How would *YOU* rule an Ancients Paladin making liberal use of Animate Dead?

[Rukelnikov]

I'm currently playing an Archfey5/Ancients1 technically not yet an ancients, but he considers himself to be following that path and have been so since the beggining, about 7 sessions and we started at this level, even if he doesn't yet have the subclass.

Thing is I'm undercover now, have been since the beginning of the campaign, and I'm playing myself as a neutralish necromancer, the players know this is not my real identity (they don't know my real identity though) but the characters don't. I don't really think I could get Undying Servitude since we are playing a PHB only campaign, but supposing I could maybe get it. How would you rule me making use of it daily to keep my disguise?

[OldTrees1]

I see no problems with an Ancients Paladin making liberal use of Animate Dead provided it kindled or protected the light of hope and happiness in this world. Remember the Ancients Paladins are the ones trying to create the utopia rather than just continue a fight.


Edit:
Why are you undercover? Surely your allies would support your cause.

Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world.

Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.
Don't feel like you need to hide who you are. Embrace yourself. Delight in the good in the world and be a beacon. It is more than "okay" to be yourself.

[Rukelnikov]

I see no problems with an Ancients Paladin making liberal use of Animate Dead provided it kindled or protected the light of hope and happiness in this world. Remember the Ancients Paladins are the ones trying to create the utopia rather than just continue a fight.

Yeah, I know, that's his inner self, and it showed twice or so during these sessions, but since im being hunted by some noble families, im passing off as a necromancer, it is, at least in his view, for the greater good.

[OldTrees1]

Oh, some NPC is hunting you. Okay, that is a good reason to temporarily hide. Still, nobody would need to hide in the ideal world, so work on making it so you don't have to hide. And even as you hide your identity, you might not need to hide your light.

I can imagine a happy necromancer.

[Unoriginal]

I'm currently playing an Archfey5/Ancients1 technically not yet an ancients, but he considers himself to be following that path and have been so since the beggining, about 7 sessions and we started at this level, even if he doesn't yet have the subclass.

Thing is I'm undercover now, have been since the beginning of the campaign, and I'm playing myself as a neutralish necromancer, the players know this is not my real identity (they don't know my real identity though) but the characters don't. I don't really think I could get Undying Servitude since we are playing a PHB only campaign, but supposing I could maybe get it. How would you rule me making use of it daily to keep my disguise?


The Undead you get from Animate Dead are as dangerous as velociraptors, with what little sapience they have dedicated to the malevolent murder of all living beings they can get they hands or analogous appendages on. And then you're enslaving them.

Do you really want to do that?


Yeah, I know, that's his inner self, and it showed twice or so during these sessions, but since im being hunted by some noble families, im passing off as a necromancer, it is, at least in his view, for the greater good.

Those who do things for what they call a "greater good" imply there is such thing as a "lesser good".

You don't need to create Undead to pass as a necromancer.

[Rukelnikov]

Oh, some NPC is hunting you. Okay, that is a good reason to temporarily hide. Still, nobody would need to hide in the ideal world, so work on making it so you don't have to hide. And even as you hide your identity, you might not need to hide your light.

I can imagine a happy necromancer.


Those who do things for what they call a "greater good" imply there is such thing as a "lesser good".

You don't need to create Undead to pass as a necromancer.

Basically I'm the bastard son of a human girl from a branch house of the noble house of the tyranical lord of the setting (Immortal Ferguson), he has been ruling for 400 years. The branch house currently has few members left, and Im being hunted to eliminate a possible heir. Note that I couldn't prove my human heritage even if I wanted to.

My father belonged to one of the three noble elven houses of the forest we live in, which are kinda minor in the setting, and don't have much influence outside the forest. I made a pact with a circle of fey that lives in said forest to help overthrow Immortal Ferguson. That's my warlock pact, and ties in with my ancients beliefs.

So I've been running around looking like this (https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201604/c7876b0e4486e0225c8a360b7760a3b5.JPG) and using thaumaturgy to give off an evil vibe. The couple times when he acted more as his heroic self was when he intervened to prevent a person from being unjustly executed (at least in his eyes), and swearing to the locals of a small town a Death Knight attacked (killing many in the process), that he would free them from the undead and bring color back to the town.


The Undead you get from Animate Dead are as dangerous as velociraptors, with what little sapience they have dedicated to the malevolent murder of all living beings they can get they hands or analogous appendages on. And then you're enslaving them.

Do you really want to do that?

Only for the mischievousness of the act, "nobody would suspect the necromancer was actually a paladin" :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

Basically I'm the bastard son of a human girl from a branch house of the noble house of the tyranical lord of the setting (Immortal Ferguson), he has been ruling for 400 years. The branch house currently has few members left, and Im being hunted to eliminate a possible heir. Note that I couldn't prove my human heritage even if I wanted to.

My father belonged to one of the three noble elven houses of the forest we live in, which are kinda minor in the setting, and don't have much influence outside the forest. I made a pact with a circle of fey that lives in said forest to help overthrow Immortal Ferguson. That's my warlock pact, and ties in with my ancients beliefs.

So I've been running around looking like this (https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201604/c7876b0e4486e0225c8a360b7760a3b5.JPG) and using thaumaturgy to give off an evil vibe. The couple times when he acted more as his heroic self was when he intervened to prevent a person from being unjustly executed (at least in his eyes), and swearing to the locals of a small town the DK attacked (killing many in the process), that he would free them from the undead and bring color back to the town.



Only for the mischievousness of the act, "nobody would suspect the necromancer was actually a paladin" :smalltongue:

Again, you don't need to use Animate Dead to pretend to be a Necromancer. Warlocks have other Necromancy spells.

If you want an Undead around, you can simply use Summon Undead, which avoids the issues of Animate Dead by summoning a non-permanent undead you don't risk to lose control of, available in Ghost, Skeleton or Zombie flavor.

[Rukelnikov]

Again, you don't need to use Animate Dead to pretend to be a Necromancer. Warlocks have other Necromancy spells.

If you want an Undead around, you can simply use Summon Undead, which avoids the issues of Animate Dead by summoning a non-permanent undead you don't risk to lose control of, available in Ghost, Skeleton or Zombie flavor.

Awesome! I didn't think of that, I'll see if I can manage getting that spell. Thanks!

[Unoriginal]

Awesome! I didn't think of that, I'll see if I can manage getting that spell. Thanks!

It's a 3rd level Warlock spell. Not PHB only, sure.

Even with PHB only you can do things like have your Unseen Servant move a skeleton around to pretend it's an Undead, and tricks of that kinds.

You're an Archfey Warlock, conning people into thinking they're seeing something else than what you're actually doing is kinda the basis of the Pact.

[Rukelnikov]

It's a 3rd level Warlock spell. Not PHB only, sure.

Even with PHB only you can do things like have your Unseen Servant move a skeleton around to pretend it's an Undead, and tricks of that kinds.

You're an Archfey Warlock, conning people into thinking they're seeing something else than what you're actually doing is kinda the basis of the Pact.

Yeah, I've been doing some of those things, mostly illusions, but since we are close to leveling I was wondering if im getting all the paladin spells (which is what I had in mind), but started considering another level in Warlock for the reaction and if I could get Undeads. If I can convince the DM to allow Summon Undead it would be even better :smalltongue:

[sithlordnergal]

I mean, I have an entire country in one of my homebrew games that uses undead as their unskilled labor. You die, you get raised as an undead and start working. If you're a zombie, you get basic unskilled labor jobs, if you're a Skeleton, you're upgraded to simple tasks that need a slightly higher intelligence. It also makes for an amazing military since, you know, all their labor can instantly be ordered to fight an opposing force, and if anyone on the opposing side dies then they can be raised as more soldiers for your army. Thus demoralizing the enemy while bolstering your own troops. As for living citizens, they live pretty well and have a high standard of living.

So just swing with that sort of thing: You're making undead to be used as labor so that living people have easier lives and don't have to do disgusting and/or dangerous jobs. If anyone questions your motives, hit them with this: Do YOU wanna work as city sanitation for <insert biggest city in campaign>, or would you rather let what is essentially a fleshy/bony robot do it? And then use those undead for labor.

[OldTrees1]

So I've been running around looking like this (https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/201604/c7876b0e4486e0225c8a360b7760a3b5.JPG) and using thaumaturgy to give off an evil vibe. The couple times when he acted more as his heroic self was when he intervened to prevent a person from being unjustly executed (at least in his eyes), and swearing to the locals of a small town a Death Knight attacked (killing many in the process), that he would free them from the undead and bring color back to the town.

Only for the mischievousness of the act, "nobody would suspect the necromancer was actually a paladin" :smalltongue:

Well it sounds like you will need to hide your identity for a while, but don't let that stop you from letting your light shine. Imagine a Necromancer that followed the Ancient's creed. Kindle and Protect Light. The Light of others, and your own Light.

How would a Necromancer increase the happiness, hope, and life in the world? sithlordnergal gives a good example of using undead for labor*. There are other ways too. A skeleton jester can cheer up a crying child. Skeleton guards can watch over the farm as you sleep.

And there are non undead ways too, but I don't think those are on your list. Healing (even if WotC mislabels the cures) and Speaking with the Dead are necromancy.

* Mindless Soulless Undead labor force is a common trope of Necromancy based utopias. Imagine a squad of skeletons that provide food, water, & shelter for every citizen.

[JackPhoenix]

How would a Necromancer increase the happiness, hope, and life in the world? sithlordnergal gives a good example of using undead for labor*. There are other ways too. A skeleton jester can cheer up a crying child. Skeleton guards can watch over the farm as you sleep.

And if you oversleep and don't cast the spell to keep them under control, you won't need to worry about waking up.


And there are non undead ways too, but I don't think those are on your list. Healing (even if WotC mislabels the cures) and Speaking with the Dead are necromancy.

Healing isn't necromancy for the last 3 editions. The only mislabeling comes from people who to claim it is.


* Mindless Soulless Undead labor force is a common trope of Necromancy based utopias. Imagine a squad of skeletons that provide food, water, & shelter for every citizen.

And imagine those same undead murdering everyone, because the necromancer who was supposed to keep them from indulging in their natural behavior (i.e. killing every single living thing in the world) didn't cast the spell in a required timeframe, for whatever reason (overslept, got sick, had an accident, got stuck in the traffic...). Not to mention that requiring a level 5 caster for about 9 workers that require constant supervision is not economically viable.

[MoiMagnus]

And imagine those same undead murdering everyone, because the necromancer who was supposed to keep them from indulging in their natural behavior (i.e. killing every single living thing in the world) didn't cast the spell in a required timeframe, for whatever reason (overslept, got sick, had an accident, got stuck in the traffic...). Not to mention that requiring a level 5 caster for about 9 workers that require constant supervision is not economically viable.

It's probably safe to assume those universe are run by GM that are much more generous in their rulings about undead behaviours, making them far less of a threat when control is lost. (When it's not directly ways of "taming" the undeads without having to recast the control every day).

Especially considering that you can get rid of their weapons (at least for skeletons), so they are stuck with crappy unarmed strikes (+2 for 1 dmg), or improvised weapons that are only slightly better.
They will be a threat to commoners (especially children), but IME, those "utopia" tend to have citizens of higher power level than commoners, so dealing with those is probably not an issue as long as you're not outnumbered.

I agree that the one level 5 caster for 9 workers is a technical issue, that will probably require some GM fiat for something along the line of "well, they have other lower level ways than the spell 'animate dead' to raise undead" (or ways of taming undeads on the long term).

[Guy Lombard-O]

I once played an ancients paladin in a party with a caster who wanted to use Animate Dead. And I did see some issue with it. But it's a team game, and I felt some obligation to make it work somehow without stepping on his plan or being an old-school bully-paladin.

So what we came up with was:

1. Only corpses that weren't already in graves could be used, and only then if they weren't of any of the good humanoid races (this was back when orcs and goblins were EVIL);
2. No innocents could be harmed by the undead;
3. Any undead created by the caster must be destroyed when its usefulness ended (this resulted in us tracking one zombie down after a rout where the caster went down and the thing wandered off).

Something like that could maybe work for you?

[Composer99]

So, unless your DM is prepared to take the opinions of Strangers On The Internet™, I am not sure what value is to be had in consulting on how we would rule on it.

Be that as it may, the answer to how that question, at least as regards myself, has two elements: first, "no matter what, such use must be done to further the paladin's Oath", and second, "it depends on the setting". The second element dictates how picky or not one can be with respect to the first element.

In a setting with the default view of undead (animated by the power of the Shadowfell, innately hostile to all living things unless controlled), liberal use of animate dead is likely going to lead to problems down the road with respect to the furtherance of one's Oath. It would be hard to "kindle the light of hope in the world", for instance, if people are terrified of you because you roll into town with a couple of zombies in tow. It would be hard to "stand against the wickedness that would swallow [good, beauty, etc.]" when, by dint of losing control of animated undead, you are contributing, however inadvertently, to that wickedness.

In a setting where unintelligent undead are effectively mindless robots, inert unless and until commanded, and can be safely used for manual labour, such use would be far less concerning.

As for your campaign, best to check with your DM, and, depending on their answer, see if you can pick up summon undead from Tasha's as has been mentioned upthread, which could let you use undead to pass off as a necromancer-who-makes-use-of-undead at need without the risks of animate dead.

[OldTrees1]

And if you oversleep and don't cast the spell to keep them under control, you won't need to worry about waking up.

I rarely sleep longer than 16 hours. Do you often sleep that long?

I also have never ruled the PCs risk oversleeping so long.


Healing isn't necromancy for the last 3 editions. The only mislabeling comes from people who to claim it is.
When did 8th edition come out? 5E has necromancy for some healing: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Revivify#content

Necromancy is power over death, that includes reversing death or preventing death.


And imagine those same undead murdering everyone, because the necromancer who was supposed to keep them from indulging in their natural behavior (i.e. killing every single living thing in the world) didn't cast the spell in a required timeframe, for whatever reason (overslept, got sick, had an accident, got stuck in the traffic...). Not to mention that requiring a level 5 caster for about 9 workers that require constant supervision is not economically viable.

It sounds like you are being deliberately antagonistic.

You can rule how you would rule, but I would not be so antagonistic in my rulings. I see no reason to presume incompetence.

As for the logistical efficiency, that varies from edition to edition. 1 hour of a 5th level casters labor = 9x20 hours of labor is low but still viable. Of course this assumes the casters is competent enough to give commands that would last. Again, the difference between assuming competence vs assuming incompetence. Although in other editions this efficiency can be higher. A high level 3E necromancer can spend 1 day a month to provide food for an entire city state.

[Hairfish]

Ancients paladin is (arguably) the most anti-undead of all the oaths. I wouldn't let you take it if you've been creating undead.

I mean, there's a paladin subclass that gets Animate Dead: Oathbreaker. That seems like it should be a big hint that paladinry and necromancy don't mix.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ancients paladin is (arguably) the most anti-undead of all the oaths. I wouldn't let you take it if you've been creating undead.

I mean, there's a paladin subclass that gets Animate Dead: Oathbreaker. That seems like it should be a big hint that paladinry and necromancy don't mix.

Agreed. Undead are one of the basic personifications of the Darkness that is the opposite to the Light that ancients paladins are supposed to maintain and spread. They are perversions of nature.

[DwarfFighter]

technically not yet an ancients, but he considers himself to be following that path and have been so since the beggining, about 7 sessions and we started at this level, even if he doesn't yet have the subclass.


Here's something I'm curious about. The various Paladin subclasses are pretty diverse, and they represent quite different outlooks that it seems should have been factored into the paladin character from the start, like the Oath of the Ancients seem like it should be an early commitment, not a final-year specialization out of Generic Paladin College. But a player's first two Paladin levels are entirely generic and they are essentially free to pick an arbitrary Oath regardless of what drove them to this class in the first place.

Clerics commit at level 1, why not Paladins?

-DF

[Guy Lombard-O]

Here's something I'm curious about. The various Paladin subclasses are pretty diverse, and they represent quite different outlooks that it seems should have been factored into the paladin character from the start, like the Oath of the Ancients seem like it should be an early commitment, not a final-year specialization out of Generic Paladin College. But a player's first two Paladin levels are entirely generic and they are essentially free to pick an arbitrary Oath regardless of what drove them to this class in the first place.

Clerics commit at level 1, why not Paladins?

-DF

Hard agree, there. I've played 4 or 5 paladins now in 5e, and each time I've known what Oath I'm taking when I make the character. It makes little sense to have the Oath kick in later. Especially since paladins are supposed to be deriving all of their "divine" abilities from the Oath itself. So, at level 2, they have spells, Smites, Divine Sense and Lay on Hands...and yet they still haven't committed to the Oath that supposedly powers those things? Huh?

Sure, you can (and should) role play all of that from the get go as a paladin player, regardless of the mechanics. But it'd make way more sense and be nice, if the mechanics matched the fluff for the Oaths.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Personally, I hate the dumb sacred cow of "necromancy = evil" that has persisted in the game. It's such a boring and myopic restriction that feels almost arbitrary at this point.

Of course I'd allow a good-aligned or righteous figure to use it out of pragmatism, or ideology, or whatever, but I guess there are often some different assumptions about it that the game designers and community like to adhere to.

[DwarfFighter]

Personally, I hate the dumb sacred cow of "necromancy = evil" that has persisted in the game. It's such a boring and myopic restriction that feels almost arbitrary at this point.

Of course I'd allow a good-aligned or righteous figure to use it out of pragmatism, or ideology, or whatever, but I guess there are often some different assumptions about it that the game designers and community like to adhere to.

Well, Necromancy is evil since it's purpose is to override the will of others or bind them to servitude.

-DF

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Well, Necromancy is evil since it's purpose is to override the will of others or bind them to servitude.

-DF

Is murder not evil? The act that serves as the basic assumption for the majority of the game rules and adventures? How about torture, like heating someone's armor until they burn to death? Or robbing tombs?

My point is that the game is already permissive of so much moral ambiguity, but it's strangely rigid on necromancy (something that, imo, is a gameplay option that isn't easily replicated by other mediums of entertainment, and is exactly the kind of thing that allows for more player freedom).

[Guy Lombard-O]

Personally, I hate the dumb sacred cow of "necromancy = evil" that has persisted in the game. It's such a boring and myopic restriction that feels almost arbitrary at this point.

Of course I'd allow a good-aligned or righteous figure to use it out of pragmatism, or ideology, or whatever, but I guess there are often some different assumptions about it that the game designers and community like to adhere to.

Even if you don't buy into the idea of necromancy being automatically per se evil, animating the dead is another step beyond basic necromancies. Using the bodies of the deceased, almost unanimously without the consent of the dead, as your servant is a pretty cringy and sketchy thing to do. If it's not actually evil, it's definitely in the ballpark.

But the specific question here is for ancients paladins. Not only are they supposed to be shining lights for the good, they're also somewhat nature-based. And the undead are almost universally considered "unnatural", on top of generally being evil. So, there's a lot to unpack when pondering just how uncomfortable an ancients paladin in particular is going to be about animating the dead.

[DwarfFighter]

Is murder not evil? The act that serves as the basic assumption for the majority of the game rules and adventures? How about torture, like heating someone's armor until they burn to death? Or robbing tombs?

My point is that the game is already permissive of so much moral ambiguity, but it's strangely rigid on necromancy (something that, imo, is a gameplay option that isn't easily replicated by other mediums of entertainment, and is exactly the kind of thing that allows for more player freedom).

Sure, murder is evil too. Torture? Evil. Robbing tombs? Well, there's a field of study called archaeology that, and this is for real, has its own set of ethical guidelines.

But his is just classic "what about!"-ism. The practice of Necromancy is at its core evil, and while it is true that it can be used to achieve ethically good results, there are always other non-Necromancy options to resolve the situation, or the option to not do anything.

So maybe you can save children from starvation by raising their enemies from their graves to serve as a workforce on the farms. It's an evil tool used to solve the problem, the "good" gained from that solution doesn't change that.

-DF

[Unoriginal]

Personally, I hate the dumb sacred cow of "necromancy = evil" that has persisted in the game. It's such a boring and myopic restriction that feels almost arbitrary at this point.

Necromancy isn't evil.

Creating vessels for serial killers to inhabit and then enslaving them is hardly something that can be good or even neutral, however.



The practice of Necromancy is at its core evil,

There's nothing inherently evil with casting Ray of Enfeeblement or the like. Not all necromancy is about creating Undead.

[MaxWilson]

I'm currently playing an Archfey5/Ancients1 technically not yet an ancients, but he considers himself to be following that path and have been so since the beggining, about 7 sessions and we started at this level, even if he doesn't yet have the subclass.

Thing is I'm undercover now, have been since the beginning of the campaign, and I'm playing myself as a neutralish necromancer, the players know this is not my real identity (they don't know my real identity though) but the characters don't. I don't really think I could get Undying Servitude since we are playing a PHB only campaign, but supposing I could maybe get it. How would you rule me making use of it daily to keep my disguise?

First I'd want to know what you're asking me to rule on. Do you want me to tell you if you're RP is believable? I'm not going to touch that one. Do you want me to rule if you're turning into an Oathbreaker? I'll say "you'd have to go a lot further than just casting Animate Dead before that would be a real possibility." Do you just want to ask me, player to player, whether it annoys me?

[Rukelnikov]

First I'd want to know what you're asking me to rule on. Do you want me to tell you if you're RP is believable?

Nah.


I'm not going to touch that one. Do you want me to rule if you're turning into an Oathbreaker? I'll say "you'd have to go a lot further than just casting Animate Dead before that would be a real possibility."

This mostly. I wanted some opinions on wether it would be allowed as is, or if it would be considered Oathbreaking. Were it just "for the lulz" would you still think its ok?

I think it may be ok, after all having a laugh is part of bringing hope, but I could see animating dead for a laugh not being ok with a lot of DMs. I don't believe being rigorous or thinking about consequences too much is part of the Oath, so that's also why I would do it as a player, and likely allow it as a DM


Do you just want to ask me, player to player, whether it annoys me?

Not as a player, but as a DM, you answered it above though.

[ff7hero]

Necromancy isn't evil.

Creating vessels for serial killers to inhabit and then enslaving them is hardly something that can be good or even neutral, however.


I really like this phrasing. It elegantly sums up most of my objections to the "Skeletons are just tools" arguments. It misses the fact that the enslavement requires constant upkeep, but it's very well said.

[Kane0]

Sounds pretty interesting! Chill touch + Summon undead would probably be a good combo to pass as a Necromancer on most cases, and you could pick up the invocation to Speak with Dead instead of creating undead. Just make sure you try to go out of your way to avoid obviously evil stuff and you should be fine as far as Oath and such is concerned, although if you and your DM have an actual Fey creature as your patron they might have... opinions.

[sithlordnergal]

I really like this phrasing. It elegantly sums up most of my objections to the "Skeletons are just tools" arguments. It misses the fact that the enslavement requires constant upkeep, but it's very well said.

As an engineer, I'd say its really no different then making a robot that is subservient to you. They have about the same level of intelligence and such. One is just fleshware while the other is hardware

[JackPhoenix]

I rarely sleep longer than 16 hours. Do you often sleep that long?

I also have never ruled the PCs risk oversleeping so long.

Why 16 hours? When does the necromancer cast the spells to retain control of the undead? Remember that you don't have accurate clock to tell you how close to the 24-hour mark you are at the tech level assumed in D&D.


When did 8th edition come out? 5E has necromancy for some healing: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Revivify#content

Necromancy is power over death, that includes reversing death or preventing death.

If necromancy has some healing, why don't you link it? Rising dead people from the death is not healing. There's technically Life Transference, but that's not really healing, it's just reverse Vampiric Touch. Someone will end up missing some HP no matter what.


You can rule how you would rule, but I would not be so antagonistic in my rulings. I see no reason to presume incompetence.

Why incompetence? Does everything work perfectly 100% of the time? Do people never get sick or suffer injuries? Don't other life issues never happen? Don't the necromancer ever want to have a free weekend or take a vacation (OK, that's rather modern concept, but there are some holidays in most settings)? Uncontrolled undead... that mean undead the creator didn't cast Animate Dead on in the last 24 hours... proceed to go kill any living thing they'll see. And once the control is lost, it can't be regained. You can't just leave them alone for a week, or get someone else to stand up for the unavailable necromancer like you could if they were simple machines. There's now bunch of murderous undead that must be dispatched. Worse, in the unlikely case the uncontrolled undead manage to kill another necromancer, his undead will go uncontrolled too.

Having undead around is such safety hazard nobody in their right mind would agreed to that. They are not just machines that can be dangerous in wrong circumstances, they are actively hostile.


As for the logistical efficiency, that varies from edition to edition. 1 hour of a 5th level casters labor = 9x20 hours of labor is low but still viable. Of course this assumes the casters is competent enough to give commands that would last. Again, the difference between assuming competence vs assuming incompetence. Although in other editions this efficiency can be higher. A high level 3E necromancer can spend 1 day a month to provide food for an entire city state.

It doesn't matter how competent the caster is. Animated undead lack the intelligence to understand and obey complex orders, and initiative to handle unexpected situations. They do require constant oversight. That was true in 3e too, even though you didn't need to recast spell every day to keep them under control. The idea that you could leave a skeleton work for a month and everything will be fine is laughable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As an engineer, I'd say its really no different then making a robot that is subservient to you. They have about the same level of intelligence and such. One is just fleshware while the other is hardware

Except this robot inherently hates all life and requires constant maintenance of spells/patches to keep it from breaking your control permanently[1] and going on a rampage. And zombies, at least, can't be commanded to do anything but attack people. Skeletons can, but prefer killing things. Both are malevolent and malicious at their cores.

So it's basically like creating a lobotomized Terminator, a robot designed only to kill people and destroy things. Who will burst out of your control if you don't cast that spell every 24 hours exactly. And note, precasting the maintenance spell means you start losing ground--it only lasts for 24 hours. So if you originally cast it at midnight, then precast it one hour before it expires, you only got 23 hours out of that effect, and the new version only lasts until 11 PM. So you precast it at 10 pm...etc. One minute late? Disaster. You only have to slip up once.

[1] you can only maintain control, you can't reassert control

[Unoriginal]

As an engineer, I'd say its really no different then making a robot that is subservient to you. They have about the same level of intelligence and such. One is just fleshware while the other is hardware

That's not the lore nor the stats 5e chose to use.

You're not building a robot, you're summoning an evil spirit to inhabit the fleshware (or boneware, as it were). Said spirits are sapient, and dedicated to the annihilation of all life and associated lifeforms out of sheer hatred. Zombies don't have much brainpower or sapience past that desire for malevolence, but Skeletons are comparatively smarter and more aware/self-aware.

Also, as the post you're replying to mentions, you need to renew your enslavement of those undead every 24h, or else they break free.

So no, not comparable to a robot.


Something not noted in this thread so far is how in the lore, concentrations of the necromantic energy that animates Undead can cause nearby corpses and other remains to spontaneously become Undead. Who wouldn't be under anyone's control but themsleves'.

[ff7hero]

As an engineer, I'd say its really no different then making a robot that is subservient to you. They have about the same level of intelligence and such. One is just fleshware while the other is hardware

And as a machine operator I know how often maintenance gets pushed back or left 'til the last minute.

[Unoriginal]

Why 16 hours? When does the necromancer cast the spells to retain control of the undead? Remember that you don't have accurate clock to tell you how close to the 24-hour mark you are at the tech level assumed in D&D.

I disagree with this argument. Being capable of measuring their spell's duration precisely is part of being a caster.

There's no need to add issues to the laundry list of them Animate Dead already has.



Why incompetence? Does everything work perfectly 100% of the time? Do people never get sick or suffer injuries? Don't other life issues never happen? Don't the necromancer ever want to have a free weekend or take a vacation (OK, that's rather modern concept, but there are some holidays in most settings)? Uncontrolled undead... that mean undead the creator didn't cast Animate Dead on in the last 24 hours... proceed to go kill any living thing they'll see. And once the control is lost, it can't be regained. You can't just leave them alone for a week, or get someone else to stand up for the unavailable necromancer like you could if they were simple machines. There's now bunch of murderous undead that must be dispatched. Worse, in the unlikely case the uncontrolled undead manage to kill another necromancer, his undead will go uncontrolled too.

Having undead around is such safety hazard nobody in their right mind would agreed to that. They are not just machines that can be dangerous in wrong circumstances, they are actively hostile.

Indeed. Anything causes the caster to be late or incapacitated, and at minimum you have to destroy all the undead they control and have them start again.



It doesn't matter how competent the caster is. Animated undead lack the intelligence to understand and obey complex orders, and initiative to handle unexpected situations. They do require constant oversight. That was true in 3e too, even though you didn't need to recast spell every day to keep them under control. The idea that you could leave a skeleton work for a month and everything will be fine is laughable.

I honestly don't see any kind of caster who would reach the required level of power then decide to spend their days repeating the same orders again and again to do things like farming or construction.

[sithlordnergal]

Except this robot inherently hates all life and requires constant maintenance of spells/patches to keep it from breaking your control permanently[1] and going on a rampage. And zombies, at least, can't be commanded to do anything but attack people. Skeletons can, but prefer killing things. Both are malevolent and malicious at their cores.

So it's basically like creating a lobotomized Terminator, a robot designed only to kill people and destroy things. Who will burst out of your control if you don't cast that spell every 24 hours exactly. And note, precasting the maintenance spell means you start losing ground--it only lasts for 24 hours. So if you originally cast it at midnight, then precast it one hour before it expires, you only got 23 hours out of that effect, and the new version only lasts until 11 PM. So you precast it at 10 pm...etc. One minute late? Disaster. You only have to slip up once.

[1] you can only maintain control, you can't reassert control

So, for the first part I'd say zombies can be ordered to do more then just attack people. Heck, Animate Dead calls out complex things such as "Guard this chamber" as something you can order even a simple Zombie to do, and guarding a Chamber would include things like make periodic Perception checks, make sure no one enters, ect. Therefore, a command like "Sweep this street clean" or "spread the seeds on the ground" are well within a zombie's ability to do.

Now, they are capable of going on a rampage...but then again, think about the star wars battle droids. The CIS used battle droids that were programed for combat, that was their main job. Yet they were also given other roles in the CIS to keep people safe. To be honest, rampaging droids was one of the CIS' biggest concern, so they created a few measures to help prevent that. And you can do the same here. For example, nothing prevents a Zombie or Skeleton from using a magic item that stores an Animate Dead, or setting up some Glyphs and a Magic Mouth.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Necromancy isn't evil.

Creating vessels for serial killers to inhabit and then enslaving them is hardly something that can be good or even neutral, however.

I suppose there's a difference between capital and lowercase "n" necromancy. I meant necromancy more as the act of having skeleton/zombie mooks, rather than just Necromancy as a school within the D&D multiverse.

If the spirit is enslaved, then it isn't doing harm to innocent creatures. Would you still kill a tiger if someone had managed to tame it?

And besides, most PCs are already serial killers. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, for the first part I'd say zombies can be ordered to do more then just attack people. Heck, Animate Dead calls out complex things such as "Guard this chamber" as something you can order even a simple Zombie to do, and guarding a Chamber would include things like make periodic Perception checks, make sure no one enters, ect. Therefore, a command like "Sweep this street clean" or "spread the seeds on the ground" are well within a zombie's ability to do.

Now, they are capable of going on a rampage...but then again, think about the star wars battle droids. The CIS used battle droids that were programed for combat, that was their main job. Yet they were also given other roles in the CIS to keep people safe. To be honest, rampaging droids was one of the CIS' biggest concern, so they created a few measures to help prevent that. And you can do the same here. For example, nothing prevents a Zombie or Skeleton from using a magic item that stores an Animate Dead, or setting up some Glyphs and a Magic Mouth.

MM: A zombie can follow simple orders and distinguish friends from foes, but its ability to reason is limited to shambling in whatever direction it is pointed, pummeling any enemy in its path. A zombie armed with a weapon uses it, but the zombie won’t retrieve a dropped weapon or other tool until told to do so.

Tell it to guard a chamber means "attack the first non-friend that comes in". "Sweep this street clean"--it will simply sweep in place, since it won't move unless there's something to kill or explicitly ordered to do so. If the broom slips, it won't pick it up again. "Spread the seeds on the ground" == "dump out the bag and stand there". Remember, mind devoid of thought or imagination. Its only purpose is to attack any living creature it encounters. Anything else is going against its nature. And they're simply not capable of understanding anything that requires programming--no capability for conditionals or non-single-step commands that aren't "kill that thing."

And I'd say that no, a skeleton or zombie cannot safely use a magic item that stores animate dead, and glyph cannot meaningfully (or safely) cast animate dead. Because they have no way of giving orders. They cannot speak, and the glyph (the caster) and the magic mouths are different things. So they would simply create uncontrolled undead. Which is generally a bad (ineffective) and evil thing.

[DwarfFighter]

There's nothing inherently evil with casting Ray of Enfeeblement or the like. Not all necromancy is about creating Undead.

Well, I wasn't really thinking of the wider school of Necromancy, which certainly covers a lot of stuff. I guess I didn't make myself clear in that regard.

However, when a player creates a "Necromancer", of any class, the reason is usually not so innocent as just casting Ray of Enfeeblement. It the more overt stuff like animating the dead and binding spirits that is appealing.

-DF

[sithlordnergal]

MM: A zombie can follow simple orders and distinguish friends from foes, but its ability to reason is limited to shambling in whatever direction it is pointed, pummeling any enemy in its path. A zombie armed with a weapon uses it, but the zombie won’t retrieve a dropped weapon or other tool until told to do so.

Tell it to guard a chamber means "attack the first non-friend that comes in". "Sweep this street clean"--it will simply sweep in place, since it won't move unless there's something to kill or explicitly ordered to do so. If the broom slips, it won't pick it up again. "Spread the seeds on the ground" == "dump out the bag and stand there". Remember, mind devoid of thought or imagination. Its only purpose is to attack any living creature it encounters. Anything else is going against its nature. And they're simply not capable of understanding anything that requires programming--no capability for conditionals or non-single-step commands that aren't "kill that thing."

And I'd say that no, a skeleton or zombie cannot safely use a magic item that stores animate dead, and glyph cannot meaningfully (or safely) cast animate dead. Because they have no way of giving orders. They cannot speak, and the glyph (the caster) and the magic mouths are different things. So they would simply create uncontrolled undead. Which is generally a bad (ineffective) and evil thing.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, reasoning is limited, and it is devoid of thought or imagination, but at the same time sweeping is also an activity devoid of thought and imagination. Its a mindless, repetitive activity that a zombie could easily handle. Despite the MM saying a zombie is mindless, it does have an Intelligence of 3, so its not 100% stupid. Again, they're like a very simple robot. You can't program anything complex, but you can program it to do more then just shamble along and punch a creature. Just like how you can program a robot to do more then walk in a straight line. The fact that it has to have some line of reasoning to determine friend from foe, and the fact that it has to be perceiving things in order to notice if a foe enters a room, would support this.

Although, there is a super easy way around the entire Zombie issue. Just use Skeletons, they're not mindless at all. They'll pick up and use tools, even if they aren't being controlled. And while they have a slightly lower strength, Skeletons still have a 10 Strength, which makes them on par with a random peasant. Problem with Zombies not obeying is fixed.


As for the magic items and glyphs, why wouldn't they be able to use an item? There's nothing in their statblock preventing them from doing so, and the spell doesn't prevent them from doing so. Usually if a creature is unable to activate a magic item, either the item or stat block will say so. Heck, undead creatures can even attune to magic items and use them if commanded. Though I will admit, if a zombie were to activate an item that casts Animate Dead then the Zombie is now in control of other Zombies, and they'd proceed to do nothing since Zombies can't give orders.

And rereading Glyph of Warding, I don't know if it'd work since you need a spell that targets a creature...but then if you're reasserting control over zombies you are technically targeting those creatures. That said, if you cast a Glyph of Warding, you are casting the spell yourself, the spell just doesn't have an immediate effect. So you'd still be in control of the undead.

[ff7hero]

Now, they are capable of going on a rampage...but then again, think about the star wars battle droids. The CIS used battle droids that were programed for combat, that was their main job. Yet they were also given other roles in the CIS to keep people safe. To be honest, rampaging droids was one of the CIS' biggest concern, so they created a few measures to help prevent that.

Even the deadliest Battle Droids aren't guaranteed to go on a rampage if specific maintenance isn't performed by their creator every 24 hours.

[sithlordnergal]

Even the deadliest Battle Droids aren't guaranteed to go on a rampage if specific maintenance isn't performed by their creator every 24 hours.

Eh, there were a few that technically could/would go on rampages if they weren't meticulously maintained. Heck, the IG series of droids went berserk, killed their creators, and escaped not long after their creation. HK-47 also had a tendency to malfunction and kill his owners before he made it back to his owner. Though occasionally he'd do some malicious compliance and kill his owners with said compliance. So it is documented within the Star Wars universe. You also had a few instances of B1 Battledroids malfunctioning and either killing their superiors or deciding to fight against droids as a whole.

Though I guess those examples are different from a guarantee that they'd go on a rampage. Still, if a Necromancer is going to have an army of undead they created, they're going to have to make sure to keep up their casting anyway at all costs anyway, no matter what they have those undead do. So why not use them for some good?

[JellyPooga]

I have to disagree with you. Yes, reasoning is limited, and it is devoid of thought or imagination, but at the same time sweeping is also an activity devoid of thought and imagination. Its a mindless, repetitive activity that a zombie could easily handle.

So says someone that likely hasn't done much sweeping before. While the act of sweeping doesn't require much thought ("place broom on floor and push"), the task of sweeping does. It requires recognition and consideration of at the very least;
A) The thing being swept (trash, dust, etc.)
B) The cleanliness of the areas swept and whether (A) has been cleared from those areas.
C) The area to be swept and how/when the best way to sweep it is. For example, not sweeping (A) from one area back into an area already swept.

Sweeping, as a task to be completed (as opposed to an action to perform), is a mathematics puzzle that requires logic, intuition and even a little imagination, not to mention persistence and attention. Order a zombie to "sweep that street" and once they're finished the street will probably be just as dirty as it was before they started. Plus, once they're done they might start hitting people with a broom because, ya know, "evil malevolent inhabiting spirit" and all that.

[sithlordnergal]

So says someone that likely hasn't done much sweeping before. While the act of sweeping doesn't require much thought ("place broom on floor and push"), the task of sweeping does. It requires recognition and consideration of at the very least;
A) The thing being swept (trash, dust, etc.)
B) The cleanliness of the areas swept and whether (A) has been cleared from those areas.
C) The area to be swept and how/when the best way to sweep it is. For example, not sweeping (A) from one area back into an area already swept.

Sweeping, as a task to be completed (as opposed to an action to perform), is a mathematics puzzle that requires logic, intuition and even a little imagination, not to mention persistence and attention. Order a zombie to "sweep that street" and once they're finished the street will probably be just as dirty as it was before they started. Plus, once they're done they might start hitting people with a broom because, ya know, "evil malevolent inhabiting spirit" and all that.

That seems about as much as a zombie can do. For example, "Guard this chamber", which is something Animate Dead states both Zombies and Skeletons can do, requires the following:

A) Recognizing this is the chamber to be guarded

B) Recognize that they need to remain perceptive and alert in order to notice when a creature enters the room

C) Differentiate between Friend and Foe, something the Monster Manuel states a Zombie can do

D) Recognize that Friends can enter the room, while Foes can not

I'd say those are far, far more complicated then the steps to sweep a floor. That said, I wouldn't expect a floor swept by a zombie to be spotless. It won't be a perfect job, but I suspect they can make it cleaner. As for hurting people when its done, Animate Dead takes care of that. "If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against Hostile creatures." Once a Zombie has finished their task, they no longer have a command to follow. Meaning it will stand there doing nothing unless someone takes a hostile action towards it. Which actually requires its own line of logic preprogramed into the zombie.

EDIT: Though, if you truly feel Zombies would be incapable of such a task...Skeletons can do it instead. They're called out as being able "to accomplish a variety of relatively complex tasks." And since Skeletons have a Strength of 10, they're as strong as a regular peasant. Meaning if a regular Human can move an item, so can a skeleton. They're also capable of super basic communication, such as shaking their head, nodding, and pointing.

[ff7hero]

Though I guess those examples are different from a guarantee that they'd go on a rampage. Still, if a Necromancer is going to have an army of undead they created, they're going to have to make sure to keep up their casting anyway at all costs anyway, no matter what they have those undead do. So why not use them for some good?

I'll take your word for it, since my experience with Star Wars doesn't even include all the movies any more, so I'm not familiar with most of your examples. In the movies I did watch though, I seem to recall the people using battle droids also performing a number of other morally questionable actions. Could I imagine a custom setting with a greedy merchant's guild that employs Necromancers and their pets in some way? Sure. Does that make it moral?

As to your second point, I'm arguing whether or not the Necromancer should have an army of undead, or at least whether that's a moral action on the first place. If he has one already, I'd argue the most "good" he can do is destroy them while they're relatively docile to eliminate the risk they pose to innocent lives.


That seems about as much as a zombie can do. For example, "Guard this chamber", which is something Animate Dead states both Zombies and Skeletons can do, requires the following:

A) Recognizing this is the chamber to be guarded

B) Recognize that they need to remain perceptive and alert in order to notice when a creature enters the room

C) Differentiate between Friend and Foe, something the Monster Manuel states a Zombie can do

D) Recognize that Friends can enter the room, while Foes can not


I'd say a zombie guards a room by standing in it and attacking any creature not on the "specifically approved to enter" list. This is a tempering and focusing of its basic nature. Without compulsion it would be happy waiting in this room and attacking any disgusting sacks of life that enter, all your order is doing is adding a (relatively) small exclusion list to the creatures it's allowed to attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm currently playing an Archfey5/Ancients1 technically not yet an ancients, but he considers himself to be following that path and have been so since the beggining, about 7 sessions and we started at this level, even if he doesn't yet have the subclass. When you take your oath at level 3, will you be lying? I'd take a good hard look at the oath and the tenets and what it means if you want to Role Play. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of something. Or in other words, if you have to ask you probably already know the answer. :smallcool: But talk with your DM; we aren't at your table, so it doesn't matter what we'd rule.

Awesome! I didn't think of that, I'll see if I can manage getting that spell. Thanks! It's in Tasha's. :smallsmile:

I mean, I have an entire country in one of my homebrew games that uses undead as their unskilled labor. You die, you get raised as an undead and start working. Maybe take deeper look at world building.

Hi, I am a half-orc laborer with a family to feed. You using undead for labor is taking food off of my table. It is evil necromancers like you who evoke the torches and pitchforks reaction. By the way, I know a Paladin named Miko ... :smallcool:
(Goes double for using machines)
Guilds exist for a good and sufficient reason.

If you're a zombie, you get basic unskilled labor jobs
Nice insult to every fast food worker and ditch digger, ever. You want to know why people hate MBA's? The thought process behind what you posted is a part of why. :smallwink:

Ancients paladin is (arguably) the most anti-undead of all the oaths. I wouldn't let you take it if you've been creating undead.

I mean, there's a paladin subclass that gets Animate Dead: Oathbreaker. That seems like it should be a big hint that paladinry and necromancy don't mix. +1

Agreed. Undead are one of the basic personifications of the Darkness that is the opposite to the Light that ancients paladins are supposed to maintain and spread. They are perversions of nature. Similarly, the PHB even has PC Druids as being vehemently against undead. Which makes the Sunless Citadel module a bit of a trope inversion

Personally, I hate the dumb sacred cow of "necromancy = evil" that has persisted in the game. It's not a dumb sacred cow. It is contextually appropriate, see my comments to sithlordnergal. It also fits into the horror aspect of the pulp genre from which this entire sub genre (swords and sorcery)
grew: (see lovecraft, clark ashton smith, lieber, howard, wights and wraiths in Tolkien, etc)
There's nothing inherently evil with casting Ray of Enfeeblement or the like. Not all necromancy is about creating Undead. And then there's this problem: labeling spells from a school and having that conflated with the practice of necromancy doesn't help. I blame AD&D 2e for taking this too far. Another argument for switching to Five Colors of Magic (or three, or seven) rather than using "schools"

As an engineer, I'd say its really no different then making a robot that is subservient to you. They have about the same level of intelligence and such. One is just fleshware while the other is hardware Add one more reason that people have an aversion to geeks/nerds etc (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1040.html). {See panel six} (Engineer here too)

[OldTrees1]

Why 16 hours? When does the necromancer cast the spells to retain control of the undead? Remember that you don't have accurate clock to tell you how close to the 24-hour mark you are at the tech level assumed in D&D.

You assumed the caster could oversleep the deadline. That assumes the caster is incompetent enough to have a duration expire near a time they would be unconscious. I on the other hand assume the caster is competent enough to have the duration expire away from the time they would be unconscious. Hence I asked "Why 16 hours?" because a competent caster would need to oversleep by at least 8 hours before "oversleeping" risks losing control.


If necromancy has some healing, why don't you link it? Rising dead people from the death is not healing. There's technically Life Transference, but that's not really healing, it's just reverse Vampiric Touch. Someone will end up missing some HP no matter what.

We disagree. Revivify counts as healing in my mind. In 5E Healing is spread around 3 schools (Evocation, Abjuration, and Necromancy). However one the reasons these spells keep changing schools is because there are ways each of the schools used could thematically justify the healing effects.


Why incompetence? Does everything work perfectly 100% of the time? Do people never get sick or suffer injuries? Don't other life issues never happen? Don't the necromancer ever want to have a free weekend or take a vacation (OK, that's rather modern concept, but there are some holidays in most settings)? Uncontrolled undead... that mean undead the creator didn't cast Animate Dead on in the last 24 hours... proceed to go kill any living thing they'll see. And once the control is lost, it can't be regained. You can't just leave them alone for a week, or get someone else to stand up for the unavailable necromancer like you could if they were simple machines. There's now bunch of murderous undead that must be dispatched. Worse, in the unlikely case the uncontrolled undead manage to kill another necromancer, his undead will go uncontrolled too.

Why incompetence? Because assuming a base level of competence (which is not assuming 100% perfection) resolves all of these complaints. See your "oversleep" example. You assumed oversleeping was a feasible concern. With the bare minimum of thought I pointed out the caster would need to oversleep by many hours rather than a few seconds.

As I said, feel free to rule differently, but since you were replying to my ruling (rather than quoting the OP), I will continue to assume competence rather than incompetence.


Having undead around is such safety hazard nobody in their right mind would agreed to that. They are not just machines that can be dangerous in wrong circumstances, they are actively hostile.

If you do the once* per day maintenance then they are as harmless as an automation robot.

The engineer's reaction to sufficiently innovative technology that is fail deadly is to build a fail safe around it. Consider the airplane.

*Bare minimum competency would have the maintenance slightly more than once per duration. And reminder, 5E's duration is shorter than normal.


It doesn't matter how competent the caster is. Animated undead lack the intelligence to understand and obey complex orders, and initiative to handle unexpected situations. They do require constant oversight. That was true in 3e too, even though you didn't need to recast spell every day to keep them under control. The idea that you could leave a skeleton work for a month and everything will be fine is laughable.

You don't give it orders that are too complex (and even the default examples are rather complex as someone pointed out). Assembly lines work on the foundation that simple tasks can be combined into a complex outcome. Assuming constant oversight is required is assuming incompetence.

Again, you can be as antagonistic with your rulings as you wish, but since you replied to me (rather than the OP), I will continue to presume my standards.

[Sception]

I would rule depending on the setting of the game I was in and the nature of undeath within that setting. I've run games where undeath in and of itself was morally neutral on the wider scale, where animate dead was metaphysically little removed from animate objects. In those games, I see no conflict between animate dead and the tenets of the Oath of Ancients.

In most games/settings I play or run, though, undeath is fundamentally, metaphysically evil. The animating spirit of undead creatures is provided from twisted, tortured soul stuff. Their very existence is an open wound on reality. Undead in these games are an embodiment of a metaphorical but very real 'darkness' that is directly opposed to the metaphorical but again very real in universe concept of 'light' referenced by the tenets of the oath of ancients. Non-evil undead might exist, but that existence would be one of eternal suffering, one their spirit would long to escape from. A non-evil necromancer might rationalize the creation of undead by saying the good they're able to do with their undead servants outweighs the harm caused to the underlying spiritual fabric of reality by creating them in the first place, but an Ancients paladin who knowingly brings that darkness into the world, who darkens their own soul by doing so? In this sort of game, they would absolutely be violating those oaths, and I might suggest another oath instead - perhaps watchers, who focus on extraplanar threats, and could conceivably view the undead creatures as distasteful, but still justifiable tools to use against the greater evil. Or conquerors, who seek to impose order by any means. Or Vengeance, who literally have "fight the greater evil" and "by any means necessary" as two of their tenets. Or Oathbreakers. Feeling the tenets of your oath are getting in the way of what needs to be done is underlying cause of like 90% of fallen paladins, and Oathbreaker specifically synergizes with undead use, so, like, win win.


Again, though, that's setting dependent. If undeath is not fundamentally a manifestation of supernatural/metaphysical darkness in your game then it becomes a purely cosmetic decision, and players shouldn't be punished for engaging in it apart from possibly attracting negative attention from civilians who find it distasteful or deities who declare it taboo. And since this can be such a big deal to players who want to interact with necromancy, it's important to be clear on this issue up front, when the game starts.


Personally, I quite like playing necromantic characters, but specifically because I like the tension that comes with a character tinkering with forces a bit beyond their their understanding or control, finding a talent and passion for magicks that, the more they learn about them, the more they know are fundamentally wrong. But they've come to far to change paths now, so instead they desperate rationalize their actions by trying to use that power for good, even as the fundamental wrongness of it constantly twists their charitable efforts in unpredictable and undesirable ways. In a setting where necromancy is purely aesthetic, where skeletons and zombies are just puppets, to me that take both the danger and the fun out of necromantic characters. But that's just me.

[CapnWildefyr]

You assumed the caster could oversleep the deadline. That assumes the caster is incompetent enough to have a duration expire near a time they would be unconscious. I on the other hand assume the caster is competent enough to have the duration expire away from the time they would be unconscious. Hence I asked "Why 16 hours?" because a competent caster would need to oversleep by at least 8 hours before "oversleeping" risks losing control.


Just addressing this one issue...

Well, do you always eat breakfast at the same exact time, every single day? Never wake up later than you expected? And you have to consider getting drunk on a festival and being too hungover to mumble the verbal components right. I think the general point is that there are a lot of variables that, over time, can go wrong.

And what self-respecting mage wants to stand around all day, saying "No, shovel that pile of rubbish into the wheelbarrow, not the other one! No no NO! I said push the wheelbarrow, not push it OVER!" Yeah skeletons have a little more brains but you get the idea. You can't assume anything with undead working as slaves, unless they are used in completely contained environment. Suppose your skeletons or zombies are working horse poop detail on the streets. They can't distinguish "friend" from "foe" unless you tell them how. So when a dwarf kid chases a ball into their path, do they rend him to shreds because you didn't describe dwarven kids as friends? It's a hot day, and you sit down for a just second, your eyes close just for an instant, and you awake to your zombies eating Farmer Tim's pigs he was trying to sell to the butcher. Or maybe you're working the night shift, to keep people away from the undead, and your definition of friend is so broad that the wererats get you (yeah the zombies made their checks to detect life, but you failed your perception vs the wererat's sneak).

You can do the undead slave thing, but the price is very high unless it's very limited.

TBH, I see this type of thing more as a punishment for mages who got arrested: "You blew up The Roaring Dragon Inn? 30 days of community service on the undead squad!" And at the end of that time, you ask the undead to stand in a huddle, and then fireball 'em.

[OldTrees1]

Just addressing this one issue...

Well, do you always eat breakfast at the same exact time, every single day? Never wake up later than you expected? And you have to consider getting drunk on a festival and being too hungover to mumble the verbal components right. I think the general point is that there are a lot of variables that, over time, can go wrong.

Why breakfast? That is assuming incompetence. What about lunch instead? No I don't have lunch at the same time each day, but the middle of the day is a lot more stable then being "literally unconscious".

If there was a medication I needed to take at least 1 per 24 hours, I would take it in the middle of the day slightly before I took it yesterday. Then I would reset by taking it twice in a day every so often. Depending on the severity, maybe I would always take it twice a day.

Why assume incompetence?


And what self-respecting mage wants to stand around all day, saying "No, shovel that pile of rubbish into the wheelbarrow, not the other one! No no NO! I said push the wheelbarrow, not push it OVER!" Yeah skeletons have a little more brains but you get the idea. You can't assume anything with undead working as slaves, unless they are used in completely contained environment.

Wow, quite a lot of incompetence being assumed. Hey, if you rule that skeletons can't handle simple commands, then that is how you rule. I don't rule it that way.

Remember by default a skeleton can guard a room. They don't need someone shouting "no, attack that enemy. No attack as in swing your sword. No your sword is in your other arm. No not swing like a pinwheel. Etc" If you assume incompetence, you get incompetence.

As for a controlled environment. Most automation robots are in controlled environments.


Suppose your skeletons or zombies are working horse poop detail on the streets. They can't distinguish "friend" from "foe" unless you tell them how.

Why did you tell them "foe" exists? There is no reason for a skeleton working on horse poop detail to have any command that even mentions "foe". If the horse poop janitor robots are destroyed by some wererats, that is fine. I would question the wererat objectives but there is no reason to add a fail deadly.

[JellyPooga]

there are a lot of variables that, over time, can go wrong.

This is an important point. While for a Player Character, we can assume baseline competence outside of specific events, for NPCs, anything can turn that baseline into gross incompetence. To assume that NPCs will have high enough rates of success for a sufficient length of time for society to normalise it, seems like a bit of a stretch. Not to mention anyone that actually has malicious intent and the potential to pass it off as an "unfortunate accident" in the face of it.

I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but in such a setting you should probably expect significant regulation; licensing, special training or permission, a dedicated law-enforcement ministry and/or force. It's undisputable that we're talking about a potentially dangerous tool. Such regulation exists for many such things IRL, despite their use, ubiquitous or otherwise (non-country specific) e.g. driving, weaponry, medical practice, etc.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

It's not a dumb sacred cow. It is contextually appropriate, see my comments to sithlordnergal. It also fits into the horror aspect of the pulp genre from which this entire sub genre (swords and sorcery) grew: (see lovecraft, clark ashton smith, lieber, howard, wights and wraiths in Tolkien, etc)

Sacred cow, "contextually appropriate", all a matter of perspective. Orcs/goblins being evil is contextually appropriate given the works of Tolkien, similarly with the portrayal of warlocks in much of older fantasy/myth, but that hasn't necessarily stuck around as much, has it? I'm just asking what is the point in being so restricted by the ideas of the past? If it's not fun, why bother?

[OldTrees1]

This is an important point. While for a Player Character, we can assume baseline competence outside of specific events, for NPCs, anything can turn that baseline into gross incompetence. To assume that NPCs will have high enough rates of success for a sufficient length of time for society to normalise it, seems like a bit of a stretch. Not to mention anyone that actually has malicious intent and the potential to pass it off as an "unfortunate accident" in the face of it.

I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but in such a setting you should probably expect significant regulation; licensing, special training or permission, a dedicated law-enforcement ministry and/or force. It's undisputable that we're talking about a potentially dangerous tool. Such regulation exists for many such things IRL, despite their use, ubiquitous or otherwise (non-country specific) e.g. driving, weaponry, medical practice, etc.

This is some of the competency I was expecting. It is a potentially dangerous tool that is initially set as a fail deadly. So steps are taken to encapsulate it in a fail safe, training is used to minimize risk, and redundancies are added to reduce the risk to under a given tolerance.

I would expect some of the regulations would include containment measures. There would be temporary containment fail safes before the duration elapses until the control is maintained. There would also be permanent containment fail safes like walls (more applicable to some automation roles than others).

Do you rule that other dangerous tools get regulated?
If so, have you considered a guild trying to reduce or bypass those regulations?
I can imagine some interesting plot threads.

[CapnWildefyr]

[1]Why breakfast? That is assuming incompetence. What about lunch instead? No I don't have lunch at the same time each day, but the middle of the day is a lot more stable then being "literally unconscious".

If there was a medication I needed to take at least 1 per 24 hours, I would take it in the middle of the day slightly before I took it yesterday. Then I would reset by taking it twice in a day every so often.

Why assume incompetence?

[2]Wow, quite a lot of incompetence being assumed. Hey, if you rule that skeletons can't handle simple commands, then that is how you rule. I don't rule it that way.

[3]Why did you tell them "foe" exists? There is no reason for a skeleton working on horse poop detail to have any command that even mentions "foe". If the horse poop janitor robots are destroyed by some wererats, that is fine. I would question the wererat objectives but there is no reason to add a fail deadly.

Point 1: Is it not incompetence. It is human nature (and "human" in DND means basically every playable species). There are a lot of car accidents every day. Most are due to momentary lapses, not an inability to drive well. Incompetence means 'not competent.' You can be competent and still make a mistake or misjudge something. What you are implying is perfection. A system like that does not work without multiple people being involved - it's not one wizard, it's a wizard and a bureaucratic support staff double-checking each other. That's how NASA has been so successful with manned space flight, but even then...

Point 2: Fair point.

Point 3: You don't have to, you're right. But then everything else is a target. Their default mode is "attack it," not "leave it be." I guess you could order the undead every day to not attack anything, but that still does not prevent "accidents." And BTW I was trying to say that the wererats attack the controlling wizard, not the undead being controlled. Should have been clearer.

You are correct that we can make different campaigns play this differently. I wouldn't do the undead slave guild thing myself without some larger magic involved that provided more safety, but I shouldn't argue against it even though I do argue that it's not so easy.

FWIW If I wanted to do what you're describing, I'd instead have a city use some unique controlling magic, perhaps tied to and powering a whole lot of Amulets of Undead Control (or similar). That way you don't tie down a whole lot of spellcasters whose sole job is to ride herd on skeletons and zombies. I can see a situation like that working because of the built-in redundancies - you can have 2 controllers on every job, and the "power recharge," if there is one, can be handled by enough people to make failure much less likely (unless, of course, someone destroys the Ministry of Public Works building). And if a couple of bone-droids break free and rampage, a few city workers with amulets can get them back in control.

[Angelalex242]

Eh. I'd run the undead labor force idea like Jurassic Park.

Sure, it's a good idea. Sure it'll work fine...for a while.

Woe to the kingdom when an oops happens.

[JellyPooga]

Do you rule that other dangerous tools get regulated?
It's pretty common in modules/setting info I've read to see "peacebonding" of weapons, if they're permitted within city-limits at all. Many settings also feature similar restriction or control on the use of magic at all (probably the most famous instance of this in D&D can be seen in Baldurs Gate II). Personally, yes, I tend to implement controls on all sorts of dangerous tools in civilised areas; in large part because it is an easy and engaging way to differentiate "civilisation" from "the wild places".


If so, have you considered a guild trying to reduce or bypass those regulations?
Guilds are one of the best ways to bring world-building into actual gameplay. From designing their members, aesthetic and practices to their morality and politics, Guilds are a great go-between from the high concepts of the campaign and setting to the interactions between PC's and the plot.


I can imagine some interesting plot threads.

Abso-positively-lutely :smallwink:

Starting at the top;

The Ministry of Labour
- subdivision: Bureau of Magical Affairs, Office of Undead Control

1) Who's in charge? Of the Ministry? Of the Bureau? Of the Office?
1a) Who's really in charge?

2) Who works there? How many of them are spellcasters in their own right? Who, within the ranks, might have an agenda counter to the usual and peaceful running of the city?
2a) Do the politics of the Ministry align with those of the current ruler of the civilisation? If not, how do they disagree?
2b) How is the Ministry organised? Is it a top-down hierarchy? A council? A collective? Something else? How does this align with other government organisations and guilds?

3) Do you have to be inducted into the Office in order to (legally) create Undead within city limits? Can/do they issue "temporary licenses"? How do you go about getting a licence and/or permission to cast spells/create undead?
3a) Is there a College or other training facility that must be attended? Does said college also double up as the "factory" that produces/houses the Undead workforce or are those facilities spread across the city/country?

4) Where are the Undead kept while they're not being actively used?
4a) If all the cities dead are to be used as Undead labour, presumably burial is illegal and cremation doubly so. Where are the bodies kept and how is that maintained hygienically? Who tends to the dead and what Death Rites do citizens perform for their dead? Where does religion fit in? Are families compensated for the city taking the deceased's body or is it considered a tax/duty?
4b) Are there any dissident groups from, for example, certain religions or philosophies that disagree with the practice that cause disruption in the city? These might range from well-meaning do-gooders mugging mages due to maintain control to "free the slaves", to actively malicious groups looking to cause anarchy by disrupting control over the labour force.

5) How do they enforce their laws? Who runs that arm of the Office/Bureua/Ministry? Do they have specialist Uncontrolled Undead Response Teams (UURT) to deal with emergencies? Are such things just left to the City Watch/Guard? Are "mishaps" made public knowledge or are things quietly swept under the rug in the name of public order? If the latter, who does the sweeping...and who's in charge of those guys?

...just some ideas off the top of my head.

[MaxWilson]

And note, precasting the maintenance spell means you start losing ground--it only lasts for 24 hours. So if you originally cast it at midnight, then precast it one hour before it expires, you only got 23 hours out of that effect, and the new version only lasts until 11 PM. So you precast it at 10 pm...etc. One minute late? Disaster. You only have to slip up once.

You can of course "reset" the time from 10pm back to 11 just by casting it at 9:30 and then again three hours later at 11:30, during downtime. IME Necromancers generally only keep a small handful of undead on retainer, so this trick won't deplete their spell slots.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sacred cow, "contextually appropriate", all a matter of perspective. Orcs/goblins being evil is Irrelevant, we are discussing undead and necromancy. Harrangues about orcs and goblins are for another thread.
I'd run the undead labor force idea like Jurassic Park.

Sure, it's a good idea. Sure it'll work fine...for a while.

Woe to the kingdom when an oops happens. I like that approach.

Magic is dangerous and rare, and can misfire (or have unintended side effects). That Magic implementation makes for a more interesting world.

Magic is the Easy Button - makes the world less interesting

Yeah, YMMV.

[Unoriginal]

You can of course "reset" the time from 10pm back to 11 just by casting it at 9:30 and then again three hours later at 11:30, during downtime. IME Necromancers generally only keep a small handful of undead on retainer, so this trick won't deplete their spell slots.

"We used to have a team of 4 skeletons per mage, for security reasons, but management decided we needed to augment efficiency, so now we have 8 skeletons per mage. Well, officially. It's basically impossible to do our quotas with 8 skeletons since many of our contracts weren't renewed last summer, so now it's not uncommon to see 10-11 skeletons led around by a colleague."

[Angelalex242]

Also, this hypothetical kingdom should surely have some Zombie Lords on staff somewhere, and perhaps a lich running the department.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Irrelevant, we are discussing undead and necromancy. Harrangues about orcs and goblins are for another thread.

Cope. The point still stands that appealing to tradition is boring and not immediately conducive to fun gameplay.

[OldTrees1]

Abso-positively-lutely :smallwink:

Starting at the top;

The Ministry of Labour
- subdivision: Bureau of Magical Affairs, Office of Undead Control

1) Who's in charge? Of the Ministry? Of the Bureau? Of the Office?
1a) Who's really in charge?

2) Who works there? How many of them are spellcasters in their own right? Who, within the ranks, might have an agenda counter to the usual and peaceful running of the city?
2a) Do the politics of the Ministry align with those of the current ruler of the civilisation? If not, how do they disagree?
2b) How is the Ministry organised? Is it a top-down hierarchy? A council? A collective? Something else? How does this align with other government organisations and guilds?

3) Do you have to be inducted into the Office in order to (legally) create Undead within city limits? Can/do they issue "temporary licenses"? How do you go about getting a licence and/or permission to cast spells/create undead?
3a) Is there a College or other training facility that must be attended? Does said college also double up as the "factory" that produces/houses the Undead workforce or are those facilities spread across the city/country?

4) Where are the Undead kept while they're not being actively used?
4a) If all the cities dead are to be used as Undead labour, presumably burial is illegal and cremation doubly so. Where are the bodies kept and how is that maintained hygienically? Who tends to the dead and what Death Rites do citizens perform for their dead? Where does religion fit in? Are families compensated for the city taking the deceased's body or is it considered a tax/duty?
4b) Are there any dissident groups from, for example, certain religions or philosophies that disagree with the practice that cause disruption in the city? These might range from well-meaning do-gooders mugging mages due to maintain control to "free the slaves", to actively malicious groups looking to cause anarchy by disrupting control over the labour force.

5) How do they enforce their laws? Who runs that arm of the Office/Bureua/Ministry? Do they have specialist Uncontrolled Undead Response Teams (UURT) to deal with emergencies? Are such things just left to the City Watch/Guard? Are "mishaps" made public knowledge or are things quietly swept under the rug in the name of public order? If the latter, who does the sweeping...and who's in charge of those guys?

...just some ideas off the top of my head.

Oh this is lovely. I meant these questions to be linked so it would be about non necromancy based guild (like an enchanter's guild) but this is truly lovely.







Point 1: Is it not incompetence. It is human nature (and "human" in DND means basically every playable species).
You asked about when I have Breakfast. Risking oversleeping is incompetence when it is trivial to think of doing the maintenance midday instead of while you are asleep. So I upgraded your question to a more reasonable one about Lunch and then even further to a reasonable question about life sustaining medication.

I am not implying perfect. I am implying that some "concerns" are solved so trivially, that presuming those "concerns" requires assuming incompetence. Just don't schedule your maintenance for early morning.

There are reasonable concerns, but the "oversleep" one is rather annoying in the amount of incompetency it presumes.


Point 3: You don't have to, you're right. But then everything else is a target. Their default mode is "attack it," not "leave it be." I guess you could order the undead every day to not attack anything, but that still does not prevent "accidents." And BTW I was trying to say that the wererats attack the controlling wizard, not the undead being controlled. Should have been clearer.

If the GM rules the controlled undead has a default mode of "attack it" rather than "obey commands" then I would obviously override that default mode as part of every command. If your car leaned to the left, you would correct it while you drove, you would not drive in circles.

Accidents and "accidents" are reasonable concerns. I would avoid those hazards if possible. I am not sure street janitor is a safe job for skeletons.

You were trying to say the wererats attack the controlling wizard. However we disagreed on how much constant supervision the janitor robots needed.
1) Under your assumption the wizard is near the were rats, the wizard should defend themselves. We can ignore the janitor robots. The janitor robots do not need to also work as bodyguards.
2) Under my assumption the wizard is not near the were rats. The were rats can freely break the janitor robots.



You are correct that we can make different campaigns play this differently. I wouldn't do the undead slave guild thing myself without some larger magic involved that provided more safety, but I shouldn't argue against it even though I do argue that it's not so easy.

FWIW If I wanted to do what you're describing, I'd instead have a city use some unique controlling magic, perhaps tied to and powering a whole lot of Amulets of Undead Control (or similar). That way you don't tie down a whole lot of spellcasters whose sole job is to ride herd on skeletons and zombies. I can see a situation like that working because of the built-in redundancies - you can have 2 controllers on every job, and the "power recharge," if there is one, can be handled by enough people to make failure much less likely (unless, of course, someone destroys the Ministry of Public Works building). And if a couple of bone-droids break free and rampage, a few city workers with amulets can get them back in control.

To be fair, the only time I did it myself was in a more forgiving edition (permanent control, mindless soulless skeletons) with a PC that ruled a city state with the support and infrastructure of trained civil servants. It also had the advantage of the bone-droids not being a severe threat to the average citizen.

If the OP's Ancient's Paladin wants to make liberal use of Animate Dead, they could do so safely, IFF they could handle the responsibility.

[JackPhoenix]

You assumed the caster could oversleep the deadline. That assumes the caster is incompetent enough to have a duration expire near a time they would be unconscious. I on the other hand assume the caster is competent enough to have the duration expire away from the time they would be unconscious. Hence I asked "Why 16 hours?" because a competent caster would need to oversleep by at least 8 hours before "oversleeping" risks losing control.

As pointed out by PhoenixPyre, the deadline keeps moving. If you originally animate the undead at, say, 12:00 one day, and cast the spell to maintain control at 11:30 the next day, the day after that, you'll need to cast it before 11:30 instead, and the day after THAT you need to cast it even earlier. Sooner or later, you'll find out the deadline moved first to whatever time you wake up. And eventually, to the middle of the night.


Why incompetence? Because assuming a base level of competence (which is not assuming 100% perfection) resolves all of these complaints. See your "oversleep" example. You assumed oversleeping was a feasible concern. With the bare minimum of thought I pointed out the caster would need to oversleep by many hours rather than a few seconds.

As I said, feel free to rule differently, but since you were replying to my ruling (rather than quoting the OP), I will continue to assume competence rather than incompetence.

Well, you know the saying about people who assume...


If you do the once* per day maintenance then they are as harmless as an automation robot.

The engineer's reaction to sufficiently innovative technology that is fail deadly is to build a fail safe around it. Consider the airplane.

An airplane won't go out of its way to kill you if you skip maintenance once (don't tell Murphy I said that, though). And it can be left on the ground for a week when the only person able to do the maintenance gets sick.


*Bare minimum competency would have the maintenance slightly more than once per duration. And reminder, 5E's duration is shorter than normal.

Maintenance in question cost limited resources. A level 5 wizard has 2 level 3 slots, and can get one more from Arcane Recovery (assuming he's a wizard, and not an NPC). If you want to cast the spell twice on the same undead, you're cutting the number of "employees" to 4 instead of 9. And hiring 10 commoners to do the unskilled labor skeletons can handle (but better) and a skilled supervisor will propably end up being cheaper than hiring a level 5 wizard, who has better things to do.


You don't give it orders that are too complex (and even the default examples are rather complex as someone pointed out). Assembly lines work on the foundation that simple tasks can be combined into a complex outcome. Assuming constant oversight is required is assuming incompetence.

I work on an assembly line. There *is* constant oversight (or is supposed to be... I could tell stories what happens when the responsible people aren't paying attention), even though it can be done by a computer rather than a human. There are sensors that check if something goes wrong, and which will stop the whole line and call for a human to fix things if needed. And robots can have much more complex programming than the undead. Without robotization, you have living humans, who, not being mindless automatons, can notice when something is wrong and fix it, not only with what they are doing, but it also with what people before them are supposed to do. Assuming they aren't newly hired foreign agency workers who don't even understand my languange, there because they are cheaper than locals.

What you like to call "assuming incompetence", I call "experience".


"We used to have a team of 4 skeletons per mage, for security reasons, but management decided we needed to augment efficiency, so now we have 8 skeletons per mage. Well, officially. It's basically impossible to do our quotas with 8 skeletons since many of our contracts weren't renewed last summer, so now it's not uncommon to see 10-11 skeletons led around by a colleague."

I feel that.

[OldTrees1]

As pointed out by PhoenixPyre, the deadline keeps moving.
The obvious does not need to be pointed out, but yes PhoenixPyre and I did both mention the deadline keeps moving. I even mentioned how it got reset. Which you noticed when you got to that section of this post.

3 3rd level slots per day can maintain 8 skeletons without issue. You can decrease it to 4 if you wish for extra redundancy (although then I suggest you always cast it twice per day).


An airplane won't go out of its way to kill you if you skip maintenance once (don't tell Murphy I said that, though). And it can be left on the ground for a week when the only person able to do the maintenance gets sick.
An airplane is a fail deadly technology that has fail safes built around it. If it stops flying you will fall.

As for being left on the ground for a week. You can do that with skeletons too. Just have them stored safely, slay them, and reanimate the remains.

On assembly line oversight, I believe reduced throughput would dramatically reduce the amount of oversight required. Those lines move way too fast. However you have experience in that area.

As for the complexity limits of undead vs current robotics. We will have to agree to disagree. I work as a programmer and undead understand common. IRL robots don't understand language. And IRL robots make much more complicated devices than the tasks I was suggesting the undead do.

So I will continue to assume competency. You have not convinced me to change my ruling. I wonder how much of that is your insistence on the trivial problem of "not doing maintenance while unconscious". It is hard to tell how much that has biased my reading of your argument.

[Rukelnikov]

Could I imagine a custom setting with a greedy merchant's guild that employs Necromancers and their pets in some way? Sure. Does that make it moral?

The Dustmen of Sigil use zombies as workforce, though these have given consent during their life and signed a contract that their body would belong to the Dustmen after their death.


When you take your oath at level 3, will you be lying? I'd take a good hard look at the oath and the tenets and what it means if you want to Role Play. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of something. Or in other words, if you have to ask you probably already know the answer. :smallcool: But talk with your DM; we aren't at your table, so it doesn't matter what we'd rule.

Well, weasling out of things is the kind of mischievousness an Archfey would attempt :smalltongue:

I likely won't have access to any of them anyway since its PHB only, so no Undying Servitude or Summon Undead.



Hi, I am a half-orc laborer with a family to feed. You using undead for labor is taking food off of my table. It is evil necromancers like you who evoke the torches and pitchforks reaction. By the way, I know a Paladin named Miko ... :smallcool:

They took our jobs!


I would rule depending on the setting of the game I was in and the nature of undeath within that setting. I've run games where undeath in and of itself was morally neutral on the wider scale, where animate dead was metaphysically little removed from animate objects. In those games, I see no conflict between animate dead and the tenets of the Oath of Ancients.

They are as evil as they are usually portrayed. There's currently a Death Knight that seems to be the BBEG of the current arc, and an evil necromancer is known to work for the tyranical Lord Ferguson.

As a matter of fact, said necromancer attacked my home town when I was little, this part of the bacgground was given by the GM, and I let that influence my character a bit. I knew I wanted to stop others like him from harrasing small villages and the like, but I didn't consider the Undead to be the real problem, since others like him could try to do the same by other methods. I didn't go Vengeance because I wouldn't let what happened back then claim the rest of my life, so my motivation is not to erdicate the Undead or avenge that particular event, but rather free the people from any kind of oppresion, whether its a corrupt governor, an evil Necromancer terrorizing th countryside, or a tyranical lord that has been ruling for far too long.

[OldTrees1]

Well, weasling out of things is the kind of mischievousness an Archfey would attempt :smalltongue:

I know it is a joking remark. However I don't think you can weasel your way out of a Paladin Oath. I think delusion is more feasible. And honest even more feasible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know it is a joking remark. However I don't think you can weasel your way out of a Paladin Oath. I think delusion is more feasible. And honest even more feasible.

I'd say that going into an Oath with the mindset that it's even possible to weasel out of it rather precludes the Oath from actually granting power. The power comes from an intense, almost supernatural conviction that the Oath is a) necessary/right and b) binding. You're binding yourself; sacrifice gives power. One of the oldest tropes--people gaining power by abstaining from certain actions. And that takes whole-hearted dedication, not "well, I'll figure away to get around the inconvenient parts".

[KorvinStarmast]

Cope. The point still stands that appealing to tradition is boring and not immediately conducive to fun gameplay. Replace "the point" with "in my opinion" and add " for me" after the word gameplay and that is a plausibly accurate statement.
Your attempt to state is as a fact utterly fails. Cope.

Well, weasling out of things is the kind of mischievousness an Archfey would attempt :smalltongue: Hmm, you are MCing, right? Your PC isn't the Archfey, their patron is. :smallbiggrin: But I do see your point.

I likely won't have access to any of them anyway since its PHB only, so no Undying Servitude or Summon Undead. Aww, too bad, it's a decent spell. A warlock in one of our groups used it; in play it works out pretty well.

[Ettina]

Isn't all this discussion of the feasibility of undead laborers given the timing of animate dead made moot if you just use finger of death instead? Maybe have the executioners all be 9+ level arcane casters, and a death sentence = unlife as a zombie permanently under said executioner's control. Only time you risk uncontrolled undead is if one of your executioners dies.

And if you have several executioners, you could just have every work team consist of zombies with multiple masters and orders to attack their fellow zombies if they try to harm innocents. Or just have them only doing jobs in controlled areas where a rogue zombie will definitely be found and killed before they get a chance to harm innocents - eg have your zombies in a factory built into a pit that requires magical flight/levitation to get in or out of, with a few guys on watch with ranged attacks.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't all this discussion of the feasibility of undead laborers given the timing of animate dead made moot if you just use finger of death instead? Maybe have the executioners all be 9+ level arcane casters, and a death sentence = unlife as a zombie permanently under said executioner's control. Only time you risk uncontrolled undead is if one of your executioners dies.

And if you have several executioners, you could just have every work team consist of zombies with multiple masters and orders to attack their fellow zombies if they try to harm innocents. Or just have them only doing jobs in controlled areas where a rogue zombie will definitely be found and killed before they get a chance to harm innocents - eg have your zombies in a factory built into a pit that requires magical flight/levitation to get in or out of, with a few guys on watch with ranged attacks.

How many executed people do you need to run a factory? How many executions will the Ministry for the Organisation of Laborers, Occultists, Conjurers and Hermetists (more commonly known as MOLOCH) will arrange when a new factory "needs" to be build.

Whose crimes will become capital offenses to keep the capital flowing?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How many executed people do you need to run a factory? How many executions will the Ministry for the Organisation of Laborers, Occultists, Conjurers and Hermetists (more commonly known as MOLOCH) will arrange when a new factory "needs" to be build.

Whose crimes will become capital offenses to keep the capital flowing?

Not to mention that finger of death is a 7th(!) level wizard-only spell, so now you need your executioners (who also have to serve as full-time overseers, because they're the only ones who can give orders to these undead, so not having them on-site 24/7 while the factory is working risks catastrophe if anything happens with the line) to be 13th level wizards or higher. Which, I'd bet, aren't exactly commonplace. And they can only replace workers at 1/day/executioner, since that's the limit on 7th level slots for those people. And if you're abusing simulacrum for this...well, there are easier ways if you're doing simulacrum abuse. Like just wish/simulacrum living workers who don't risk going on rampages and don't need constant care and can solve their own problems/aren't limited to only very basic operations. Sure, you have to feed them, but if one dies, you just wish up a new one. Same rate limit, way fewer issues.

Oh, and this brings up another flaw in the comparison of undead to (industrial) robots. Industrial robots don't care who watches over them and maintains them, as long as they're authorized properly (if even that). Undead can only be commanded by their creator. This means that the creator must be on-site whenever the undead "robots" are active. Which makes the limiting factor casters--you don't get 24/7 work out of undead, because they need careful oversight 24/7 (because they're stupider than stupid and need micromanagement to be effective). And you can't run shifts unless you also run shifts of undead, since you can't pass control to anyone else. So now you've got high level wizards who can't do anything but sit there and watch their workers all the time. No time for research, since the undead factory line could fail at any point or need adjustment even if the undead are working properly. If the caster takes a break for lunch, the line stops (unlike a regular line where you can stagger shifts and replace workers piecemeal). If one undead falls apart, the whole line has to stop or catastrophe. Etc.

And undead can't be used to do things like harvest--they can't tell good grain from stalks. Or plow--they don't have the smarts to work the plows correctly and handle failures. They can't do anything that isn't a simple loop task. Using them for any purpose like that without constant and strict scrutiny risks the Magician's Apprentice failure (although without the self-replication cascade)--by the time you realize there's a problem and try to turn them off, the catastrophe has already happened.

[KorvinStarmast]

...the catastrophe has already happened. Well, if you are referring to the TV show "The Walking Dead" yeah, that catastrophe has already happened. :smallcool:

[sithlordnergal]

How many executed people do you need to run a factory? How many executions will the Ministry for the Organisation of Laborers, Occultists, Conjurers and Hermetists (more commonly known as MOLOCH) will arrange when a new factory "needs" to be build.

Whose crimes will become capital offenses to keep the capital flowing?

Actually, you might not even need executions. You could have it so that citizens that are dying naturally and can't be saved are killed via Finger of Death. It could be that country's way of pulling the plug as it were.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, you might not even need executions. You could have it so that citizens that are dying naturally and can't be saved are killed via Finger of Death. It could be that country's way of pulling the plug as it were.

Except then you need basically all doctors to be level 13+ wizards. Because death waits for no man.

Plus, you'd have the same horrors--who decides who "can't be saved"? If that represents a major resource for the society (especially one who has no qualms about such spells or the other effects of using undead), moral standards are going to be under serious threat.

Plus, finger of death only gets you zombies. Which are useless for the vast majority of uses people want to use undead for in an "economic" setting. At most they can pull plows (if under direct control) or run on treadmills. Anything beyond that is well beyond the capabilities of a zombie, especially if you don't want to have to be giving it new orders every 6 seconds or want to run more than one at a time. And since you can't give different orders to different undead with the same action, micromanaging means you're spending all your time doing that and your ability to react is really slow unless all the undead are doing exactly the same thing in a synchronized fashion.

Fact is, 5e undead are killing machines. That's all they're good for, by design. Attempts to use them for anything else founder on the rocks of practicality, plus betray a callous disregard for life and effort[1].

[1] the time of a level 13+ wizard is incredibly valuable. Having them baby-sit a bunch of zombies for mundane tasks would need to have returns consistent with that value. And you can't exactly force them to do this--they could just as well use finger of death on the tasksmasters.

[MrStabby]

I don't think necromancy is evil per se.

I don't even think raising the dead is evil.

I do think the animate dead spell is a bit iffy.


So things like summoning an undead spirit through the Summon Undead spell - its not an evil spirit, nor a good spirit being tortured. There is nothing to suggest the spirit resents being called forth any more than a barbarian's ancestral guardians. It is compelled, but no more so than a conjured elemental, celestial or fey.

And as others have pointed out - is it in any way worse than other spells to burn people alive? To mentally dominate them? To scare them to death? Is pulling something back that only has the self awareness of a zombie somehow better than dominating or putting a Geas on an actually intelligent creature? Is putting an angry hateful corpse of animal Intelligence 3 into temporary servitude somewhow worse than forcing a smarter creature to do the same?

I mean a lot of people feel "ick" because, you know, dead bodies and stuff, but we use dead bodies for various purposes all the time from food to transplants, and whilst I get that some people do take a moral exception to things like eating flesh and transplants it isn't the kind of universal denouncement that makes me think "hey, well if everyone thinks its evil, maybe there is a question here I should look at".

I also get the point that the scope for collateral damage is high on animate dead - if not the other necromancy spells, but why the hate for Animate Dead but not Storm of Vengeance or the world ending capacity of a poorly worded Wish spell?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think necromancy is evil per se.

I don't even think raising the dead is evil.

I do think the animate dead spell is a bit iffy.


So things like summoning an undead spirit through the Summon Undead spell - its not an evil spirit, nor a good spirit being tortured. There is nothing to suggest the spirit resents being called forth any more than a barbarian's ancestral guardians. It is compelled, but no more so than a conjured elemental, celestial or fey.

And as others have pointed out - is it in any way worse than other spells to burn people alive? To mentally dominate them? To scare them to death? Is pulling something back that only has the self awareness of a zombie somehow better than dominating or putting a Geas on an actually intelligent creature? Is putting an angry hateful corpse of animal Intelligence 3 into temporary servitude somewhow worse than forcing a smarter creature to do the same?

I mean a lot of people feel "ick" because, you know, dead bodies and stuff, but we use dead bodies for various purposes all the time from food to transplants, and whilst I get that some people do take a moral exception to things like eating flesh and transplants it isn't the kind of universal denouncement that makes me think "hey, well if everyone thinks its evil, maybe there is a question here I should look at".

I also get the point that the scope for collateral damage is high on animate dead - if not the other necromancy spells, but why the hate for Animate Dead but not Storm of Vengeance or the world ending capacity of a poorly worded Wish spell?

First, wish isn't likely to end the world. Instead, it will end your world. The way wish is designed, things that would cause massive changes like that instead backfire and you take the brunt. And anything else is entirely, exclusively up to the gods (ie the DM).

Second, Storm of Vengeance at most destroys a localized area, then it's done. Creating undead has the potential to bring more uncontrolled undead into existence, as use of such magics is one of the triggers for spontaneous production of undead. In-universe, it weakens the barriers between life and death and lets nasty things slip through. Creating permanent undead also is effectively bringing life-hating, omnicidal creatures into existence and putting them on a very slim leash.


At the setting level, there are more issues. For example, my setting has undead (at least those created by animate dead) powered by spirits of entropy, the jotnar. Entities whose entire existence is contrary to life. They're basically black holes for life, sucking in life as they come across it. Controlled or not, the presence of undead in an area negatively affects fertility--enough undead or prolonged exposure renders an area sterile, incapable of supporting plant or animal life. Children born in such areas are more likely to be sickly or stillborn. Crops wither. Insects struggle to survive. If it's strong enough or long enough, even the very rocks start breaking down[1]. And worse, bringing undead through the veil contaminates the shadow world (the "afterlife" realm, as such) in that area, so people who die in those realms might find themselves in the Waste, where demons roam and steal souls. Sure, one zombie isn't likely to cause much damage. But the very idea of doing so is something that "good" people[2] find revolting. They might do it if absolutely necessary, but will hate themselves for doing so and will find any other alternative preferable[3]. Those who animate dead are considered hostis humani generis by almost every nation, civilized or not, and are subject to preemptive execution on the spot.

[1] All things are made out of the same stuff, anima. The stuff of life. Undead drain and contaminate the ambient anima field and eventually start draining the anima out of everything. That takes a long time, but eventually, a heavily contaminated area is reduced to nothing but lifeless ash.

[2] there isn't cosmological alignment, but everybody but a few demons (and even many demons) are in full agreement--undead are bad news. Even the setting's equivalent of Vecna + Orcus doesn't want rampant uncontrolled undead--he wants them fully controlled and used for specific purposes.

[3] there's an alternative if you have the backing of a god and lots of people willing to sacrifice themselves to power the ritual--effectively powering "undeath" via an Oath. But that's both temporary and dangerous--temporary because once the oath's terms are met, you cease to exist, and dangerous because you're burning your own soul to do so, with high risk of getting consumed by a jotnar--as well as requiring pure devotion and dedication from those undergoing the ritual. Even the slightest hesitation or doubt leaves you simply dead.

[JackPhoenix]

And as others have pointed out - is it in any way worse than other spells to burn people alive? To mentally dominate them? To scare them to death? Is pulling something back that only has the self awareness of a zombie somehow better than dominating or putting a Geas on an actually intelligent creature? Is putting an angry hateful corpse of animal Intelligence 3 into temporary servitude somewhow worse than forcing a smarter creature to do the same?

Not necessarily. Creating undead is not (always) evil, it's *not good*. Animating few skeletons when you really need to doesn't mean you'll automatically burn in Hells (or other lower plane, as appropriate by your alignment) after you die, but it will also never score you points on your Heavens (or other alignment appropriate upper plane) entrance test, even if you use them to save children from burning orphanage. Non-evil people can occassionally use it when they have to, but they propably should look for a better (if less convenient) alternative, like constructs (but hey, those can be made better specialized for the task and less reliant on constant supervision! Win:Win.. except the price). But if you're callous enough to create undead frequently for whatever reason, then your alignment lies somewhere south of neutral. You are bringing evil murderous monsters to the world, you are polluting the enviroment with dark magic (which, as per MM, can lead to more zombies rising spontaneously), you may (or may not) be screwing someone's afterlife and taking away their chance at being brought back to life (as any reviving magic less than True Resurrection stops working once the corpse was turned into undead, and Revivify even bring back the undead instead of the original creature). Just because it's cheaper.

Good has higher standards, and frowns on doing whatever you want just because it's more convenient. And even Neutral doesn't like more corpses than necessary shuffling around.


I also get the point that the scope for collateral damage is high on animate dead - if not the other necromancy spells, but why the hate for Animate Dead but not Storm of Vengeance or the world ending capacity of a poorly worded Wish spell?

Even exceptionally poorly worded Wish will end the caster before it ends the world, and Storm of Vengeance is just an AoE damage spell, though big one. Killing innocents is evil no matter if you did it because you didn't care about the collateral damage or if you went out of your way to stab them with a sword.

[MrStabby]

Not necessarily. Creating undead is not (always) evil, it's *not good*. Animating few skeletons when you really need to doesn't mean you'll automatically burn in Hells (or other lower plane, as appropriate by your alignment) after you die, but it will also never score you points on your Heavens (or other alignment appropriate upper plane) entrance test, even if you use them to save children from burning orphanage. Non-evil people can occassionally use it when they have to, but they propably should look for a better (if less convenient) alternative, like constructs (but hey, those can be made better specialized for the task and less reliant on constant supervision! Win:Win.. except the price). But if you're callous enough to create undead frequently for whatever reason, then your alignment lies somewhere south of neutral. You are bringing evil murderous monsters to the world, you are polluting the enviroment with dark magic (which, as per MM, can lead to more zombies rising spontaneously), you may (or may not) be screwing someone's afterlife and taking away their chance at being brought back to life (as any reviving magic less than True Resurrection stops working once the corpse was turned into undead, and Revivify even bring back the undead instead of the original creature). Just because it's cheaper.

Good has higher standards, and frowns on doing whatever you want just because it's more convenient. And even Neutral doesn't like more corpses than necessary shuffling around.
Even exceptionally poorly worded Wish will end the caster before it ends the world, and Storm of Vengeance is just an AoE damage spell, though big one. Killing innocents is evil no matter if you did it because you didn't care about the collateral damage or if you went out of your way to stab them with a sword.

Well this is kind of my point. If killing innocents is the evil part, why do we get more bent out of shape over animate dead than Storm of Vengeance?

If it isn't the killing of innocents, then what is our moral objection to the use of matter that was once living? If it isn't the outcome of the spell, then what is it that makes it less than good.

I don't see why it is an issue that there are scary undead walking about the place if they do no harm. If they do do harm and if that is the issue, then that is a different matter but then we are back into the terratory of any other spell (like storm of vengeance) that when used carelessly can also collaterally damage innocents.

I am also puzzled as to why you use the word "callous" - I still don't see why creation of undead has earned this any more than callously fireballing people or callously dominating them or callously planeshifting them to a hostile plane. It just seems to be assuming some kind of value judgement about what spells are good or not rather than reasoning towards it.

Like staing that "good has higher standards" but then not explaining why walking dead constitute lower standards than any other spell that would do the same collateral harm. Why, if I conjure spirits with summon undead is it in any way a lower standard than if I used Summon Fey to have a different ally?

And OK, wish being world ending might be an exageration, but there is still plenty of scope for collaterally damaging the lives of people other than the caster through careless use.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well this is kind of my point. If killing innocents is the evil part, why do we get more bent out of shape over animate dead than Storm of Vengeance?

If it isn't the killing of innocents, then what is our moral objection to the use of matter that was once living? If it isn't the outcome of the spell, then what is it that makes it less than good.

I don't see why it is an issue that there are scary undead walking about the place if they do no harm. If they do do harm and if that is the issue, then that is a different matter but then we are back into the terratory of any other spell (like storm of vengeance) that when used carelessly can also collaterally damage innocents.

I am also puzzled as to why you use the word "callous" - I still don't see why creation of undead has earned this any more than callously fireballing people or callously dominating them or callously planeshifting them to a hostile plane. It just seems to be assuming some kind of value judgement about what spells are good or not rather than reasoning towards it.

Like staing that "good has higher standards" but then not explaining why walking dead constitute lower standards than any other spell that would do the same collateral harm. Why, if I conjure spirits with summon undead is it in any way a lower standard than if I used Summon Fey to have a different ally?

And OK, wish being world ending might be an exageration, but there is still plenty of scope for collaterally damaging the lives of people other than the caster through careless use.

Imagine if every cast of fireball permanently increased the chance of random people getting randomly fireballed out of nowhere. In more than just that spot. Could be the next village over suddenly has a portal casting fireball at random people on an irregular basis. And this wasn't 1:1--not like each fireball cast causes p chance of a single fireball being randomly cast somewhere else. No, it's one cast means that from now on, there's a +delta increased probability of random fireballs anywhere, permanently. And those spontaneous fireballs? Have the same probability. That is, this can cascade.

Anyone with any pretensions of being good or even of being neutral would think twice before casting fireball.

Now fireball doesn't do that. But animate dead (and similar spells) do, by canon, have that effect.

[greenstone]

I include this in my "About this world" document that all players get to read before the game.

I rule that raising a body as undead prevents raising them. If you killa zombie, then cast raise dead, you get a zombie, not the original humanoid. In addition, the creation of the undead prevents the soul from travelling to the next world. For this reason, raising bodies as undead is considered an evil act by almost all cultures.

If a player has their character raise undead once or twice in a situation of great need, that's OK (but it would be nice to see the player roleplay some internal conflict). If they do it a lot, they get a warning that I might ask them to generate a new character (I don't GM evil characters).

[sandmote]

Undead labor forces aren't going to be common because they have a high start up cost (figuring out the efficient way to have things happen) and there's going to be more profitable things to do with the spell slots. AL spell pricing puts Create Undead at 90 gp to buy, meaning that a wizard is charging 22.5 gp per worker on a normal day. If you're sticking hazards in a chamber that no one should be going into, it might be worth it because you can pay once and leave the undead there. On a daily basis its cheaper to get living workers than pay that every 23-sh hours.

The above applies less to 3.X, but its still probably cheaper to pay living workers in most cases.


Creating undead has the potential to bring more uncontrolled undead into existence, as use of such magics is one of the triggers for spontaneous production of undead. In-universe, it weakens the barriers between life and death and lets nasty things slip through. Creating permanent undead also is effectively bringing life-hating, omnicidal creatures into existence and putting them on a very slim leash. As far as I can tell, half your argument rests on this sort of nonspecific descriptions about undead existing allowing undead to arise spontaneously, and the other half rests on undead needing constant supervision for even the most basic tasks.

Order:

"If you're not holding a hammer, pick one up from the table or floor or wait for one to be left on either. When a widget comes down the line and you have a hammer, lightly hammer the two pins on top until they're flush with the surface, send it down the line, and then wait for the next one."

Should be simple enough if we follow the material provided by both the player's handbook and monster manual, and I don't see why a zombie wouldn't be able to follow it. If the line stops, fine, the zombie just waits until the line starts sending widgets again. Zombie should be able to handle aligning the hammer with materials that a robot wouldn't be able too. Set up four of them next to each other, and you can probably reassert control without having to repeat orders.

That said, because Storm of Vengeance ends and the zombies don't, I could see that being a difference rather than a distinction. I'd maybe put it in the same category as unleashing demons. Even if they don't get the chance to do harm, there's extra risk even after the spell is over, so the venn diagram between "callously animating undead" and "animating undead" could be seen as a single circle. Whereas "callously fireballing people," is a smaller circle siting inside "fireballing people," instead.

I'm not sure that's a particularly good reason, but I can see the viewpoint. That said, I think there's a lot of spells that are treated as being perfectly fine because they're Not Evil that are pretty bad. Storm of Vengeance being a general example, and I consider the high level enchantments to be worse than creating undead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Undead labor forces aren't going to be common because they have a high start up cost (figuring out the efficient way to have things happen) and there's going to be more profitable things to do with the spell slots. AL spell pricing puts Create Undead at 90 gp to buy, meaning that a wizard is charging 22.5 gp per worker on a normal day. If you're sticking hazards in a chamber that no one should be going into, it might be worth it because you can pay once and leave the undead there. On a daily basis its cheaper to get living workers than pay that every 23-sh hours.

The above applies less to 3.X, but its still probably cheaper to pay living workers in most cases.

As far as I can tell, half your argument rests on this sort of nonspecific descriptions about undead existing allowing undead to arise spontaneously, and the other half rests on undead needing constant supervision for even the most basic tasks.

Order:

"If you're not holding a hammer, pick one up from the table or floor or wait for one to be left on either. When a widget comes down the line and you have a hammer, lightly hammer the two pins on top until they're flush with the surface, send it down the line, and then wait for the next one."

Should be simple enough if we follow the material provided by both the player's handbook and monster manual, and I don't see why a zombie wouldn't be able to follow it. If the line stops, fine, the zombie just waits until the line starts sending widgets again. Zombie should be able to handle aligning the hammer with materials that a robot wouldn't be able too. Set up four of them next to each other, and you can probably reassert control without having to repeat orders.

That said, because Storm of Vengeance ends and the zombies don't, I could see that being a difference rather than a distinction. I'd maybe put it in the same category as unleashing demons. Even if they don't get the chance to do harm, there's extra risk even after the spell is over, so the venn diagram between "callously animating undead" and "animating undead" could be seen as a single circle. Whereas "callously fireballing people," is a smaller circle siting inside "fireballing people," instead.

I'm not sure that's a particularly good reason, but I can see the viewpoint. That said, I think there's a lot of spells that are treated as being perfectly fine because they're Not Evil that are pretty bad. Storm of Vengeance being a general example, and I consider the high level enchantments to be worse than creating undead.

Remember, zombies won't pick up things if they drop. They'll use weapons (to hit people) if given them. That doesn't mean they will use tools effectively. They are devoid of thought and logic. So any order that requires any kind of if-then logic or sequencing is impossible. Can't happen. Won't be followed. They'll just look at you. That proposed order is actually multiple separate orders, bound together. That's a no go. They won't react to changes on the line, they won't anticipate anything. Have no proficiency in tools. Probably can't even reliably hit the right part of the item without breaking it, if given a hammer. Any change in conditions, any deviation means the whole thing falls apart. Skeletons might be able to do this, but unlikely. And making skeletons is a lot more work--you have to clean the bones first.

These are not 3.X zombies and skeletons. The description (and there is no fluff vs crunch here) is very clear that undead are good for nothing but killing people. Period. That's all they're competent at, all they're willing to do.

Unleashing demons is also evil. 100%. They're basically the same thing.

And remember, you need that high-powered wizard (5th level minimum, which in 5e is not trivial, not even accounting for the fact that not all wizards will learn animate undead or be willing to cast it) to sit there and direct them constantly. Remember you're also paying for the wizard's time, and if you need a wizard per 4 workers, there 24/7 (or multiple shifts changing out both wizards and undead, because no wizard can control anyone else's undead), your costs explode. Conservatively, you're looking at triple or quadruple those prices. Because a 5th level commerce-minded wizard can make 90gp per day just casting sending once. Which takes all of 6 seconds. Really, you're looking at someone who values their time in the low 2-3 digits per working day.

[JackPhoenix]

Order:

"If you're not holding a hammer, pick one up from the table or floor or wait for one to be left on either. When a widget comes down the line and you have a hammer, lightly hammer the two pins on top until they're flush with the surface, send it down the line, and then wait for the next one."

That's 5 different orders, though it could be shortened to 3 if you skip the parts about waiting. Still too many for a zombie follow. There are also conditions the zombie may not be able to understand, considering it's stupid enough to fall in a hole if there's a target on the other side, and won't figure out to pick up dropped item on its own, though that part is more debatable.

Seriously, get a specialized construct. It'll be cheaper in the long term, and less morally objectionable.

[sandmote]

These are not 3.X zombies and skeletons.

Remember, zombies won't pick up things if they drop. They'll use weapons (to hit people) if given them. I seem to have fulfilled the saying about what happens when you assume. Sorry about that. I was talking about the 5e Zombies and Skeletons as presented in the 5e Player Handbook and Monster Manual.

For reference, I was thinking this rule when I included an instruction to pick up a hammer (emphasis mine):


A zombie armed with a weapon uses it, but the zombie wont retrieve a dropped weapon or other tool until told to do so.
In the spirit of not making any more assumptions, would you like some help with the non-mechanical description of how zombies operate as presented in the 5e Monster Manual? Or the additional material in the 5e Player's Handbook?


That's 5 different orders, though it could be shortened to 3 if you skip the parts about waiting. Still too many for a zombie follow. There are also conditions the zombie may not be able to understand, considering it's stupid enough to fall in a hole if there's a target on the other side, and won't figure out to pick up dropped item on its own, though that part is more debatable. Note the first order assumes the zombie requires an order to pick up the hammer. I was also taking the zombie to be in a controlled environment, where it isn't having to walk to get new supplies or anything. See also the description in the Player's Handbook where a zombie can be instructed to "guard a room" without needing such details explained: zombies appear to specifically have a problem with any thing they'd need to do before enacting the instructions.


Seriously, get a specialized construct. It'll be cheaper in the long term, and less morally objectionable. I suspect in most cases even a specialized construct would be more expensive than just having humanoid workers get paid for it. You'll probably be long gone before a golem pays itself off doing any mundane work. There's a reason the regular ones are built for combat where soldiers might break and run or whose presence would a security threat on its own.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I seem to have fulfilled the saying about what happens when you assume. Sorry about that. I was talking about the 5e Zombies and Skeletons as presented in the 5e Player Handbook and Monster Manual.

For reference, I was thinking this rule when I included an instruction to pick up a hammer (emphasis mine):


In the spirit of not making any more assumptions, would you like some help with the non-mechanical description of how zombies operate as presented in the 5e Monster Manual? Or the additional material in the 5e Player's Handbook?

Note the first order assumes the zombie requires an order to pick up the hammer. I was also taking the zombie to be in a controlled environment, where it isn't having to walk to get new supplies or anything. See also the description in the Player's Handbook where a zombie can be instructed to "guard a room" without needing such details explained: zombies appear to specifically have a problem with any thing they'd need to do before enacting the instructions.

I suspect in most cases even a specialized construct would be more expensive than just having humanoid workers get paid for it. You'll probably be long gone before a golem pays itself off doing any mundane work. There's a reason the regular ones are built for combat where soldiers might break and run or whose presence would a security threat on its own.

You're giving multiple, conditional, sequenced orders. That's so far outside the scope of anything you can do for any commanding spell with a single command that it's not even remotely feasible. Even for smart things like fey. You get one order. Period. That they interpret to the best of their ability. Which for zombies is...not at all. They are incapable of doing anything but charging at the nearest enemy and attacking, unless you spend your one order per round telling them to do something else. And then they'll do that one thing. Tell it to hit those pegs, and it will try (and probably fail, since their coordination is basically nil). But then you have to spend your next order telling it to hit that next thing. No "wait until it comes by, then hit it just enough to do X, then wait more, then hit the other one, etc".

And "guard the room" is not "patrol quietly, waiting for things, then attack but only this much, or unless they say XYZ, in which case...". It's "If they're not on the white-list, hit them." And it's specifically doing something (killing living things) that zombies are noted to be competent at. Dextrously hitting small pegs with hammers at the right frequency, and only hitting them enough...not so much.

[KorvinStarmast]

Seriously, get a specialized construct. It'll be cheaper in the long term, and less morally objectionable. True enough.

As with the undead labor surrogate, that half-orc needing to feed his family, and his guild, are likely to respond in standard Luddite fashion: torches and pitch forks, hire adventurers, set fire to some great public building, what have you. As they say: consequences. :smallcool:

[Rukelnikov]

I also get the point that the scope for collateral damage is high on animate dead - if not the other necromancy spells, but why the hate for Animate Dead but not Storm of Vengeance or the world ending capacity of a poorly worded Wish spell?

Nitpick here, but actually, the strongest version of Storm of Vengeance, The Killing Storms, are much more frowned upon than any undead creating spell that I know of. Just searching for information about the spell would get you killed, even if you were a Netherese Arcanist.

[MrStabby]

Imagine if every cast of fireball permanently increased the chance of random people getting randomly fireballed out of nowhere. In more than just that spot. Could be the next village over suddenly has a portal casting fireball at random people on an irregular basis. And this wasn't 1:1--not like each fireball cast causes p chance of a single fireball being randomly cast somewhere else. No, it's one cast means that from now on, there's a +delta increased probability of random fireballs anywhere, permanently. And those spontaneous fireballs? Have the same probability. That is, this can cascade.

Anyone with any pretensions of being good or even of being neutral would think twice before casting fireball.

Now fireball doesn't do that. But animate dead (and similar spells) do, by canon, have that effect.

I suspect this is a difference in DM style then.

At my table a spell does just what it says in the spell description and nothing more. I tend to be quite conservative that way. If the spell doesn't say it can be used to increase the chance of spontanious animation of the dead, then it doesn't do that. If animate dead were to say it did that but create dead didn't say that, then animate dead would have that effect but creat dead wouldn't.

At my table the spells effect is just what is described, as it is described.

I also want to stress that whilst in my original post I did reference Animate Dead for some of it, my point is generally a broader one about necromancy spells in general and spells that raise undead creatures as a category not just the spell Animate Dead. I cannot see anything in Summon Undead for example that makes it any more evil than any other summon spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

I cannot see anything in Summon Undead for example that makes it any more evil than any other summon spell. This is D&D 5e we are talking about. Spells dont' have an alignment, creatures do. What is the spell being used for? Let me offer you and example.

Firebolt is a cantrip.
Case 1: I use it to start a fire on a cold evening in the forest to keep travelers warm.
Case 2: I set fire to your barn, where your horses and livestock live.

It wasn't the spell that dictated how you could apply an alignment to its casting: it's why the spell was used, and/or what for.

[MrStabby]

This is D&D 5e we are talking about. Spells dont' have an alignment, creatures do. What is the spell being used for? Let me offer you and example.

Firebolt is a cantrip.
Case 1: I use it to start a fire on a cold evening in the forest to keep travelers warm.
Case 2: I set fire to your barn, where your horses and livestock live.

It wasn't the spell that dictated how you could apply an alignment to its casting: it's why the spell was used, and/or what for.

So we are in agreement?

[KorvinStarmast]

So we are in agreement? I am not sure. The general problem with raising the dead, and the specific use of necromancy in animating the dead as controlled creatures is that the excuse given for doing so is entirely self serving on the part of the player.
There's a substantial difference with the temporary service rendered to the druid who casts conjure animals; for an hour, a fey spirit will inhabit a beast's form and act as an ally. They then are released from service. The undead is a thrall, at best, under the necromancer's control.

Necromancy has a negative connotation (the practice) for a good and sufficient reason IC and OOC, and that it spelled out pretty clearly in the text of the game. The PHB further supports that with its description of Druids being vehemently against the undead since they are un natural. At some point, trope subversion for the sake of trope subversion becomes tiresome and unoriginal.

It's fine in CRPGs. For example, in Diablo II, or in Diablo III, raising a bunch of skeletons or shadows or revenants or revived with your necromancer was/is a gamist way to get better combat power for the purpose of slaughtering hordes of (what's in front of youe); there's no RP involved in that, it's a pure combat / DPS pursuit.

[MrStabby]

I am not sure. The general problem with raising the dead, and the specific use of necromancy in animating the dead as controlled creatures is that the excuse given for doing so is entirely self serving on the part of the player.
There's a substantial difference with the temporary service rendered to the druid who casts conjure animals; for an hour, a fey spirit will inhabit a beast's form and act as an ally. They then are released from service. The undead is a thrall, at best, under the necromancer's control.

Necromancy has a negative connotation (the practice) for a good and sufficient reason IC and OOC, and that it spelled out pretty clearly in the text of the game. The PHB further supports that with its description of Druids being vehemently against the undead since they are un natural. At some point, trope subversion for the sake of trope subversion becomes tiresome and unoriginal.

It's fine in CRPGs. For example, in Diablo II, or in Diablo III, raising a bunch of skeletons or shadows or revenants or revived with your necromancer was/is a gamist way to get better combat power for the purpose of slaughtering hordes of (what's in front of youe); there's no RP involved in that, it's a pure combat / DPS pursuit.

I am not sure that the "good necromancer" is trope subversion. Rightly or wrongly there is a common belief that much of D&D is based on Lord of the Rings and here it is Aragorn as one of the Goodies who summons an army of the dead to aid in battle.

I guess I don't see why the sprit of the dead should be less amenable to willingly help you than a fey spirit. If you summon the ghost of your father with conjure undead to fight alongside you, why is this worse than a fey, celestial, fiend or elemental? I would also say I don't consider this trope subversion either - the idea of spirits of friends and family being able to come to ones aid is pretty common in fiction.

Druids not liking something because it is "unnatural" may be a good reason to not like it, but unnatural is not the same thing as evil. If we are to consider the distinction between natural and artificial like good and evil then that would firmly put artificers as the most evil class. If we are to allow the beliefs of druids to determine what is good or evil for other classes then we end up with anyone wearing metal armour being deeply immoral.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am not sure that the "good necromancer" is trope subversion. Rightly or wrongly there is a common belief that much of D&D is based on Lord of the Rings and here it is Aragorn as one of the Goodies who summons an army of the dead to aid in battle.

I guess I don't see why the sprit of the dead should be less amenable to willingly help you than a fey spirit. If you summon the ghost of your father with conjure undead to fight alongside you, why is this worse than a fey, celestial, fiend or elemental? I would also say I don't consider this trope subversion either - the idea of spirits of friends and family being able to come to ones aid is pretty common in fiction.

Druids not liking something because it is "unnatural" may be a good reason to not like it, but unnatural is not the same thing as evil. If we are to consider the distinction between natural and artificial like good and evil then that would firmly put artificers as the most evil class. If we are to allow the beliefs of druids to determine what is good or evil for other classes then we end up with anyone wearing metal armour being deeply immoral.

Aragorn didn't summon (create, in this sense) the spirits of the dead. He didn't bind them to the world of the living. Instead, he offered existing undead a path to freedom by fulfilling their oath. For me, that's a very big thematic difference. I have much less of a problem with summon undead, as it has a similar feel to it.

A "good" necromancer would (in principle, this isn't really possible in 5e) only work to control existing undead, promising to put them to rest after they completed some task. So overall, that "good" necromancer would net decrease the number of undead out there, not create new ones.

5e doesn't really have the option to take control of existing undead; you can only control ones you yourself created. Which makes this difficult.

[Unoriginal]

5e doesn't really have the option to take control of existing undead; you can only control ones you yourself created. Which makes this difficult.

Necromancers have the Command Undead feature at lvl 14.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Necromancers have the Command Undead feature at lvl 14.

True, and I'd forgotten about that. But that's real high level and limited--you can only use it on one target at a time (it ends if you use it again) and if a creature succeeds, they're immune to further attempts from you forever.

To pull off a "good necromancer", you'd need something more like the 3e cleric "Rebuke Undead" ability. Which ironically was only an option for evil clerics, reinforcing the "good people destroy undead, bad people use undead" motif.

[GeneralVryth]

True, and I'd forgotten about that. But that's real high level and limited--you can only use it on one target at a time (it ends if you use it again) and if a creature succeeds, they're immune to further attempts from you forever.

To pull off a "good necromancer", you'd need something more like the 3e cleric "Rebuke Undead" ability. Which ironically was only an option for evil clerics, reinforcing the "good people destroy undead, bad people use undead" motif.

In 5e, the closest equivalent I can think of is the Oathbreaker Palandin's "Control Undead" Channel Divinity. Which somehow seems relevant and thematic to this thread...

[MrStabby]

Aragorn didn't summon (create, in this sense) the spirits of the dead. He didn't bind them to the world of the living. Instead, he offered existing undead a path to freedom by fulfilling their oath. For me, that's a very big thematic difference. I have much less of a problem with summon undead, as it has a similar feel to it.

A "good" necromancer would (in principle, this isn't really possible in 5e) only work to control existing undead, promising to put them to rest after they completed some task. So overall, that "good" necromancer would net decrease the number of undead out there, not create new ones.

5e doesn't really have the option to take control of existing undead; you can only control ones you yourself created. Which makes this difficult.

Well I think this answers the OP question. If you want to reconcile summoning undead minions with the oath of ancients, fluff it as allowing them to fulfil their oath rather than any other type of Binding. Seems a solution to keep everyone happy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In 5e, the closest equivalent I can think of is the Oathbreaker Palandin's "Control Undead" Channel Divinity. Which somehow seems relevant and thematic to this thread...

Which is heavily "evil" coded, down to the "seeking out dark powers to fill the void left by breaking and abandoning their oath" description.


Well I think this answers the OP question. If you want to reconcile summoning undead minions with the oath of ancients, fluff it as allowing them to fulfil their oath rather than any other type of Binding. Seems a solution to keep everyone happy.

I don't see that as being a fluff, at least for animate dead. For summon undead, sure. But animate dead creates new undead where there weren't before. Which is a problem. And most undead wouldn't have an oath to fulfill. They'd exist because someone created them or due to natural processes. Aragorn's situation was exceptional in many cases.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am not sure that the "good necromancer" is trope subversion. Rightly or wrongly there is a common belief that much of D&D is based on Lord of the Rings
That's a load of rot.

here it is Aragorn as one of the Goodies who summons an army of the dead to aid in battle.
(1) In the books it happens off screen, ONCE EVER (2) the result of a Thousands Year Old Curse in Epic Level Magic that, when activated, releases by service the Oath Breakers - not even close to D&D necrmancy.
Aragorn is in no way, shape, or form a D&D Wizard of the Necromancy school.
Sauron, on the other hand, is raw evil and controls via his rings (all of artifact level power) humanoid creatures as wraiths. (The Barrow Wights I am not as sure about, but they seem to be linked to Sauron or Angmar somehow... or maybe they are independent evil spirits)

I guess I don't see why the sprit of the dead should be less amenable to willingly help you than a fey spirit. Special pleading is noted.

Druids not liking something because it is "unnatural" may be a good reason to not like it, but unnatural is not the same thing as evil. Rules lawyering again. Self serving.

[Composer99]

Imagine if every cast of fireball permanently increased the chance of random people getting randomly fireballed out of nowhere. In more than just that spot. Could be the next village over suddenly has a portal casting fireball at random people on an irregular basis. And this wasn't 1:1--not like each fireball cast causes p chance of a single fireball being randomly cast somewhere else. No, it's one cast means that from now on, there's a +delta increased probability of random fireballs anywhere, permanently. And those spontaneous fireballs? Have the same probability. That is, this can cascade.

Anyone with any pretensions of being good or even of being neutral would think twice before casting fireball.

Now fireball doesn't do that. But animate dead (and similar spells) do, by canon, have that effect.


I suspect this is a difference in DM style then.

At my table a spell does just what it says in the spell description and nothing more. I tend to be quite conservative that way. If the spell doesn't say it can be used to increase the chance of spontanious animation of the dead, then it doesn't do that. If animate dead were to say it did that but create dead didn't say that, then animate dead would have that effect but creat dead wouldn't.

At my table the spells effect is just what is described, as it is described.

I also want to stress that whilst in my original post I did reference Animate Dead for some of it, my point is generally a broader one about necromancy spells in general and spells that raise undead creatures as a category not just the spell Animate Dead. I cannot see anything in Summon Undead for example that makes it any more evil than any other summon spell.

If you assume PhoenixPhyre is incorrect because the text of animate dead does not have anything to say about the undead created except insofar as to describe how you create them as well as how you control them and for how long, you are mistaken. Animate dead creates undead creatures, which have their own properties independent of the spell's effect.

For instance:
When skeletons "encounter living creatures, the necromantic energy that drives them compels them to kill unless they are commanded by their masters to refrain from doing so." (MM pg. 272)
For its part, "[a] zombie left without orders simply stands in place and rots unless something comes along that it can kill. The magic animating a zombie imbues it with evil, so left without purpose, it attacks any living creature it encounters." (MM pg. 315) [Here I must assume that zombies that rise spontaneously, described on that same page, might wander aimlessly instead of standing around.]

That is not to say that you are mistaken about the specific point that the presence of skeletons or zombies (or undead generally) causes the spontaneous generation of more undead as well as a general withering of life. I haven't found such text in the MM. (Note that the MM does support undead rising spontaneously in areas saturated or suffused with dark magic.)

(Some undead do create more undead, such as vampires, wights, and wraiths, and wraiths are specifically mentioned as causing the sort of devastation that might leave a landscape suffused with the sort of dark magic that might engender the spontaneous arising of more undead - "Wraiths sometimes rule the legions of the dead, plotting the doom of living creatures. When they emerge from their tombs to do battle, life and hope shrivel before them. Even if a wraith's armies are forced to retreat, the lands its forces occupied are so blasted and withered that those who live there often starve and die." (MM pg. 302))

I personally would be interested in seeing a quote from a text that supports PhoenixPhyre's claim as default 5e lore about undead writ large. (Not because I disagree with it, necessarily, but because I couldn't find one.)

At any rate, even if that claim turns out to not to be supported in any text, the lore about undead that exists in the MM clearly and unambiguously supports the idea that animating them is not a good act, and rarely a good idea.

Which is why the OP should make sure the setting lore for their game supports the idea of an Ancients paladin making use of undead by consulting with their DM about the extent to which their setting hews to or diverges from default lore, instead of asking Strangers On The Internet™ (who apparently can't even manage "how do things roll at your table?" without getting into intractable arguments).

[Ogun]

Moral questions aside, practically speaking mindless undead should be disarmed, polled, or defanged and then set to work powering mills, lathes, and other machine tools.
Skeletal powered boats, trains, elevators, ski lifts and pipelines would revolutionize the world.
Much like the use of coal and dangerous machinery during the RL industrial revolution, there will be downsides, but the results will be so profitable and the nastiness so hidden, most people will come to consider skeleton power to be cause essential.
This also eliminates the need for 5th level wizards and the like, with the skeleton being controled in much the same way as greyhound would be.
A fresh living hand appearing just out of reach to the skeleton would cause it to lurch into motion, propelling our craft or machine.
Even if it were freed from its bonds, the lack of a jaw, arms, feet, or shins render them harmless.

Still evil, much more manageable and scalable, doesn't put living beings out of work, win-win-win!

[SpanielBear]

Just to add a nugget to the “how LotR views necromancy” side note, it’s worth remembering that in The Hobbit (written I believe before Tolkein had fleshed out the legendarium), Gandalf leaves the company to go fight “the necromancer”. Later revealed/changed to have been a version of Sauron.

That said, I’m actually sympathetic to create undead being refluffed. Think of all those who have died- most are just regular folk, some are heroes even. I don’t see why if evil spirits can happily haunt the world and taunt humanity, good ones wouldn’t be amenable to being summoned by a well-meaning caster to fight the good fight for a spell. You still might get negative reactions from a populace who are used to stories of undead being vile, but if you’re willing to deal with that wrinkle diplomatically I’d not make it a vow-breaking act in of itself.

[Captain Panda]

So long as the undead, in donwtime, are given orders like "Play the guitar!" and "Tell knock knock jokes" to keep people happy, seems on-theme to me. Also, first order they get: "In 23 hours, you are to disassemble one another and then yourself." You don't want wild, roaming murder skeletons around if something bad happens.

[Ogun]

Dead people who come back to help a hero are generally called spirits.
In addition to their appearance in the LoTR, they figure prominently in both Harry Potter and Star Wars.
While there is at least one RL culture that keeps the bodies of loved ones around, most RL cultures seem to look the corpses as something to be properly laid to rest, away from the living, while the spirits of the departed are often welcomed, honored or even worshipped.
This is true even in cultures where the dominant religions officially disapprove.


A lot of people seem to want their PCs to control animated dead.
Some people are attracted to the idea of cheap disposable minions.
Others love the idea of using evil for good.
Still others like the idea of consortium with spirits.

I would like to see a spirit summoning spell, with permanent minions ranging from unseen servants to tiny servants to ghosts and beyond.
The mortality could be left up to the actions of the player, with none of the options being innately evil.

[Throne12]

So how far are you taking warlock because you don't need to hide as a necromancer. If you take pact of the chain and summon a imp. Imps are lawful evil and is a familiar. People would think why is a good paladin hang out with a demon.

Or you can use a sprite. To get into a skull and fly around acting like a flaming skull. Or a weird undead creature.

[Rukelnikov]

So how far are you taking warlock because you don't need to hide as a necromancer. If you take pact of the chain and summon a imp. Imps are lawful evil and is a familiar. People would think why is a good paladin hang out with a demon.

Or you can use a sprite. To get into a skull and fly around acting like a flaming skull. Or a weird undead creature.

I'm Archfey5/Ancients2 (we leveled up last session), and I already took Pact of the Tome.

[GeneralVryth]

Which is heavily "evil" coded, down to the "seeking out dark powers to fill the void left by breaking and abandoning their oath" description.

Yep, I was agreeing with you :)

Overall, there is not much mechanical support for using undead to do anything other than attack the living (though I do like the ingenuity of undead in a hamster wheel, always chasing the "carrot" but never quite getting there).

The default lore around the undead (them being animated by evil powers), and around the various sub-classes that empower the undead pretty strongly hints that animating the dead is more or less evil. There is obviously nothing stopping a DM from changing the lore, and potentially adding homebrew mechanics to get the undead to do other things, and I can easily imagine exactly that. So it kind of boils down to talk to your DM, but don't assume the Oath of the Ancients is compatible with creating undead.

[Rukelnikov]

Which is heavily "evil" coded, down to the "seeking out dark powers to fill the void left by breaking and abandoning their oath" description.

Yep, I was agreeing with you :)

Overall, there is not much mechanical support for using undead to do anything other than attack the living (though I do like the ingenuity of undead in a hamster wheel, always chasing the "carrot" but never quite getting there).

The default lore around the undead (them being animated by evil powers), and around the various sub-classes that empower the undead pretty strongly hints that animating the dead is more or less evil. There is obviously nothing stopping a DM from changing the lore, and potentially adding homebrew mechanics to get the undead to do other things, and I can easily imagine exactly that. So it kind of boils down to talk to your DM, but don't assume the Oath of the Ancients is compatible with creating undead.

Quite the contrary, I assumed it likely wouldn't be compatible for many DMs, hence the thread. I didn't count them but looks like its close to a 50/50 split from the posts in this thread, maybe 40(ok)/60(not ok)

[JackPhoenix]

I suspect in most cases even a specialized construct would be more expensive than just having humanoid workers get paid for it. You'll probably be long gone before a golem pays itself off doing any mundane work. There's a reason the regular ones are built for combat where soldiers might break and run or whose presence would a security threat on its own.

Sure, but you don't need golem. That's wasting a lot of money for functions you don't need.

Think more in the terms of animated hammer (there's a lot of animated objects already in the MM and various adventures, weapons, armor, rugs, books, cooking untesils.... no limits on form, and most importantly, they are permanent without the need to cast the spell), awakened shrub (you can get one from common consumable item, so about 50 gp, though these are intelligent, which may complicate things), or even permanent Unseen Servant/Tiny Servant.

[OldTrees1]

Quite the contrary, I assumed it likely wouldn't be compatible for many DMs, hence the thread. I didn't count them but looks like its close to a 50/50 split from the posts in this thread, maybe 40(ok)/60(not ok)

Yeah I was surprised at that outcome. I expected more naysayers. Especially since my "ok" was with the qualifier "provided it kindled or protected the light of hope and happiness in this world".

[Hairfish]

Yeah I was surprised at that outcome. I expected more naysayers. Especially since my "ok" was with the qualifier "provided it kindled or protected the light of hope and happiness in this world".

Well, the yaysayers are trying to support their reasoning with gems like "Aragorn was a necromancer", so it's probably worth considering both quality and quantity here.