being lawful good yet animating the dead

[Joe dirt]

so my question is more an opinion i want from people...

could u be lawful good AND animate the dead if for example you have a group of dedicated followers and they volunteer to donate their bodies to keep fighting evil after they have died.... perhaps to protect their village? or even follow a trusted leader beyond their time?

[Angelalex242]

...As a rule, no. Good deities don't do undead.

[sir_argo]

Both skeletons and zombies have an evil alignment. The Monster Manual says, "Skeletons arise when animated by dark magic."

I'd say no, a good aligned person would not want to animate dead.

[Malifice]

Of course you can. Ditto torture, murder, slavery, genocide and so forth.

As long as your character can justify it as being for the greater good, then it's fine.

In fact, if your paladin isnt doing everything he can to fight evildoers, like using poison, torturing captives for information, engaging in merciless genocide, burning sinners at the stake or stoning them to death, decapitating infidels and tossing them off buildings for moral transgressions, policing thought crimes, enslaving enemy non combatants and so forth (or slaughtering them and raising them as a more compliant undead army to fight evildoers) then he probably falls from grace and loses his LG alignment an Paladin status.

Remember; the key thing to being a good person is to be able to justify your actions to yourself (or better yet, your DM) as being for the greater good.

[Angelalex242]

Of course you can. Ditto torture, murder, slavery, genocide and so forth.

As long as your character can justify it as being for the greater good, then it's fine.

In fact, if your paladin isnt doing everything he can to fight evildoers, like using poison, torturing captives for information, engaging in merciless genocide, burning sinners at the stake or stoning them to death, decapitating infidels and tossing them off buildings for moral transgressions, policing thought crimes, enslaving enemy non combatants and so forth (or slaughtering them and raising them as a more compliant undead army to fight evildoers) then he probably falls from grace and loses his LG alignment an Paladin status.

Remember; the key thing to being a good person is to be able to justify your actions to yourself (or better yet, your DM) as being for the greater good.

I feel like you should've written that in blue.

[Toadkiller]

Or from the House of Representatives.

[MxKit]

Not in the base game, as it would almost certainly be breaking some laws and you're making inherently evil creatures with the spell. I'd say that, at the very least, Lawful and Neutral Good characters would not do the thing.

In a homebrew setting where undead are default neutral creatures, depending on the laws and cultural mores of a)the local society and b)the LG character's society, sure.

[AureusFulgens]

Both skeletons and zombies have an evil alignment. The Monster Manual says, "Skeletons arise when animated by dark magic."

I'd say no, a good aligned person would not want to animate dead.

Yeah, the thing to realize about lesser undead is that they're not just constructs that shamble around and follow orders (like, say, golems - a flesh golem is not an undead). They are malevolent intelligences summoned to possess a dead corpse, and if your control of them slips - or even if you control them but forgot to tell them not to - they will immediately start killing the nearest lifeforms they can find. These things only come into the Prime with one purpose, and that's meaningless slaughter; anything else they do is just forced on them by magic.

This is why the PHB says creating undead is "never a Good act". Because there are few problems so bad that summoning an omnicidal maniac into the universe is not worse, especially when you have alternative things to summon that aren't psychopathic compulsive murderers by nature.

EDIT: I did want to acknowledge MxKit. Yes, you might live in a universe where undead are not like this. In which case creating them is not fundamentally Evil. And even in the PHB there are revenants, which are necromantically restored spirits that (as far as I understand) maintain their entire previous personality and are marked as Neutral, so if you have a way of creating those that's also probably not Evil.

[lperkins2]

So the answer is going to be setting specific. If in the campaign setting, undead are animated by some base (but malevolent) force, then it's not evil to create them, so long as adequate safeguards are taken. If they are animated by the tortured souls for the deceased, twisting them into insanity, then it totally is evil to create them. Note that the MM alignment is insufficient to determine the answer to this, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no official entry for Forgotten Realms or similar that answers how it works, so it's going to be up to the DM.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Depends on setting, as the setting will ...set the boundaries of moral dilemmas like this. many have pointed out that in Standard 5e setting the answer would be a no because animate dead is evil.

My setting would be a resounding 'maybe?'. I like to leave morality of things up in the air and have less active gods and many people who refute them. In my campaign there are many who say Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, are just constructs we made up to pass the time we have on this realm.

[Zene]

Yes. Just like you can fight and kill things as a LG character.

[History_buff]

Revivify, Resurrection et. al are all necromancy spells.

Animating dead like that is A-OK.

[Malifice]

Yes. Just like you can fight and kill things as a LG character.

Including slaughtering children as they sleep.

[Greywander]

Part of the problem is that Good and Evil, along with Law and Chaos, aren't just philosophical ideas of ethics and morality. These are real, almost tangible Cosmic Forces. In the real world, morality is hugely subjective (depending on what your religious or philosophical views are), and while some acts are undeniably good or evil, there are also massive swaths that are shades of gray. In D&D, not so much.

The problem is that, somewhere, there are actually rules that allow one to determine objectively whether an act is Good or Evil. The real problem is that no one seems to know what those rules actually are, and thus endless debates about alignment have persisted to this very day.

One thing the PHB seems to make clear is that creating undead is never a Good act. But maybe it could be Neutral. One of the recent UA druid circles (Circle of Spores) actually take a more sympathetic view of undeath than most druids.

Previous editions had archliches ("Good" liches*), as well as Baelnorns (elves that become a lich-like guardian of their homelands or something, also usually Good).

*Because for some reason we can't just have liches that have their own personality and sense of morality (no really, I've read in several places that the process to create an archlich is pretty much the same as the one to create a normal lich. They're exactly the same except for a different alignment).

But personally, I'd throw alignment out the window, or just use it as a general guide. As long as your DM allows it, an LG necromancer might be misunderstood from time to time but should still be a viable character concept. Some DMs feel pretty strongly about necromancy, though, to the point where creating zombies prevents that person's soul from going to the afterlife, despite that not having any basis in the rules or lore (as far as I understand).

[JNAProductions]

Depends on the world. In a world where Necromancy is inherently evil, and uncontrolled undead are mindless killing machines, no, you can't be LG and animate the dead (at least, not on any large scale). You're effectively creating walking murder machines, so if there's any chance of them getting out of your control, you're doing a bad. Likewise, if it traps the soul of the dead, that's pretty evil.

If, on the other hand, Necromancy is not inherently evil, just icky, and doesn't trap the soul, where undead are just mindless automatons, then I see nothing wrong with it. You'll probably have people on your butt about it, since it IS disrespectful to the dead unless they wanted to be zombified, but it's not evil. Just a little icky.

[Logosloki]

With a concept like that why not be lawful evil and reward your loyal followers with the chance of unlife where their skills will be used to fight evil and more importantly, chaos.

Whilst the default setting for 5e has a bit of a kibosh on animating the recently deceased you could just make a setting where it isn't. Also, while probably discouraged for its...allure, necromancy isn't an evil school and there are plenty of necromantic spells not related to bringing a net win for evil to the table by gifting a body over to another soul or soul-like entity.

Speaking with the departed is a more flavourful thing that a lawful good person may do. Sparingly though as the dead deserve the peace of the grave.

[Unoriginal]

In the standard 5e lore, lesser Undead are neither mindless automatons nor trap the soul of the deceased.

They are, however, utterly malevolent omnicidal killers that you enslave, with dire consequences if they get free, and since you turned the corpse into an Undead most resurrection methods won't work anymore.

If the people agreed to their corpses being uses like this, and you only animated them while a threat where he Undead can make a difference, before destroying them ASAP, then there wouldn't really be a problem. It'd be a rather desperate measure, but nothing that taint your soul.


If you animate many Undead regularly, near a village, you might as well put copies of the mind of Hannibal Lecter into velociraptors and expect it to turn well.

[Chugger]

Of course you can. Ditto torture, murder, slavery, genocide and so forth.

As long as your character can justify it as being for the greater good, then it's fine.

In fact, if your paladin isnt doing everything he can to fight evildoers, like using poison, torturing captives for information, engaging in merciless genocide, burning sinners at the stake or stoning them to death, decapitating infidels and tossing them off buildings for moral transgressions, policing thought crimes, enslaving enemy non combatants and so forth (or slaughtering them and raising them as a more compliant undead army to fight evildoers) then he probably falls from grace and loses his LG alignment an Paladin status.

Remember; the key thing to being a good person is to be able to justify your actions to yourself (or better yet, your DM) as being for the greater good.

This is twaddle imho. The ends do not (or at least almost never) justify the means.

Lawful good can break the rules to accomplish something but then must atone for what they did wrong - and the act of animating undead in almost all cases simply goes too far.

[Tanarii]

Per the PHB creating undead by necromancy spells is not a good act, and only evil casters will do it frequently. That's a pret straight forward statement of intent by the designers for the default for the game. Effectively, it's a roleplaying rule. Like Paladins having Tenets, or Druids not wearing Metal armor, or (depending on how you & your DM uses them) the interaction of a Warlock with their Patron.

[Chugger]

Revivify, Resurrection et. al are all necromancy spells.

Animating dead like that is A-OK.

That's a good point, and I have to say that imho this was an error on the part of the designers.

Or they should spell out that there is death magic in various forms - some of which are evil. (i.e. some spells are death magic and not aligned - some are necromantic and evil - but with this current version who knows?)

DnD is not a reality emulator. There is good and evil in the world of dnd, in the classic sense, and to try to take it out is absurd. Oh okay you can - you can play Dungeons and Mad-Max if you want - with my blessings. But the traditional core game has good and evil. If you are lawful good you're pretty dang bound by it. If you want to be good and summon undead minions then be chaotic good, for cryin out loud.

And of course, you can do anything you want - it's your game to bend, fix, break or make amazing. But from a traditional standpoint lawful good raising undead minions is just plain silly. And no. Nope. Just no. There is no argument - don't you get "lawful good" yet...?

[Unoriginal]

That's a good point, and I have to say that imho this was an error on the part of the designers.

Or they should spell out that there is death magic in various forms - some of which are evil. (i.e. some spells are death magic and not aligned - some are necromantic and evil - but with this current version who knows?)

DnD is not a reality emulator. There is good and evil in the world of dnd, in the classic sense, and to try to take it out is absurd. Oh okay you can - you can play Dungeons and Mad-Max if you want - with my blessings. But the traditional core game has good and evil. If you are lawful good you're pretty dang bound by it. If you want to be good and summon undead minions then be chaotic good, for cryin out loud.

And of course, you can do anything you want - it's your game to bend, fix, break or make amazing. But from a traditional standpoint lawful good raising undead minions is just plain silly. And no. Nope. Just no. There is no argument - don't you get "lawful good" yet...?

Well, the lawfulness is not in question. It's the good part that is.

Necromancy isn't inherently evil, it's made clear, but the part of it that consist in enslaving evil spirits to puppet corpses is, unsurprisingly, not a benevolent thing.

[Spellbreaker26]

It really does depend on campaign settings. In the default one, though, it's just not LG really ever (I could imagine a possible extreme circumstance but it would have to be pretty extreme and certainly not something done regularly.)

[JackPhoenix]

That's a good point, and I have to say that imho this was an error on the part of the designers.

Or they should spell out that there is death magic in various forms - some of which are evil. (i.e. some spells are death magic and not aligned - some are necromantic and evil - but with this current version who knows?)

They already do, because they only specifically call out creating undead as not good, no matter the reason. Any other use of necromancy may or may not be fine, depending on what it is used for.

[Millstone85]

They already do, because they only specifically call out creating undead as not good, no matter the reason. Any other use of necromancy may or may not be fine, depending on what it is used for.Yeah and, if anything, it gives another reason why "creating the undead" in particular is a no-no. You are manipulating the energies of life and death not to (a) bring the living among the dead or (b) bring the dead back among the living, but to create something that's in-between. And one does not simply make such a botched job with such important energies.

[TheYell]

Good according to whose law?

[Arkhios]

In and of itself, Necromancy isn't evil, per se.

While, yes, morality might dictate that animating dead in order to serve you is distasteful, it really isn't any more evil than raising the dead is good.

[Chugger]

Good according to whose law?


“If you have to ask what good is, you'll never know.”

― Louis Jazz Armstrong

(I'm being quite serious and very silly all at the same time - perhaps like a twisted koan! And yes, I messed up his quote on purpose)

[Unoriginal]

In and of itself, Necromancy isn't evil, per se.

While, yes, morality might dictate that animating dead in order to serve you is distasteful, it really isn't any more evil than raising the dead is good.

You can bring people back to life all day long without any issue, but only evil people animate Undead regularly.


Necromancy in itself isn't bad, but Undead are a separate issue. It's less about the method you use to animate the innanimate, and more about the nature of the being.

[EvilAnagram]

I feel like you should've written that in blue.

Some people like to put effort into displaying their sarcasm rather than relying on an eyesore of a crutch. Malifice was clearly being sarcastic.

[Millstone85]

Some people like to put effort into displaying their sarcasm rather than relying on an eyesore of a crutch. Malifice was clearly being sarcastic.Poe's law.

[Vogie]

It really depends on the world.

Plane Shift: Amonkhet, for example, has evil undead roaming in the wilds, but also mummified citizens that act as the labor force of the world.

A location with an overabundance of Zealot Barbarians, for example, would have necromancy be a normal tactic to keep the standing army intact.

I could see a lawful good nation that uses Animate dead to be used as a literal interpretation of "multiple life sentences".

[Sigreid]

They can if they have the ability. I would expect a good character to only do it out of desperation. I.e. the only way to save the village is to animate these 5 corpses. They'd feel bad about it, and need to take care to see that all are destroyed as soon as the threat was over lest they become a new threat as well as proper funeral rights.

[TheYell]

They can if they have the ability. I would expect a good character to only do it out of desperation. I.e. the only way to save the village is to animate these 5 corpses. They'd feel bad about it, and need to take care to see that all are destroyed as soon as the threat was over lest they become a new threat as well as proper funeral rights.

To me that'd be NG, not LG. LG doesn't feel bad about what it has to do to get the job done. LG is by the book, all the time.

[Sigreid]

To me that'd be NG, not LG. LG doesn't feel bad about what it has to do to get the job done. LG is by the book, all the time.

That's more rigid than I believe people to be, but fair enough. The core though is that can they and would they are different questions. Can they, yes. Would they? Almost certainly not.

[Vingelot]

Maybe if you find a particularly Evil bunch of corpses to animate, it might qualify as Good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's more rigid than I believe people to be, but fair enough. The core though is that can they and would they are different questions. Can they, yes. Would they? Almost certainly not.

And if for some absurd reason they *had* to (or did so unintentionally), they'd seek redemption and exhibit remorse and try to fix any negative consequences that resulted to the best of their abilities.

LG does not mean perfect, it means you're striving to do good in an imperfect world. When you fail, you repent and do your best to do better. That precludes consciously doing evil, even for a good purpose

[KorvinStarmast]

being lawful good yet animating the dead

Aragorn, son of Arathorn.

[Arkhios]

You can bring people back to life all day long without any issue, but only evil people animate Undead regularly.


Necromancy in itself isn't bad, but Undead are a separate issue. It's less about the method you use to animate the innanimate, and more about the nature of the being.

Depending on cultural norms, even raise dead could be perceived as distasteful as animating the dead. Likewise, in a society like the aerenal elves in Eberron reanimating the deceased relatives might be completely acceptable. Aerenal elves are still good aligned people, despite their necromantic habits.

It's not so black and white.

[Sigreid]

being lawful good yet animating the dead

Aragorn, son of Arathorn.

Not quite right. They were already damned to their undeath for having abandoned their duty. Aragorn simply offered them a path to redemption and release.

[CharonsHelper]

Eberron had some non-evil undead. But even there, normal skeletons & zombies, and the raising thereof, were both evil.


Depending on cultural norms, even raise dead could be perceived as distasteful as animating the dead. Likewise, in a society like the aerenal elves in Eberron reanimating the deceased relatives might be completely acceptable. Aerenal elves are still good aligned people, despite their necromantic habits.

It's not so black and white.

I don't think that was a cultural thing - I think that was Eberron changing the rules of the game when playing in their setting. Like how in Eberron dragons' good/evil tendencies aren't color coded - that doesn't mean that they aren't still color coded by default.

Edit: dang ninjas!

[Tanarii]

It's not so black and white.
It's more of a black and pink-ish/purple.

Since it's written in the PHB, it is black and white. Unless, like anything other PHB rule, you are discussing someone modifying the rule for their own campaign.

PHB 203, The Schools of Magic, Necromancy:
Creating undead through the use of of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not quite right. They were already damned to their undeath for having abandoned their duty. Aragorn simply offered them a path to redemption and release. Aragorn led an army of the dead into battle.

[Vogie]

Aragorn led an army of the dead into battle.

Out of any other context, yes.

You can just as easily say "That person stabbed this guy with a scalpel" about a Surgeon. Technically correct, but contextually wrong.

[Personification]

Aragorn led an army of the dead into battle.

True, but that was more Horn of Valhalla than Animate Dead.

[Sigreid]

Aragorn led an army of the dead into battle.

But he did not create them, and that was their path to redemption.

[Arkhios]

It's more of a black and pink-ish/purple.

Since it's written in the PHB, it is black and white. Unless, like anything other PHB rule, you are discussing someone modifying the rule for their own campaign.

PHB 203, The Schools of Magic, Necromancy:
Creating undead through the use of of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

Urgh, I stand corrected ....(Although,
I've never liked the alignment system and prefer to ignore it whenever possible as it serves no meaningful purpose, imho).

[Tanarii]

Urgh, I stand corrected ....(Although,
I've never liked the alignment system and prefer to ignore it whenever possible as it serves no meaningful purpose, imho). Entirely your prerogative. Same goes for ignoring this specific rule. :smallwink:

Ignoring or changing something in the PHB in an individual's game is a long standing tradition in D&D, that has been reemphasized in 5e. I'm definitely not saying not to do that, or its badwrongfun. I'm commenting on what the PHB says and the designer intent it seems communicate. But the've been pretty clear their intent is also: change what you want, it's your game.

[Seclora]

Lawful Good, no. Lawful Good is about holding oneself to a standard of good that does not change. They may choose to show mercy, but never to take an action against their principles. Animating the Dead, creating a skeleton or zombie that must be controlled and will run amok if anything happens to you is inviting consequences for your actions that will violate your principles. At best, it would be extremely foolish.

Chaotic Good on the other hand, is about results. If commiting a small evil is needed to perform a greater good, then the consequences can be sorted out later, most likely by one's own self. Animate the dead, and then crush their bones. A spell like Danse Macabre is perfectly suited to such an outlook.

However, Necromancy as a whole is not evil. Most of the resurrection spells are Necromancy as well, and Life Transference is one of the only means for most Arcane Casters to restore hit points. Necromancy is simply the school of magic dedicated to manipulating the forces of life and death. If one is to argue that taking a direct approach to killing one's enemies is wrong, then how is Lightning Bolt any better? Indeed, more trouble is caused by unwise divination or haphazard conjuration than poorly thought through necromancy, to say nothing of the abuses possible through enchantment. And a badly aimed fireball will do more harm than a single wayward skeleton. Why is necromancy the designated evil school?

Because the sanctity of one's ancestors is a concept found in most cultures around the world. We are taught that necromancy is wrong because you shouldn't meddle with the dead; that death is one's eternal rest. It is ultimately not some cosmic force that makes animating the undead unacceptable, but a societal one, a construct of tradition.

I argue that the 5e designers do not have a moral, cosmological cause for making animating the dead a more evil act than charm [let alone dominate] person, but rather are simply drawing from traditional game design philosophy. They even make an allowance in the Death Domain from the DMG, stating that it would be an appropriate domain for followers of Nepthys, a Chaotic Good deity.


And no, Aragorn did not animate the dead. He called on their oath to serve his ancestors, which they had become undead for breaking. In the book, unlike the movie, he used them only long enough to liberate the vassals and allies of Gondor, who he then led to relieve the siege.

[sir_argo]

Entirely your prerogative. Same goes for ignoring this specific rule. :smallwink:

Ignoring or changing something in the PHB in an individual's game is a long standing tradition in D&D, that has been reemphasized in 5e. I'm definitely not saying not to do that, or its badwrongfun. I'm commenting on what the PHB says and the designer intent it seems communicate. But the've been pretty clear their intent is also: change what you want, it's your game.

I don't much care for the alignment system either, but it is useful for npc's. As for a player character, alignment it too confining. It creates 9 sets of values and there are obviously many more than that. I no longer record an alignment on my characters. I leave it blank. I describe my character's values, and I let the DM tell me what alignment that is. Here's the key. I continue to play my character's values, and if the DM tells me an action isn't part of my character's alignment, I counter that I never changed my values... he labeled them. If he wants me to change the label, fine. I'll do that. But I continue to play the values I set when I created the character.

[Tanarii]

As for a player character, alignment it too confining.
5e Alignment is not confining unless you force it to be confining. And even then that usually means you're thinking in terms of old edition Alignment, not 5e Alignment. Because used well, 5e Alignment enables better decision making by the player, within the desired personality they wish to represent for the character. Which is a sub-set of roleplaying.

(Player making decisions for what their character does, regardless of if its for personality reasons, being the super-set of roleplaying.)

Edit: An example of what I consider using 5e Alignment in a confining way: the DM "telling" a player what their PC alignment is.

[TheYell]

That's more rigid than I believe people to be, but fair enough. The core though is that can they and would they are different questions. Can they, yes. Would they? Almost certainly not.

I guess I assumed the code to be all-inclusive, so by being always Lawful you'd be always Good. I can see how that might not be true.


But he did not create them, and that was their path to redemption.

Technically they created themselves...Isildur cursed them never to have rest until they fought Sauron in honor of their broken oath, and they themselves chose never to try that until they were all dead.

Sooo....I guess you could try Patton's "either we are victorious, or let no one come back alive" as a curse, and let the chips fall where they may...

[Sigreid]

I guess I assumed the code to be all-inclusive, so by being always Lawful you'd be always Good. I can see how that might not be true.



Technically they created themselves...Isildur cursed them never to have rest until they fought Sauron in honor of their broken oath, and they themselves chose never to try that until they were all dead.

Sooo....I guess you could try Patton's "either we are victorious, or let no one come back alive" as a curse, and let the chips fall where they may...

Alignment isn't about what you can do but what you would do. I can hit an old woman in the back of the head with a tire iron and take her purse. I won't do that because that's not who I want to be.

Circumstances can move the line on what you will do. If I had a small child and the only way I can see to feed it is to hit an old lady in the head and take her purse, I thankfully don't know if what I'm willing to do would slide that far. If it did, I'd probably try my best to convince myself it's just this once.

[Breashios]

In my opinion, Lawful has to do with being bound to follow the law (the current land's, the homeland's or the deity's - sometimes there is a choice to make). If that law says it is fine to create undead, then that is not the issue. The issue is completely within the Good aspect of the character's alignment.

By the book creating undead is an evil act. As others have said, you could change that for your campaign or for a particular deity or two within the good pantheon of your campaign.

Otherwise, doing so would require atonement at the least and only if it was used as an immediate solution to an immanent challenge.

[Coidzor]

Depends on exactly what the morality of animating the dead is in that specific setting and context with that particular method to make that particular kind of undead.

[Angelalex242]

Aragorn saw a bunch of undead oathbreakers and asked them if they'd like to fulfill their oath and find peace.

What he did is equivalent to laying a ghost to rest by putting a book stolen back in their library or something, because the undead were laid to rest when he was done.

If they happened to wipe out a bunch of Sauron's soldiers in the process, so much the better.

[JungleChicken]

I really liked the Eberron campaign setting to anwser this question. I played a Karnathi Bone Knight. We Karnathi are looked upon with suspicion because of the large amounts of undead in our military ranks and farming labor. Why send your young men to die in a war when you can raise the poor men and women who have already fallen, or to raise the bodies of our parents and grandparents so that our children and grandchildren don't have to march off to war and die.

It's actually very easy to be lawful/Lawful Good when raising mindless or near mindless undead.

[EvilAnagram]

I really liked the Eberron campaign setting to anwser this question. I played a Karnathi Bone Knight. We Karnathi are looked upon with suspicion because of the large amounts of undead in our military ranks and farming labor. Why send your young men to die in a war when you can raise the poor men and women who have already fallen, or to raise the bodies of our parents and grandparents so that our children and grandchildren don't have to march off to war and die.

It's actually very easy to be lawful/Lawful Good when raising mindless or near mindless undead.
Provided that the setting allows it to be good. If you're animating corpses using evil spirits that will quickly turn on innocents if not under complete control, or if the souls suffer from being placed in the bodies, it's hard to claim that it could be good.

[JackPhoenix]

Aragorn saw a bunch of undead oathbreakers and asked them if they'd like to fulfill their oath and find peace.

What he did is equivalent to laying a ghost to rest by putting a book stolen back in their library or something, because the undead were laid to rest when he was done.

If they happened to wipe out a bunch of Sauron's soldiers in the process, so much the better.

Indeed. If anything, Aragorn did the exact opposite of animating undead: Through breaking their curse, he rid the world of their existence.

Also, LotR doesn't use D&D morality. D&D morality shouldn't be applied outside D&D (and, perhaps, its derivates).


Depending on cultural norms, even raise dead could be perceived as distasteful as animating the dead. Likewise, in a society like the aerenal elves in Eberron reanimating the deceased relatives might be completely acceptable. Aerenal elves are still good aligned people, despite their necromantic habits.

It's not so black and white.

While it technically is necromancy, Aereni method doesn't create undead: Deathless are powered by positive energy and the devotion of their descendants, and are fully sapient and in the possession of the original soul.

The difference is that the energy required to sustain the Undying Court is freely and willingly given (and, as there's only limited amount available, not everyone is worthy to join their ranks), while undead drain life energy from the world through their mere existence. If all elves suddenly died, the Court would eventually fade and cease to exist without their support, while undead couldn't care less and would continue to make the world a bleaker place indefinitely.


I really liked the Eberron campaign setting to anwser this question. I played a Karnathi Bone Knight. We Karnathi are looked upon with suspicion because of the large amounts of undead in our military ranks and farming labor. Why send your young men to die in a war when you can raise the poor men and women who have already fallen, or to raise the bodies of our parents and grandparents so that our children and grandchildren don't have to march off to war and die.

It's actually very easy to be lawful/Lawful Good when raising mindless or near mindless undead.

Note that those undead still needs to be kept under control constantly, else they turn against the very people they are supposed to protect. And while undead serve in military (and are viewed as necessary evil to bolster the ranks of regular, living soldiers, not full replacement), they are not used in agriculture (large amounts of negative energy and crops don't mix well).

The acceptance has more to do with the prevalence of Blood of Vol in Karrnath and their belief that only the soul and living blood matters, after you die, the corpse is just a *thing*.

[Pex]

Speaking philosophically and not 5E rules specific:

In the tradition of Osiris, the Lawful Good god of the dead who is a mummy, you could create mummies to guard a tomb. They don't activate, life forces at rest, unless the tomb is disturbed.

In the name of Justice you could create a Revenant to avenge a most grievous act. A Revenant could spontaneously be created on its own because of the act, but for the topic at hand it fits.

If a person has an important Righteous task left unfulfilled and no one to take up the Cause when he's gone, maybe on his own voluntary basis be given unlife to complete the task. It would be a type of undead that retains its intelligence and doesn't inherently need to feed on the living.

[MaxWilson]

so my question is more an opinion i want from people...

could u be lawful good AND animate the dead if for example you have a group of dedicated followers and they volunteer to donate their bodies to keep fighting evil after they have died.... perhaps to protect their village? or even follow a trusted leader beyond their time?

You should look into different cultural ideas on death, e.g. in the Inca culture, the dead were not only mummified and preserved, but they continued to own property.

If a given culture embraces equality between the living and the dead, it's very plausible that they might have zero problem with animating the dead, especially if you animate them as something like a wight that still has a mind, as opposed to a brainless zombie.

So a Lawful Good Incan Necromancer might be a-ok, viewed as basically a doctor. (Well, the part where people he revives come back as murderous murdering wights may be viewed as a problem in some circles.)

[sir_argo]

I think this thread is evil. This topic has been beaten to death many times before. Yet here it is, walking around again. I submit it as proof that bringing things back from the dead is evil.

[Chugger]

You can do whatever you want. If your players dig it - great. If you alienate them - you should've seen that coming (or that's what I tell myself - that I need to project and try to accurately anticipate what will work - what will be fun).

It's not fun if a DM always says "no", and one might assume from what I sometimes post here that when I DM that's me - but that's not my DMing style. However, any DM has to draw a line and say no somewhere, so to speak.

Your alignment is not carved in stone. It's not like it's tattooed on your soul and will never come off, so given that can I do x, y or z? Yes, you can do x, y or z ... but doing so might very well change your alignment. I guess that's part of why I would argue that a lawful good can't really do certain things - these are things that would necessarily change their alignment.

Can they atone - change back? Sure! Maybe it won't be easy - maybe it will.

Keep in mind there are a lot of choices possible in life for which there is no truly "good" answer or solution. You're a streetcar operator when the brakes malfunction - ahead you see a Y branch in the tracks which you can control (whether you go left or right) but you can't stop the streetcar. Tied to the left track is a 30 year old woman. Tied to the right track is a 40 year old man. That's all you know. You have a few seconds to decide - left or right? Which is the "right" or morally correct choice? Neither. Not possible to answer that question in this universe. So yes, there is a limit to ethics - as there seem to be limits on pretty much everything. We shouldn't be too amazed at this. Set Theory, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, The Halting Problem, arguably the divide between Relativistic physics and Quantum Mechanics ----> all point to some sort of limit or restriction on systems - systems can't "do everything" or "find all answers" or "be the theory of everything". So again, it shouldn't surprise us that we find this also holds in ethics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this thread is evil. This topic has been beaten to death many times before. Yet here it is, walking around again. I submit it as proof that bringing things back from the dead is evil.

* Presents holy symbol
* "The power of Pelor compels you!" Turn Undead!

[zinycor]

I say that you can't go to whatever afterlife lawful good people go when they die, since in the absolute & cosmical sense you are doing an evil act. BUT your character may still act in every other way that you consider lawful good and impose whatever conditions on himself. It could be an interesting character, the guy that is as generous, correct and dutiful as any Paladin, but because of his chosen magic path will never be recognised as lawful good.

Contradictions are always fun.

EDIT: I wrote comical instead of cosmical

[JNAProductions]

I say that you can't go to whatever afterlife lawful good people go when they die, since in the absolute & comical sense you are doing an evil act. BUT your character may still act in every other way that you consider lawful good and impose whatever conditions on himself. It could be an interesting character, the guy that is as generous, correct and dutiful as any Paladin, but because of his chosen magic path will never be recognised as lawful good.

Contradictions are always fun.

That's if you use the default 5E fluff. Which you are by no means required to use.

[zinycor]

That's if you use the default 5E fluff. Which you are by no means required to use.

Absolutely agree

[Tanarii]

I think this thread is evil. This topic has been beaten to death many times before. Yet here it is, walking around again. I submit it as proof that bringing things back from the dead is evil.If we flog a dead horse so much it rises from the dead, is that twice as evil as just animating it with a necromancy spell?
:smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

If we flog a dead horse so much it rises from the dead, is that twice as evil as just animating it with a necromancy spell?
:smallbiggrin:

Not in Eberron!

[Laereth]

so my question is more an opinion i want from people...

could u be lawful good AND animate the dead if for example you have a group of dedicated followers and they volunteer to donate their bodies to keep fighting evil after they have died.... perhaps to protect their village? or even follow a trusted leader beyond their time?

In the "basic" D&D universe magic that makes the undead is inherently evil, as it creates creatures that hunger for the flesh of the living. Ergo, a Lawful Good person in that universe would refrain from doing such a thing. A Lawful Good necromancer might resort to do it IF it is the only way he can safeguard the village, but he'd probably try and destroy his undead army as soon as the threat is gone. The undead being a ticking time bomb to rampage on the village (so long as the necromancer keeps control they are fine, but if he dies...). THen again that is kind of sketchy on the alignment, that necromancer would probably be more like Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies.

On the other hand, you could create a setting where raising mindless undead (skeletons and zombies) is unaligned and akin to creating constructs as there is no manipulation of dark magic ou souls involved. Simpling giving the body magical energy to move and obey. In such a setting I could easily see a Lawful Good priest of some Death Deity use the corpses of voluntary citizen to bolster defense forces.

Personally I prefer to keep undead and undead creation evil, since we already have constructs as unaligned automatons. I feel that trying to make undead "neutral" makes them too much alike with regular constructs. I know an undead is technically biological and a construct is mechanical or magical, but then you have the Flesh Golem ?

I'd rather have the priest of the town be some evil priest who convinced the villagers that it was the right thing to do to protect the village. Then I'd have the adventurers stumble upon that village/town and have them try to save the villagers from the priest against their own wishes.

[Unoriginal]

I say that you can't go to whatever afterlife lawful good people go when they die, since in the absolute & comical sense you are doing an evil act. BUT your character may still act in every other way that you consider lawful good and impose whatever conditions on himself. It could be an interesting character, the guy that is as generous, correct and dutiful as any Paladin, but because of his chosen magic path will never be recognised as lawful good.

Contradictions are always fun.

"He's a good guy in every way, except he kills innocent people for the mob."

"He's a good guy in every way, except he gives drugs to minors to get them hooked."

"He's a good guy in every way, except he regularly enslaves evil spirits and make them roam around, knowing they will go on a rampage if he ever lose control."

[Tanarii]

I say that you can't go to whatever afterlife lawful good people go when they die, since in the absolute & comical sense you are doing an evil act. BUT your character may still act in every other way that you consider lawful good and impose whatever conditions on himself. It could be an interesting character, the guy that is as generous, correct and dutiful as any Paladin, but because of his chosen magic path will never be recognised as lawful good.

Contradictions are always fun.
That's because he isn't Lawful good. Or at least, shouldn't be.

What the player writes down in their character sheet as their Alignment and uses as their character motivation doesn't have anything to do with what the PC thinks their Alignment is in-universe. The first is objective alignment in the game. The second is just the PC's beliefs in their own mind.

For example, it's entirely possible to play a Lawful Evil character who thinks they are a good person, doing what they must for the greater good.

(Not to be confused with someone like the agent from Serenity, who is self aware enough to know he is Evil because of the things he feels he must do for the greater good.)

The mistake a lot of players make is in refusing to accept this, and trying to justify at the player/game level that their character's frequent and regular behavior fit into some other alignment than Evil. Instead of just accepting it is an Evil alignment and acknowledging the character is the one justifying it to them-self.

Either that or these players have some disturbing personal IRL beliefs. :smallyuk:
(edit: no reflection on any posters in this thread, see 2 posts below.)

[zinycor]

"He's a good guy in every way, except he kills innocent people for the mob."

"He's a good guy in every way, except he gives drugs to minors to get them hooked."

"He's a good guy in every way, except he regularly enslaves evil spirits and make them roam around, knowing they will go on a rampage if he ever lose control."

Aren't those fun characters?


That's because he isn't Lawful good. Or at least, shouldn't be.

What the player writes down in their character sheet as their Alignment and uses as their character motivation doesn't have anything to do with what the PC thinks their Alignment is in-universe. The first is objective alignment in the game. The second is just the PC's beliefs in their own mind.

For example, it's entirely possible to play a Lawful Evil character who thinks they are a good person, doing what they must for the greater good.

(Not to be confused with someone like the agent from Serenity, who is self aware enough to know he is Evil because of the things he feels he must do for the greater good.)

The mistake a lot of players make is in refusing to accept this, and trying to justify at the player/game level that their character's frequent and regular behavior fit into some other alignment than Evil. Instead of just accepting it is an Evil alignment and acknowledging the character is the one justifying it to them-self.

Either that or these players have some disturbing personal IRL beliefs. :smallyuk:

How is animating the dead reflective of IRL beliefs?

But, for everything else I agree. Am not saying that the character would be lawful good, am saying that you could play him like he was.

Like being an honest person who defends the innocent and believes in justice and law, but that for some reason (like coming from another culture, being an undead researcher, some sort of craziness or having other beliefs about undead and their nature) creates undead as one of his tactics.

[Tanarii]

How is animating the dead reflective of IRL beliefs?Oh, sorry, it's not, that's not something that even exists IRL. I was thinking of (most likely troll) threads that crop up from time to time with the OP describing all sorts of stuff (so overall typical behavior) that pretty clearly fits under one of the evil alignment behaviors, usually CE's act with arbitrary violence, driven by lust greed or hatred. And then argue the character should be CN. Or the like.

So nothing to do with posters in thread. I'll edit that to make that clear.

[Coffee_Dragon]

"He's a good guy in every way, except he regularly enslaves evil spirits and make them roam around, knowing they will go on a rampage if he ever lose control."

Well, on an irresponsibility scale of one to letting a green dragon live...

[Temperjoke]

While the school of Necromancy itself isn't evil (as it's been pointed out, many "good" spells fall into that category too), I think the action of creating "permanent" (permanent until killed, for example) is an evil act. Especially since XGtE added the Danse Macabre spell, which creates temporary undead that de-animate automatically, that would be the only way to create undead that I could see an argument made for being a good action. It's not a nice action, but it's not necessarily evil either.

[Tanarii]

It's not a nice action, but it's not necessarily evil either.
It's worth noting the PHB wording is about frequency, which fits with 5e alignment being about overall and typical behavior.

Neutral characters might resort to it occasionally, but they're unlikely to be Necromancers. That class really should have a reference directly in it. (Or maybe it does? I'm AFB.)

[Temperjoke]

It's worth noting the PHB wording is about frequency, which fits with 5e alignment being about overall and typical behavior.

Neutral characters might resort to it occasionally, but they're unlikely to be Necromancers. That class really should have a reference directly in it. (Or maybe it does? I'm AFB.)

"The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys it's body, transforming that vital energy into magical power that you can manipulate.

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." PHB pg. 118

Not really a hard line, but it does point out the perception that others might have. Probably explains why this discussion keeps happening, since a lot of times when players make characters, they consider their own character motives first, and rarely think about what npcs would think about them, if they consider it at all.

[sir_argo]

"The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys it's body, transforming that vital energy into magical power that you can manipulate.

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." PHB pg. 118

Not really a hard line, but it does point out the perception that others might have. Probably explains why this discussion keeps happening, since a lot of times when players make characters, they consider their own character motives first, and rarely think about what npcs would think about them, if they consider it at all.

Your quote references Necromancy in general, not specifically animating dead. No one is arguing that Necromancy is evil. Just the act of animating the dead. Also from the PHB pg. 203, "Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spell such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

So, it isn't a hard line when discussing necromancy.

It is a hard line when discussing animating dead.


Also, I don't think we should be discussing how it works in unique campaign setting that alter the basics of undead (i.e. Eberron). If your campaign has unique rules, then anything is possible.

[Temperjoke]

Your quote references Necromancy in general, not specifically animating dead. No one is arguing that Necromancy is evil. Just the act of animating the dead. Also from the PHB pg. 203, "Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spell such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

So, it isn't a hard line when discussing necromancy.

It is a hard line when discussing animating dead.


Also, I don't think we should be discussing how it works in unique campaign setting that alter the basics of undead (i.e. Eberron). If your campaign has unique rules, then anything is possible.

He wanted to know what the class said, and I was merely sharing what the book said in the class description.

[Millstone85]

Necromancers are actually poor representatives of the school of necromancy, as they only deal in death and undeath. As wizards, they do not have the divine connections required to bring people back to actual life. Or the musical talent, because that works too for some reason.

[EvilAnagram]

Necromancers are actually poor representatives of the school of necromancy, as they only deal in death and undeath. As wizards, they do not have the divine connections required to bring people back to actual life. Or the musical talent, because that works too for some reason.

This is the best comment in the thread.

[Angelalex242]

You mean you've never sung the come back to life Mr. Zombie song? It's a classic!