on another feeling creature might still be the morally good choice, even if it costs the creature in question their life by doing so.

That standard is generally regarded as unusually high, but it is a standard to which some adhere, refusing to knowingly choose to harm any creature.

Others might draw the line at harming that which in no way harms them, or that which they have empathy for, or that which they consider cute, or that for which they have no legitimate reason to harm. However, we have a specific D&D rule set for alignment in place on 122.

Good means to "do the right thing as expected by society"; "do the best they can to help others according to their needs"; "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

Evil means to "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order."; "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms."; "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

So in D&D, turning puppies into coats, knowing they suffer merely for vanity and when reasonable clothing alternatives exist, is pretty well evil. They didn't need to kill the puppy, they did it because they wanted to, and could, and they didn't care about the harm inflicted. Neutral Evil, all the way.

[Unoriginal]

So, although your statement is true in the sense that the entire school isn't evil, the one aspect that people colloquially mean when they say necromancy is.

That makes your claim fundamentally (and egregiously) misleading.

No, animating corpses isn't evil. It's not good, sure. And only evil people do it often because creating a undead is like creating raptors who want to murder anything that's alive and then go in a city with them: you know there will be people killed the moment your attention slip, and animating undead regularly (rather than once in a while when in a pinch and then you destroy them) means you don't care about the consequences.



For the OP, flip to the page on flesh golems in the Monster Manual. Look at their alignment, read the entry describing how they are made.

Are there any arguments that it's not evil which aren't risible?

You're creating a neutral servant with corpses and elemental spirits. Nothing evil about that.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, animating corpses isn't evil. It's not good, sure. And only evil people do it often because creating a undead is like creating raptors who want to murder anything that's alive and then go in a city with them: you know there will be people killed the moment your attention slip, and animating undead regularly (rather than once in a while when in a pinch and then you destroy them) means you don't care about the consequences.

If it wasn't evil then no amount of repeating the event would be evil.

It's an evil act. The sentence merely reiterates a known thing, that doing a single evil act doesn't necessarily make the actor evil in and of itself.

[Sigreid]

If it wasn't evil then no amount of repeating the event would be evil.

It's an evil act. The sentence merely reiterates a known thing, that doing a single evil act doesn't necessarily make the actor evil in and of itself.

I don't agree with this logic. It's not evil, it's fraught with known dangers to others/innocents. Doing something fraught with dangers to innocents when the need is great and it's the only way you can see forward is not evil. Doing something fraught with dangers for the heck of it is reckless. Fraught with danger to innocents + reckless starts putting the toe in evil.

[sir_argo]

No, animating corpses isn't evil. It's not good, sure. And only evil people do it often because creating a undead is like creating raptors who want to murder anything that's alive and then go in a city with them: you know there will be people killed the moment your attention slip, and animating undead regularly (rather than once in a while when in a pinch and then you destroy them) means you don't care about the consequences.

I would consider animating corpses to be just inside evil. Both skeletons and zombies literally have an evil alignment. They are not just animated corpses. They have an evil spirit inside of them.

[LordVonDerp]

Actually most of the creature's life was spent deliberately ruining Frankenstein's life and killing people to get back at his creator thoughtlessly creating him and then not taking responsibility.

While he did want to have a second creature to be around, he was all too aware how terrifying and weird he was to humans, and part of his woes was how his creator condemned to forever be a pariah simply by creating him.

Calling Frankenstein the "real monster" is a way too big simplification of a complexe issue. While he definitively has his faults, and was certainly not a nice person, the creature knowingly decides to kill people out of existential angst and spite. While one can certainly sympathize with him, the creature is ultimately the monstrous one, not because of his appearance, but because of his choices and how he choose to spend his life.

Rather than a Modern Prometheus, Frankenstein is more of a flawed, weak God being confronted by his Modern Adam

In most versions of the story humanity is the real monster.

[Drathmar]

In most versions of the story humanity is the real monster.

Technically the only version that matters is the original book.

[Gtdead]

Depends on what you want the golem for, and the reason you are getting your corpses that way.

Taking it at face value, it's a neutral state of mind. You want to do your thing without stepping on anyone's toes. However, doing it that way could be a calculated decision. If the adventurers killed someone innocent and dropped him on your door, someone could learn about it and mess with your plans of conquering the city with an army of flesh golems.

Also there is the chance that dealing with undeath is evil in your setting. There is nothing you can do about that.

[Unoriginal]

It's an evil act. The sentence merely reiterates a known thing, that doing a single evil act doesn't necessarily make the actor evil in and of itself.

It's not an evil act. The sentence clearly indicate that the act is not evil, without mentioning the actor (at this point).


If it wasn't evil then no amount of repeating the event would be evil.

Not true. If you drive at 130 km/hour in a city, you knowingly endangers everyone around you, but if you do it to save the life of your friend, it can hardly be called evil.

If you regularly drive at 130 km/hour in a city and knowingly endanger everyone around you, just because you find it's easier than not doing it, it'd be evil.


I would consider animating corpses to be just inside evil. Both skeletons and zombies literally have an evil alignment. They are not just animated corpses. They have an evil spirit inside of them.

That's why it's not a good act. You're letting an evil, hateful, omnicidal spirit incarnate in a dead body, and so it's very dangerous. But in theory if you are careful it will be under your complete control for a certain time.

So using one when you really need it and then disposing of it is not an evil act.

[Princess]

I would say this would be similar to a real world example of using bodies for medical cadavers without permission. Would using the remains of someone executed for a crime, who did not consent, to teach anatomy at a college be evil? What if it was to train doctors/scientists? What if you buried executed murderers in a field to fertilize crops?

It isn't murder, it isn't doing any direct harm, and I'd call it neutral given the lack of a clear altruistic or violent motivation if the bodies would be dead either way.

[Temperjoke]

I would say this would be similar to a real world example of using bodies for medical cadavers without permission. Would using the remains of someone executed for a crime, who did not consent, to teach anatomy at a college be evil? What if it was to train doctors/scientists? What if you buried executed murderers in a field to fertilize crops?

It isn't murder, it isn't doing any direct harm, and I'd call it neutral given the lack of a clear altruistic or violent motivation if the bodies would be dead either way.

Well, there's the violation of consent, which is typically considered evil, unless the culture dictates that the dead have no rights regardless of what they wanted while they were alive.

But then we're getting into the usually circular argument regarding what is good/evil that bubbles up from time to time around here.

[Unoriginal]

It can cause harm to the dead person's family, I suppose, as you're playing around with the remains of their loved one and it can cause a lot of distress.

On the other hand, if someone dies and there is someone in the hospital who's going to die within the day unless the dead person's heart is transplanted to them... are you going to say "sorry, you have to die, I don't want my dead loved one to be cut up to take something they're not using anymore" ?

[willdaBEAST]

A lot of posters seem to be projecting our own values of dead bodies and burial rights, etc. I'm sure a number or even majority of cultures in DnD worlds would be similar in their treatment of the dead, but I don't think that should be an assumption.

In my opinion the act of animated a pile of bones or a corpse isn't inherently evil. I think that argument that it's evil because you're making a skeleton or a zombie, which have evil alignments as a monster, doesn't hold water. Your animated dead will only defend themselves unless commanded to do something. They are empty puppets (at least mechanically), so any moral judgement of their behavior needs to be directed at the caster. Why are they animating dead? How are they finding these corpses or bones? How do they respond if a family member of a corpse they animated objects?

Creating a flesh golem is pretty unsavory. I don't think the act is evil, but it seems like there's little motivation to make a construct out of tissue as opposed to some other material. However, I can think of some exceptions, like if a massive battle was fought and a field was littered with hundreds or thousands of corpses and a necromancer created flesh golems to clean up the mess.

[Unoriginal]

In my opinion the act of animated a pile of bones or a corpse isn't inherently evil. I think that argument that it's evil because you're making a skeleton or a zombie, which have evil alignments as a monster, doesn't hold water. Your animated dead will only defend themselves unless commanded to do something. They are empty puppets (at least mechanically), so any moral judgement of their behavior needs to be directed at the caster. Why are they animating dead? How are they finding these corpses or bones? How do they respond if a family member of a corpse they animated objects? .

Actually, no, they're not empty puppets. If you lose control of them, you're releasing an evil being that hates life in all its forms in the world.

That being said, you can be careful and not lose control. And that's why it's not inherently evil to animate the dead.

[sir_argo]

Your animated dead will only defend themselves unless commanded to do something.

That is only correct while you control the skeleton or zombie. The inherent nature of a skeleton or zombie is to attack. The only reason your skeletons or zombies don't is because you are currently controlling them, much like if you charmed an evil creature. That Bugbear is evil, but you have him charmed and under control. Wait 24 hours and see what your skeletons and zombies do then.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't agree with this logic. It's not evil, it's fraught with known dangers to others/innocents. Doing something fraught with dangers to innocents when the need is great and it's the only way you can see forward is not evil. Doing something fraught with dangers for the heck of it is reckless. Fraught with danger to innocents + reckless starts putting the toe in evil.

The ends don't justify the means Sigreid, and as sir_argo rightly notes, not only is this a reckless disregard for safety in general, the thing being created it itself Evil.

The spell literally creates Evil. Incidentally, Evil in D&D is pretty well defined as inflicting harms on others just because you feel like it, can, or whatever.

[Malifice]

As we know, in DnD, killing is not an evil act unless you are killing innocents.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

This old gem again.

[goto124]

Suppose the PCs kill a bunch of bandits who attacked first, or whatever cases where killing people is justified.

Is it Evil to use their dead bodies for necromancy purposes?

[Malifice]

Suppose the PCs kill a bunch of bandits who attacked first, or whatever cases where killing people is justified.

Is it Evil to use their dead bodies for necromancy purposes?

Yes. Using those bodies for necromancy purposes (i.e. re-animating them as undead) uses 'dark and unholy' magic, to infuse those corpses with 'an evil murderous spirit'. It is described as something that basically no good person will do, and only evil people do often.

Do it often enough, and you go to Hell (or the Abyss or wherever).

A person could raise a whole army of the dead, in order to defend a town from the attacks of monsters (or whatever), but the person animating those undead is almost certainly evil.

[pwykersotz]

Suppose the PCs kill a bunch of bandits who attacked first, or whatever cases where killing people is justified.

Is it Evil to use their dead bodies for necromancy purposes?

Trick question. Spare the Dying, Raise Dead, and others like them are necromancy. :smalltongue:

[JeffreyGator]

Would the party members sell the bodies of civilized humanoids that they killed (such as cultists/bandits or other human/elf/Halfling etc NPCs) or only "monstrous" humanoids (goblins/orcs) etc?

That answer independent of setting details might answer the evilness?

Or setting details might include a version of good with inherent racism (which is actually pretty common).

[Malifice]

Would the party members sell the bodies of civilized humanoids that they killed (such as cultists/bandits or other human/elf/Halfling etc NPCs) or only "monstrous" humanoids (goblins/orcs) etc?

That answer independent of setting details might answer the evilness?

Or setting details might include a version of good with inherent racism (which is actually pretty common).

This thread is ridiculous. Only on a DnD forum would the question:

Is harvesting the organs of people I kill, in order to create monsters... evil?

...be asked in a serious and non rhetorical manner.

[pwykersotz]

This thread is ridiculous. Only on a DnD forum would the question:

Is harvesting the organs of people I kill, in order to create monsters... evil?

...be asked in a serious and non rhetorical manner.

But without min-maxing the alignment system, how on earth will you get into heaven while attaining the maximum potential variability and upper bound in mortal power? :smalltongue:

But yeah, while it is pretty silly, I think it can be valuable too. At the very least it brings in people of all sorts to share their ideas and present new and fun ways of running the game.

[Malifice]

But without min-maxing the alignment system, how on earth will you get into heaven while attaining the maximum potential variability and upper bound in mortal power? :smalltongue:

But yeah, while it is pretty silly, I think it can be valuable too. At the very least it brings in people of all sorts to share their ideas and present new and fun ways of running the game.

Alignment discussions from roleplayers are always both frightening and hillarious.

'Genocide is perfectly good when...'

'Yes, thowing the screaming baby on the pyre is a good act if...'

'Torturing someone is good when its done for...'

I put the phenomena down to four things:

1) Anecdotally, our hobby is dominted with people who are often immature, socially ostracized, frequently 'on the spectrum' (pick a spectrum, any spectrum), and mosty male. In my 35 years of playing the game, most (or at least many) of us have issues with real life empathy/ social interaction/ making friends.
2) The hobby itself actively rewards killing and murder by its players/ protagonists (the core premise of the game is: conduct home invasion, kill inhabitants, earn XP, take its stuff). If you arent killing things, you arent advancing in level.
3) The enormous difficulty in showing emotion or empathy towards a fictional creature, resulting in all PCs being effectively sociopaths or psychopaths.
4) People justifying acts through their own real world moral views. If you're greenlighting genocide as 'being perfectly good' when 'done for the greater good', I have news for you. You (as in the real person you) are almost certainly evilly aligned.

These four things all intertwine to create a perfect storm of utter nonsense on alignment threads, with people justifying crap like murdering babies and animating them as undead monsters (or worse) as 'being perfectly good'.

I dont know why I even bother to read them nowadays. IMG you can justify the act of murder/ rape/ torture/ necromancy/ organ harvesting or whatever all you want to yourself or me as the DM, but I reserve the right to send your evil characters soul to Hell on its death (and to keep a record for myself of what your ACTUAL alignment is, regardless of what you - or your character - think it is).

[Unoriginal]

Killing someone to take their organs is evil, no question.

Using the corpse of someone you had to kill because they were going to kill you and/or cause major harms to others if not stopped, because you need it in order to save more people? Not nice, but not evil either. It'd generally be the last recourse, of course, not just "oh well we have a boo-boo, better use some corpses".

There's a reason why wearing a dragon hide armor is not universally considered an hideous mark of evil.

[Lombra]

As a side note: flesh golems are constructs, not undeads, so they're not necessairly related to necromancy.

[Demonslayer666]

Alignment discussions from roleplayers are always both frightening and hillarious.

'Genocide is perfectly good when...'

'Yes, thowing the screaming baby on the pyre is a good act if...'

'Torturing someone is good when its done for...'

I put the phenomena down to four things:

1) Anecdotally, our hobby is dominted with people who are often immature, socially ostracized, frequently 'on the spectrum' (pick a spectrum, any spectrum), and mosty male. In my 35 years of playing the game, most (or at least many) of us have issues with real life empathy/ social interaction/ making friends.
2) The hobby itself actively rewards killing and murder by its players/ protagonists (the core premise of the game is: conduct home invasion, kill inhabitants, earn XP, take its stuff). If you arent killing things, you arent advancing in level.
3) The enormous difficulty in showing emotion or empathy towards a fictional creature, resulting in all PCs being effectively sociopaths or psychopaths.
4) People justifying acts through their own real world moral views. If you're greenlighting genocide as 'being perfectly good' when 'done for the greater good', I have news for you. You (as in the real person you) are almost certainly evilly aligned.

These four things all intertwine to create a perfect storm of utter nonsense on alignment threads, with people justifying crap like murdering babies and animating them as undead monsters (or worse) as 'being perfectly good'.

I dont know why I even bother to read them nowadays. IMG you can justify the act of murder/ rape/ torture/ necromancy/ organ harvesting or whatever all you want to yourself or me as the DM, but I reserve the right to send your evil characters soul to Hell on its death (and to keep a record for myself of what your ACTUAL alignment is, regardless of what you - or your character - think it is).

I used to get XP for the amount of gold I found...damn these new editions...

[Unoriginal]

XP is not for killing, it's for overcoming challenges.

If you manage to trick demons into fleeing or manage to convince a knight to not attack you, you're still supposed to get XPs