What Alignment is This?

[SociopathFriend]

Purely an opinion piece since it features Alignment.

However I plan on running a Necromancer in our next 5e campaign and so set out to establish the ideals of his order regarding corpses.

Such ideals are:
1. If a body is offered- it is praise to accept it.
2. If a body is gambled- it is a blessing to be seized.
3. If a body is refused- it is heresy to claim it.
4. If a body is found- it is a task to be completed.
5. If a body is at risk- it is a duty to be cared for.

Or put another way:
1. Anyone accepting the offer of reanimation is fine to reanimate.
2. Anyone who attacks and risks their body is fine to reanimate.
3. Anyone who refuses the animation is not to be used for such.
4. Anyone found just left on the side of the road is only acceptable to be reanimated until/unless they can have a proper burial.
5. Anyone dying but not yet dead is to be healed unless/until they fall into another category.

[Aett_Thorn]

Personally, I would say Lawful Neutral, though only the Lawful part is certain. They have a code, and stick to it. That’s the definition of lawful to me. The good/evil axis is a bit fuzzier, depending on what they do with the dead bodies, I would say.

[Psyren]

Rule #2 covers enemies who attack you, but what if you attack someone else?

As a code for your character it's totally fine. This might not prevent you from earning the enmity of NPCs in the world (or even your own party) however.

[Gtdead]

Lawful Neutral fits. Doesn't feel too strongly about corpses, doesn't see them as things to be respected or tools to be used (the good and evil extremes), adheres to certain standards that emerge from personal code and culture and will probably act that way even when it doesn't "feel" good to do so, for example, he wouldn't reanimate a political opponent who didn't attack, but was an obstacle to their advancement (or at least that's my understanding of the code).

[SociopathFriend]

Rule #2 covers enemies who attack you, but what if you attack someone else?

As a code for your character it's totally fine. This might not prevent you from earning the enmity of NPCs in the world (or even your own party) however.

That would be the 6th ideal- which I am still working on.

And true- it does not assure such a thing. The character would attempt to explain and back his words with action but ultimately he cannot force someone to accept them.

[tokek]

OK so mostly that looks Lawful Neutral but what is their attitude to avoiding the undead running amok?

That's a built-in problem with necromancy and its a real ethical problem. So I'd say if they have a firm code about fixing their own mistakes and the mistakes of others of their order then Lawful Neutral but if they have a bit of and "oops. never mind" attitude then they are getting very close indeed to evil. They are creating evil things after all.

Point 4 is actually questionable to my mind by the way. That seems like an giving themselves freedom to mess without consent - and once you raise them as undead its effectively impossible (short of 9th level magic) to bring them back to life. Its not clear that just burying them ever stops them being undead once you make them undead, its no longer a dead human its a destroyed zombie. Relatives would be justifiably horrified.

[loki_ragnarock]

It's Lawful.

Beyond that, I couldn't say unless I saw the character in play.

A character that intentionally provoked people to violence in an effort to gain access to their corpse on killing them? Probably Lawful Evil.

A character who simply killed those who engaged in violence and felt no compunctions about using their corpse after? Probably Lawful Neutral.

A character who simply subdued those who engaged in violence and only rarely killed at all? Probably Lawful Good.

Hard lawful. The G/N/E is in the application.

[SociopathFriend]

I think attacking others would run into the 5th Ideal. Because tabletop mechanics aside- there should be a point where they are dying but not dead.

At that point there is a duty to heal but the opponent did not risk their body- someone else risked it FOR them.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think I'd need to know the moral status of reanimation in itself, in your setting, before I could offer an opinion.

[Zevox]

Impossible to say from that alone. I'd say he's unlikely (but not impossible) to be chaotic, given he has this hard set of self-imposed rules he follows, but depending on other personality traits neutral on the law/chaos axis is still very possible. And this gives us too little to go on for the good/evil axis.

[Unoriginal]

Purely an opinion piece since it features Alignment.

However I plan on running a Necromancer in our next 5e campaign and so set out to establish the ideals of his order regarding corpses.

Such ideals are:
1. If a body is offered- it is praise to accept it.
2. If a body is gambled- it is a blessing to be seized.
3. If a body is refused- it is heresy to claim it.
4. If a body is found- it is a task to be completed.
5. If a body is at risk- it is a duty to be cared for.

Or put another way:
1. Anyone accepting the offer of reanimation is fine to reanimate.
2. Anyone who attacks and risks their body is fine to reanimate.
3. Anyone who refuses the animation is not to be used for such.
4. Anyone found just left on the side of the road is only acceptable to be reanimated until/unless they can have a proper burial.
5. Anyone dying but not yet dead is to be healed unless/until they fall into another category.

It's lawful evil.

The character has a code of conduct, but animating the dead (not reanimating, animating) is:

1) the enslavement of sapient entities

2) said entities are omnicidal and will try to murder every living being they can if the necromancer lose control of them

3) the energy that animates undead can causes other undead to spontaneously appears, and the necromancer wouldn't have any control over them.

4) turning a corpse into an undead make it much harder for resurrection to be conducted on the person the corpse was

Therefore, animating the dead as much as this code of conduct implies is either causing harm directly, or creating circumstances that are likely to cause harm.

And having a code of conduct like this is the base principle of lawul evil.

[SociopathFriend]

I think I'd need to know the moral status of reanimation in itself, in your setting, before I could offer an opinion.

Well it's not 'my' setting. I'm not the DM.

The setting is Forgotten Realms and the DM, mostly, plays it straight though he's only moderately familiar with the setting- mainly what he's found in 5e campaign books.

The only time I think he's ever ruled on Necromancy was years ago when the dragon cult campaign was going.

An emergency use of an Animate Dead scroll to create a wall of fodder between hostile dragon cultists was NOT evil.
Ordering the Animated Dead to attack said cultists WAS evil.

Take that as you will.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Well it's not 'my' setting. I'm not the DM.

The setting is Forgotten Realms and the DM, mostly, plays it straight though he's only moderately familiar with the setting- mainly what he's found in 5e campaign books.

The only time I think he's ever ruled on Necromancy was years ago when the dragon cult campaign was going.

An emergency use of an Animate Dead scroll to create a wall of fodder between hostile dragon cultists was NOT evil.
Ordering the Animated Dead to attack said cultists WAS evil.

Take that as you will.

I'll take that as "Reanimation is morally neutral unless the corpses are then used offensively." I'd say the code sounds non-Evil, then. If you follow the code, you're probably lawful. Whether you're good or evil depends on what you do with your new tools.

[JackPhoenix]

None. It's got nothing to do with alignment. Tenets of some order say nothing about the attitude and behavior of a member of said order.

[Unoriginal]

Well it's not 'my' setting. I'm not the DM.

The setting is Forgotten Realms and the DM, mostly, plays it straight though he's only moderately familiar with the setting- mainly what he's found in 5e campaign books.

Likely lawful evil, then.


None. It's got nothing to do with alignment. Tenets of some order say nothing about the attitude and behavior of a member of said order.

True in general, but I think the implication was that the PC would follow the tenets intensely.

[Tawmis]

You could work with your DM to "flavor" the Necromancy.

So for example if your DM is doing "Forgotten Realms" - Kelemvor is the God the Dead, and listed as "Lawful Neutral."
Which means sense, because death doesn't care if you're good or evil.

Now what if you flavored the "Animate Dead" spell as it calls on those who died - and are waiting on the wings - at death's portal - to be called back and continue the fight on the prime material plane, even if it is as a skeleton or zombie. They're warriors, who believed their time came too quickly, and they still have more to prove.

So the souls of the dead you're "raising" to the army are "willing souls" of past warriors.

[Kane0]

Sounds like you have something better than an alignment anyways.

[Zevox]

You could work with your DM to "flavor" the Necromancy.

So for example if your DM is doing "Forgotten Realms" - Kelemvor is the God the Dead, and listed as "Lawful Neutral."
Which means sense, because death doesn't care if you're good or evil.
Yes, but Kelemvor is also steadfastly opposed to the creation of undead, and his clergy encouraged to hunt and exterminate them, since he views them as abominations attempting to escape the natural order of life and death. So he's not a particularly helpful parallel here.

[JNAProductions]

Sounds like you have something better than an alignment anyways.

This. Alignment can be a helpful tool, but you’ve got something here that obviates its need.

[Greywander]

Point 4 is actually questionable to my mind by the way. That seems like an giving themselves freedom to mess without consent - and once you raise them as undead its effectively impossible (short of 9th level magic) to bring them back to life. Its not clear that just burying them ever stops them being undead once you make them undead, its no longer a dead human its a destroyed zombie. Relatives would be justifiably horrified.
Debatable. I don't know that this has ever been settled, and I suppose it ultimately depends on how the DM decides necromancy works. How I interpret it to work according to the lore of D&D is that the zombie or skeleton is a different creature from the living person who provided the corpse. So you have a body that belongs to two different entities: the living person and the undead creature. Since Revivify works on undead, you could actually use it to bring back a zombie.

But let's consider a very special case. Let's say someone gets hit by a Finger of Death, which kills them. They then rise as a zombie, but get taken out in short order. It's been less than a minute since Finger of Death killed the creature. I think you could cast Revivify on them to bring back either the original person, or the zombie, but you have to be specific about which one you're trying to bring back. The body belonged to both of them, so either one is a valid target of the spell.

However, this will obviously work differently if your DM decides that the zombie isn't a different creature, but a corruption of the original creature. As in, you are calling back their soul and enslaving them, as opposed to calling up a generic undead spirit to possess the corpse.


Hard lawful. The G/N/E is in the application.
I agree with this. If you follow the code pretty strictly, then you're probably a Lawful character. How you conduct yourself within that code will determine whether you are good or evil. In fact, this code pretty much only describes your interactions with corpses, not with the living. I'd say whether you are good or evil will depend mostly on your interactions that lie outside the scope of this code. Are you willing to trick or coerce people into being reanimated? Or are you willing to sacrifice in order to save a stranger? Maybe both? It can make for an interesting character to give them at least one good trait and one evil trait, like a villain who refuses to harm children, or a noble paladin who is also a pervert.

[SociopathFriend]

I agree with this. If you follow the code pretty strictly, then you're probably a Lawful character. How you conduct yourself within that code will determine whether you are good or evil. In fact, this code pretty much only describes your interactions with corpses, not with the living. I'd say whether you are good or evil will depend mostly on your interactions that lie outside the scope of this code. Are you willing to trick or coerce people into being reanimated? Or are you willing to sacrifice in order to save a stranger? Maybe both? It can make for an interesting character to give them at least one good trait and one evil trait, like a villain who refuses to harm children, or a noble paladin who is also a pervert.

This is an entirely acceptable answer- for the record.

[tokek]

Debatable. I don't know that this has ever been settled, and I suppose it ultimately depends on how the DM decides necromancy works. How I interpret it to work according to the lore of D&D is that the zombie or skeleton is a different creature from the living person who provided the corpse. So you have a body that belongs to two different entities: the living person and the undead creature. Since Revivify works on undead, you could actually use it to bring back a zombie.

But let's consider a very special case. Let's say someone gets hit by a Finger of Death, which kills them. They then rise as a zombie, but get taken out in short order. It's been less than a minute since Finger of Death killed the creature. I think you could cast Revivify on them to bring back either the original person, or the zombie, but you have to be specific about which one you're trying to bring back. The body belonged to both of them, so either one is a valid target of the spell.

However, this will obviously work differently if your DM decides that the zombie isn't a different creature, but a corruption of the original creature. As in, you are calling back their soul and enslaving them, as opposed to calling up a generic undead spirit to possess the corpse.


If you destroy and revivify a zombie you get a zombie

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/709791324656902144?lang=en-GB

The only spells that can bring back the original humanoid are True Resurrection or Wish.

Raising that body as undead fundamentally changed it. Most cultures consider despoiling the dead an evil act but there are of course "acceptable" exceptions. Consent is the obvious one, dealing with a sufficiently terrible criminal has historically been another. The "I found them lying dead by the roadside" clause in this code would not be an acceptable one in any culture I can think of.

Clause 1 is consent. Clause 2 falls under the "punishing criminals" sort of acceptability. Clause 4 still looks like a character who makes use of it would be generally viewed as pretty evil by your typical neutral aligned common folk.

[lall]

The character has a code of conduct, but animating the dead (not reanimating, animating) is:

1) the enslavement of sapient entities


The enslavement of the body (object)?
The soul is elsewhere, correct?

[Unoriginal]

The enslavement of the body (object)?
The soul is elsewhere, correct?

Animate Dead shoves a spirit into the corpse. The soul of the former corpse's owner is gone, sure, but you are still enslaving a sapient being.

Even if the being is utterly malevolent and omnicidal.

[Gtdead]

Animate Dead shoves a spirit into the corpse. The soul of the former corpse's owner is gone, sure, but you are still enslaving a sapient being.

Even if the being is utterly malevolent and omnicidal.

That's not what the spell's fluff says. "Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an Undead creature.". Not enough info to conclude that there is a spirit animating the corpse. We have other examples of animated objects that don't use animating spirits, like Tiny Servants.

[JackPhoenix]

Animate Dead shoves a spirit into the corpse. The soul of the former corpse's owner is gone, sure, but you are still enslaving a sapient being.

Even if the being is utterly malevolent and omnicidal.

Debatable. Zombies lack anything resembling sapience, and it is arguable if they are even sentient. Skeletons are sentient, but their sapience is, again, arguable.


That's not what the spell's fluff says. "Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an Undead creature.". Not enough info to conclude that there is a spirit animating the corpse. We have other examples of animated objects that don't use animating spirits, like Tiny Servants.

It's what the description of a skeleton says.

[lall]

I’d go with either LN or LG. Once the soul leaves, I believe it forfeits any sort of property rights on the body. If it did have some sort of property rights, it would preferably clean up the mess it made and either carry the body with it or properly dispose of it. By turning the object into a creature, the necromancer is removing the object from the land owner’s premises, i.e. removing the litter, i.e. doing a minor good deed.

[Unoriginal]

That's not what the spell's fluff says. "Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an Undead creature.". Not enough info to conclude that there is a spirit animating the corpse.


An animated skeleton retains no connection to its past, although resurrecting a skeleton restores it body and soul, banishing the hateful undead spirit that empowers it.

MM, p.272.


We have other examples of animated objects that don't use animating spirits, like Tiny Servants.

I wish people stopped acting as if Animated Dead was just another "animate the inanimate" spell. Some settings and games have that, but it is *not* the path 5e chose.

[Tanarii]

If the caster is going to frequently "[create] the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead" then they will some kind of evil, without a house rule.

Other than that, it's whatever evil alignment's typical but not consistently required behavior you feel will go best with these ideals.

Lawful evil (LE), methodically take what you want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE), do whatever you can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE), act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Probably Lawful evil would work best, since you're defining ideals for an order.

[Valmark]

1) the enslavement of sapient entities

2) said entities are omnicidal and will try to murder every living being they can if the necromancer lose control of them

3) the energy that animates undead can causes other undead to spontaneously appears, and the necromancer wouldn't have any control over them.

4) turning a corpse into an undead make it much harder for resurrection to be conducted on the person the corpse was

Therefore, animating the dead as much as this code of conduct implies is either causing harm directly, or creating circumstances that are likely to cause harm.

And having a code of conduct like this is the base principle of lawul evil.
1) But it's not sapient.

2) This would only be evil if the necromancer didn't care about what the undeads will do if let free.

3) This isn't true as far as PCs are concerned, unless you use Negative Energy Flood.

4) This isn't evil though, at least not in itself.

None. It's got nothing to do with alignment. Tenets of some order say nothing about the attitude and behavior of a member of said order.
This. Chaotic paladins exist and they have code of conducts.

If you destroy and revivify a zombie you get a zombie

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/709791324656902144?lang=en-GB

The only spells that can bring back the original humanoid are True Resurrection or Wish.

This is Crawford's opinion though, not an actual rule.

The enslavement of the body (object)?
The soul is elsewhere, correct?
Correct.

Animate Dead shoves a spirit into the corpse. The soul of the former corpse's owner is gone, sure, but you are still enslaving a sapient being.

Even if the being is utterly malevolent and omnicidal.
It possibly doesn't even qualify as sentient, much less sapient.

MM, p.272.



I wish people stopped acting as if Animated Dead was just another "animate the inanimate" spell. Some settings and games have that, but it is *not* the path 5e chose.
I mean... Animate Dead taken as is is that. In fact, it's not even clear if the fluff text of the undeads applies to the undeads summoned through the spells PCs have.

If the caster is going to frequently "[create] the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead" then they will some kind of evil, without a house rule.

Other than that, it's whatever evil alignment's typical but not consistently required behavior you feel will go best with these ideals.

Lawful evil (LE), methodically take what you want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE), do whatever you can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE), act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Probably Lawful evil would work best, since you're defining ideals for an order.

Not really, there is no rule forcing you to be evil.

[bid]

Undeath is Awful Evil. (no L)

[quindraco]

Purely an opinion piece since it features Alignment.

However I plan on running a Necromancer in our next 5e campaign and so set out to establish the ideals of his order regarding corpses.

Such ideals are:
1. If a body is offered- it is praise to accept it.
2. If a body is gambled- it is a blessing to be seized.
3. If a body is refused- it is heresy to claim it.
4. If a body is found- it is a task to be completed.
5. If a body is at risk- it is a duty to be cared for.

Or put another way:
1. Anyone accepting the offer of reanimation is fine to reanimate.
2. Anyone who attacks and risks their body is fine to reanimate.
3. Anyone who refuses the animation is not to be used for such.
4. Anyone found just left on the side of the road is only acceptable to be reanimated until/unless they can have a proper burial.
5. Anyone dying but not yet dead is to be healed unless/until they fall into another category.

Having prewritten ideals like that suggests Lawful on the L-N-C axis. You haven't provided enough detail for the G-N-E axis - this could be LG, LN, or even LE, depending on what reanimated bodies are used for. Certainly you haven't crossed the line into evil with this, though, since you're all about consent. Making undead is reckless, since 5E undead are canonically always trying to murder the living and can only be temporarily restrained with magical compulsions, but good people can engage in reckless behavior if they honestly think they're on top of things.

[Gtdead]

MM, p.272.

General/Specific. The spell imbues a foul mimicry of life. It doesn't matter what is true for a skeleton you may find in nature. Also the text mentions skeletons only. If we go by the rigid reading of fluff as rules, then reanimating zombies is ok.



I wish people stopped acting as if Animated Dead was just another "animate the inanimate" spell. Some settings and games have that, but it is *not* the path 5e chose.

That will never happen. The only problem with necromancy is the defilement of corpses and that's setting specific. For all intends and purposes, in 5e a corpse is an object. The meaning you assign on this object determines the morality of messing with it.
If I cast Animate Objects on the holy symbol of a god, it will be a very controversial action. Is it evil? Depends on the intend. If I wanted to punish the cultists with it as a statement, then perhaps it would be an acceptable action. If I wanted to make fun of the faithful, then it would probably be an evil one.

[Tanarii]

Not really, there is no rule forcing you to be evil.
PHB 203 Schools of Magic sidebar, under Necromancy.

If you want to play a non-evil caster who frequently creates undead, that's a house rule. Just like playing a Druid who will will wear metal armor.

[Valmark]

PHB 203 Schools of Magic sidebar, under Necromancy.

If you want to play a non-evil caster who frequently creates undead, that's a house rule. Just like playing a Druid who will will wear metal armor.

That's not a rule that forces you into being evil though. There's no alignment restriction or something along those lines.

You can force people to only play evil characters if they want to make undead summoners, but it's no more valid then the opposite rules-wise. In fact, according to the same PHB necromancers aren't necessarily evil even if what they do is tipically taboo- so at best we can say that the book is divided on the subject.

Meanwhile, druids are forbidden from wearing metal armor at all right in their proficiencies.

[tokek]

That's not a rule that forces you into being evil though. There's no alignment restriction or something along those lines.

You can force people to only play evil characters if they want to make undead summoners, but it's no more valid then the opposite rules-wise. In fact, according to the same PHB necromancers aren't necessarily evil even if what they do is tipically taboo- so at best we can say that the book is divided on the subject.

Meanwhile, druids are forbidden from wearing metal armor at all right in their proficiencies.

Neutral is certainly possible - good alignment is hard to pull off as a necromancer. There are just too many big obvious issues with it.

A necromancer is making perfect little weapons of destruction that will rampage out of control if they ever even once cast the control spell a minute late. Think of the nastiest most personally vile weapon manufacturer you can think of IRL and then think of the weapons that necromancers make as their occupation. Every zombie or skeleton is a barely controlled serial killer being held in check by magic that runs out after a day unless you renew it like clockwork.

Undead definitely mess with things beyond death. Its why Raise Dead, Reincarnation and even Resurrection spell can't work any more. Maybe that's part of the reason why most good aligned deities in most pantheons outright hate undead and I can't think of a single good aligned one that approves of making skeletons/zombies.

Skeletons at least are sapient, you can read their thoughts with Detect Thoughts. To the extent that D&D even bothers defining the term that's a good working definition. So controlling them looks very like slavery, but not controlling them looks like loosing serial killers on the world.

As I've already said, desecration of the dead is considered pretty evil in most cultures.

Very restrained and controlled use of undead within strict bounds can be worked up as neutral, the moral risks are obvious but could be controlled. I doubt if most PC necromancers want to be that restrained but its playable. It think its super-hard to work it up as good aligned but I'd be interested to see how someone actually does that in-game without actually giving up on the making of undead. Nothing is impossible but that one sounds hard to pull off convincingly.

[Valmark]

A necromancer is making perfect little weapons of destruction that will rampage out of control if they ever even once cast the control spell a minute late. Think of the nastiest most personally vile weapon manufacturer you can think of IRL and then think of the weapons that necromancers make as their occupation. Every zombie or skeleton is a barely controlled serial killer being held in check by magic that runs out after a day unless you renew it like clockwork.

Undead definitely mess with things beyond death. Its why Raise Dead, Reincarnation and even Resurrection spell can't work any more. Maybe that's part of the reason why most good aligned deities in most pantheons outright hate undead and I can't think of a single good aligned one that approves of making skeletons/zombies.

Skeletons at least are sapient, you can read their thoughts with Detect Thoughts. To the extent that D&D even bothers defining the term that's a good working definition. So controlling them looks very like slavery, but not controlling them looks like loosing serial killers on the world.

As I've already said, desecration of the dead is considered pretty evil in most cultures.

Very restrained and controlled use of undead within strict bounds can be worked up as neutral, the moral risks are obvious but could be controlled. I doubt if most PC necromancers want to be that restrained but its playable. It think its super-hard to work it up as good aligned but I'd be interested to see how someone actually does that in-game without actually giving up on the making of undead. Nothing is impossible but that one sounds hard to pull off convincingly.

The comparison doesn't hold up- the only way the undeads you make can be used for evil (or can go into a murder spree) is if you want it or if you're forced out of reach.

Btw it's not actually true that Raise Dead/Resurrection/Reincarnation don't work. Or rather, they don't work while it's an undead, but that doesn't mean it cannot work if you kill the undead again. That's up to the DM.

Eh, being able to read a mind with Detect Thoughts doesn't actually mean you'll find thoughts.

"This culture considers it evil" doesn't mean the creature is evil- the PHB says that as well.

Eh, I always thought it easy to make a good aligned undead-user, homewever it's also DM dependant on some stuff.

[tokek]

The comparison doesn't hold up- the only way the undeads you make can be used for evil (or can go into a murder spree) is if you want it or if you're forced out of reach.

Btw it's not actually true that Raise Dead/Resurrection/Reincarnation don't work. Or rather, they don't work while it's an undead, but that doesn't mean it cannot work if you kill the undead again. That's up to the DM.

Eh, being able to read a mind with Detect Thoughts doesn't actually mean you'll find thoughts.

"This culture considers it evil" doesn't mean the creature is evil- the PHB says that as well.

Eh, I always thought it easy to make a good aligned undead-user, homewever it's also DM dependant on some stuff.

Its been confirmed by the designer that those resurrection type spells can't work any more because raising them as undead changed their creature type. Ruling otherwise is a clear house-rule - and once you start fundamentally changing stuff there is no point asking on the internet really as you are not sticking to the published game in ways that are clearly significant.

Any raised undead that you lose control of will do what it would normally do when uncontrolled - which is primarily attack and kill any living thing nearby. They use the normal rules entry for zombie or skeleton and behave accordingly (they retain the same evil alignment for that reason). Only ongoing magical control can prevent them from acting normally.

And your comment on detect thoughts is verging on the weird, what other creatures that clearly qualify to have their minds read do you disallow this spell for and why?

[Valmark]

Its been confirmed by the designer that those resurrection type spells can't work any more because raising them as undead changed their creature type. Ruling otherwise is a clear house-rule - and once you start fundamentally changing stuff there is no point asking on the internet really as you are not sticking to the published game in ways that are clearly significant.

And your comment on detect thoughts is verging on the weird, what other creatures that clearly qualify to have their minds read do you disallow this spell for and why?

The designers aren't the rules though- they're an opinion. For example, they also say that you can't twin a spell that can target an object, despite that not being written anywhere.

Didn't say I disallow the spell- I said you don't necessarily find thoughts. Wether a skeleton or a zombie has thoughts depends on the DM.
If you really mean what I would rule I think that'd be off-topic, as my own rulings aren't relevant to the OP's question.

[InvisibleBison]

I think this character could be of any alignment. The Good/Evil axis has been well covered, so I won't go into it, but there's also no guarantee about where he'll end up on the Law/Chaos axis, either. After all, it's the order's code, not his personal code. How he feels about the code is what would influence his alignment:


If he believes in the code and considers it an idea to aspire to, and from which he would deviate only under the most extreme circumstances, then he's Lawful.
If he doesn't really care about the code one way or another and only goes along with it to fit in with the others in the order, then he's Neutral.
If he thinks the code is dumb and only follows it if he can't get away with ignoring it or if he happens to want to do what the code prescribes, then he's Chaotic.

[Gtdead]

Its been confirmed by the designer that those resurrection type spells can't work any more because raising them as undead changed their creature type. Ruling otherwise is a clear house-rule - and once you start fundamentally changing stuff there is no point asking on the internet really as you are not sticking to the published game in ways that are clearly significant.

This isn't exactly true. Do you consider AL Dungeon Master's Guide rules important? If yes, then in ALDMG 4 for Curse of Strahd, it states that a Vampire can be killed and resurrected through Raise Dead in order to be cured. RAW Raise Dead doesn't work on undead.

https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/ALDMGv4_print.pdf

We really shouldn't read setting specific fluff as rules. There is nothing stopping me from creating a setting where necromancy is evil but raised undead corpses are resurrectable, and even if you say that this is homebrew, while you'd be right, it really doesn't alter the game in any meaningful way and doesn't change the experience that much that it would be considered different from table to table.

[Greywander]

If you want to play a non-evil caster who frequently creates undead, that's a house rule. Just like playing a Druid who will will wear metal armor.
You might consider animating undead to be an evil act, but nothing is forcing you to do any other evil acts if you choose to play a necromancer. This is also very DM-dependent, regardless of what the rules might say. This is one area where I wouldn't lean too heavily on RAW, but rather consult with your DM to see how they want to handle it.

Similarly for druids, nothing actually stops you from wearing metal armor. Druids don't wear metal armor because the druid chooses not to. So what happens if you play a druid and decide to wear metal armor? Nothing, that's what happens. If they wanted to enforce this, they either should have specified that druids aren't proficient with metal armor, or wearing metal armor should have inhibited druid class features, e.g. you can't Wild Shape while wearing metal armor.

So in both cases you may have some kind of rule that says "X people will/won't do Y", but there's not really anything backing up or enforcing that. You can totally play a Lawful Good necromancer in a party with a druid clad in steel half plate. They're not going to come and arrest you for playing your character wrong. It's your character, and you get to decide how you want to play them.

[JackPhoenix]

The designers aren't the rules though- they're an opinion. For example, they also say that you can't twin a spell that can target an object, despite that not being written anywhere.

If you want to make claims that the designers explaining the rules are "opinions", at least make sure to you know the rules yourself. The first sentence of Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

[Tanarii]

That's not a rule that forces you into being evil though. There's no alignment restriction or something along those lines.Its a roleplaying rule. If you're playing a non-evil caster, you won't have them create undead frequently. If you plan to do otherwise, you're trying to house rule. In which case, check with your DM first.

It's the exact same thing as the Druid roleplaying rule for armor. Or alignment in general for that matter. It's the same thing as don't choosing Lawful Good as your character's alignment when you're planning to regularly have them behave like the Chaotic Evil associated behavior.


You might consider animating undead to be an evil act, but nothing is forcing you to do any other evil acts if you choose to play a necromancer.
Agreed. But it kinda breaks the point of the rule in question to do so. The point of the stated PHB rule is only characters that would already generally act like one of the Evil alignment behaviors would consider the idea in the first place. But despite that, yes, you certainly could play a character as you suggest.

But now you're trying to house rule the definition of whichever other alignment you pick to include some new typical but not consistent behavior instead. :smallwink:

Alignment isn't a straight jacket. But the intent is not to be able to pick Lawful Evil to match up with the frequently cast necromancy spells roleplaying rule and then instead play as if you were Lawful Good. The intent is to point out: don't play a non-evil character that does this thing.

[werescythe]

Why can't there be good skeletons/zombies? Would that have to be an "awakened" skeleton/zombie? Why can't we have zombies like they do in Zombie Land Saga?

Assuming that these undead are "creatures" going off of instinct (probably that of a predator), then perhaps there might be a way to "awaken" them.

In that case, if a necromancer character reanimates a corpse or two and then by some means (either with a homebrewed spell or the aim of a loving death god) give those undead a "spark" where they function almost like normal humanoids when not under the necromancer's control.

[Valmark]

If you want to make claims that the designers explaining the rules are "opinions", at least make sure to you know the rules yourself. The first sentence of Twinned Spell: "When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."
I know that, you just misred what I wrote. According to the designers (more specifically Sage Advice) if a spell can target an object it doesn't qualify for Twinned. It doesn't need to be actually targeting an object.

-snip-
You call it a house rule, but the necromancy school calls necromancers out as not being evil (not all of them) even if they do stuff that is taboo in most places.

Unless by taboo one means striking someone down with a spell or scribing necromancy spells at half the price (alright, to be fair, the former would make sense).

Why can't there be good skeletons/zombies? Would that have to be an "awakened" skeleton/zombie? Why can't we have zombies like they do in Zombie Land Saga?

Assuming that these undead are "creatures" going off of instinct (probably that of a predator), then perhaps there might be a way to "awaken" them.

In that case, if a necromancer character reanimates a corpse or two and then by some means (either with a homebrewed spell or the aim of a loving death god) give those undead a "spark" where they function almost like normal humanoids when not under the necromancer's control.

I'd say it's just because the alignment in the statblock is evil. If you're the DM you can make whatever you want, but as a PC those are the undeads you get without DM intervention.

Haven't checked but I assume the higher-tiered undeads are evil as well (wights, ghasts, ghouls, mummies).

[Anymage]

Why can't there be good skeletons/zombies? Would that have to be an "awakened" skeleton/zombie? Why can't we have zombies like they do in Zombie Land Saga?

Assuming that these undead are "creatures" going off of instinct (probably that of a predator), then perhaps there might be a way to "awaken" them.

In that case, if a necromancer character reanimates a corpse or two and then by some means (either with a homebrewed spell or the aim of a loving death god) give those undead a "spark" where they function almost like normal humanoids when not under the necromancer's control.

A couple of reasons.

First, reanimated dead tend to be icky, and as tropes tend to be tied with the bad guys. Some types of restless dead can exist outside of that - ghosts can be any alignment because there's trope space for dead people to legitimately want to air their grievances - but the devs are trying to make a stronger point that undead are more closely tied with the bad guys. Nonevil undead like Eberron's deathless can exist, but that's setting dependent.

Second, there's a long history under 3.5 (where the fluff is even less clear on just what makes undead unpleasant) of viewing undead as basically super robots. Following orders to the letter without stepping outside their roles, not requiring any sustenance beyond ambient planar energies, and able to menial labor which frees up the living to do other things. This sort of undead mechanization tends to significantly change the face of settings, and in many cases brings them a lot closer to post-scarcity. Liches, another sort of undead who could just keep going indefinitely without necessarily having to so anything bad, also got changed in 5e to play up both how they need some form of sustenance and how they are not nice people. So while good undead-like are possible under 5e's stylistic choices, they would require some form of expensive fuel to keep going that's a lot less easy than devoting a few spell slots every day to maintaining your army.

[Tanarii]

You call it a house rule, but the necromancy school calls necromancers out as not being evil (not all of them) even if they do stuff that is taboo in most places.

Unless by taboo one means striking someone down with a spell or scribing necromancy spells at half the price (alright, to be fair, the former would make sense).
I call it a house rule because it's modifying a written rule.

When you put it together with what the Necromancer subclass says, that means non-evil Necromancer don't frequently create undead. There's lots of ways for that to happen. Frequently casting spells (including necromancy spells) that don't create undead, and infrequently casting spells that do create undead.

[tokek]

The designers aren't the rules though- they're an opinion. For example, they also say that you can't twin a spell that can target an object, despite that not being written anywhere.

Didn't say I disallow the spell- I said you don't necessarily find thoughts. Wether a skeleton or a zombie has thoughts depends on the DM.
If you really mean what I would rule I think that'd be off-topic, as my own rulings aren't relevant to the OP's question.

The Raise Dead and Resurrection spells literally say it - they merely clarified that they absolutely meant it. Returning undead to actual life requires 9th level spells, those are the only ones not constrained.

A skeleton has all the attributes to have thoughts detected by the Detect Thoughts spell. Do you have a list of monsters that you as a DM would simply not allow Detect Thoughts to work on for your own reasons? I'm still finding that sort of weird and a clear nerf of a spell for no reason you have bothered to explain.

These things are relevant to a discussion of the alignment of a character who performs animate dead spells because we have to look at what they have actually done. They have put the dead body beyond any likely option for being brought back to life. That matters in some cases, if that dead body was a reasonably wealthy person then the hope of a return to life has been denied to them and their family. Whether a skeleton has thoughts and opinions certainly matters for the question of whether creating and controlling them is similar to slavery - the mechanics of the game say that they do.

If you play a necromancer who avoids actually creating zombies and skeletons from dead bodies then its not relevant but the OP posted a code for doing exactly that, so that's what we are discussing. I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea of a good aligned necromancer who never actually creates undead because it would not fit their moral code - the other spells in the school of necromancy are not especially troubling.

[tokek]

This isn't exactly true. Do you consider AL Dungeon Master's Guide rules important? If yes, then in ALDMG 4 for Curse of Strahd, it states that a Vampire can be killed and resurrected through Raise Dead in order to be cured. RAW Raise Dead doesn't work on undead.

https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/ALDMGv4_print.pdf

We really shouldn't read setting specific fluff as rules. There is nothing stopping me from creating a setting where necromancy is evil but raised undead corpses are resurrectable, and even if you say that this is homebrew, while you'd be right, it really doesn't alter the game in any meaningful way and doesn't change the experience that much that it would be considered different from table to table.

D&D is a game of exceptions. That spell explicitly does not work on undead but in the notes for one module there is an exception for one individual NPC. That's fine, it is an exception to the normal rule.

If you change the effects and consequences of Animate Dead and how it interacts with other spells then of course it would alter a discussion on the impact of using that spell on the alignment of a character. The OP did not propose any such house-rule so I'm assuming the discussion is about the rules as written.

[Gtdead]

If you change the effects and consequences of Animate Dead and how it interacts with other spells then of course it would alter a discussion on the impact of using that spell on the alignment of a character. The OP did not propose any such house-rule so I'm assuming the discussion is about the rules as written.

Agreed, although there is something to be said about how important resurrection is in this discussion about Alignment. I see this as a very "meta" thing, loaded with assumptions.

Example: A good party that gets a quest to kill a bunch of Orc raiders and bring back their heads for example prohibits resurrection since without a head, the corpse isn't eligible. Does this make the party evil by default?

Resurrection isn't an everyday thing and the act isn't necessarily a good one. There is a whole cosmology tied to the a purpose of mortal souls. I find this argument not good enough as far as alignment is concerned.

[tokek]

Agreed, although there is something to be said about how important resurrection is in this discussion about Alignment. I see this as a very "meta" thing, loaded with assumptions.

Example: A good party that gets a quest to kill a bunch of Orc raiders and bring back their heads for example prohibits resurrection since without a head, the corpse isn't eligible. Does this make the party evil by default?

Resurrection isn't an everyday thing and the act isn't necessarily a good one. There is a whole cosmology tied to the a purpose of mortal souls. I find this argument not good enough as far as alignment is concerned.

For me that orc example fits under the heading of punishing a crime. So not evil.

A random body found by the roadside? That's a whole different matter and rendering it beyond resurrection just because your code says you can looks like an evil act to me (and a code which left plenty of room for evil acts).

[Gtdead]

For me that orc example fits under the heading of punishing a crime. So not evil.

A random body found by the roadside? That's a whole different matter and rendering it beyond resurrection just because your code says you can looks like an evil act to me (and a code which left plenty of room for evil acts).

It sounds fairly pragmatic to me. A random dead body by the road side already has a lot of problems. With a more simulationist approach, unless the body is embalmed or under the effect of a gentle repose, we can't make any assumptions about it's state. Chances are that Carrion will have eaten the organs and a corpse left unprotected under the sun completely decomposes in a matter of days.

Taking this line of thinking to extremes, it yields some nonsensical results. If you find a corpse and bury it you decrease their chances to be resurrected dramatically due to the 10 day limit. Unless it's an important person who has a deal with some church, no one will ever bother casting a level 7+ spell to resurrect a peasant. Of course there is a matter of ethics here, but a right lost in theory is not the same as a right lost in practice. There isn't any chance for a peasant to be resurrected once these 10 days pass and even that is pushing it. For a poor person, the 500 gold cost is prohibitive, even if we assume the service is free (which isn't). 500 gold are the expenses of 7 years as per Lifestyle Expenses table.

A better question is how the Necromancer would act if he came across some dead merchants or adventurers. Would he animate them? Bury them? Try to resurrect them somehow? At least these have some chance to be resurrected unlike poor peasants. Still I wouldn't make too many assumptions for Good to Evil axis based on this.

[Aelyn]

That would be the 6th ideal- which I am still working on.

And true- it does not assure such a thing. The character would attempt to explain and back his words with action but ultimately he cannot force someone to accept them.

Just as an idea, what about something like "If a body is seized - it must be allowed to rest." (Meaning that if someone dies as a result of deliberate action on another's part, such as attacking them, you should bury it and animating it would be considered abhorrent.)

As for the alignment, I think Lawful Neutral feels most natural but it is true that the core books say that regularly animating bodies is Evil.

If the character in question takes the code at its most pragmatic (ie. willing to raise undead as pack animals pretty freely) then it's probably LE, if they take it in a more community-spirited direction (ie. doing their best to bring people back to life as a preference, only raising undead under exceptional circumstances which can include the person volunteering their body freely) it's more towards LN.

LG is possible, but only if they're extremely careful (which includes a firm commitment to destroy the undead created as soon as their task is completed, with multiple contingencies in case the character isn't able to destroy them directly) and only resort to creating undead when there aren't other options available.

[JackPhoenix]

Nonevil undead like Eberron's deathless can exist, but that's setting dependent.

Deathless were, very explicitly, NOT undead. To the point they got their own unique creature type to separate them from undead back in 3.5. On the other hand, reason for that was that unlike 5e, 3.5 had a lot of mechanical baggage to go with creature types, on the other hand, Warforged just got specific subtype to explain their differences from other constructs, so, who knows?



I find this argument not good enough as far as alignment is concerned.

See, that's the thing: You focus on one thing, but the reason creating undead is evil isn't just desecrating of corpses, or the risk the spontaneous creation of uncontrolled undead, or slavery or creation of barelly controlled omnicidal monsters just because it's convenient and cheaper than alternatives: It's all of that and more, put together.

[kazaryu]

tbh i'd call this either true neutral or chaotic neutral, largely depending on what the prevailing laws are in the setting. But even in settings where creating undead is an objective evil, the act of creating undead doesn't inherently make a character an evil alignment. it makes it hard for them to be *good*, but if you do good things with the undead its possible for the acts to balance out.

and thats really where the rub is, people argue about whether creating undead is actually evil and all that...but they tend to talk about it from an irl, subjective morality perspective. 'its just a corpse, its only culture that makes it wrong to defile a corpse'. and while thats true...thats not actually what makes creating undead evil. Zombies and SKeletons are typically objectively evil creatures, just like fiends are. and you're permanently creating them. thus increasing the amount of evil in the world. that is objectively an evil action (with the exception being a setting where undead aren't objectively evil). to put a finer point on this: compare a zombie to other int 3 beasts. zombies are labeled as having an evil alignment, whereas other nonsapiant creatures tend to be 'unaligned'. So...casting 'animate dead' is always going to be an 'evil' act from a cosmic perspective. (which is the only perspective that matters when talking about alignment). However, if your cosmic alignment is a summation of your actions, then it should be more than possible to balance that evil by doing good things with those undead.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like you have something better than an alignment anyways.
From the PC PoV, for sure, but there is the whole world's reaction to that approach that can make for how alignment, perceived vs intended, to play out. Very much a DM campaign setting thing, since the DM plays the rest of the world.

I’d go with either LN or LG. Once the soul leaves, I believe it forfeits any sort of property rights on the body. That's a DM call, see above, but I find your assessment to be a few sigmas from the center of mass.
I wish people stopped acting as if Animated Dead was just another "animate the inanimate" spell. Some settings and games have that, but it is *not* the path 5e chose. It is often a case of (1) special pleading (2) having cake and eating it too and (3) some folks just live minionmancy.

That's not a rule that forces you into being evil though. I could observe here that there's no rule that forces anyone to play a necromancer, as an exercise in hyperbole to point out a mild flaw in the point you raised there. Player makes choices, DM provides feedback in re consequences. This flows into your other point on "not my world to DM so how I'd rule it is not useful" is about how I feel regarding the "what alignment is this" class of questions as they usually are created on this forum. I only kept reading from the title after I saw the OP's outline (because as a DM I love it when folk put some thought into their creation-of-the-PC efforts).

You can force people to only play evil characters if they want to make undead summoners, but it's no more valid then the opposite rules-wise. In fact, according to the same PHB necromancers aren't necessarily evil even if what they do is tipically tabo But that isn't what a DM is doing - forcing - when they rule that using necromancy is evil in their world (or in parts of their world). They are providing the players a form of consequences for choices made. But if I can vaguely refer to a general idea on 'how do people treat the dead will vary from place to place' (since that is true in our real world but I can't go further on that topic) then the OP's question can only be answered by the DM: "Depends on where in the world you are" unless the DM has provided the kind of 'world consistency' guidance to the OP that would indicate otherwise. Had the DM done so, I don't think we've had this thread.

See, that's the thing: You focus on one thing, but the reason creating undead is evil isn't just desecrating of corpses, or the risk the spontaneous creation of uncontrolled undead, or slavery or creation of barelly controlled omnicidal monsters just because it's convenient and cheaper than alternatives: It's all of that and more, put together. That's how my world tends to respond to it when I DM, though the reasons why (or how big the bundle is) varies with local custom.

[Valmark]

I call it a house rule because it's modifying a written rule.

When you put it together with what the Necromancer subclass says, that means non-evil Necromancer don't frequently create undead. There's lots of ways for that to happen. Frequently casting spells (including necromancy spells) that don't create undead, and infrequently casting spells that do create undead.
The thing is, either one needs to specify how frequent is frequently (and then we're going into 'how it works at your table isn't how it works at mine' territory) or...

There's not actually an alternative, which though does mean making undeads isn't in itself an evil act.

The Raise Dead and Resurrection spells literally say it - they merely clarified that they absolutely meant it. Returning undead to actual life requires 9th level spells, those are the only ones not constrained.

These things are relevant to a discussion of the alignment of a character who performs animate dead spells because we have to look at what they have actually done. They have put the dead body beyond any likely option for being brought back to life. That matters in some cases, if that dead body was a reasonably wealthy person then the hope of a return to life has been denied to them and their family. Whether a skeleton has thoughts and opinions certainly matters for the question of whether creating and controlling them is similar to slavery - the mechanics of the game say that they do.

Raise Dead and Resurrection don't say that a creature that has been an undead cannot be brought back to life.

Wether they put the dead body in a condition that makes it hard to raise them and wether a skeleton has thoughts and opinions is though DM-dependant, so what we say isn't actually impactful.



If you change the effects and consequences of Animate Dead and how it interacts with other spells then of course it would alter a discussion on the impact of using that spell on the alignment of a character. The OP did not propose any such house-rule so I'm assuming the discussion is about the rules as written.
The rules don't say that if the corpse became an undead it's permanently out of reach of anything below True Resurrection though.


I could observe here that there's no rule that forces anyone to play a necromancer, as an exercise in hyperbole to point out a mild flaw in the point you raised there. Player makes choices, DM provides feedback in re consequences. This flows into your other point on "not my world to DM so how I'd rule it is not useful" is about how I feel regarding the "what alignment is this" class of questions as they usually are created on this forum.

But that isn't what a DM is doing - forcing - when they rule that using necromancy is evil in their world (or in parts of their world). They are providing the players a form of consequences for choices made. But if I can vaguely refer to a general idea on 'how do people treat the dead will vary from place to place' (since that is true in our real world but I can't go further on that topic) then the OP's question can only be answered by the DM: "Depends on where in the world you are" unless the DM has provided the kind of 'world consistency' guidance to the OP that would indicate otherwise. Had the DM done so, I don't think we've had this thread.


The DM providing consequences doesn't though determine your alignment- it's what you choose to do based on said consequences that does. Or what you wanted to do/how you wanted to do whatever it is that provoked said consequences.

And yeah, the DM is forcing someone to make a character a certain way with that kind of ruling. Though I think I should specify that when I said that someone can force people it's not necessarily in a bad light. I wouldn't blame a DM for making people make characters that go along with the setting they made- that's kind of the point of being a DM.

And yeah, definitely agreed on the topic of threads about alignment. I'm personally with those that said that the OP's character could be in any possible alignment with the information given.

[Gtdead]

See, that's the thing: You focus on one thing, but the reason creating undead is evil isn't just desecrating of corpses, or the risk the spontaneous creation of uncontrolled undead, or slavery or creation of barelly controlled omnicidal monsters just because it's convenient and cheaper than alternatives: It's all of that and more, put together.

Desecrating the corpse is setting specific, the internet is full of stories with necromancy being neutral or being used for good or with consent, even if trust is hard to build. Animate Dead or Create Undead don't allow for spontaneous creation of any uncontrolled creature, losing control happens under specific conditions easily preventable. Slavery isn't a thing because it's MM fluff that doesn't apply to the spells in question, Conjure Elemental also creates barely controlled omnicidal monsters and it's actually easier for the elemental to go berserk on your allies than losing control of animated dead, being cheaper than alternatives is both debatable and besides the point.

At this point, I'd rather accept the word "foul" in Animate Dead description as paraphrasing for "evil" than any of these arguments as a reason why the OP's character is evil as described.

[KorvinStarmast]

At this point, I'd rather accept the word "foul" in Animate Dead description as paraphrasing for "evil" than any of these arguments as a reason why the OP's character is evil as described. But as that isn't a game term used for alignment (though it is a fine descriptive in a literary sense) that's more or less off topic for the discussion at hand. :smallcool:

[lall]

That's a DM call
Yes, the DM could rule that the property is owned by the non-existent owner.

but I find your assessment to be a few sigmas from the center of mass.
It’s a smaller space, but the lack of roommates is nice.

[JackPhoenix]

Raise Dead and Resurrection don't say that a creature that has been an undead cannot be brought back to life.

Raise Dead: "The spell can't return an undead creature to life."
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead."
Bonus round: Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid"

It's the Twinned Spell thing again: Read the rules you're talking about first.


Desecrating the corpse is setting specific, the internet is full of stories with necromancy being neutral or being used for good or with consent

And nobody cares. We're not talking about "the internet", we're talking about rules of 5th edition D&D, which easily prove you wrong on all your claims.


At this point, I'd rather accept the word "foul" in Animate Dead description as paraphrasing for "evil" than any of these arguments as a reason why the OP's character is evil as described.

At this point, it's clear you're selectively ignoring relevant text to get the conclusion you want to get. OP also didn't describe any character, so it's impossible to conclude what alignment the unknown character falls under.

[Valmark]

Raise Dead: "The spell can't return an undead creature to life."
Resurrection: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead."
Bonus round: Reincarnate: "You touch a dead humanoid"

It's the Twinned Spell thing again: Read the rules you're talking about first.


And just like the Twinned Spell thing you aren't reading what I'm writing. Those clauses only stop the spell from working while the corpse is an undead, they don't stop the spell from working if a corpse has become an undead period.

Hell, tecnically Reincarnation isn't even stopped by that if we want to be very specific about the text.

[Unoriginal]

And just like the Twinned Spell thing you aren't reading what I'm writing. Those clauses only stop the spell from working while the corpse is an undead, they don't stop the spell from working if a corpse has become an undead period.

Hell, tecnically Reincarnation isn't even stopped by that if we want to be very specific about the text.

If you kill an humanoid, it's the corpse of an humanoid. If you kill an undead, it's the corpse of an undead.

[tokek]

If you kill an humanoid, it's the corpse of an humanoid. If you kill an undead, it's the corpse of an undead.

Exactly this. Which makes perfect sense of course and which has been confirmed as being as intended.

If you want to animate corpses without all the ethical implications then use Animate Objects.

[Gtdead]

But as that isn't a game term used for alignment (though it is a fine descriptive in a literary sense) that's more or less off topic for the discussion at hand. :smallcool:

That was my point. ;)



And nobody cares. We're not talking about "the internet", we're talking about rules of 5th edition D&D, which easily prove you wrong on all your claims.

You are welcome to prove me wrong. I wonder how exactly are you going to prove your argument about slavery or the spontaneity of uncontrollable monsters in terms of 5th edition D&D.



At this point, it's clear you're selectively ignoring relevant text to get the conclusion you want to get. OP also didn't describe any character, so it's impossible to conclude what alignment the unknown character falls under.

Right back at you, with the added behavior of normalizing the contradictions by injecting subjectivity and interpretation. If you carefully read the relevant text, you will notice that this whole thing about "only evil spellcasters animate the dead frequently" is about how academics categorize the schools of magic and their beliefs about how magic works. It's literally written to be subjective and doesn't have any serious ties to the cosmology and alignment. It's not a written rule, it's a piece of fluff.

Or are you arguing that the relevant text for Necromancy Wizards, which claims that necromantic forces are taboo and not necessarily evil, is wrong, when the majority of necromancer abilities are about creating undead, making them evil by default?

[Anymage]

...wether a skeleton has thoughts and opinions is though DM-dependant, so what we say isn't actually impactful.

Whether or not any of the orphans or nuns in the orphanage you set ablaze are really sentient creatures with their own thoughts and opinions (and feelings of pain and desire to continue living) is technically DM dependent. I think most of us are going to look extremely askance at someone insisting that isn't the case, so arguing that there's no moral fallout from barricading the doors and torching the place is unlikely to get you anywhere.




...losing control happens under specific conditions easily preventable. Slavery isn't a thing because it's MM fluff that doesn't apply to the spells in question, Conjure Elemental also creates barely controlled omnicidal monsters and it's actually easier for the elemental to go berserk on your allies than losing control of animated dead

A conjured elemental may be more likely to slip your control. It also only becomes hostile to you and your allies instead of every living thing, and goes away after an hour.

Whether or not "requires a spell slot every 24 hours, into perpetuity" is actually "easily preventable" over a long enough span of time is debatable. As is just how tight your control over the undead is. (Will the undead follow orders precisely and literally for 24 hours, or will it just generally do so in the same way that an employed human would?) I'm just noting that the bulk of precedent around the fluff shows clear intent, and that intent is not "undead are negative energy automatons with a simple maintenance schedule" is not that intent.

[Gtdead]

A conjured elemental may be more likely to slip your control. It also only becomes hostile to you and your allies instead of every living thing, and goes away after an hour.


Your allies can be anything since the spell doesn't specify anything. From your adventuring companions, to various weak npcs that will get slapped to death by the elemental. Innocents can die horribly if you cast this spell and lose concentration. Innocents that can't even protect themselves from it. Any caster with a clear objective to protect someone on route to somewhere will avoid casting this spell. Animate Dead on the contrary can be safely cast as long as the Wizard reserves a spell slot to keep control. Additionally if the Wizard knows that he can't keep control, he can order his minions to kill each other.

[SociopathFriend]

OP is sick atm but a few things to try and help:

The character in-question would always err on the, 'Keep the living, alive' end of the spectrum. Better to spare the evil than to unknowingly kill the good. There's a level of Cleric involved to get Spare the Dying.

Said character would be aware of what happens when Animated Dead go out of his control- he'd just believe it wouldn't ever happen to him.

And my character would not provoke just anyone to a fight so he could Animate them.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not a written rule, it's a piece of fluff.

And I'm sure you can point out where the PHB makes a distinction between the two, right? Hint: it doesn't.


Or are you arguing that the relevant text for Necromancy Wizards, which claims that necromantic forces are taboo and not necessarily evil, is wrong, when the majority of necromancer abilities are about creating undead, making them evil by default?

There's 19 spells belonging to the necromancy school on wizard's spell list in the PHB, including cantrips. Out of those, only 2 create undead. The necromancy school subclass give 5 separate abilities. Only one of those is about creating undead. Last time I've checked, 10.5% and 20% were not majority.

[Gtdead]

And I'm sure you can point out where the PHB makes a distinction between the two, right? Hint: it doesn't.

I mean, if the fact that it's on a different background and that the text reads:

"Academies of magic group spells into eight categories called
schools of magic. Scholars, particularly wizards, apply these
categories to all spells, believing that all magic functions in
essentially the same way, whether it derives from rigorous
study are is bestowed by a deity"

Doesn't hint that this is something different and not part of the ruleset then I don't exactly know what more confirmation you need. I mean sure, we can consider the page number to be a rule too. The PHB doesn't make any distinction between the two.




There's 19 spells belonging to the necromancy school on wizard's spell list in the PHB, including cantrips. Out of those, only 2 create undead. The necromancy school subclass give 5 separate abilities. Only one of those is about creating undead. Last time I've checked, 10.5% and 20% were not majority.

Resorting to tricky statistics won't help your case. Necromancy offers 5 abilities, 1 of them is shared between all the PHB schools, and of the other 4, 2 are about creating/controlling undead, one requires you to kill in order to benefit and the other clearly states that you have spent so much time dealing with undead.

So if we assume that the campaign doesn't even feature undead as villains, which isn't necessary by any means, how exactly have you spent so much time dealing with undead? Right. And that's the problem of reading fluff as rules.

I was extremely precise in what I said. If that's your argument, that you gain 19 levels, and only 1 ability has to do with creating undead, then I can rest my case. Seems that controlling the Undead is not an evil action. So if I cast Animate Dead on mass, but only just renew the control frequently, I'm not evil. Perfectly rational outcome and it's RAW.

[Anymage]

Your allies can be anything since the spell doesn't specify anything. From your adventuring companions, to various weak npcs that will get slapped to death by the elemental. Innocents can die horribly if you cast this spell and lose concentration. Innocents that can't even protect themselves from it. Any caster with a clear objective to protect someone on route to somewhere will avoid casting this spell. Animate Dead on the contrary can be safely cast as long as the Wizard reserves a spell slot to keep control. Additionally if the Wizard knows that he can't keep control, he can order his minions to kill each other.

While you're right that neither "allies" nor "companions" are explicitly defined in rules text, you're close to the point of intentionally dropping concentration on the spell only to declare that your party members are not allies/companions while the creatures you're fighting are, to get a concentration free elemental wailing on them. You can't stop that without the rules turning into excessive legalese. I'm content with just expecting such arguments to fall flat if tried at any real table.

You're right, though. If the party is escorting a fragile NPC, Conjure Elemental is an unwise risk if you expect potential concentration breakers in the next hour. Just like how having undead minions is a significant risk if there's any chance of you being killed/incapacitated/delayed at any point in the future.


OP is sick atm but a few things to try and help:

The character in-question would always err on the, 'Keep the living, alive' end of the spectrum. Better to spare the evil than to unknowingly kill the good. There's a level of Cleric involved to get Spare the Dying.

Said character would be aware of what happens when Animated Dead go out of his control- he'd just believe it wouldn't ever happen to him.

And my character would not provoke just anyone to a fight so he could Animate them.

Realistically speaking for the character, there's a lot that's DM dependent.

First and most importantly is, how dangerous are the undead actually? If you tell an undead to stand in one spot and wait for you for a couple of hours, will it be like a robot and stand motionless like a statue, or will it be like a person who might stretch and shift before returning to the spot? That's important because while a person might excuse themselves to relieve themselves or have a drink, the undead's basic urges will be to attack and kill any passerbys. This makes undead dangerous unless babysat like toddlers, and makes it a lot harder to justify being good aligned.

If undead are robots that are just prone to going berserk if you miss their maintenance, it's possible to be on the bright side of the alignment line. Good might be a stretch if you regularly animate the dead, but LN who's closer to G than E might be doable. That's putting a lot on the character's state of mind, though; I won't give an alignment ding to a character who honestly believes that he'll be able to never miss a maintenance cast, but when they see that the real world throws complications your way and that other people will suffer for your misjudgements you either have to update your character's behavior or face the facts that willful negligence does ding your alignment.

[Gtdead]

While you're right that neither "allies" nor "companions" are explicitly defined in rules text, you're close to the point of intentionally dropping concentration on the spell only to declare that your party members are not allies/companions while the creatures you're fighting are, to get a concentration free elemental wailing on them. You can't stop that without the rules turning into excessive legalese. I'm content with just expecting such arguments to fall flat if tried at any real table.

I really don't believe that this is allowed within the ruleset. I've seen people argue that such attitude changes can happen but I don't see it according to how social interaction is presented in the DMG. For this particular instance, changing your attitude against the party would require more than a declaration. At the very least it would require a deception roll and possibly a hostile action against them, so they would stop being your allies. But you can't become allied with the enemies just because you chose to do so. So the elemental will only be able to attack you because it's still hostile to you but now you have no allies because you probably attacked them and it's a free for all.

[Tanarii]

It's not a written rule, it's a piece of fluff.
5e doesn't ascribe to the mechanical / fluff divide. If you feel the need to categorize it, it is a roleplaying rule. Just like Alignment in the first place, and Paladin Tenets, and Druid armor restrictions.

[Gtdead]

5e doesn't ascribe to the mechanical / fluff divide. If you feel the need to categorize it, it is a roleplaying rule. Just like Alignment in the first place, and Paladin Tenets, and Druid armor restrictions.

Even if it doesn't, the text refers to what scholars and arcane academics believe and how they categorize magic, not that it's a given fact of the universe that frequent use of the spell makes you evil. If nothing is fluff, then everything must be taken into account including descriptions like Inured to Death's which I mentioned, which assumes that the necromancer has enough experience with the Undead even if he has never encountered one till level 10. So if you didn't have enough experience with them, you don't gain the ability. Battlemasters need to have an academic interest in combat otherwise no superiority dice, you can't pick Assassin subclass if you haven't become a hired killed till level 3 etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even if it doesn't, the text refers to what scholars and arcane academics believe and how they categorize magic, not that it's a given fact of the universe that frequent use of the spell makes you evil. If nothing is fluff, then everything must be taken into account including descriptions like Inured to Death's which I mentioned, which assumes that the necromancer has enough experience with the Undead even if he has never encountered one till level 10. So if you didn't have enough experience with them, you don't gain the ability. Battlemasters need to have an academic interest in combat otherwise no superiority dice, you can't pick Assassin subclass if you haven't become a hired killed till level 3 etc.

Yes, and? That's what the rules say.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, and? That's what the rules say.

Is that how anyone plays it?

Rules As Written is all well and good, but Rules As Actually Played are far more important.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is that how anyone plays it?

Rules As Written is all well and good, but Rules As Actually Played are far more important.

I have no problem with house rules and homebrew. But let's be honest about what we're doing. You can't claim to respect the rules and then ignore parts of them that aren't convenient--that's hypocritical. It's all rules; a change to any part of it is a house rule. When we keep that in mind, our view is unclouded and the play is more honest.

I have no truck for RAW as a concept. It's a forum construction (or completely trivial). But the forum denizens here seem to care. At least when it's convenient.

[JNAProductions]

I have no problem with house rules and homebrew. But let's be honest about what we're doing. You can't claim to respect the rules and then ignore parts of them that aren't convenient--that's hypocritical. It's all rules; a change to any part of it is a house rule. When we keep that in mind, our view is unclouded and the play is more honest.

I have no truck for RAW as a concept. It's a forum construction (or completely trivial). But the forum denizens here seem to care. At least when it's convenient.

I reject your premise that any deviation from any portion of the written rules in any small way is notable enough to be called a houserule. It dilutes the meaning to the point of uselessness.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I reject your premise that any deviation from any portion of the written rules in any small way is notable enough to be called a houserule. It dilutes the meaning to the point of uselessness.

What is small? How do we decide? The text itself is no help--it's all on the same footing. It doesn't have a fluff/crunch distinction. It's all text.

The important point is to not get into the habit of deciding that some rules aren't actually rules. Because that's just special pleading. Instead, be conscious about what you change. Understand the whole thing as presented and then consciously decide what parts to alter.

In my mind, the text is not actually binding rules at all. It's suggestions for the rules to be implemented by the table; defaults you can implement or not. Changing them is normal and proper and unremarkable...if you're doing it on purpose. If you're not doing it intentionally, it always ends with munchkinry. Because it becomes easier and easier to justify the changes that let you get what you want, consistency and coherence of the game and setting notwithstanding, when you don't even see them as changing anything. And getting into that habit doesn't do anyone any good.

And claiming to care about rules and RAW and then ignoring parts of it where inconvenient is dishonest. And that I don't like at all. Personally, I find the whole forum insistence on RAW as something special to be less than helpful for anything and it sets really bad expectations.

Edit: and I'd say that the term "house rule" as something distinct is already meaningless. You either have RAW as your god and any deviation is a house rule, no matter how small, or you have Rules as Played, in which case everything and nothing is a house rule (everything--use the meaning "a rule made at your house/place of play"; nothing--use the meaning "deviation from the rules"). You can't have RAW and then reserve "house rule" to mean only the changes you care to point out--that's inconsistent. And you can't appeal to Rules as Played and still care about house rules being something special.

[Tanarii]

That's fair enough.

There's something written in the book that says only evil casters frequently create undead.

Whether or not a table chooses to ignore or change that is up to the table.

But when asking "what alignment is this Necromancer that has this code" on the forum, it's relevant to point out there's a rule written in the book, as a basis for discussion. It doesn't really matter if it's used or not used, just that it's considered by the person asking the question, and others wanting to make suggestions on an appropriate alignment in their view. Since it is written.

[Bohandas]

Lawful Neutral

[SociopathFriend]

Realistically speaking for the character, there's a lot that's DM dependent.

First and most importantly is, how dangerous are the undead actually? If you tell an undead to stand in one spot and wait for you for a couple of hours, will it be like a robot and stand motionless like a statue, or will it be like a person who might stretch and shift before returning to the spot? That's important because while a person might excuse themselves to relieve themselves or have a drink, the undead's basic urges will be to attack and kill any passerbys. This makes undead dangerous unless babysat like toddlers, and makes it a lot harder to justify being good aligned.

If undead are robots that are just prone to going berserk if you miss their maintenance, it's possible to be on the bright side of the alignment line. Good might be a stretch if you regularly animate the dead, but LN who's closer to G than E might be doable. That's putting a lot on the character's state of mind, though; I won't give an alignment ding to a character who honestly believes that he'll be able to never miss a maintenance cast, but when they see that the real world throws complications your way and that other people will suffer for your misjudgements you either have to update your character's behavior or face the facts that willful negligence does ding your alignment.


(Still sick)

I think the DM would have then stand around and do nothing if ordered to do so. But just being left alone without an order would probably be cause for shenanigans- if not from the DM then from the other players hinting in the DM's direction that such a thing should happen.

Just to be clear- the character not believing he's evil doesn't mean he won't be evil. But I would agree if the Undead do break off and start mauling people- taking no steps to right that wrong, no steps to learn from the mistake, and no steps to change his methodology to a less-risky kind would definitely be evil.

[Valmark]

If you kill an humanoid, it's the corpse of an humanoid. If you kill an undead, it's the corpse of an undead.
No doubt there, but there's nothing saying that the corpse of a humanoid made zombie stops being the corpse of a humanoid, nor is there something saying that said zombie when killed isn't a corpse of a humanoid any longer if they are the corpse of an undead.

OP is sick atm but a few things to try and help:

The character in-question would always err on the, 'Keep the living, alive' end of the spectrum. Better to spare the evil than to unknowingly kill the good. There's a level of Cleric involved to get Spare the Dying.

Said character would be aware of what happens when Animated Dead go out of his control- he'd just believe it wouldn't ever happen to him.

And my character would not provoke just anyone to a fight so he could Animate them.
The first part is a good ground to make a Good character- the rest can be whatever really. It also depends on how the DM has tied undeads and necromancy at large into their world.

And I'm sure you can point out where the PHB makes a distinction between the two, right? Hint: it doesn't.



There's 19 spells belonging to the necromancy school on wizard's spell list in the PHB, including cantrips. Out of those, only 2 create undead. The necromancy school subclass give 5 separate abilities. Only one of those is about creating undead. Last time I've checked, 10.5% and 20% were not majority.
You can't claim no difference between mechanics and fluff and also say that necromancers (wizards) aren't mostly about undead- most of their features mention their skill with undeads/undeath.

Yes, and? That's what the rules say.
The text says you can't be an assassin if you aren't an hired killer before selecting the subclass?

That's fair enough.

There's something written in the book that says only evil casters frequently create undead.

Whether or not a table chooses to ignore or change that is up to the table.

But when asking "what alignment is this Necromancer that has this code" on the forum, it's relevant to point out there's a rule written in the book, as a basis for discussion. It doesn't really matter if it's used or not used, just that it's considered by the person asking the question, and others wanting to make suggestions on an appropriate alignment in their view. Since it is written.
Agreed, though the disagreement seems to me to be mostly about what said rule actually means.

(Still sick)

I think the DM would have then stand around and do nothing if ordered to do so. But just being left alone without an order would probably be cause for shenanigans- if not from the DM then from the other players hinting in the DM's direction that such a thing should happen.

Just to be clear- the character not believing he's evil doesn't mean he won't be evil. But I would agree if the Undead do break off and start mauling people- taking no steps to right that wrong, no steps to learn from the mistake, and no steps to change his methodology to a less-risky kind would definitely be evil.

Tbh if even the party's gonna try and make the undeads attack people you're kinda screwed either way I think. Aside from that, yes all that makes for a more evil character- especially if they also don't feel remorse or a similaf emotion.

[tokek]

No doubt there, but there's nothing saying that the corpse of a humanoid made zombie stops being the corpse of a humanoid, nor is there something saying that said zombie when killed isn't a corpse of a humanoid any longer if they are the corpse of an undead.



Well there are the designer comments I linked to earlier in the conversation which confirm exactly that - once you turn a creature into undead using Animate Dead they are transformed into creature type Undead and they stay that way. The spell has no clause stating otherwise like the Polymorph spells do - there was never any reason to think that they magically reverted even before those tweets which confirmed that they do not.

True Polymorph on a corpse into an undead would revert to whatever corpse it was at the point the undead drops to zero HP because the spell says so and only because of that. Animate Dead has no such text and does not do that. If you want to add such rules to your game that's fine but its not much use in a discussion about the shared game we all play which is the one with published rules.

[Valmark]

Well there are the designer comments I linked to earlier in the conversation which confirm exactly that - once you turn a creature into undead using Animate Dead they are transformed into creature type Undead and they stay that way. The spell has no clause stating otherwise like the Polymorph spells do - there was never any reason to think that they magically reverted even before those tweets which confirmed that they do not.

True Polymorph on a corpse into an undead would revert to whatever corpse it was at the point the undead drops to zero HP because the spell says so and only because of that. Animate Dead has no such text and does not do that. If you want to add such rules to your game that's fine but its not much use in a discussion about the shared game we all play which is the one with published rules.

Designer comments still aren't a rule though. You tecnically aren't even turning a creature into another creature- you're turning an object into a creature. I don't think Animate Dead says anything about what happens when said creature becomes an object again through killing it.

You're also adding a rule if you claim that the corpse doesn't count as the corpse of the humanoid any longer as there's nothing saying it doesn't or does, so this is kind of a snake that bites its own tail. You can spin it both ways.

[Gtdead]

Yes, and? That's what the rules say.

Again, the rule says that this is the belief between academics and scholars. Is this the topic of the thread? No. The argument used is "5e designers rule that using animate dead frequently is evil". This is not what the text says and I was "accused" (for the lack of a better word, I'm not taking offense) that I'm ignoring text which proves the argument when I'm not.

[tokek]

Designer comments still aren't a rule though. You tecnically aren't even turning a creature into another creature- you're turning an object into a creature. I don't think Animate Dead says anything about what happens when said creature becomes an object again through killing it.

You're also adding a rule if you claim that the corpse doesn't count as the corpse of the humanoid any longer as there's nothing saying it doesn't or does, so this is kind of a snake that bites its own tail. You can spin it both ways.

You can assume that the effects of Instant spells spontaneously reverse in your game if you like. For some reason it is a thing that Crawford has been asked to clarify and he did. Animate Dead has duration Instant and its effects do not reverse - the creature type was changed to Undead and stays as undead.

Personally I always thought that was pretty clear but it seems some people needed clarification that it really is the case. As this discussion shows some other people don't want to listen to the clarification either. In which case nothing anyone will ever say will persuade those people I guess.

[JNAProductions]

You can assume that the effects of Instant spells spontaneously reverse in your game if you like. For some reason it is a thing that Crawford has been asked to clarify and he did. Animate Dead has duration Instant and its effects do not reverse - the creature type was changed to Undead and stays as undead.

Personally I always thought that was pretty clear but it seems some people needed clarification that it really is the case. As this discussion shows some other people don't want to listen to the clarification either. In which case nothing anyone will ever say will persuade those people I guess.

An Animated Object is, I believe, treated as a Construct. If you use Animate Objects and target a corpse, is that corpse now ineligible for resurrections because it was a construct last?

[Psyren]

An Animated Object is, I believe, treated as a Construct. If you use Animate Objects and target a corpse, is that corpse now ineligible for resurrections because it was a construct last?

5e Raise Dead and Resurrection don't care about creature type (beyond the "this doesn't work on an undead creature" restriction.) Revivify doesn't even care about that, though the time limit effectively functions as an undead restriction too.

Reincarnate does have a type restriction (humanoid only) so this might interfere with that.

[tokek]

An Animated Object is, I believe, treated as a Construct. If you use Animate Objects and target a corpse, is that corpse now ineligible for resurrections because it was a construct last?


Animate Objects has a duration of 1 Minute. Animate Dead has a duration of Instant. I'd suggest you go read the rules to understand why one is temporary and the other is permanent.

Its not hard. Its in the rules, its perfectly clear.

[JNAProductions]

Animate Objects has a duration of 1 Minute. Animate Dead has a duration of Instant. I'd suggest you go read the rules to understand why one is temporary and the other is permanent.

Its not hard. Its in the rules, its perfectly clear.

No part of the Animate Dead spell says "The creature may not be later brought to life again."
No part says "The body is no longer considered humanoid."

I see your reading-but I don't think it's the only possible reading.

[JackPhoenix]

No part of the Animate Dead spell says "The creature may not be later brought to life again."

That's because it's not true: You can use True Resurrection or Wish to revive the original creature. Maybe Reincarnate if you have leftover body parts that weren't used to create undead, or Clone, if you've set it up in advance.


No part says "The body is no longer considered humanoid."

That's because it's redundant. Skeleton or zombie is an undead, not a humanoid. The body effectively cease to exist, it's a creature now, and once that creature dies, it leaves behind a corpse of an undead.

[OldTrees1]

The body effectively cease to exist

Citation needed.

This is a case of mismatched premises.

An elf died. Its corpse was used to animated a zombie. The zombie was destroyed. Where is the elf's corpse?

Group A points at the body: "Over there duh. Same corpse as the zombie's corpse."

Group B points nowhere: "Doesn't exist duh"

You can't convince each other merely by asserting your conclusion.

If a being uses a fleshbag as a body and dies while within that fleshbag, then the fleshbag is their corpse. Why assume it is uniquely their corpse? Why assume a corpse can't be the corpse of multiple beings?

A human undergoes ceremorphosis and dies. Later the Illithid dies. Still later the remains are animated as a zombie. The zombie also dies.

I count 1 corpse for 3 beings. That is what happens when multiple beings shared the same body and took turns dying. You count 1 corpse for 1 being. That is what happens if you only count the last being. Despite using the same rules, the different premises result in different conclusions.


Although I wonder if this argument is still relevant to the OP. It sounds like the thread could be summarized by now.
Some view it as evil because it created an undead.
Some view it as lawful because the order's ideals are rather orderly.
Some view it as not enough information on G/N/E because creating an undead does not dictate alignment must be evil.
Some view it as not enough information on L/N/C because belonging to an orderly order does not dictate alignment must be lawful.

[Bohandas]

If creating undead is inherently evil then it is necessary for alignment must work in a sort of mechanistic manner. Some actions just accumulate certain kinds of karma and there really isn't a philosophical reason for it any more than there's a philosophical reason for opposite magnetic poles to attract

EDIT:
Or conversely it turns alignment into a popularity contest. Some actions correspond to a given alignment for no reason other than a lot of people have arbitrarily decided that they do and the outer planes respond to belief

[PhoenixPhyre]

If creating undead is inherently evil then it is necessary for alignment must work in a sort of mechanistic manner. Some actions just accumulate certain kinds of karma and there really isn't a philosophical reason for it any more than there's a philosophical reason for opposite magnetic poles to attract


I believe this is really the canon answer. Philosophies explain (or attempt to) why something is evil, but the universe doesn't care about that. Some things simply are evil and others good.

I'll note that I don't like that view, but I don't like (or use) cosmological alignment--it's purely an optional roleplaying descriptor that has no in-universe essence. Nothing and no-one has a pre-set alignment for me. And there isn't even a "good afterlife" vs a "bad afterlife". There's an afterlife...sort of. For everyone except those poor saps who ended up getting eaten by demons.

That doesn't make creating undead good (in the eyes of most of the people)--it involves summoning malign entities called jotnar (basically entropy spirits) from a tear in the fabric of reality itself to inhabit the corpses. To exist, the jotnar drain the life out of everything around them by their presence. Slowly, mostly, but a heavily undead-infested area is basically sterile; even the rocks start to break down eventually. Nothing can grow there. Lighter infestation merely reduces fertility of everything. And their presence weakens the walls between Shadow, the Mortal, and the Abyss, letting more jotnar leak through. This is widely considered a bad thing.

[Tanarii]

If creating undead is inherently evil then it is necessary for alignment must work in a sort of mechanistic manner. Some actions just accumulate certain kinds of karma and there really isn't a philosophical reason for it any more than there's a philosophical reason for opposite magnetic poles to attractNope. All it indicates is that only an already evil creature would consider frequently creating undead through necromancy magic. It's just telling us how people in a world with necromancy magic and alignment think. Since, yknow, neither are real.

[zzzzzzzz414]

I believe this is really the canon answer. Philosophies explain (or attempt to) why something is evil, but the universe doesn't care about that. Some things simply are evil and others good.

I'll note that I don't like that view, but I don't like (or use) cosmological alignment--it's purely an optional roleplaying descriptor that has no in-universe essence. Nothing and no-one has a pre-set alignment for me. And there isn't even a "good afterlife" vs a "bad afterlife". There's an afterlife...sort of. For everyone except those poor saps who ended up getting eaten by demons.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of alignment in general but I've especially never liked the "arbitrary mechanistic bad karma" interpretation that sometimes comes up. Mostly because categorizing any behavior as "accrues cosmic evil points no matter what" just makes the whole thing rather silly and useless as an actual barometer of character/roleplaying guide.

If the pragmatic loner mercenary mage who sees skeletons as tools to be used or misused, the goodhearted-but-reckless Wee Jas cleric who uses undead to rescue puppies from burning orphanages, and the Xykon expy who enjoys kicking said puppies to death and then turning them into skeletons, all ping as "Chaotic Evil" by RAW, something has gone wrong with the morality system. And now I have to throw it out, because the suggested behaviors and mindset for "Chaotic Evil" characters are not at all useful for roleplaying the former two characters, or determining how NPCs will react to them. "Evil" as an alignment is thus made into even more of a meaningless team banner than it already is.

Now, if there is observable, measurable, tangible harm caused by the mere creation/existence of undead specifically, like with your example, then that's another thing. (Really that's just basic good worldbuilding if you want "evil" and "undead" to be meaningfully intertwined.) But the "negative karma points because God/the universe says so" model that dnd sometimes uses has always irritated me.

[furby076]

It's lawful evil.

The character has a code of conduct, but animating the dead (not reanimating, animating) is:

1) the enslavement of sapient entities

2) said entities are omnicidal and will try to murder every living being they can if the necromancer lose control of them

3) the energy that animates undead can causes other undead to spontaneously appears, and the necromancer wouldn't have any control over them.

4) turning a corpse into an undead make it much harder for resurrection to be conducted on the person the corpse was

Therefore, animating the dead as much as this code of conduct implies is either causing harm directly, or creating circumstances that are likely to cause harm.

And having a code of conduct like this is the base principle of lawul evil.

1) Aren't the dead considered objects? if so, then #1 is out.
2) A wizard who is not careful with his maelstrom can also hurt innocents. Take care in your tools
3) I don't recall this...so animating undead has a random chance to spawn other undead?
4) Resurrection is incredibly rare. Aso, if someone tried to kill me or my friends, I don't necessarily want them being rasied.

Necromancy is such a touchy subject in D&D. I'd not want to limit a player being able to play a necromancer in a good/neutral parties...in the end, the very nature of PCs is to rack up the body count

[tokek]

That's because it's redundant. Skeleton or zombie is an undead, not a humanoid. The body effectively cease to exist, it's a creature now, and once that creature dies, it leaves behind a corpse of an undead.

The body has been permanently transformed into something else - and undead. Which is exactly what the spell says it does and its a permanent not temporary transformation, the spell has duration Instant and no built-in end condition (unlike a permanent True Polymorph spell).

When you turn a bagful of wheat into a loaf of bread the wheat still sort of exists - but not as wheat and you can't grow fresh wheat plants from it any more. We can indeed say that the wheat no longer exists because it has been changed into something else that we call something else and which has different properties.

[tokek]

No part of the Animate Dead spell says "The creature may not be later brought to life again."
No part says "The body is no longer considered humanoid."

I see your reading-but I don't think it's the only possible reading.

It is the obvious reading of the spell and has been confirmed as the correct reading by the game designer multiple times. I posted the link already.

Also its not quite true that they cannot be brought to life again - there are 9th lvl spells which could do it.

[tokek]

If the pragmatic loner mercenary mage who sees skeletons as tools to be used or misused, the goodhearted-but-reckless Wee Jas cleric who uses undead to rescue puppies from burning orphanages, and the Xykon expy who enjoys kicking said puppies to death and then turning them into skeletons, all ping as "Chaotic Evil" by RAW, something has gone wrong with the morality system. And now I have to throw it out, because the suggested behaviors and mindset for "Chaotic Evil" characters are not at all useful for roleplaying the former two characters, or determining how NPCs will react to them. "Evil" as an alignment is thus made into even more of a meaningless team banner than it already is.




Wee Jas is an interesting example to bring up because it strictly limits the raising of undead to achieve that Lawful Neutral position. Going back to the OP only the first of their rules would confirm with the rules of Wee Jas.

The one about anyone attacking the necromancer would require more legal process than it has in that rule to conform to the "Only when lawful" permitted reason by Wee Jas.

The "I found it by the roadside" rule would just not work with Wee Jas at all.

I think we can all agree that strict conformance to the Wee Jas rules can be Lawful Neutral. The reason why I've seen players of necromancers not want to use that as a means for their character to not be evil aligned is that they didn't want the restrictions. But its the restrictions that make it non-evil. A necromancer following Wee Jas would very rarely actually raise undead, because it would very rarely satisfy the full legal requirements.


It can have out of game consequences too. Part of the whole reason why this is such a touchy subject is that the necromancer archetype does not play well in the game with a number of good aligned (or even some neutral aligned) archetypes. Its just a difficult party fit and very often it pushes those other archetypes out of the game. Its quite easy to say why your necromancer character wants to hang out with the rest of the party but its quite often hard to justify why those characters would want to hang out with a necromancer, unless you go the evil party route of course.

[JackPhoenix]

Citation needed.

This is a case of mismatched premises.

An elf died. Its corpse was used to animated a zombie. The zombie was destroyed. Where is the elf's corpse?

Group A points at the body: "Over there duh. Same corpse as the zombie's corpse."

Group B points nowhere: "Doesn't exist duh"

Effectively, not physically. The body is still there, but for basically all rule purposes, excluding 9th level spells that specifically say otherwise, it's the corpse of a zombie. Revivify (if cast within minute of the zombie's destruction) will bring back the zombie. Raise Dead or Reincarnation can no longer bring back the original creature.


A human undergoes ceremorphosis and dies. Later the Illithid dies. Still later the remains are animated as a zombie. The zombie also dies.

I count 1 corpse for 3 beings. That is what happens when multiple beings shared the same body and took turns dying. You count 1 corpse for 1 being. That is what happens if you only count the last being. Despite using the same rules, the different premises result in different conclusions.

That's funny, because that's not how it works. If the human dies during ceremorphosis, he's a dead human, with all that entails. Killing and reviving the host before the ceremorphosis is completed is, in fact, only way to get the human back without resorting to Wish. Ceremorphosis doesn't kill the host, it transforms him in a way even more permanent than zombification. And mind flayers can't be animated as zombies, as they are aberrations, not humanoids.


It can have out of game consequences too. Part of the whole reason why this is such a touchy subject is that the necromancer archetype does not play well in the game with a number of good aligned (or even some neutral aligned) archetypes. Its just a difficult party fit and very often it pushes those other archetypes out of the game. Its quite easy to say why your necromancer character wants to hang out with the rest of the party but its quite often hard to justify why those characters would want to hang out with a necromancer, unless you go the evil party route of course.

Evil people can still have friends, and just because you're evil enough to resort to mass creation of undead doesn't mean you also have to be a puppy-kicking psychopath. There's nothing wrong with playing an evil character, especially ona that's deluded he's somehow doing a good thing.

[tokek]

Evil people can still have friends, and just because you're evil enough to resort to mass creation of undead doesn't mean you also have to be a puppy-kicking psychopath. There's nothing wrong with playing an evil character, especially ona that's deluded he's somehow doing a good thing.

Very hard to have monster hunting friends who regard undead as monsters (which most monster hunters would) while openly messing around with undead. Monster hunters and undead slayers are pretty common archetypes for good aligned characters and there are a bunch of class/sub-class abilities tied to it.

I've seen the issue in play, someone wants that PC Necromancer and makes other characters pretty much unplayable. Its not like WoTC don't see the issue, that's why they made the undead raising sub-classes for Cleric and Paladin evil NPC options in the DMG. The question then is what to do with the playable Wizard sub-class if they lean into the problem area and make it hard to play those other classic archetypes in the same party. Its a classic session zero problem and its no good pretending its not a thing a DM would need to tackle one way or another.

[JackPhoenix]

Very hard to have monster hunting friends who regard undead as monsters (which most monster hunters would) while openly messing around with undead. Monster hunters and undead slayers are pretty common archetypes for good aligned characters and there are a bunch of class/sub-class abilities tied to it.

Very easy to make "fight fire with fire" counterpoint, though. After all, necromancers are resistant to some tricks undead employ, and a vampire or a lich controlled and forced to cooperate in its destruction makes for a much easier battle.

[Unoriginal]

If creating undead is inherently evil then it is necessary for alignment must work in a sort of mechanistic manner. Some actions just accumulate certain kinds of karma and there really isn't a philosophical reason for it any more than there's a philosophical reason for opposite magnetic poles to attract

EDIT:
Or conversely it turns alignment into a popularity contest. Some actions correspond to a given alignment for no reason other than a lot of people have arbitrarily decided that they do and the outer planes respond to belief

Creating an undead isn't inherently evil, it is merely "not a good act". Which is logical, since you are either enslaving a sapient entity (remember, in 5e, non-sapient creatures are unaligned, it takes sapience to be one of the evil alignment) or unleashing an evil entity on the world, plus there is a risk undead cause more undead to appear.

Creating an undead ro act as distraction while you're saving innocents from a burning building isn't going to male you a bad guy.

However, alignment represent your typical behavior. Regularly shoving malevolent entities in bodies which make them roughly as dangerous as velociraptors, and then either partaking in slavery until you banish them back to where they came from once they're no longer convenient, or unleashi said evil entities on a world they want to purge of all life, knowing the risk of more, uncontrolled undead appesring due ro your actions, does not fit the description of any of the good or neutral alignments.

And if someone want to argue that all those consequences are "just fluff": they're as much fluff as alignment is, by that logic.

If you want undead without those consequences, just use Summon Undead.

[Tanarii]

Very easy to make "fight fire with fire" counterpoint, though. After all, necromancers are resistant to some tricks undead employ, and a vampire or a lich controlled and forced to cooperate in its destruction makes for a much easier battle.
An evil Necromancer isn't going to easily be able to make a fight fire with fire argument to a good party. That's the point.

There's a reason Raistlin switched to an NPC and left the party when he switched to a black robe.

Evil characters can work fine in some neutral party or evil party of course. And sometimes they can even work temporarily alongside a good party when goals align, anti-hero style. But long term it doesn't work out.

And that's typically the root cause of why players are driven to try and justify why their Necromancer actually isn't evil.

[Unoriginal]

And that's typically the root cause of why players are driven to try and justify why their Necromancer actually isn't evil.

I've seen too many 'my character kills and tortures on a whim, are they lawful good like Thanos or just true neutral?' posts to believe long term teamwork is among their concerns.

Some people just don't want to be called "bad".

With 5e and necromancy, the additional context is that there is a lot of people who prefer undead to be basically just programable robots who happen to be made of recycled corpses. Generally paired with "and the undead provide reliable labor which enable X awesome thing".

Which is legit, you like what you like, and it can be a fun trope.

The problen is many of the people refuse to acknowledge 5e explicitly said that it did not and will not use this trope, and insist that people who acknowledge the books are wrong.

'It's like that in the book, but I don't like it so I change it for my settings" is not some kind of shameful admition, but some have a problem with it, evidently.

[OldTrees1]

Effectively, not physically. The body is still there, but for basically all rule purposes, excluding 9th level spells that specifically say otherwise, it's the corpse of a zombie. Revivify (if cast within minute of the zombie's destruction) will bring back the zombie. Raise Dead or Reincarnation can no longer bring back the original creature.

Citation needed. Nowhere it RAW does it state that the corpse of the zombie is no longer the corpse of the elf. That is a premise you are injecting and also trying to conclude. Begging the question does not convince anyone.

Kill an elf. Animated the elf corpse as a zombie. Kill the zombie. You now have a corpse. It is a corpse of the zombie but is it also still the corpse of the elf? RAW does not answer the latter question. The ongoing argument is merely mismatched personal rulings rather than anything in the rules. Recognizing that the argument has exceeded the text is the only resolution to the argument. Anything else will result in two sides vehemently insisting on a Rules as Interpreted argument stemming from a difference in non RAW premises.


That's funny, because that's not how it works. If the human dies during ceremorphosis, he's a dead human, with all that entails. Killing and reviving the host before the ceremorphosis is completed is, in fact, only way to get the human back without resorting to Wish. Ceremorphosis doesn't kill the host, it transforms him in a way even more permanent than zombification.

Ceremorphosis does kill the victim. Only the Illithid survives the process of eating the victim brain and transforming the body. The closest the victim can get to "surviving" is greatly impacting the personality of the Illithid. You are right that the body is transformed, however the victim dies.

However you missed the point. The point is the unresolved difference in premises and RAW not speaking on the topic. You see the corpse as only being associated with 1 of the slain. Others see the corpse as being associated with multiple of the slain. That difference in premises negates all arguments you make that rely on your premise but fail under the other premise. To make headway you would need to either prove your premise, or recognize the premises are rulings rather that RAW.


And mind flayers can't be animated as zombies, as they are aberrations, not humanoids.
There are zombie beholders. They were animated as zombies. Though probably not with the animated dead spell due the baseline restriction.

However you missed the point. The point is the unresolved difference in premises and RAW not speaking on the topic. You see the corpse as only being associated with 1 of the slain. Others see the corpse as being associated with multiple of the slain. That difference in premises negates all arguments you make that rely on your premise but fail under the other premise. To make headway you would need to either prove your premise, or recognize the premises are rulings rather that RAW.

[tokek]

Citation needed. Nowhere it RAW does it state that the corpse of the zombie is no longer the corpse of the elf. That is a premise you are injecting and also trying to conclude. Begging the question does not convince anyone.



https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-revify-a-killed-zombie/

Animate Dead changes the creature type. Revivify does not, hence that answer.

I never thought it was at all unclear but clearly enough people do that the designer answered the question.

[Valmark]

The body has been permanently transformed into something else - and undead. Which is exactly what the spell says it does and its a permanent not temporary transformation, the spell has duration Instant and no built-in end condition (unlike a permanent True Polymorph spell).

When you turn a bagful of wheat into a loaf of bread the wheat still sort of exists - but not as wheat and you can't grow fresh wheat plants from it any more. We can indeed say that the wheat no longer exists because it has been changed into something else that we call something else and which has different properties.
You still haven't showed where it says that turning the corpse into an undead makes it not the corpse of whatever it was before. You can keep repeating your logic, but unless you can grab some explicit piece of text it's no more valid then the opposite.

It is the obvious reading of the spell and has been confirmed as the correct reading by the game designer multiple times. I posted the link already.

Also its not quite true that they cannot be brought to life again - there are 9th lvl spells which could do it.
The game designer's reading and the correct reading aren't necessarily the same thing- and given this thread was the first time I heard of it it's probably not the obvious reading. Before this thread I'd have thought it nonsense (I tecnically still think it's nonsense, but I can see how the text can be interpreted either way).

Effectively, not physically. The body is still there, but for basically all rule purposes, excluding 9th level spells that specifically say otherwise, it's the corpse of a zombie. Revivify (if cast within minute of the zombie's destruction) will bring back the zombie. Raise Dead or Reincarnation can no longer bring back the original creature.

Same as before, there is still nothing saying that the corpse of a zombie isn't the corpse of whatever it was before.

Creating an undead isn't inherently evil, it is merely "not a good act". Which is logical, since you are either enslaving a sapient entity (remember, in 5e, non-sapient creatures are unaligned, it takes sapience to be one of the evil alignment) or unleashing an evil entity on the world, plus there is a risk undead cause more undead to appear.

Worth it to note that if it was the enslavement of sapient creatures every summoner should have moral issues unless... What is there that summons non-sapient creatures? The new summon spells and that's it?

Unless you use... Wights, I think, there's never an issue with making more undeads by mistake.

I've seen too many 'my character kills and tortures on a whim, are they lawful good like Thanos or just true neutral?' posts to believe long term teamwork is among their concerns.


I'm glad I never had to read someone call MCU Thanos lawful good. Even if we pretended for a second that he's smart enough to have an alignment.

[OldTrees1]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-revify-a-killed-zombie/

Animate Dead changes the creature type. Revivify does not, hence that answer.

I never thought it was at all unclear but clearly enough people do that the designer answered the question.

They did not answer the question I asked (I asked about the location of the elf corpse) and that is not a RAW citation.

Can you cite RAW where the corpse of an elf, when animated as zombie, and then the zombie is slain, ceases to be a corpse of that elf? You can cite it as being a corpse of a zombie but you have not provided evidence that it is not still a corpse of an elf. I see nothing in the Animate Dead spell that says the zombie corpse is not also the elf corpse. It is the same corpse used by multiple beings.

I never thought it was at all unclear, but clearly you have a different premise. I can recognize the premise mismatch and recognize the rules do not address the question. I learned in this thread that it is ambiguous and dependent on the premises of the user. Never expecting something to be ambiguous does not prevent it from being ambiguous.

[Bohandas]

Regularly shoving malevolent entities in bodies which make them roughly as dangerous as velociraptors, and then either partaking in slavery until you banish them back to where they came from once they're no longer convenient, or unleashi said evil entities on a world they want to purge of all life, knowing the risk of more, uncontrolled undead appesring due ro your actions, does not fit the description of any of the good or neutral alignments.

That must be new in 5e. I'm more familiar with 2e and 3e where zombies did not work like The Evil Dead

EDIT:
And nor could they create new zombies

[OldTrees1]

That must be new in 5e. I'm more familiar with 2e and 3e where zombies did not work like The Evil Dead

EDIT:
And nor could they create new zombies

In 3E Libris Mortis (IIRC) these flavors of undead were examples of different world building the GM could do. In 3E it was clearly labeled as an example.

In 5E (IIRC) this flavor is given as an example somewhere and some interpret it to be default (it might be in 5E).

[Brookshw]

Can you cite RAW where the corpse of an elf, when animated as zombie, and then the zombie is slain, ceases to be a corpse of that elf? You can cite it as being a corpse of a zombie but you have not provided evidence that it is not still a corpse of an elf. I see nothing in the Animate Dead spell that says the zombie corpse is not also the elf corpse. It is the same corpse used by multiple beings.


That's not his point to prove, it's yours. That the corpse is that of a recently undead is not in dispute. Your assertion is that some previous creature type remains despite the humanoid to undead conversion having changed the creature type. Until RAW is provided to support that, the creature type remains undead as it was.

[Unoriginal]

That must be new in 5e.

They were indeed not portrayed like that in other editions. But the MM makes clear that this is the default lore for 5e.

[Valmark]

That's not his point to prove, it's yours. That the corpse is that of a recently undead is not in dispute. Your assertion is that some previous creature type remains despite the humanoid to undead conversion having changed the creature type. Until RAW is provided to support that, the creature type remains undead as it was.

This goes both ways. One is saying that if you turn a corpse into an undead it's no longer a corpse of whatever it was before- one is saying that turning a corpse into an undead doesn't mean it's no longer a corpse of whatever it was before.

The main difference is that in the latter's case, the fact that the text doesn't say that somebody's corpse stops being a corpse of whatever they were originally is the main point while in the former's case you need to add words to the text for it to be 'truer' over other rulings.

[Brookshw]

This goes both ways. One is saying that if you turn a corpse into an undead it's no longer a corpse of whatever it was before- one is saying that turning a corpse into an undead doesn't mean it's no longer a corpse of whatever it was before.

The main difference is that in the latter's case, the fact that the text doesn't say that somebody's corpse stops being a corpse of whatever they were originally is the main point while in the former's case you need to add words to the text for it to be 'truer' over other rulings.

I don't agree it goes both ways. We know what the creature was when it died. Unless you can substantiate that there was some duality taking place, i.e., that the zombie was an elf and a zombie, then it was a zombie, and the corpse is that of a zombie.

Mind you, this is just discussing it from a RAW perspective, I'm not claiming it makes sense in a common sense sort of way.

[JNAProductions]

That's not his point to prove, it's yours. That the corpse is that of a recently undead is not in dispute. Your assertion is that some previous creature type remains despite the humanoid to undead conversion having changed the creature type. Until RAW is provided to support that, the creature type remains undead as it was.

English is not a technical language.
5E isn't a technical book.

Ambiguity is possible.

[Brookshw]

English is not a technical language.
5E isn't a technical book.

Ambiguity is possible.

In order: (1) it's not often used as one but can be used as such, (2) generally agreed, (3) it is possible.

None of that helps resolve the question at hand as to whether this case is ambiguous, and, if not, what the correct interpretation is.

[JNAProductions]

In order: (1) it's not often used as one but can be used as such, (2) generally agreed, (3) it is possible.

None of that helps resolve the question at hand as to whether this case is ambiguous, and, if not, what the correct interpretation is.

Perhaps I should've been more obvious, then.

You can read it both ways-neither reading is disallowed by the text, nor does either reading have vastly more support than the other, sticking to the books.

[Brookshw]

Perhaps I should've been more obvious, then.

You can read it both ways-neither reading is disallowed by the text, nor does either reading have vastly more support than the other, sticking to the books.

I understood what you wanted to say; you (well, Oldtrees) have to establish by RAW a durable duality which survives a change in creature before an ambiguity can be established. Oldtrees incorrectly put the burden on proof on totek, it is not totek's burden to disprove an unproven position.

[Bohandas]

They were indeed not portrayed like that in other editions. But the MM makes clear that this is the default lore for 5e.

That's kind of dumb. Even in Evil Dead it didn't really make sense

[OldTrees1]

I understood what you wanted to say; you (well, Oldtrees) have to establish by RAW a durable duality which survives a change in creature before an ambiguity can be established. Oldtrees incorrectly put the burden on proof on totek, it is not totek's burden to disprove an unproven position.

I correctly recognize neither group will convince the other as long as they both continue to ignore the other side is using different premises. The difference in opinion is due to a difference in premises and RAW does not rule on which premise. There is no resolution to that argument without realizing the argument is based on a difference in premises.

If either side wishes to prove their position, they have the burden of proof to show the other side the RAW citation that addresses the difference in premises. Neither side will do so because there is no such RAW citation. That is my point.

(I did also elaborate that this whole thread can already be summarized as resolved but you were not engaging that point)

I do not have the burden to prove group A's or group B's position. I am not trying to convince either group that they are wrong. I am claiming neither group's premise can be cited by RAW. I can't prove a negative but everyone's efforts (including my own) failing to find a citation is evidence in favor of the negative.

[tokek]

False. I correctly recognize neither group will convince the other as long as they both continue to ignore the other side is using different premises. The difference in opinion is due to a difference in premises and RAW does not rule on which premise. There is no resolution to that argument without realizing the argument is based on a difference in premises.

If either side wishes to prove their position, they have the burden of proof to show the other side the RAW citation that addresses the difference in premises. Neither side will do so because there is no such RAW citation. That is my point.

(I did also elaborate that this whole thread can already be summarized as resolved but you were not engaging that point)

I do not have the burden to prove group A's or group B's position. I am not trying to convince either group that they are wrong. I am claiming neither group's premise can be cited by RAW. I can't prove a negative but everyone's efforts (including my own) failing to find a citation is evidence in favor of the negative.

For Raise Dead and Resurrection there is no ambiguity, that was clarified in the Sage Advice a good while ago. Those spell explicitly do not work on undead and it says so in the spell description. Also it says so in the official rules clarification/errata that a destroyed undead is the remains of undead not of humanoid


Can I cast animate dead on the human-
oid-shaped corpse of an undead creature such as
a zombie or a ghast? When animate dead targets a
corpse, the body must have belonged to a creature of the
humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

( https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf )

That has been in the sage advice for well over a year now, its consequences for Raise Dead and Resurrection spell are entirely obvious. You cannot do it for the same reason that you cannot Animate Dead on that corpse - it is not the body of a humanoid creature type but is the body of Undead creature type.

I will agree that Revivify was not crystal clear because like animating a skeleton it has no creature type restriction - the link I posted earlier clarifies that it works consistently with the above in treating the destroyed zombie as the body of a zombie and you bring a zombie back to unlife if you do it.

(Prior to 2020 I agree it could have been ambiguous but that's a while ago now and if people are debating rules then please debate the up to date rules - they clarify and amend them to help us and it does nobody any good ignoring that they have done so)

[Brookshw]

I correctly recognize neither group will convince the other as long as they both continue to ignore the other side is using different premises. The difference in opinion is due to a difference in premises and RAW does not rule on which premise. There is no resolution to that argument without realizing the argument is based on a difference in premises.

If either side wishes to prove their position, they have the burden of proof to show the other side the RAW citation that addresses the difference in premises. Neither side will do so because there is no such RAW citation. That is my point.

(I did also elaborate that this whole thread can already be summarized as resolved but you were not engaging that point)

I do not have the burden to prove group A's or group B's position. I am not trying to convince either group that they are wrong. I am claiming neither group's premise can be cited by RAW. I can't prove a negative but everyone's efforts (including my own) failing to find a citation is evidence in favor of the negative.

Shenanigans. Just saying "different premises" is not some magical cure all elixir, those premises still need to be supported. Totek is providing RAW to support his premise, and you've wrongly insisted on his further RAW to disprove your unsupported premise. You don't need to prove a negative, you need RAW support of the durability of a creature after having become a different creature. I don't necessarily disagree with you, you're just arguing in bad form.

[OldTrees1]

-snip-

None of that was relevant to the question.

1) I am not asking about casting Raise Dead on an undead. I am asking about casting on the corpse of the dead humanoid while it is not an undead creature. Aka after the zombie has been slain. At that point we both agree that a zombie also died in that body so it is also a corpse of a destroyed undead.
2) Sage Advice is not RAW. Citing Sage Advice, and failing to even find a relevant citation there, continues to provide evidence that RAW does not address whether the fleshbag remains the corpse of the elf (aka the elf died and that is the current state of their remains) or whether the fleshbag ceases to be the corpse of the elf (aka your premise).


Shenanigans. Just saying "different premises" is not some magical cure all elixir, those premises still need to be supported. Totek is providing RAW to support his premise, and you've wrongly insisted on his further RAW to disprove your unsupported premise. You don't need to prove a negative, you need RAW support of the durability of a creature after having become a different creature. I don't necessarily disagree with you, you're just arguing in bad form.

Totek is not providing RAW (Sage Advice is not RAW) and is not providing anything relevant to the question of the premises (have you read those "citations"?). After the zombie is slain, point to the corpse of the elf or find a citation that says that the fleshbag that once housed the elf and is not currently undead is not the dead body that once housed the elf. Or join me in recognizing the difference in premises about the elf corpse is not addressed by RAW.

It is not arguing in bad form to point out that some hold the premise that after the zombie is slain the elf's corpse does/does not exist and that no citation in the Rules addresses this difference in premises.

In contrast you are asking me to prove Group A's premise rather than recognize my point that neither Group A nor Group B can find a citation to prove their premise. You can't prove the elf corpse vanishes. They can't prove the elf corpse remains. Both groups will vehemently hold onto their premise because it is obviously true in their eyes (which is why you are asking me to prove their premise rather than recognize my point). Neither group will find a citation because the rules did not feel the need to address something they thought was obvious (but clearly was not obvious).

[tokek]

This has to be the only game community I engage with where people will straight out say that the official rules FAQ are not official rules and hence are not RAW.

So carry on with whatever you are doing, there is no point me engaging with this any further.

[Unoriginal]

This has to be the only game community I engage with where people will straight out say that the official rules FAQ are not official rules and hence are not RAW.

Tb100%f, there are several things called Sage Advice.

Crawford's twitter used to count as the "official answer", but it is no longer the case (which is a good thing, 'cause he himself admited he sometime answered while waiting in line in shops without checking anything and other stuff like that).

The FAQ is official, however.

[Brookshw]

None of that was relevant to the question.

1) I am not asking about casting Raise Dead on an undead. I am asking about casting on the corpse of the dead humanoid while it is not an undead creature. Aka after the zombie has been slain. At that point we both agree that a zombie also died in that body so it is also a corpse of a destroyed undead.
2) Sage Advice is not RAW. Citing Sage Advice, and failing to even find a relevant citation there, continues to provide evidence that RAW does not address whether the fleshbag remains the corpse of the elf (aka the elf died and that is the current state of their remains) or whether the fleshbag ceases to be the corpse of the elf (aka your premise).



Totek is not providing RAW (Sage Advice is not RAW) and is not providing anything relevant to the question of the premises (have you read those "citations"?). After the zombie is slain, point to the corpse of the elf or find a citation that says that the fleshbag that once housed the elf and is not currently undead is not the dead body that once housed the elf. Or join me in recognizing the difference in premises about the elf corpse is not addressed by RAW.

It is not arguing in bad form to point out that some hold the premise that after the zombie is slain the elf's corpse does/does not exist and that no citation in the Rules addresses this difference in premises.

In contrast you are asking me to prove Group A's premise rather than recognize my point that neither Group A nor Group B can find a citation to prove their premise. You can't prove the elf corpse vanishes. They can't prove the elf corpse remains. Both groups will vehemently hold onto their premise because it is obviously true in their eyes (which is why you are asking me to prove their premise rather than recognize my point). Neither group will find a citation because the rules did not feel the need to address something they thought was obvious (but clearly was not obvious).

The corpse was a zombie that has been slain. Nothing in the zombie description provides it is also the elf it was before. Animate Dead specifically provides the original corpse "becomes" a new creature, not that it is temporarily a new creature. All of this is RAW support underlying Totek's position.

If you believe there is ambiguity here, then you should absolutely be looking at Sage Advice for further clarification. This is similar to the rules of statutory interpretation in which courts will look to the legislative comments regarding a law and what it means. You may still weigh the RAW more heavily, but should not casually discard the SA. Reminder, also, this is not 3e with it's primacy rules.

All that said, yes, it absolutely is bad form to insist someone provide a RAW citation to disprove your unproven point, otherwise it's "I'm right unless you can prove I'm wrong" which is absurd. IF you can establish the counterpoint is valid through RAW, then, and only then, can you propose that RAW is ambiguous with multiple reasonable interpretations. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

[JackPhoenix]

The corpse was a zombie that has been slain. Nothing in the zombie description provides it is also the elf it was before. Animate Dead specifically provides the original corpse "becomes" a new creature, not that it is temporarily a new creature. All of this is RAW support underlying Totek's position.

If you want to get technical, elf is a subtype, so you can easily have undead (elf). We already have examples of creatures using subtype usually associated certain different creature type in Tanarukk, which is fiend (orc), and there are some fey (elf) monsters. But it's not the (elf) that's the problem for Raise Dead and its ilk, it's the undead, and everything in the game has only one creature type.

[Tanarii]

This has to be the only game community I engage with where people will straight out say that the official rules FAQ are not official rules and hence are not RAW.
This has been the case since 3e WotC forums, and furthermore the SAC specifically addresses RAW vs RAI vs RAF. And it's very clear that it's responses are all three. So yes, it does include official RAW, and anyone denying that is wrong, based on the words from the horses (WotC's) mouth.
(Note this is a change of position on my part from previous threads, based on rereading the introduction to the SAC.)

Personal I don't agree with a definition of RAW as being anything other than a quote of the words on the page. Anything else is inherently interpretation, but hey, if they want to say that SAC includes RAW Thats WotC's choice.

[Unoriginal]

Personal I don't agree with a definition of RAW as being anything other than a quote of the words on the page. Anything else is inherently interpretation, but hey, if they want to say that SAC includes RAW Thats WotC's choice.

Even the words on the page don't result in RAW, because we the readers are interpreting what we read with our own filters.

[Tanarii]

Even the words on the page don't result in RAW, because we the readers are interpreting what we read with our own filters.
That's my view as well, but per the SAC, WotC uses the more commonly used definition that RAW = interpreting the words as literally as possible. As opposed to designer intended.

[Valmark]

The corpse was a zombie that has been slain. Nothing in the zombie description provides it is also the elf it was before. Animate Dead specifically provides the original corpse "becomes" a new creature, not that it is temporarily a new creature. All of this is RAW support underlying Totek's position.

All that said, yes, it absolutely is bad form to insist someone provide a RAW citation to disprove your unproven point, otherwise it's "I'm right unless you can prove I'm wrong" which is absurd. IF you can establish the counterpoint is valid through RAW, then, and only then, can you propose that RAW is ambiguous with multiple reasonable interpretations. Again, the burden of proof is on you.
The fact that AD makes a new creature doesn't mean that when it stops being a creature again it's no longer the corpse of the original creature.

And both interpretations are "I'm right unless you can prove I'm wrong". The same piece of text doesn't disprove either of them.

You need something that specifies that the corpse belongs to the new creature only (doesn't exist) or that it's still the corpse of what it was before (doesn't exist) for either interpretation to be the one.

And that's even before wondering wether a creature is an undead if the zombie has been killed. As far as Animate Dead goes, the creature was never the undead, only their corpse (and nothing says the corpse alone is a creature).

If we wanted to really stretch it we could say that since Animate Dead doesn't turn Bob into an undead the zombie would still count as a dead Bob.

This has been the case since 3e WotC forums, and furthermore the SAC specifically addresses RAW vs RAI vs RAF. And it's very clear that it's responses are all three. So yes, it does include official RAW, and anyone denying that is wrong, based on the words from the horses (WotC's) mouth.
(Note this is a change of position on my part from previous threads, based on rereading the introduction to the SAC.)

Personal I don't agree with a definition of RAW as being anything other than a quote of the words on the page. Anything else is inherently interpretation, but hey, if they want to say that SAC includes RAW Thats WotC's choice.

Uuuuhm... The SAC's introduction says that to reply it uses one to three of them, not all of them, unless I missed something (I mean, using three means all of them, but that's not always the case according to it). And while it says that he (I assume Jeremy's the one writing in there) starts from the RAW when considering a rule it's never stated that the actual answers count as RAW (it would be even sillier when replies directly contradict the text).

Look forward to ten pages on wether SAC is RAW.

[Brookshw]

The fact that AD makes a new creature doesn't mean that when it stops being a creature again it's no longer the corpse of the original creature.

And both interpretations are "I'm right unless you can prove I'm wrong". The same piece of text doesn't disprove either of them.

You need something that specifies that the corpse belongs to the new creature only (doesn't exist) or that it's still the corpse of what it was before (doesn't exist) for either interpretation to be the one.

And that's even before wondering wether a creature is an undead if the zombie has been killed. As far as Animate Dead goes, the creature was never the undead, only their corpse (and nothing says the corpse alone is a creature).

If we wanted to really stretch it we could say that since Animate Dead doesn't turn Bob into an undead the zombie would still count as a dead Bob.


The technical issue is that when it "becomes" one thing it ceases to be the prior thing and no language provides for a durable identity which survives nor reverts to that identify upon being....re-dead(?) hence we have RAW on one side of the argument but not the other.

At any rate, the person who wanted to argue the point left the thread. My only position is that the form of the counterargument for the survivability of the elf identity is bad in so far as asking the other side to disprove an unproven point, I don't care about the particular rule issue (for what it's worth, I think Crawford has a clever and correct position which I intend to ignore).

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want undead without those consequences, just use Summon Undead. Tasha's is good for something, it appears. :smallsmile:

There's a reason Raistlin switched to an NPC and left the party when he switched to a black robe. Yeah, like the usual selfish PC, the party was no longer of any use to him. :smallyuk:

Evil characters can work fine in some neutral party or evil party of course. And sometimes they can even work temporarily alongside a good party when goals align, anti-hero style. But long term it doesn't work out. IME that's pretty much the case.
And that's typically the root cause of why players are driven to try and justify why their Necromancer actually isn't evil. Yeah.

... despite the humanoid to undead conversion having changed the creature type That's how it works at our tables as well.

But it's not the (elf) that's the problem for Raise Dead and its ilk, it's the undead, and everything in the game has only one creature type. Which makes the game easier to play than otherwise.

[Azuresun]

With 5e and necromancy, the additional context is that there is a lot of people who prefer undead to be basically just programable robots who happen to be made of recycled corpses. Generally paired with "and the undead provide reliable labor which enable X awesome thing".

One thing related to this is that the notion of a dead body as a disposable biological vessel that can be freely used for other things once it's dead is tremendously novel, and even now, we only accept interference with them in specific cases (organ transplant, for example). For the vast majority of human history, bodies were meant to be treated with respect and desecrating or disrespecting a corpse was an expression of callousness, contempt or hatred towards the person who had died, and generally marked you as being beyond the pale morally. So yeah, good luck telling most people that no, it's fine, these shambling abominations behind me totally gave their consent, take my word for it!

[KorvinStarmast]

For the vast majority of human history, bodies were meant to be treated with respect and desecrating or disrespecting a corpse was an expression of callousness, contempt or hatred towards the person who had died, and generally marked you as being beyond the pale morally. So yeah, good luck telling most people that no, it's fine, these shambling abominations behind me totally gave their consent, take my word for it! Not to mention insulting to their family/friends/relations. (FWIW I have a number of friends who are vehemently against being organ donors. (I on the other hand have had that marked on my DL for as long as I can remember).