PDA

View Full Version : Why Healing magic isn't necromancy



....
2007-11-18, 09:16 PM
My friends and I have had several discussions about healing spells being necromancy and not conjuration. They always say things like manipulation of life energy ect. ect..

But I was thinking, magical healing isn't the manipulation of life energy, or even the changing of wounds on a body. It dosn't take any knowledge of human anatomy to heal it with magic. Healing magic is the conjuring up of positive energy and infusing it into the body of a living thing. Its really just a happy side effect of positive energy that it heals damage done to living bodies. Hence why anyone who goes to the Positive Energy Plane heals and then gets extra HP and then explodes like a balloon with to much water in it.

So, any thoughts? Am I wrong? Am I right?

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-18, 09:18 PM
So why is channeling Negative Energy (see the Inflict Wounds series) Necromancy?

Kyeudo
2007-11-18, 09:26 PM
Creating energy is normaly the Evocation school. However, messing with Positive and Negative Energy, the energies of life and death, is Necromancy. Cure Light Wounds should be a Necromancy spell.

Daracaex
2007-11-18, 09:37 PM
Necromancy. Let's break that down into it's latin roots.

-Mancy: suffix for "magic." Thus, we have cryomancy as ice magic or terramancy as earth magic.

Necro-: prefix for death. In example: Necrophobia is fear of death or necrophilia is- ok, let's not go there.

So Necromancy together would be "death magic." Inflict Wounds makes sense to be necromancy because it draws the subject closer to death with negative energy. The cure spells have nothing to do with death, other than preventing it. I whole-heartedly agree with .... (the topic creator).

TheElfLord
2007-11-18, 09:53 PM
-Mancy: suffix for "magic." Thus, we have cryomancy as ice magic or terramancy as earth magic.


Actually, -mancy is the suffix for divination. The term necromancy originally meant calling up spirits to gain knowlege of future events. Hydromancy, is using water to determine the future.

It was only in the late Middle Ages where necromancy seems to have taken on an "evil magic" characteristic, probobly after being confused and finally merging with the term nigromancy, or black magic.

Looking at the origin of words is often a bad idea in DnD, because the real world origin bares little resemblence to the RPG useage.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-18, 09:55 PM
Healing magic is the manipulation of life energy, because that's what positive energy is.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-18, 10:56 PM
It's under Conjuration because WotC considers Necromancy to be uniformly evil. :yuk:

Chibiqueso
2007-11-18, 11:03 PM
It's under Conjuration because WotC considers Necromancy to be uniformly evil. :yuk:


But poking things with swords and dousing them in fireballs? Totally OK (Well, CAN be totally OK).

Dausuul
2007-11-18, 11:10 PM
My friends and I have had several discussions about healing spells being necromancy and not conjuration. They always say things like manipulation of life energy ect. ect..

But I was thinking, magical healing isn't the manipulation of life energy, or even the changing of wounds on a body. It dosn't take any knowledge of human anatomy to heal it with magic. Healing magic is the conjuring up of positive energy and infusing it into the body of a living thing. Its really just a happy side effect of positive energy that it heals damage done to living bodies. Hence why anyone who goes to the Positive Energy Plane heals and then gets extra HP and then explodes like a balloon with to much water in it.

So, any thoughts? Am I wrong? Am I right?

I think the problem a lot of people have with healing (i.e., positive energy manipulation) being Conjuration is that the Necromancy school is pretty much all dedicated to manipulating negative energy and controlling negative energy critters (i.e., undead). But Conjuration does a lot of stuff besides manipulate positive energy and control living critters. It would be less of a problem if negative and positive energy weren't set up to be so symmetric in other ways.

infinitypanda
2007-11-18, 11:14 PM
Necromancy. Let's break that down into it's latin roots.

-Mancy: suffix for "magic." Thus, we have cryomancy as ice magic or terramancy as earth magic.

Necro-: prefix for death. In example: Necrophobia is fear of death or necrophilia is- ok, let's not go there.

So Necromancy together would be "death magic." Inflict Wounds makes sense to be necromancy because it draws the subject closer to death with negative energy. The cure spells have nothing to do with death, other than preventing it. I whole-heartedly agree with .... (the topic creator).

So, if we're going by Latin roots, does that mean that healing spells (life magic) should be a new category called vivimancy?

Mewtarthio
2007-11-18, 11:21 PM
So, if we're going by Latin roots, does that mean that healing spells (life magic) should be a new category called vivimancy?

Divination through life? I like that. It sounds like it should mean, "foretelling the future by living your life and waiting to see what happens." Either that or "foretelling the future by stabbing people and measuring how long it takes them to die." :belkar:

Maerok
2007-11-18, 11:29 PM
Latin? What's that? In the Material Plane there is no Latin, but by sheer chance necro- assumed the same meaning. :smallbiggrin: What are the odds?

Duke Malagigi
2007-11-18, 11:43 PM
The word necro comes from the Greek word nekro, meaning corpse or body. In other words, it was divination using or affecting the body. By expanding -mancy or mantia to mean "magic" you would have necromancy meaning corpse or body magic. The word thanatos was Greek for death.

TheOOB
2007-11-18, 11:48 PM
Healing would work as conjuration if it conjured healed flesh to fill the wounds,but it doesn't, it channels positive energy which accelerates the healing process. Conjuration doesn't deal with the direct manipulation of energy really.

Healing makes sense as either evocation or necromancy. Evocation deals with all things energy, so it is a perfect ally valid fit, especially if you want the whole necromancy=evil thing in your game. Necromancy deals with negative energy, life, and death, and allready has some spells that deal with positive energy, so it is also a valid fit, especially if you want necromancy to not come off as all evil.

Really it doesn't matter a great deal. The only class that cares a great deal about spell schools (wizard), doesn't using healing spells, so as long as you are consistent in what school healing magic is in, it doesn't affect things too terribly much.

I personally choose to make it necromancy, just as evocation handles hot and cold, necromancy handles life or death. A divine necromancer has the choice of life or death, holding the mortal forces in the palm of their hand. It's a very cool image IMO.

Solo
2007-11-18, 11:54 PM
Necromancy. Let's break that down into it's latin roots.

-Mancy: suffix for "magic." Thus, we have cryomancy as ice magic or terramancy as earth magic.

Necro-: prefix for death. In example: Necrophobia is fear of death or necrophilia is- ok, let's not go there.

So Necromancy together would be "death magic." Inflict Wounds makes sense to be necromancy because it draws the subject closer to death with negative energy. The cure spells have nothing to do with death, other than preventing it. I whole-heartedly agree with .... (the topic creator).

What is this "Japan" you speak of? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Kantolin
2007-11-18, 11:56 PM
It would also be interesting if inflict spells were conjuration on the same lines of healing spells being conjuration.

Then they'd be 'Conjuring energy from the negative energy plane' and would match up to 'Conjuring energy from the positive energy plane'.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-19, 12:12 AM
What is this "Japan" you speak of? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

That argument's invalid here. The actual name for the school is some obscure thing in Draconic, possibly with some slang in other various languages (eg Common). It translates into English as "Necromancy."

Lemur
2007-11-19, 12:15 AM
It used to be necromancy in earlier editions. If it bothers you, it's not so hard to houserule it. I doubt it will really make a major difference in your games.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-19, 12:39 AM
healing magic is the conjuring up of positive energy and infusing it into the body of a living thing.

Doing the exact same with negative energy is necromancy. Why the double standard?

Doresain
2007-11-19, 12:51 AM
if you think about it, wouldnt positive energy cause tumors?

John Campbell
2007-11-19, 01:00 AM
Note that the rare wizard spells that heal (healing touch) or infuse things with positive energy (disrupt undead) are necromancy.

Duke Malagigi
2007-11-19, 01:10 AM
if you think about it, wouldnt positive energy cause tumors?

Treatable with Negative Energy. Also, in First and Second Edition, Positive Energy was associated with the sun as well as with healing. The sun is a natural example of nuclear fussion.

Gralamin
2007-11-19, 01:10 AM
My friends and I have had several discussions about healing spells being necromancy and not conjuration. They always say things like manipulation of life energy ect. ect..

But I was thinking, magical healing isn't the manipulation of life energy, or even the changing of wounds on a body. It dosn't take any knowledge of human anatomy to heal it with magic. Healing magic is the conjuring up of positive energy and infusing it into the body of a living thing. Its really just a happy side effect of positive energy that it heals damage done to living bodies. Hence why anyone who goes to the Positive Energy Plane heals and then gets extra HP and then explodes like a balloon with to much water in it.

So, any thoughts? Am I wrong? Am I right?

Simple argument that completely stops yours:
Then why can't you gain Temporary HP and burst with cure light wounds?

Duke Malagigi
2007-11-19, 01:12 AM
Note that the rare wizard spells that heal (healing touch) or infuse things with positive energy (disrupt undead) are necromancy.

As were all healing spells in First and Second Edition. Also Good-aligned clerics and paladins could cast animate dead if they have a perfectly good and morally justifible reason for doing so. Both I wouldn't mind to see more of in Third Edition.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 01:17 AM
That argument's invalid here. The actual name for the school is some obscure thing in Draconic, possibly with some slang in other various languages (eg Common). It translates into English as "Necromancy."

Necromancy in D&D =/= "Necro(death)" + "mancy(magic)"



SRD:
Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force. Spells involving undead creatures make up a large part of this school.

I don't really care whether healing spells are necromancy or conjuration. I do think it is inconsistent for inflicts to be necromancy if cures are conjuration, since cure/inflict are supposed to be opposite one another.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-19, 01:20 AM
Simple argument that completely stops yours:
Then why can't you gain Temporary HP and burst with cure light wounds?

Because the Positive Energy Plane is filled with Positive Energy in its purest form. There is no ambient negative energy in the plane, nor any connections to the Negative Energy Plane at all, to counterbalance its effects. In the Prime Material Plane, however, all things contain a mixture of positive and negative energy. Living things contain mostly positive energy, true, but there is also a significant amount of ambient negative energy. Furthermore, the positive energy in cure spells is channeled through a cleric, and loses some of its potency in the process. It is possible to concentrate this energy to heal to great effect (the heal spell duplicates half an hour's exposure to the Positive Energy Plane within seconds), but the fact remains that the Prime Material Plane still has links to the Negative Energy Plane. As such, a creature's resevior of positive energy cannot exceed what it could naturally achieve--or, more accurately, excess positive energy simply 'bleeds' out with no effect, cancelled by the negative energy of the material plane.

Fishy
2007-11-19, 01:34 AM
Simple argument that completely stops yours:
Then why can't you gain Temporary HP and burst with cure light wounds?

Same reason that you can't start fires with Scorching Ray.

JadedDM
2007-11-19, 02:07 AM
To say that healing is conjuration because you're 'conjuring' positive energy could be applied to almost any spell. Fireball is conjuration, because you're conjuring a fireball. Gust of Wind is conjuration, because you're conjuring a gust of wind. Magic Missile is conjuration, because you're conjuring up magical arrows. And so on.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 02:12 AM
To say that healing is conjuration because you're 'conjuring' positive energy could be applied to almost any spell.

I detect an unintentional straw man here. That isn't what they are saying. What they are saying is that curing spells work by conjuring pure positive energy from the outer planes, and channeling it into a living being. Which is what the spell does. That is why choice of turn/rebuke effects what a cleric casts spontaneously. The problem with that is that inflicts remained necromancy. By that reasoning, they should also be conjuration.

A fireball spell does not work by conjuring fire from the elemental plane of fire. The orb of flame spell does work that way. Fireball creates an explosion of magical flame.

TheOOB
2007-11-19, 02:22 AM
If you search hard enough you can find an excuse for almost any spell to be in almost any school, it's not that you can't find a reason healing might be conjuration, it's just that evocation and necromancy both make a little more sense.

John Campbell
2007-11-19, 02:26 AM
As were all healing spells in First and Second Edition. Also Good-aligned clerics and paladins could cast animate dead if they have a perfectly good and morally justifible reason for doing so. Both I wouldn't mind to see more of in Third Edition.
Yeah. I'm currently playing a Neutral wizard who has animate dead in his spellbook; I looted it, along with a bunch of other stuff, out of the spellbook of an enemy wizard that I offed. I keep trying to have moral debates with the paladin about its use when I come up with things to do with it that are good, not evil, or at least wicked cool (I'm still annoyed that he wouldn't let me make the skeletal landsharks to ride around, 'cause, seriously, how awesome would that be?), but it always fails, because I keep coming up with complex logical arguments for how some given use would benefit the world as a whole and do no real harm to anyone, the previous owners of the corpses in question being already provably in the afterlife and all that, and his argument amounts to, "ZOMG EVIL! SAYS IN THE BOOK!"

But, hey, why think and make moral choices when you can have A Rule?

TheOOB
2007-11-19, 02:29 AM
Animate Dead is only evil in 3.5 because skeletons and zombies are evil. I personally prefer that mindless undead are neutral, so animate dead is neutral (though many clerics still have religious problems with animating corpses for battle.).

I prefer necromancy as something tempting and dangerous, not evil.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 02:33 AM
Yeah. I'm currently playing a Neutral wizard who has animate dead in his spellbook; I looted it, along with a bunch of other stuff, out of the spellbook of an enemy wizard that I offed. I keep trying to have moral debates with the paladin about its use when I come up with things to do with it that are good, not evil, or at least wicked cool (I'm still annoyed that he wouldn't let me make the skeletal landsharks to ride around, 'cause, seriously, how awesome would that be?), but it always fails, because I keep coming up with complex logical arguments for how some given use would benefit the world as a whole and do no real harm to anyone, the previous owners of the corpses in question being already provably in the afterlife and all that, and his argument amounts to, "ZOMG EVIL! SAYS IN THE BOOK!"

But, hey, why think and make moral choices when you can have A Rule?

Tough luck pal. Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor. If you wanted it to be morally ambigous, you should have asked the DM to houserule otherwise. As written, casting Animate Dead is an evil act.

The paladins argument more likely amounts to "The tenants of my faith declare that the use of necromancy to animate the dead is an evil act, and all who do so are Evil"

The paladin would be 100% right. He can't go against his faith, he's a paladin.


Your complex logical argument should be directed at the DM. Once you convince him that Animate Dead is not an evil act, then you can force the issue with the paladin. If he is using detect evil while you animate dead, and you convinced the DM that animate dead is not evil (and got him to houserule such), then he won't detect any evil when you cast the spell, and you will prove your point.

Whether that matters is a different issue, as the paladin is likely unwilling to participate in such an experiment.

Fishy
2007-11-19, 02:37 AM
I prefer necromancy as something tempting and dangerous, not evil.

That point, along with philosophical discussion, homebrew material, and basically an abbreviated version of *exactly* this discussion can be found in K's Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562).

Zeful
2007-11-19, 02:44 AM
<SNIP>A fireball spell does not work by conjuring fire from the elemental plane of fire. The orb of flame spell does work that way. Fireball creates an explosion of magical flame.

Can you please explain how summoning a ball of nonmagical flame can stay a ball with no fuel source?

But anyway to the topic at hand: Healing spells are Conjuration because WoTC wanted to step away from the conception that D&D is Evil and corrupting the players by offering their souls to Satan. If the wholesomeness of magical healing (which can be roughly related to the RL medical profession) were somehow marred by the concept of being associated with the evil and icky of necromancry then the parents who were fighting the Holy War TM against D&D could have used that to turn more players away from the game or get WoTC to drop the game entierly.

Mephisto
2007-11-19, 02:56 AM
But poking things with swords and dousing them in fireballs? Totally OK (Well, CAN be totally OK).

Murder is negotiable, kicking puppies is always evil. :p

swordhawk
2007-11-19, 02:57 AM
I prefer necromancy as something tempting and dangerous, not evil.

But anything tempting and dangerous IS evil, by definition!:xykon:

I played a cleric once, who "fell" from LN to LE by doing necromancy - starting out "controlling" undead to fight eachother, marvelling at how simple it was, how easy the power of necromancy was to use, and then being more and more fascinated by necromancy. Great fun! :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, even if Animate Dead is an evil act - using it once should not turn you evil. However, since you are a living being, and thus of Positive energy, using Negative will corrupt you to some extent.

Hawriel
2007-11-19, 03:07 AM
As mentioned befor Necromancy used to have all the healing spells. WOTC changed it for two reasons that I can think of. First is that they wanted necromancy to be "evil", not many spells in that school would be used by good priests, or wizards. Most evil NPCs in the books use necromancy in some way or another. The second reason is a real life one. Mothers, fathers, priests, and many more close minded peaple believe that D&D is the work of the devil. Im thinking putting most of the blood magic, or death magic spells all together and putting any "good" uses of the spells (heal as aposed to harm) was a way to market the game to parents.

Dhavaer
2007-11-19, 03:28 AM
He can't go against his faith, he's a paladin.

Sure he can. He just can't do anything Evil.

Dausuul
2007-11-19, 03:49 AM
As mentioned befor Necromancy used to have all the healing spells. WOTC changed it for two reasons that I can think of. First is that they wanted necromancy to be "evil", not many spells in that school would be used by good priests, or wizards. Most evil NPCs in the books use necromancy in some way or another. The second reason is a real life one. Mothers, fathers, priests, and many more close minded peaple believe that D&D is the work of the devil. Im thinking putting most of the blood magic, or death magic spells all together and putting any "good" uses of the spells (heal as aposed to harm) was a way to market the game to parents.

I don't really think the "D&D Is Satan!" business has much impact on WotC's marketing and design decisions. If it did, they'd never have published the BoVD.

TSR got all het up about the Satanism scare and carefully removed all mention of demons and devils from 2E; this did not have any effect, because the people who believed D&D was Satanic didn't know anything about the game to begin with. WotC realized that and put the demons and devils back in, on the principle that you're better off designing your product to appeal to your customers instead of to people who think you're doing the work of the devil.

I think the decision was more an effort on WotC's part to create more of a distinction between "white magic" and "black magic." Fantasy has a long tradition of there being some types of magic that are just Bad, and if you mess with them, Bad Things result. By separating healing magic from death magic, WotC was setting things up so that necromancy could be that type of Bad Magic; which is also, IMO, why mindless undead are evil rather than neutral.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 03:53 AM
Can you please explain how summoning a ball of nonmagical flame can stay a ball with no fuel source?

No. I don't like the "orb" line of spells either. But that is how the spell works. Which is why it is SR: no.

Yami
2007-11-19, 04:31 AM
Tough luck pal. Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor. If you wanted it to be morally ambigous, you should have asked the DM to houserule otherwise. As written, casting Animate Dead is an evil act.

The paladins argument more likely amounts to "The tenants of my faith declare that the use of necromancy to animate the dead is an evil act, and all who do so are Evil"

The paladin would be 100% right. He can't go against his faith, he's a paladin.
No offense but I feel I must Quote for emphasis.

Sure he can. He just can't do anything Evil.
I approve, but feel I should addendum they can commit evil acts, technically. However, if the paladin isn't willing to give any leeway, experiment in darker arts, or even supervise while you do, I fear he's denying himself some great roleplaying oppourtunities and becoming little more than an NPC, but then I have different views on these things, especially Evil and roleplaying.

Controlling hordes of undead to save a village? Not really evil in my book. I suppose I should mention that my evil players have a tendancy to sneak off, kill the parents of some poor family and then animate them, ordering them to chase down thier children. Like I said, my views might be a bit skewed.

But here's a thought, what's wrong with animating a few corpses here and there, allowing your DM to change your alignment to Evil and continue on insisting that your character isn't whilest he does inherintly evil acts to the benifit of others? Some of my most favorite LE character play like this, assuming they themselves aren't evil, sometimes being driven to activly cursing and defying gods who choose to shun them for doinging whatever they must to protect the weak. But I digress. Being Neutral should give you the leeway to do the occasional Evil act anyways, as a Neutral character who does nothing but Good would eventually be tainted by it, thus losing his vaunted status.

It's a poor paladin who would strike someone down for that, and would in my games, curse them to fighter without feats status. You are thier ally and if nothing you do condemns any spirits nor harms anyone, they need to learn to compromise, and perhaps learn to grab thier advantages where they can. I consider it morally reprehensible to force a living creature to tank for you when you can have soulless abominations do so.

If you can't tell, I tend to run necromancy as generally neutral in my games, and containing the healing magic. I also approve of the added nercomancy healing spells some of the splat books add. Of course I often run my conflict more along the Law/Chaos battlefield so to each his own.


P.S.

Can you please explain how summoning a ball of nonmagical flame can stay a ball with no fuel source?
Magic? but please, we are not summoning in space here, but rather on a planet abundant in rich gases such as oxygen. Or it's magically whacked out D&D equivelent. Point is, it's enough for the fraction of a round they live in. The orb spells are not persistant you see. In fact they are rather short lived.

Kantolin
2007-11-19, 05:54 AM
If you can't tell, I tend to run necromancy as generally neutral in my games,

This is really the catch here, I think. Your doing that (which, as a note, I do highly encourage) immediately solves the problem - it becomes something that is socially seen as negative, but is itself as neutral of an event as mind-controlling someone: motives determine whether or not it's good or evil.

The trouble is, without that clause (therefore, doing things by the book), then animate dead is [evil]. Wholesomely, unquestionably evil. Direct opposition to the world's natural order evil. Orphan-killing and puppy-punting evil.

I mean, I never quite agreed with this myself - there are dozens of methods in which you can use created undead to not be evil. But according to base D&D, it's [evil] - a good divine spellcaster cannot cast them because they are too strictly [evil].

Now, you can explain this how you'd like. Maybe the casting of animate dead causes tremendous rending pain to the soul and opens up demons or devils into this world or something. Maybe every time you cast it, you cause any birthing mothers in the continent to miscarriage. Either way, it's [evil], so I can see any good character who knows that it's [evil] refusing to let someone use undead for any purpose. Or use death knell.

Now, that is also the very first... well, one of the first things I house rule out of my games - very few spells merit [evil] in my mind. But hey.

To stick more on topic, though, I agree with several other people thus far: They wanted to make Necromancy the 'grey' school. Most necromancy spells aren't evil, but most [evil] spells are necromancer, and a lot of iconically evil enemies tend to focus on necromantic spells. Therefore, they probably removed cure from necromancy to not muck this ideal up.

puppyavenger
2007-11-19, 07:29 AM
Question, why is summonign an inanimite skeliton evil but completly taking over someones will for long periods of time neutrel?

Khanderas
2007-11-19, 07:53 AM
Anyways, even if Animate Dead is an evil act - using it once should not turn you evil. However, since you are a living being, and thus of Positive energy, using Negative will corrupt you to some extent.
Then Evil getting healed by positive energy, are then atleast partially cleansed ?:smallwink:

Setra
2007-11-19, 08:14 AM
Question, why is summonign an inanimite skeliton evil but completly taking over someones will for long periods of time neutrel?
That's a very good question.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-19, 09:36 AM
Can you please explain how summoning a ball of nonmagical flame can stay a ball with no fuel source?

That's easy. A wizard did it.


Yeah. I'm currently playing a Neutral wizard who has animate dead in his spellbook; I looted it, along with a bunch of other stuff, out of the spellbook of an enemy wizard that I offed. I keep trying to have moral debates with the paladin about its use when I come up with things to do with it that are good, not evil, or at least wicked cool (I'm still annoyed that he wouldn't let me make the skeletal landsharks to ride around, 'cause, seriously, how awesome would that be?), but it always fails, because I keep coming up with complex logical arguments for how some given use would benefit the world as a whole and do no real harm to anyone, the previous owners of the corpses in question being already provably in the afterlife and all that, and his argument amounts to, "ZOMG EVIL! SAYS IN THE BOOK!"

While it seems like going with the 'ZOMG EVIL IN THE BOOK!' argument is sort of an RP cop out, technically it doesn't matter if it's evil or not. If Undead is something the pally's (or the pally's faith) doesn't like (like if he's a Pelorite), then he actually can't adventure with you:


nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code

Then again, this would likely all be easily solved by a ruling of the alignment issues of animate dead and/or mindless undead.

Hyozo
2007-11-19, 09:40 AM
if you think about it, wouldnt positive energy cause tumors?

Sort of like this? Only not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3098490&postcount=77)

Concerning the topic. Necromancy can be used, among other things, to animate the dead or prevent death. Healing magic can be used, among other things, to raise the dead or prevent death. Yes, they pretty much are exactly the same thing, but that doesn't stop people from having totally opposite views on two subjects in the real world either.

Dausuul
2007-11-19, 09:51 AM
Question, why is summonign an inanimite skeliton evil but completly taking over someones will for long periods of time neutrel?

My interpretation, and I think the intent of the designers, is that when you animate a skeleton, you are calling on a power that is inherently evil, destructive, and corrupting. When you create undead, both you and your creation are tainted by that dark magic; it twists your mind and soul toward evil no matter how good your intentions (the road to hell, et cetera, et cetera). If you keep casting such spells, you will eventually be wholly corrupted.

There is thus no such thing as a necromancer who uses his undead minions to save little children and fight forest fires. By the time you've raised a lot of undead minions, your spirit is so twisted that you either throw aside your pursuit of good and become openly malevolent, or else your morality has become utterly skewed and you're apt to do things like slaughter children so that they will never have their innocence ruined by the wickedness of the world. Either way, whether you acknowledge it or not, you have become a force for evil.

Controlling someone's mind does not require the use of such corrupting forces and is thus not inherently evil, even though most actual applications of mind-control magic are evil. (Although if it were up to me, spells like dominate person would also require the use of evil powers and would thus get the [Evil] descriptor.)

Unfortunately, 3E does not actually spell any of this out, with the result that some rulebook writers go with "evil necromancy" and others go with "it's just a dead body on strings necromancy," and the system ends up being rather schizophrenic. It doesn't help that the default cosmology inherited from 1E puts the source of necromantic power, the Negative Energy Plane/Negative Material Plane, in the non-aligned Inner Planes rather than the alignment-driven Outer Planes.

John Campbell
2007-11-19, 04:51 PM
Tough luck pal. Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor. If you wanted it to be morally ambigous, you should have asked the DM to houserule otherwise. As written, casting Animate Dead is an evil act.

You miss the point. It's not that I really want to cast animate dead and waaah, the paladin won't let me. It's that I'm trying to discuss, in-character, the reasons that his character won't allow my character to do something - you know, what we used to call "role-playing", back before that meant "like World of Warcraft" - and it's a complete non-starter because there's nowhere to go from, "The book says it's Evil." It's not even, "Lathander won't tolerate it, so neither will I," which I also can't really dispute, but which is at least an in-character statement, and amenable to queries about potential circumstances where even Lathander might agree that it's the best option, but just, "The book says it's Evil."

It doesn't matter if there are starving orphan children and the only means at my disposal of feeding them is casting animate dead to make a bunch of skeletal farmers. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to stop demons from boiling cute kittens in oil by creating some ghouls to drive them off. It doesn't matter if Asmodeus has warped another paladin into an invincible, mindless killing machine who is in the process of slaughtering every living being in a mid-sized town, and the only thing I can do to stop him is cast magic circle against good for its mind control-nullifying emanation. Still an evil act! Says in the book, right in black and white!

That last one is not hypothetical. I did it anyway; our paladin can bite me. He was willing to sacrifice his life so that everyone died with his morals intact. I sacrificed my moral purity and saved their lives. Yet, somehow, my actions were the Evil ones. And there's no room to dispute that... the book says so.

And, see, I don't think the problem here is that I failed to ask the DM to house-rule those Evil descriptors away. I think the problem is that someone over at WotC decided that it was necessary to slap those Evil descriptors on there to begin with. 'Cause, y'know, players and DMs can't be trusted to make choices without a rule to tell them how to do it.

Second edition didn't have Evil spells. Spells were tools. It didn't matter what tool you used; it mattered what you did with it. There were a few spells, like animate dead, where the description noted that anyone who used it a lot was likely evil, but that wasn't because the spell was innately Evil; it was because there weren't really a lot of non-evil things you could do with it that you couldn't better accomplish by less questionable means. But if you, somehow, through a series of bizarre coincidences, kept finding yourself in situations where the only right thing to do was make a bunch of zombies? Well, the option's there.

And, incidentally, my wizard has no problem whatsoever with necromancy, but refuses to use any mind control spell, because removing someone's free will is wrong, worse than killing them, and far worse than just animating their corpse after they're done with it. I probably would've gone specialist and dropped enchantment (and probably illusion... illusions are for cowards), except that being banned from entire schools limited my item-crafting options too much.

Indon
2007-11-19, 05:16 PM
But, hey, why think and make moral choices when you can have A Rule?

Just cast Animate Object, at least until your Paladin stops using Detect Evil in their presence.

Animate the skeletons, be all, "Do they look evil?" and then after he says 'no', then you can be a bastard and make them real undead later if you like.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 05:16 PM
Three points I would like to respond to here:

1) Technically, going against the tenets of your faith does not violate the paladin's code, but a player that has no problem doing so is roleplaying poorly, with the possible exception of very specific character concepts (such as a paladin that has been exposed to the corruption of the church hierarchy).

2)

You miss the point. It's not that I really want to cast animate dead and waaah, the paladin won't let me. It's that I'm trying to discuss, in-character, the reasons that his character won't allow my character to do something - you know, what we used to call "role-playing", back before that meant "like World of Warcraft" - and it's a complete non-starter because there's nowhere to go from, "The book says it's Evil." It's not even, "Lathander won't tolerate it, so neither will I," which I also can't really dispute, but which is at least an in-character statement, and amenable to queries about potential circumstances where even Lathander might agree that it's the best option, but just, "The book says it's Evil."

OK, the paladin's player is a bad roleplayer. *shrug*
That doesn't change my point. Barring the DM changing rules as written, Animate Dead IS an evil spell. Why? I dunno, it depends on what flavor you want to put on it. Maybe all undead hunger for the flesh of the living. Maybe the negative energy plane is fueled by baby-killing. Maybe every time you cast an evil spell, a fairy somewhere dies. Maybe every time you cast an evil spell, evil entities gain a stronger foothold on the material plane. Maybe it is just because the good-aligned gods think its icky.

3) Even if the DM says necromancy isn't evil, paladins should still disapprove of it. Of course, since the paladin class attracts bad players like flies to a dungheap, you will wind up with paladins jusstifying animate dead "because the book doesn't say it is evil". A good RPer playing a paladin in a world w/o [Evil] Animate Dead would lead to interesting discussions like the one you want. However, you seem to have neither a well-played paladin, nor a camaign in which Animate Dead is not [Evil].


side note-


the only thing I can do to stop him is cast magic circle against good for its mind control-nullifying emanation.

Why prepare magic circle against good for this? The mind-control stopping effect works regardless of alignment. Why prepare magic circle against good at all? Are you afraid of reprisals by good-aligned outsiders? I would be suspicous of someone who cast that spell, because it would mean he prepared it. Not that many paladins have the ability to spellcraft what exactly you cast. It sounds like you paladin friend is somewhat prone to meta-gaming, though.

:miko: It is evil because the book says so!

:vaarsuvius: What book?

Jack_Simth
2007-11-19, 05:19 PM
You miss the point. It's not that I really want to cast animate dead and waaah, the paladin won't let me. It's that I'm trying to discuss, in-character, the reasons that his character won't allow my character to do something - you know, what we used to call "role-playing", back before that meant "like World of Warcraft" - and it's a complete non-starter because there's nowhere to go from, "The book says it's Evil." It's not even, "Lathander won't tolerate it, so neither will I," which I also can't really dispute, but which is at least an in-character statement, and amenable to queries about potential circumstances where even Lathander might agree that it's the best option, but just, "The book says it's Evil."

It doesn't matter if there are starving orphan children and the only means at my disposal of feeding them is casting animate dead to make a bunch of skeletal farmers. It doesn't matter if I'm trying to stop demons from boiling cute kittens in oil by creating some ghouls to drive them off. It doesn't matter if Asmodeus has warped another paladin into an invincible, mindless killing machine who is in the process of slaughtering every living being in a mid-sized town, and the only thing I can do to stop him is cast magic circle against good for its mind control-nullifying emanation. Still an evil act! Says in the book, right in black and white!
Why did you have it prepared over one of the other versions? You were kinda setting yourself up for that one.

In general though, the lack of a "why" on those does put a slight crimp on the RP when it comes up. There's some hints - in general, there's the:

[DESCRIPTOR]

Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.(emphasis added)

With the undead creation line, on the other hand, there's at least some clues (in Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection) in that something that's been turned into an undead can't be Reincarnated or Raised (ever) and cannot be Resurrected or True Resurrected while the undead remains active. It's up to the DM to say why, specifically, but (other than Clone, which does not have that restriction) it's consistent with the soul not being available (tortured and imprisoned in the rotting corpse, perhaps).

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 05:21 PM
It's up to the DM to say why, specifically, but (other than Clone, which does not have that restriction) it's consistent with the soul not being available (tortured and imprisoned in the rotting corpse, perhaps).

That is probably the best justification for Animate Dead being Evil.

Dausuul
2007-11-19, 05:21 PM
If you want to get real, real technical, nowhere in the book does it say it is an evil act to use a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. Per RAW, the only effect of alignment descriptors is that clerics of opposed alignments can't use those spells.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 05:25 PM
If you want to get real, real technical, nowhere in the book does it say it is an evil act to use a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. Per RAW, the only effect of alignment descriptors is that clerics of opposed alignments can't use them.

That is an excellent point. That might even be useful in terms of persuading belligerent(sp?) paladins.

MrNexx
2007-11-19, 05:34 PM
Part of the problem is that they defined what the schools did, and then violated it.

It was supposed to be
Necromancy - death magic
Conjuration - physical things
Evocation - energy

Then they made mistakes. Disrupt undead, which conjured positive energy, was classed as Necromancy, which didn't work cosmologically. Healing spells, which also dealt with positive energy, became Conjuration, instead of necromancy or Evocation.

Necromancy as just death magic would be fine if it was actually just death magic, but it seldom is... they throw in positive energy manipulation, and really a lot of spirit magic.

....
2007-11-19, 05:34 PM
Can you please explain how summoning a ball of nonmagical flame can stay a ball with no fuel source?

Are you talking about that conjuration spell? It draws more and more fire from the elemental plane of fire.

And I agree than inflict spells should be conjuration, I never noticed they were necromancy before.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-19, 05:50 PM
Personally, I see three ways to go about justifying the [Evil] descriptor:

1) Houserule it. Animate dead is no longer evil because you're just creating a puppet. This is, obviously, not a justification, but it's still a valid option.

2) Animating undead corrupts the soul of the caster. Whenever you make a skeleton, your own soul is warped and tainted in the process. Note that this only works if Good and Evil are tangible forces (or you find another form of tainting one's soul), which, by default, they are. The downside is it seems a little arbitrary, but there's nothing wrong with this ruling.

3) Undead are powered by the souls of innocent victims. When you animate a skeleton, you're not just casting a permanent version of animate objects: You're dragging the soul of an innocent being from its afterlife, stuffing it into a corpse, and binding it to your will. This has some rules backings, namely in that you can't resurrect someone who's still undead, as well as in undead that can create spawn. In this case, you might consider letting people that have been animated as zombies and skeletons retain full memories of their actions if resurrected later.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-11-19, 06:13 PM
Two options here.

1. Put both into evocationn. Not only does that school have a use now, but it makes sense (manipulating positive and negative energy)

2. Put positive and negative energy into their own separate schools.

Laesin
2007-11-19, 06:14 PM
1) Technically, going against the tenants of your faith does not violate the paladin's code,

The Church of Pelor is a Landlord now? Or did you mean tenets?
/sarcasm sorry but that increasingly common misusage of the Queen's english is really starting to grate on me.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 06:40 PM
The Church of Pelor is a Landlord now? Or did you mean tenets?
/sarcasm sorry but that increasingly common misusage of the Queen's english is really starting to grate on me.

I don't usually misspell things like that. Corrected. :smalleek:
Vocabulary is now +1.

Fhaolan
2007-11-19, 06:45 PM
The Church of Pelor is a Landlord now? Or did you mean tenets?
/sarcasm sorry but that increasingly common misusage of the Queen's english is really starting to grate on me.

Didn't you see the block of flats behind that church? Pelor's not so bad as a landlord, it's Erythnul you have to look out for. The conveyor belt past the murals, right into the rotating knives...

Laesin
2007-11-19, 08:48 PM
Nah, the real slumlord is Boccob. At least Erythnul makes sure there's an appropriate amount of shock and awe in his neighbourhood but Boccob, he just lets everything crumble.

Enlong
2007-11-19, 10:05 PM
So, if we're going by Latin roots, does that mean that healing spells (life magic) should be a new category called vivimancy?

I think the proper prefix is "vita", so Vitamancy, or in Psionics, Vitakenisis.

TimeWizard
2007-11-19, 10:26 PM
It really doesn't boil down to anything more then "Because we have a preconception about what should be [blank]mancy, so it is".

And mind control isn't evil because it doesn't have the necesary association with evil like skeletons do. Evil is more closely related to fear then morals, due to most things in life being grey areas. For example, why is killing a child worse then killing a teen or adult? Becuase we feel that children are more pure then adults, or our instincts tell us to protect children. It's the same reason there aren't Save the Majestic Yellowfin Tuna activists- they aren't pretty like whales are. But skeletal monsters coming in the night to attack you? Hardcore evil.

Ganurath
2007-11-19, 11:14 PM
It depends on how you approach it:

If you base it on the definition of necromancy, whether or not healing is necromancy depends on if it manipulates death or manipulates the border between life and death. If you base it on how individual spells work, whether or not the cure spells are necromancy depends on if the spell generates or summons positive energy to do it. If it summons the energy, both the cure and inflict spells are conjuration. Otherwise both are necromancy.

MrNexx
2007-11-19, 11:38 PM
Didn't you see the block of flats behind that church? Pelor's not so bad as a landlord, it's Erythnul you have to look out for. The conveyor belt past the murals, right into the rotating knives...

"I'm afraid I hadn't quite divined your attitude towards the ten[a/e]nts."

Fishy
2007-11-20, 11:47 AM
Three points I would like to respond to here:
That doesn't change my point. Barring the DM changing rules as written, Animate Dead IS an evil spell. Why? I dunno, it depends on what flavor you want to put on it. Maybe all undead hunger for the flesh of the living. Maybe the negative energy plane is fueled by baby-killing. Maybe every time you cast an evil spell, a fairy somewhere dies. Maybe every time you cast an evil spell, evil entities gain a stronger foothold on the material plane. Maybe it is just because the good-aligned gods think its icky.

Maybe it's Powered by Love. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041127)

Solo
2007-11-20, 11:51 AM
The Church of Pelor is a Landlord now? Or did you mean tenets?
/sarcasm sorry but that increasingly common misusage of the Queen's english is really starting to grate on me.

Your Queen's english belongs to us Americans now. In America.

Ganurath
2007-11-20, 11:57 AM
Perhaps animate dead is evil because the undead are animate by negative energy, which is channeled by evil clerics. Just a thought.

JadedDM
2007-11-20, 01:19 PM
Interesting fact: Skeletons and zombies were not evil back in 2E, they were TN. This was because they have no minds or personalities, and are just mindless puppets. One cannot be evil without conscious thought, after all.

I'm not sure why they changed it.

Also, Animate Dead wasn't necessarily evil. The spell description clearly stated that using that spell was NOT a good act--but that's about it.

Indon
2007-11-20, 01:29 PM
Interesting fact: Skeletons and zombies were not evil back in 2E, they were TN. This was because they have no minds or personalities, and are just mindless puppets. One cannot be evil without conscious thought, after all.

I'm not sure why they changed it.

Also, Animate Dead wasn't necessarily evil. The spell description clearly stated that using that spell was NOT a good act--but that's about it.

This is because Undead, as a type, became innately evil.

Even a good intelligent undead will show up as evil (and also good at the same time).

puppyavenger
2007-11-20, 02:52 PM
This is because Undead, as a type, became innately evil.

Even a good intelligent undead will show up as evil (and also good at the same time).

Also any undead will show up as good evil lawful and chaotic.



And mind control isn't evil because it doesn't have the necesary association with evil like skeletons do. Evil is more closely related to fear then morals, due to most things in life being grey areas. For example, why is killing a child worse then killing a teen or adult? Becuase we feel that children are more pure then adults, or our instincts tell us to protect children. It's the same reason there aren't Save the Majestic Yellowfin Tuna activists- they aren't pretty like whales are. But skeletal monsters coming in the night to attack you? Hardcore evil.

Let me rephrase this if we go by necromancy binds the soul of the creature than how is binding a dead soul more evil than binding a liveing soul? also If you ask me someone who controls peoples thouights and feelings to subtly influance people and/or someone who takes over good peoples minds to force them to do things against their nature is a pretty strong evil arctype.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-20, 03:01 PM
This is because Undead, as a type, became innately evil.

Even a good intelligent undead will show up as evil (and also good at the same time).

They still do in 3.5. This is because Detect Evil detects evil and undead.

Keld Denar
2007-11-20, 04:01 PM
I played in a game where the church of Pelor, in an attempt to fight back the undead hordes of Evard herself, created an Omega Weapon that would send out a pulse of positive energy so powerful that it would dust all undead in a massive radius. The clerics couldn't quite control the immense power that they channeled, and it novaed. The resulting explosion leveled parts of the surounding city. A nexus to the positive energy plane lay open and positive energy was leaking out. The energy caused nearby animals to be warped under its glow, growing to dire size. Dire Squirrels still make me shudder.

We as PCs approached the Nexus, searching for a way to close it. We were confronted by Positive Energy Elementals. When these elementals attacked, they delt no physical damage. The victims were filled with a warm glowing energy. All went well, until all of a sudden, on of the PCs had to make a fort save, which he failed, and spontaniously exploded. He had aquired too many temporary hp from being hit by the elemental, and when his temp hp exceeded his normal hp, he had to make fort saves equal to the excessive hp or blow up. The rest of the PCs saw this, realized what must had happened, and started attacking each other to burn some extra temp hp off the top. Eventually we had to retreat (via dim door), because one of the elementals saw that their tactic stopped working, and it would be easier to just grapple us and drag us into the Nexus.

All in all, really a flavorful and fun game.

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate about positive and negative energy and their school of origin!