How do I build a 5e, good-aligned necromancer? Can I?

[Neknoh]

So! Might be starting a new campaign, and this time, it's 5e. I've played a lot of Pathfinder and I usually end up being in heavy armour, wielding big weapons and generally facetanking things until either them or I fall.

This time, with a new group, I'd like to try something different (after having gone over it with the group to see if the concept is okay), I'd like to try to run a good-aligned, or at least true-neutral/lawful netural Necromancer, focusing more on the attempt at doing good for the world using those who no longer can contribute, rather than the "death is my plaything and I will have an unstoppable army" aspect.

Is there a way to roll this up? I have absolutely no clue where to start, what books to get etc. etc.

All I know is that I would probably need some charisma in order to disguise eventual minions and lie my face off in order not to be burned at the stake or just generally convince people about the positivity of putting the dead to use and to ensure them that no, this was not some loving father of three orphans that I brought back, but rather the husk of a murderous villain, now toiling in the fields while I'm in town doing hero stuff.

[GreyBlack]

So! Might be starting a new campaign, and this time, it's 5e. I've played a lot of Pathfinder and I usually end up being in heavy armour, wielding big weapons and generally facetanking things until either them or I fall.

This time, with a new group, I'd like to try something different (after having gone over it with the group to see if the concept is okay), I'd like to try to run a good-aligned, or at least true-neutral/lawful netural Necromancer, focusing more on the attempt at doing good for the world using those who no longer can contribute, rather than the "death is my plaything and I will have an unstoppable army" aspect.

Is there a way to roll this up? I have absolutely no clue where to start, what books to get etc. etc.

All I know is that I would probably need some charisma in order to disguise eventual minions and lie my face off in order not to be burned at the stake or just generally convince people about the positivity of putting the dead to use and to ensure them that no, this was not some loving father of three orphans that I brought back, but rather the husk of a murderous villain, now toiling in the fields while I'm in town doing hero stuff.

Ask your DM.

No, seriously, you're going to have to ask your DM if it's possible to build a good aligned necromancer. By RAW, Animate Dead is, at best, wholly neutral. The PHB explicitly states, "Creating undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently." That said, if you were to play a character who, for example, only harvested corpses of enemies and people who explicitly consent to such activities (such as signing an explicit contract when they die) or only used Animate Dead in dire circumstances ("Oh crap! The enemy orc army is going to destroy the village if no one does anything. Welp, I can't stand by and let THAT happen, can I?"), I could totally see a neutral aligned (with regards to good/evil) necromancer being a thing. From there, it's a question of whether you think society holds value and needs to be defended (LN), you don't really care one way or another about society (TN) or you think society's rules do more harm than good to people (CN).

That said, some DM's will (and have valid reasons to) rule that animate dead is always evil and cannot be called good. So before you go any further, ask your DM's opinion.

[Unoriginal]

So! Might be starting a new campaign, and this time, it's 5e. I've played a lot of Pathfinder and I usually end up being in heavy armour, wielding big weapons and generally facetanking things until either them or I fall.

This time, with a new group, I'd like to try something different (after having gone over it with the group to see if the concept is okay), I'd like to try to run a good-aligned, or at least true-neutral/lawful netural Necromancer, focusing more on the attempt at doing good for the world using those who no longer can contribute, rather than the "death is my plaything and I will have an unstoppable army" aspect.


As long as you don't regularly create Undead, sure, you can be a good Necromancer.



Is there a way to roll this up? I have absolutely no clue where to start, what books to get etc. etc.

You can build a competent Necromancer only using the PHB, but I'd suggest taking a look at the Xanathar's spell list.



All I know is that I would probably need some charisma in order to disguise eventual minions and lie my face off in order not to be burned at the stake or just generally convince people about the positivity of putting the dead to use and to ensure them that no, this was not some loving father of three orphans that I brought back, but rather the husk of a murderous villain, now toiling in the fields while I'm in town doing hero stuff.

That is still evil behavior, though.

[DeTess]

Yeah,a s GreyBlack said, you're going to have to ask your DM exactly what necromancy is, from a metaphysical standpoint, in his campaign. If it's just animating bones or a body using magic in the same way you'd animate a stone golem, it's probably not that big of a deal. If you're actually binding innocent souls to your eternal servitude in the decaying bodies they'd just vacated, it's probably not possible to be a good necromancer.

[Requilac]

It is theoretically possible to make a “good” necromancer. When it comes to 5e, necromancy is a rather vague topic. It says in the PHB on page 203 that raising the dead isn’t good and that only evil people would frequently raise the dead, but there really isn’t an explanation as to why it is this way. All the spell that Animate Dead says is “this spell creates an undead servant... your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature.” There is really no indicator as to why it precisely is “evil”, because unlike in older editions, nothing says that you test the undead’s soul from the afterlife.

That being said, here are some points people have made about why raising the dead is evil

(A) It is acknowledged in the description of Animated Dead that you must cast the spell again every 24 hours to reassert control over them. If you fail to do so they gain free will. Both zombies and skeletons are actually evil in alignment, suggesting that you they are intelligent enough to have cruel intentions and have no qualms with doing so. Which means that if you slip up to cast it for one day or die, then all of your undead are released into the world to do as they please... and coming from an evil creatures, that’s not a good setup for the locals. Having undead servants are like hiring serial killers, chaining them up and hoping they don’t get out.

(B) Respect for the dead is key in a lot of cultures, so the act of violating a corpse in such a way is likely to harm the feelings of others. Some have compared it to Grave Robbing and Necrophilia in that manner. It doesn’t directly harm anyone physically, but it is likely to hurt someone emotionally. This doesn’t apply in a society that doesn’t care about the corpses of their dead, or if you resurrect a monstrous humanoid that no one cared about.

(C) By harnessing the negative energy, you are giving support to the “evil” forces in the world. You are basically letting negative energy into the Material Plane, which gives creatures such as Orcus, Vecna or Acererark more power... somehow. I never truly understood this point was all about, but it is brought up frequently.

You can make of that however you would like. It would complicate the idea of being a good necromancer, but if you provide rationals for how you are bypassing or ignoring those points it should be fine. Ultimately, it comes down to asking your DM, just because of how vague necromancy is. I don’t use alignment in my games, so if the majority of the party is okay with I would allow it, but your DM clearly does. Sorry if you wanted a more conclusive answer, but I have none.

[CaptAl]

Can you? I'd say yes, with reservations, and ask your DM. Should you? I'd say no. Necromancy is fantastic for an 'ends justifies the means' type character. Might they be accomplishing good things with their powers? Yes. But their methods are at best morally grey. The character may believe truly they are a good person, but everyone believes they are 'doing the right thing'. That doesn't make him good.

Remember, D&D's fantasy world treats good and evil as quantifiable things. Devils, demons, and most undead are 'evil' and beyond redemption in the normal mythos of D&D, and bringing evil creatures into the world is never good. That may or may not be true in the world in which your character plays, though, thusly you should ask your DM. There's room for a good necromancer in a normal mythos, but it would be a less interesting character than a necromancer who embraces the morally grey to repugnant side of necromancy to accomplish good things.

[Unoriginal]

There is more to necromancy than making Undead.

[CaptAl]

There is more to necromancy than making Undead.

There certainly is. But if you're not making undead, why are you playing a necromancer? That's where the power of the subclass exists. You're nerfing yourself by choosing to mostly ignore 2 of your subclasses boosts.

[Tanarii]

In 5e default rules, you do it by not creating undead. If you just want a neutral necromancer, you do it by not creating undead frequently. That's because 5e has a roleplaying rule telling you that creating undead is not a good action (the only action with explicit morality in the book), and only evil characters do it frequently.

Or you ask your DM to house-rule away the roleplaying rule. Just like if you're a DM Druid that wants to wear metal armor, or a Paladin who wants to customize their Oath Tenets, or don't want to write out personality traits but still want opportunities to get Inspiration, or don't want to pick an Alignment.

Generally speaking roleplaying rules are fairly easy to eliminate or modify, so IMX (albeit mostly in older editions) DMs are usually pretty willing. But it's often worth understanding what they the Devs were trying to accomplish before doing so.

[Unoriginal]

There certainly is. But if you're not making undead, why are you playing a necromancer?

Because since there is more to necromancy than making Undead, maybe you like those other parts enough to take the subclass.



That's where the power of the subclass exists. You're nerfing yourself by choosing to mostly ignore 2 of your subclasses boosts.

Only one feature (the 6th level one, Undead Thralls) is ignored. The rest can be used without problem, even Command Undead (it's not more evil than any of the Enchanter's subclass features).

Yes, it makes the class weaker than it could be, but it's not THAT much of a nerf. And it makes you much more versatile than a classic necromancer build, since you don't have to commit your spellslots to the maintenance of your army.

[Draken]

As everyone has stated, you run into the issue that if you are running a standard setting, animating undead is an evil action and the undead themselves are invariably evil creatures. Barring some manner of in-table change, your best bet is to steer clear of that specific spell. In which case, you would do well to request a different class feature at level 6, which brings us to the other necromancy options at spell level 3.

Bestow Curse, Feign Death and Vampiric Touch

You could get a feature centering on either of these spells. Ideas as follows:

Bestow Curse: Bestow Curse is an alright debuff at best, so honestly it could use a lot of extras to be made central to a build. Animate Dead is already a very strong spell and it gets two significant buffs when you are a necromancer, I would boost Bestow Curse thrice from any of these options if I made it my spell of choice.
- No longer demands your concentration (I mean, it kinda has to compete with Haste).
- Is cast as if using a spell slot 1 level higher than was actually used. Longer duration, cute, but likely meaningless.
- Can apply two effects per curse. Very potent buff to the spell.
- Initial save has disadvantage. Bestow Curse doesn't offer saves every turn, but one of its options is a very strong crowd control effect with per-turn saves, that one should not be boosted, thus, initial save only.
- Disadvantage on attack rolls and extra damage from spells and attacks applies to all creatures, not just you.

Feign Death: The most situational spell of all situational spells, quite possibly. I can't see this spell being a useful choice for a central aspect of a build. There are two ways I can see it being boosted:

- When not cast as a ritual, you can make it so that the target is not blinded and incapacitated for the duration. No concentration resistance to all damage but Psychic and delay poison/disease. A quaint buff for your frontliners. 1 hour duration. Decent, I suppose, but not very inspiring. No concentration is always worth its salt, of course.
- Can be used on an unwilling target, with a saving throw. Tricky. If it offers no further saving throws (or at an interval longer than every turn), it is a save-or-lose and thus shouldn't be done. If it allows saving throws every turn, it is a worse Hold Person.

Vampiric Touch: A good spell for damage and survivability, I guess. Has the small issue of being concentration and melee range. Three buffs, like Bestow Curse. Options as follows.

- Int to damage, every turn. No frills.
- Advantage on concentration checks for this spell so you won't lose it. It is kind of situational due to being long-term rather than burst damage, but Vampiric Touch does offer some of the highest damage potential of all 3rd level spells, it just, you know, takes awhile to get there.
- 60-foot range. Vampiric Ray.
- Halve the duration, but allow it to also be usable as a bonus action on your turn. Bring in that burst damage.
- Give it a very long duration (8 hours?), but limited to ten charges for attacks. Same overall damage, but more flexible in how many fights you can use it on.

Xanathar's also offers Life Transference as an option for a focus spell, which would turn you into some kind of suicide healer. This one would need a lot of extras to be worth it, because as is, this is the worst healing spell in the game bar none.

You might also want to change the level 14 feature. What to, I know not. Depends on what you want to focus your not-undead centric necromancer on. Souls? Destroying Undead? Necrotic damage? More cursing? The options are there, just remember that it is not centered on a singular spell. Well, it kind of is, as Command Undead was a thing in 3.5, but it became this class feature in 5ed instead.

[Tanarii]

As everyone has stated, you run into the issue that if you are running a standard setting, animating undead is an evil action and the undead themselves are invariably evil creatures. It's "not a good action" and only evil casters do it frequently.

To me, that's a fairly important distinction. But I can understand where others might not find it so.

[Draken]

It's "not a good action" and only evil casters do it frequently.

To me, that's a fairly important distinction. But I can understand where others might not find it so.

A long winded way of making it so that for less black and white tables, the notion is at least available. But fairly clear otherwise, in how the 'standard' is to be set. The one subject in which Wizards of the Coast shows talent in sophistry.

[Tanarii]

A long winded way of making it so that for less black and white tables, the notion is at least available. But fairly clear otherwise, in how the 'standard' is to be set. The one subject in which Wizards of the Coast shows talent in sophistry.
It isn't sophistry. It is about how 5e alignment works: it's an indicator of overall typical behavior. Not specific actions carrying alignment weight.

[CaptAl]

Because since there is more to necromancy than making Undead, maybe you like those other parts enough to take the subclass.



Only one feature (the 6th level one, Undead Thralls) is ignored. The rest can be used without problem, even Command Undead (it's not more evil than any of the Enchanter's subclass features).

Yes, it makes the class weaker than it could be, but it's not THAT much of a nerf. And it makes you much more versatile than a classic necromancer build, since you don't have to commit your spellslots to the maintenance of your army.

You have a point. But it goes counter to what the OP specifically said. He wants to raise dead to 'put to work in the fields'. Raising the dead is a where a large portion of the power of a necromancer lies, and is pointed out as 'not a good act'. The other aspects of the subclass are of minor importance to the normal wizard playstlye. How often through the course of a campaign will the wizard need to enthrall an undead? How often is the wizard tanking HP damage to heal up by killing things? They're nice to have, but if you aren't raising the dead why aren't you and enchanter to enthrall things, or an abjurer to generate extra HP?

It's possible to make a morally good necromancer, but you'll have to give up raising the dead as a frequent means to an ends unless the DM hand waves the not good qualifier. My argument isn't that it's not possible, but rather to embrace that moral ambiguity.

[Laughingdagger]

Be an ajudicator by raising the dead that have not completed a worthwhile enough sentence for their crimes and lead them around like a penal legion if you want a lawful spin on it.

I would argue that "evil" as far as spells, much like tools in real life, weapons, etc, is a bunk concept.

There are plenty of offensive and horrific spells that aren't "intrinsically evil" like the necro ones, therefore I fail to see the import in the distinction as one might be the above, letting the dead still contribute to society, to order, to civilization or in a direct bodyguard way to make up for evils they'd done. And really, if you've already killed the individual, you've either rid the world of evil and therefore manipulating them to right the wrongs they did in life isn't so bad, or you murdered someone who didn't deserve it and thus raising them is moot since you're a villain already.

The Blood of Vol is a ruling class in Eberron from 4e that granted undeath as the highest of honours, letting champions and notable figures live on for the good of the kingdom.

Is that evil? Is it evil because it disrupts the natural cycle? If so I say fooey, the laws of nature are savage, brutal and uncaring, and other terrible phenomena are natural but equally abhorrent to necromancy, maybe even worse than necromancy. Is Dominate Person or Geas an evil spell because it is stealing total sovereignty? What if I attacked and nearly killed an individual but kept using cure wounds to heal them up to full so I could nearly kill them again, is that good because the spell isn't inherently evil in nature?

I would argue the morality of spellwork depends on the caster and their intent and motive, as in real life.

[CaptAl]

Be an ajudicator by raising the dead that have not completed a worthwhile enough sentence for their crimes and lead them around like a penal legion if you want a lawful spin on it.

I would argue that "evil" as far as spells, much like tools in real life, weapons, etc, is a bunk concept.

There are plenty of offensive and horrific spells that aren't "intrinsically evil" like the necro ones, therefore I fail to see the import in the distinction as one might be the above, letting the dead still contribute to society, to order, to civilization or in a direct bodyguard way to make up for evils they'd done.

The Blood of Vol is a ruling class in Eberron from 4e that granted undeath as the highest of honours, letting champions and notable figures live on for the good of the kingdom.

Is that evil? Is it evil because it disrupts the natural cycle? If so I say fooey, the laws of nature are savage, brutal and uncaring, and other terrible phenomena are natural but equally abhorrent to necromancy, maybe even worse than necromancy. Is Dominate Person or Geas an evil spell because it is stealing total sovereignty? What if I attacked and nearly killed an individual but kept using cure wounds to heal them up to full so I could nearly kill them again, is that good because the spell isn't inherently evil in nature?

I would argue the morality of spellwork depends on the caster and their intent and motive, as in real life.

And that's awesome for your world. Not every DM would rule it as such. Again, because base D&D assumes that good and evil are real concepts with real consequences, those penal legions are evil in nature. If that necromancer gets killed, or just can't reexert control over them, they will be malevolent and kill presumably innocent townfolk without other precautions. Yes, there's a million contingencies you can set up to ensure they can't kill Innocents, but you've still increased the amount of 'evil' in the world by raising them.

So, assuming base D&D, you give up raising dead frequently or ever, to be a 'good' necromancer. Or give up being good and embrace the grey morality.

[Unoriginal]

You have a point. But it goes counter to what the OP specifically said. He wants to raise dead to 'put to work in the fields'. Raising the dead is a where a large portion of the power of a necromancer lies, and is pointed out as 'not a good act'. The other aspects of the subclass are of minor importance to the normal wizard playstlye. How often through the course of a campaign will the wizard need to enthrall an undead? How often is the wizard tanking HP damage to heal up by killing things? They're nice to have, but if you aren't raising the dead why aren't you and enchanter to enthrall things, or an abjurer to generate extra HP?

It's possible to make a morally good necromancer, but you'll have to give up raising the dead as a frequent means to an ends unless the DM hand waves the not good qualifier. My argument isn't that it's not possible, but rather to embrace that moral ambiguity.

My point was that the two parts of what OP wants, "good Necromancer" and "putting Undead to work", are in opposition.

You could have a good necromancer who only uses Animate Dead in emergency because a town is going to get leveled by an army otherwise. You can't have a good necromancer who maintains a gang of Undead all day every day.



I would argue the morality of spellwork depends on the caster and their intent and motive, as in real life.

Spells are too, however some spells can only do things that are, in essence, making you behave in a manner fitting the description of the evil alignments.

You can use Geas in a non-abusive manner, and you can use Friend to stop a raider from killing you, for example. You can't really put a positive spin to "I'm regularly enslaving omnicidal evil spirits that will kill people if I mess up".

[CaptAl]

My point was that the two parts of what OP wants, "good Necromancer" and "putting Undead to work", are in opposition.

You could have a good necromancer who only uses Animate Dead in emergency because a town is going to get leveled by an army otherwise. You can't have a good necromancer who maintains a gang of Undead all day every day.

I can get behind that concept, 100%. That would make for a good dramatic scene as the character wrestles with the good of saving the town vs the evil of raising an undead army. Especially if he had to tell the local priesthood/paladins about the plan or deal with the consequences of that plan.

[Naanomi]

Very DM dependent but...

You can easily make a *heroic* necromancer whether or not Good is written on the character sheet or not

[Unoriginal]

Very DM dependent but...

You can easily make a *heroic* necromancer whether or not Good is written on the character sheet or not

I don't think that's a debate we should start here. It's going to get nasty fast.

[CaptAl]

Very DM dependent but...

You can easily make a *heroic* necromancer whether or not Good is written on the character sheet or not

I like this.

[Requilac]

There are indeeed necromancy spells which don’t raise the undead, and a lot of them for wizards including Chill Touch, False Life, Ray of Sickness, Blindness/Deafness, Ray of Enfeeblement, Bestow Curse, Vampiric Touch, Contagion, Circle of Death and Harm, but that is besides the point. The PHB, and no one else for that matter so far, were making the claim that all necromancy was evil (or at least more evil than killing someone with a fireball or sword), the PHB was saying that raising the dead was. The OP specifically mentioned killing villains and raising them to “toil in fields”, so we understand the intention.

In my personal opinion, I think alignment as is seems ridiculous and incredibly arbitrary, so I could care less whether or not it was evil. But I didn’t come to this thread to debate that matter. If killing someone with fireball isn’t inherently evil, than raising the corpse of someone who was killed by said fireball shouldn’t be evil either in my opinion, but D&D alignment doesn’t care about my opinion.

Best not to think too much into it @Neknoh, alignment is little more than a meaningless label in 5e. Whether your character is evil or not is insignificant unless they have a need to read from the Book of Vile Darkness or use a Talisman of Ultimate Evil. When it comes to 5e, alignment is unlikely to ever come up over the course of the campaign in game.

[Gastronomie]

(A) It is acknowledged in the description of Animated Dead that you must cast the spell again every 24 hours to reassert control over them. If you fail to do so they gain free will. Both zombies and skeletons are actually evil in alignment, suggesting that you they are intelligent enough to have cruel intentions and have no qualms with doing so. Which means that if you slip up to cast it for one day or die, then all of your undead are released into the world to do as they please... and coming from an evil creatures, that’s not a good setup for the locals. Having undead servants are like hiring serial killers, chaining them up and hoping they don’t get out.

(B) Respect for the dead is key in a lot of cultures, so the act of violating a corpse in such a way is likely to harm the feelings of others. Some have compared it to Grave Robbing and Necrophilia in that manner. It doesn’t directly harm anyone physically, but it is likely to hurt someone emotionally. This doesn’t apply in a society that doesn’t care about the corpses of their dead, or if you resurrect a monstrous humanoid that no one cared about.

(C) By harnessing the negative energy, you are giving support to the “evil” forces in the world. You are basically letting negative energy into the Material Plane, which gives creatures such as Orcus, Vecna or Acererark more power... somehow. I never truly understood this point was all about, but it is brought up frequently. Add that magical resurrection is an actual thing in the D&D universe, meaning that violating corpses is probably a more dire sin than in our actual world.

As stated by others above, whether a "Good Necromancer" (Necromancer as in zombie-controlling spellcasters) can exist depends on the campaign setting and DM. I for one would allow it under certain circumstances. I know people who would never.

[Naanomi]

I don't think that's a debate we should start here. It's going to get nasty fast.
Fair enough, let me rephrase...

Alignment is a result of behavior, but (except perhaps when magically induced) doesn’t cause it. You can make a necromancer with a horde of undead at all times; one who refuses rewards, rescues princesses, attempts to redeem monsters, never refuses a surrendering foe, donates loot to orphanages, is always honest, goes to church every Sunday, and never wears white after Labor Day. Nothing prevents that.

What alignment this actually represents; and to some degree how NPCs will treat you, is still largely DM dependent

[Draken]

It isn't sophistry. It is about how 5e alignment works: it's an indicator of overall typical behavior. Not specific actions carrying alignment weight.

A reasonable position. I will, however, not pursue this tangent further.

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

Anyway, as for using the bones of the recently departed, animated by some mildly sapient force from the negative energy plane as menial labor... Eh. It feels petty more than anything. Petty and risky, because control over created undead is no longer permanent. The villain is unaffected beyond the obvious fact that you have killed him/her, so there is no penance involved or anything.

The combination of the fear of the unwashed masses, very credible risk of momentarily controlled, murderous monsters going loose and overall low return on the effort involved means this is a questionable idea on every front. Using Phantom steed to get a super-horse to pull a plow just might be better agricultural support.

Really, the fact that animated undead go out of control without daily maintenance puts a major dampener on using them as cheap labor as was possible in 3.5. Good necromancers are better off focusing on something other than shambling cadavers when under the scrutiny of a panicky mob. It takes a bit more levels to start catching the souls of your enemies and wringing them for power, so you can start doing questionable things whilst saving the world, but when it does, at least it won't offend anyone's aesthetic sensibilities.

Plus you are in-specialty for performing the tried and true rite of heroically imprisoning evil forever*.

*Foreverhood of imprisonment may vary.

[Tanarii]

You can easily make a *heroic* necromancer whether or not Good is written on the character sheet or not
Totally. Just because you're a Lawful Evil or even Neutral evil character doesn't mean you have to be a Villain. You can totally work with the other heroes and oppose the villain's nefarious plans. Your teammates may not like you or respect you for your preferred/instinctual way of doing things.

Unfortunately not many players are able to make that distinction. Or DMs for that matter. It's simpler just to define heroic as "not evil Alignments" and ban them in a specifically heroic-oriented campaign.

[Laughingdagger]

This has been a surprisingly level headed discussion and I am delighted to butt intellectual brains with y'all on the matter.

I think the above post illustrates the beauty of roleplay. You can play a horrifically selfish, lawful to the point of tyrannical in ideals, only in it for themselves psychopathic evil classed character. Even 9/9 psychos can see the totally cold emotionless value in others for their mechanical benefit and so, they feasibly would work together with others in order to further their selfish goals.

I love seeing this played well, it's a real treat, it isn't often because let's face it; not many players can separate themselves enough to emulate a properly selfish psycho, and not simply a "destroy everything ever" chaotic stupid mc'bunghead.

[JoeJ]

The reason that animating the dead tends toward evil is that in most cases it involves recklessly endangering the lives of innocent people. Zombies and skeletons in 5e are not mindless robots, they are self-propelled murder bots that will kill everything they encounter if not strictly controlled. While it is possible to use them safely, it is not easy. Using something like that can sometimes be the lesser evil, but doing it for your own convenience, when you haven't guaranteed that they can never get loose shows, at best, a depraved indifference to the well being of others.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Step 1. Make a necromancer
step 2. Find the Alignment spot on the character sheet.
step 3. write 'Good'
step 4. ?????
step 5. Profit

[Tanarii]

step 4. ?????

= don't cast spells that create undead frequently.

If you do otherwise you're ignoring a 5e roleplaying rule.

[Naanomi]

Step 1. Make a necromancer
step 2. Find the Alignment spot on the character sheet.
step 3. write 'Good'
step 4. ?????
step 5. Profit
Step 4 is ‘maybe have to discuss/argue with your DM about it, but maybe not’

[MaxWilson]

= don't cast spells that create undead frequently.

If you do otherwise you're ignoring a 5e roleplaying rule.

It's a mechanical rule, not a roleplaying rule. If you do lots of certain kinds of things, your alignment will change, some spells will react differently to you, and some magic items will cease to function.

The roleplaying comes in when you decide how you're going to respond to those mechanics, but there's no rule about what you have to do. If you choose to sacrifice your alignment in order to (repeatedly) raise enough undead to save the people from the monsters that would otherwise eat their face, knock yourself out. You're now benevolent Evil. How do you feel about that?

[JackPhoenix]

The Blood of Vol is a ruling class in Eberron from 4e that granted undeath as the highest of honours, letting champions and notable figures live on for the good of the kingdom.

Considering BoV was LE-aligned religion, this isn't the best examplel. Or was, it was changed to LN for 5e, which fits the actual behavior of common Seekers better. And everything in that sentence is wrong. BoV isn't a ruling class, and the while philosophy behind their relationship with undead is much more complex. There's no "good of the kingdom" involved.

[AvvyR]

Considering BoV was LE-aligned religion, this isn't the best examplel. Or was, it was changed to LN for 5e, which fits the actual behavior of common Seekers better. And everything in that sentence is wrong. BoV isn't a ruling class, and the while philosophy behind their relationship with undead is much more complex. There's no "good of the kingdom" involved.

Karrnath uses a lot of undead in their armies for practical reasons, and aren't really considered evil.

The video game Sword Coast Legends features a wizard named Hommet Shaw who is a "good" necromancer that might serve some inspiration. Of course, the subtext of the character is that he's mostly naiive and thinks his actions are more good than they are.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, a lot will depend on the game world.

In the default 5E, zombies and skeletons are controlled murder machines. Making them is a very dangerous task and should be done quite carefully, since failing to maintain control results in serious danger to innocents.

In a different world, zombies and skeletons that are uncontrolled could simply follow their last order. (Being simple, though, that could not be "Follow my orders," it'd have to be something like "Guard this room," or "Walk that way.") In which case, they're pretty similar to golems, and who considers golems evil?

[Neknoh]

So it seems the age of the automeatoms have passed in favour of monsters bound in to fragile servitude.

My idea of a positive character and their large, robed bodyguard with pale skin and hands cold to the touch could well work under this, after all, neutral or evil does not mean cackling maniac. But it does take away from the genuinely good heart in the right place, moving it toward a heart in the right place but not quite understanding social etiquette or having strange ideas on the sanctity of corpses.

Overall, a druid or pure wizard might serve me better it seems. For even if the character would have that "I am actually left handed"-type moment when raising the dead for the first time, no matter how huge of a moment it would be, there are other classes I have considered for similar reveals that carry a better story with them.

I'm also guessing that a wizard (which seems to be the primary 5e necromancera choice) won't have the same type of communication with spirits from other planes that I had hoped? Such as speak with dead or conjuring older spirits from other realms or even healing people (although not as good as a fully fledged cleric).

A benevolent caster, doing their best with what they've been given (necromancy in all of its forms) in order to try to do good as a ****ty cleric and wizard until they would ultimately need to either reassemble their bodyguard or raise an army (depending on direction of character).

I'll look in to some other character options that I'll consider. Been contemplating:

A very inquisitorial cleric; burn the witch and do not suffer the heathen to live. Break laws? Fine, I won't have a problem with you rogue, but these abominations are an affront to the celestial realms and must be purged with fire and steel.


A very laid back, charismatic paladin, not lazy or far from his vows, but neither lawful stupid nor boyscout, very much more like a well played, less seedy bard. "Every one's a friend and deserves a second chance", "no **** there we were", "don't worry I promise we'll do our best to get them back", "hey barkeep! Two ale! I'm gonna get really drunk tonight!" etc. etc. As likely to accidentally provoke a fight with only good intentions when drunk as they would be to show up naked in an alley wrapped in the local monastery's tapestry.

A bard who collects magical things, from knicknacks to powerful artefacts and just holds on to their share of the loot, also slightly suspecting that they may be a god but just haven't figured out what their divine powers are. Attributing their basic abilities to their godhood, their lack of major damage in life and an inability to recall ever having bled etc.

There's the half orc barbarian of Lutz Longstride, bravest in five tribes who's never told any one that he's deathly afraid of the dark.

The traveling dext-class assassin (in pathfinder it was meant to be a ninja) seeking revenge and using whatever mystical power the class has to take being a bard, along with musical instruments, fine clothing when holding performances but unassuming in every day life, very in line with historical assassins all over the world.

There's plenty more and it's late, but yeah, perhaps the nature of 5e mechanics waylays the plans for my necromancer.

[Mortis_Elrod]

= don't cast spells that create undead frequently.

If you do otherwise you're ignoring a 5e roleplaying rule.

The only rule for role playing is that there are no rules.

The nature of good and evil and people’s reactions to magic are always different from each persons perspective. Alignment is merely 2 word summation of a perspective. Whether that perspective is from a divinity, community, or oneself differs from table to table, character to character, dm to dm, and game to game.

It’s important to note that people are multi-faceted beings. Simply put alignment, much like power levels, are BS.

[JackPhoenix]

Karrnath uses a lot of undead in their armies for practical reasons, and aren't really considered evil.

Aundair: "Karrnath: “No country that refuses to let its dead rest in peace is worthy of respect. Oh, they fight well enough, and they make a mean wheel of cheese and a hearty mug of ale, but they use skeletons and zombies to fight their battles. It’s a dark and strange land to be sure, and such a land breeds dark and strange people.”"

Breland: "Karrnath: “We didn’t fight the Karrns very often, but when we did we gave as good as we got. That’s a powerful and scary bunch living up there in the cold. Makes them hard and formidable. And more than a little cranky. And what’s all this talk about using undead to fight for you? Creepy. Still, I’d rather trade with them and drink with them than fight against them.”"

Thrane: "Karrnath: “Damn Kaius and his blasphemous army! The Karrns may pretend to serve the gods, and they may claim to want peace, but no Thrane will ever forget the atrocities committed by the Karrns in Shadukar. I will take their money, but how I loathe them! As long as evil reigns in Karrnath, the bridge between Thrane and Karrnath will never be rebuilt.”"

Dark and strange, scary and creepy, outright evil, if you ask anyone else.

That's for Karrnath, if we're talking about BoV specifically:

Sovereign Host: "Delusional zealots who have placed their faith in false promises of immortality and vile perversions of the natural order. Some are trully evil, most merely misled, but all should be shown the errors of their ways."

Silver Flame: "Devotion to the blood within is misguided and foolish. Those who take this so far as to become vampires, liches or other evil undead are fiends most vile. If a common Vol worshipper will listen to reason, he must be turned from its twisted path. Those who become evil undead must be destroyed."

So yes, they are generally considered evil in-universe.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Aundair: "Karrnath: “No country that refuses to let its dead rest in peace is worthy of respect. Oh, they fight well enough, and they make a mean wheel of cheese and a hearty mug of ale, but they use skeletons and zombies to fight their battles. It’s a dark and strange land to be sure, and such a land breeds dark and strange people.”"

Breland: "Karrnath: “We didn’t fight the Karrns very often, but when we did we gave as good as we got. That’s a powerful and scary bunch living up there in the cold. Makes them hard and formidable. And more than a little cranky. And what’s all this talk about using undead to fight for you? Creepy. Still, I’d rather trade with them and drink with them than fight against them.”"

Thrane: "Karrnath: “Damn Kaius and his blasphemous army! The Karrns may pretend to serve the gods, and they may claim to want peace, but no Thrane will ever forget the atrocities committed by the Karrns in Shadukar. I will take their money, but how I loathe them! As long as evil reigns in Karrnath, the bridge between Thrane and Karrnath will never be rebuilt.”"

Dark and strange, scary and creepy, outright evil, if you ask anyone else.

That's for Karrnath, if we're talking about BoV specifically:

Sovereign Host: "Delusional zealots who have placed their faith in false promises of immortality and vile perversions of the natural order. Some are trully evil, most merely misled, but all should be shown the errors of their ways."

Silver Flame: "Devotion to the blood within is misguided and foolish. Those who take this so far as to become vampires, liches or other evil undead are fiends most vile. If a common Vol worshipper will listen to reason, he must be turned from its twisted path. Those who become evil undead must be destroyed."

So yes, they are generally considered evil in-universe.

It’s a matter of perspective really.

[Laughingdagger]

It’s a matter of perspective really.

I was about to say the same, those are opinions in world by their military and political foes/opponents. What does Karnaath think about the other realms and their atrocities, and are you really going to argue that their faith is the wrong one, when the undead servitude bit is mostly lawful and willing if not goaded onto its followers, much like worship of any other kind of power or deity.

How evil is it to make use of all the resources of the land, your people, your magic, your intellect etc? The laws of nature are ridiculously savage, might is right, and is the realm of scavengers. I don't know how willing I'd be to condemn a society/culture within world that kept undead armies but was otherwise a civilization with fair if draconian rule of law.


Basically discuss all of this with your DM, OP.

[Tanarii]

The only rule for role playing is that there are no rules.
This statement is absurd in the face of the fact that every RPG published, ever, has roleplaying rules in it that limit or modify roleplaying. And thats using a subset of roleplaying, to mean "in character decision making".

[Mortis_Elrod]

This statement is absurd in the face of the fact that every RPG published, ever, has roleplaying rules in it that limit or modify roleplaying. And thats using a subset of roleplaying, to mean "in character decision making".

Ok well I should probably pu an asterisk on the end of that statement. Because when you sit down at a table, there ARE no rules, unless you and the other people agree upon them(when it comes to roleplaying and not rollplaying). Anything that doesn’t involve dice should be and almost certainly is subject to change.

Now you are right in that there are pre-established settings and such, but those are nothing but guidelines and reccomendations, To be disposed of at will.

[JackPhoenix]

I was about to say the same, those are opinions in world by their military and political foes/opponents. What does Karnaath think about the other realms and their atrocities, and are you really going to argue that their faith is the wrong one, when the undead servitude bit is mostly lawful and willing if not goaded onto its followers, much like worship of any other kind of power or deity.

How evil is it to make use of all the resources of the land, your people, your magic, your intellect etc? The laws of nature are ridiculously savage, might is right, and is the realm of scavengers. I don't know how willing I'd be to condemn a society/culture within world that kept undead armies but was otherwise a civilization with fair if draconian rule of law.


Basically discuss all of this with your DM, OP.

There's a difference between "They are our enemies" and "Yep, they are evil". Karrnathi may not like their neighbors, but they don't call them evil. Same with religion: while other religions consider each other misguided, they agree BoV is evil. And even most Karrns don't like the undead, they tolerate them, because it's their only mean of survival.

When everyone but you agrees that you're evil, no matter their differences, well, I do have bad news for you. And I say that as someone who likes Karrnath and considers BoV point of view pretty reasonable.

And, you know, this is D&D we're talking about. Even in Eberron, (negative) necromancy is objectively evil.

[Mortis_Elrod]

There's a difference between "They are our enemies" and "Yep, they are evil". Karrnathi may not like their neighbors, but they don't call them evil. Same with religion: while other religions consider each other misguided, they agree BoV is evil. And even most Karrns don't like the undead, they tolerate them, because it's their only mean of survival.

When everyone but you agrees that you're evil, no matter their differences, well, I do have bad news for you. And I say that as someone who likes Karrnath and considers BoV point of view pretty reasonable.

And, you know, this is D&D we're talking about. Even in Eberron, (negative) necromancy is objectively evil.

I don’t think holds up. Just because a majority is reached that doesn’t mean the majority is right.

[Tanarii]

Ok well I should probably pu an asterisk on the end of that statement. Because when you sit down at a table, there ARE no rules, unless you and the other people agree upon them(when it comes to roleplaying and not rollplaying). Anything that doesn’t involve dice should be and almost certainly is subject to change.

Now you are right in that there are pre-established settings and such, but those are nothing but guidelines and reccomendations, To be disposed of at will.
They are rules in the book, and they are about roleplaying. And its core rules, not setting specific rules.

Of course any table can house rule to remove or change something writen. That applies to dice rules, action rules, resource rules, roleplaying rules, and rules that are some combination of that. Some are easier to do so than others, and often roleplaying rules are considered the easiest to do so. But that doesnt make roleplaying rules any more "guidelines" unless its called out as such.

The core book roleplaying rule for crea5ing undead is explict. Only evil casters do it frequently. Any given table can of course choose to change or ignore that rule. But that doesn't change the correct answer about the rule.

[Fnissalot]

It is all about morals and cultures of the world you play in. Most cultures in our world thinks it is sacrelege to open up graves, but historically, we have had cultures in Southern Europe were you dig up graves to see if the person had passed well into the afterlife and drank from the deceased's skull to celebrate it.

Generally DnD, it's worlds and cultures are built around the idea that utilitarianism is good and egoism is evil (alignment) but this is strictly affected by our cultures current moral definitions. The DnD rulebooks assume these to be universal and inherent since anything else would break from the backbone of alignment which DnD is built upon and would also give room for deep and complex discussions of ethics and WotC's goal is not to drive a discussion on ethics if you hadn't noticed.

Short answer: Ask your DM if necromancy is morally ambiguous in the world you play in.