Question about ethics of magic and necromancey

[Stormwolf69]

Ok in the campaign that I am running, I am willing to say that there is an argument that the school of Necromancy could be neutral as with all other magic it is in how it is used.

No here is a problem the players are trying to argue or interfere in a cohort chase of a count allowing necromancy to raise the battlefield dead to fight off a hoard of invaders Orcs and goblins. As the city was burning the wall was breached and after 90 days of siege the city backs were agent the wall.

If you were the DM how would you play it out and just let them argue the case or will more under-the-table methods be needed in this?

[Zanos]

If necromancy isn't inherently Good or Evil in your setting, it doesn't sound like there's a problem other than societal prohibitions about defiling the dead, which one would think would be relaxed if the hordes are at your doors. What exactly is the moral case against the Count here?

[Stormwolf69]

if anything the reason for the trial is an order of Lawful stupid Paladians. Their view is that Necormancy is evil and all their practitioners are evil. That even to save the empire of man humanity should not go turn to evil to defend itself. If anything the party's main goal is to let this play out in the courts and not have this go into a trial by Combat.

[OracleofWuffing]

You can't fix Lawful Stupid- especially when the brief version of Exalted Good agrees with them. No point in trying to convince someone who religiously believes "X is Evil" is wrong, let's just accept the premise that Necromancy is Evil because we can't get anywhere otherwise.

So, uh, what were the Paladins doing when the undead were saving the day?

Smiting the raised undead that were saving the cityfolk? Gee, sounds awfully treasonous of them.
Turning a blind eye to the undead to play their part in defending against the Goblinorcs? Compliance through inaction.


You don't get to ignore the "Lawful" part of "Lawful Good" just because something is [Evil]. The time to enact an alternate strategy was before or during the fight, not after. They're welcome to be sour at the decisions made, but their hands ain't clean, either.

And, like, I guess alignment isn't just the result of a single action by a broad amount of people but weighed individually over the course of multiple events, with too many factors to make solid calls with a broad stroke.

[Zanos]

What does the towns court system say about the legality of Necromancy? Do the Lawful Stupid Paladins run the legal system? I'd imagine the Paladins have sort of legal framework they're leaning on to pressure this if they're Lawful first and Good second.

Whether or not it's worth playing it out in front of your players depends on your players; if they don't really care about the outcome, then you might as well just do it offscreen. Kind of surprised that your players don't care that someone who was trying to help and didn't do anything wrong is about to get nailed to the wall, though.

[Stormwolf69]

To answer your questions
1 Where was the order of the paladins? the duke's territory is on the fringes of the empire the Paladins are sons of the nobility that live in the interior close to the heart of the empire and the imperial capital in other words where the Duke was on the frontline trying to keep the empire of man in order the paladins wait for the last moment to save the day and steal the glory for themselves.

2 the trial is in the imperial capital where this trial has 5 judges. one being the captain-general of the Imperial army the Archmage and royal advisor to the Emperor on magic. and the other two are nobles.

3. the townspeople know it was not the Duke's first choice but as long as they are burying the orcs and goblins and burring the humans they just want to mourn their dead and move past what has happened.


4. The duke was a patron of the party for a while Also two of the party were part of the ritual to create the army of the dead.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's obvious why paladins who value good and law over peoples' lives would have a zero tolerance policy towards necromancy, but are they in charge of the empire's laws? Is necromancy actually illegal, or merely frowned on by the moral elite?

It's a classical argument. Should it be okay to ignore laws/morals when absolutely necessary? Especially as a matter of survival? Do the ends sometimes justify the means? And do people really need to be punished or feel bad about it afterward? Some people may view necromancy as the lesser evil in this situation, if it's used to save lives.

It's been a philosophical question amongst D&D nerds for 50 years now (and for much longer on the broader issue of pragmatism in general), so the real question is what kind of spin you want to put on it, or whether or not your players want to tip the scales in any particular direction.

If the trial is part of your campaign's story, is there more happening here than it seems? Does somebody have something to gain beyond answering the basic moral question at hand? Is there anyone else (beside the players) who might be interested in swaying the trial's outcome? What exactly will be the consequences of being found guilty or innocent?

[YellowJohn]

What I would expect to be the outcome of the trial:
The party is found guilty, but due to extenuating circumstances is issued a 'slap on the wrist' sentence which includes destroying any surviving undead. Maybe clearing out a nest of annoying monsters with low expected treasure.

It's probably worth sitting down and deciding why Animate Dead is evil. In the last game I ran, I invented the idea that an undead creature uses the soul of the deceased being as a fuel source and that raising undead was essentially torture - but that is a house rule with no support in official rules or fluff.
Think about how an un-controlled skeleton or zombie acts in your world. Do they wander off to seek living creatures to kill, or do they stand inert - a perfectly safe climbing frame for your children?

I would expect the issue to be taken less seriously if Necromancy is bad because 'the gods don't like it' as opposed to if there are more concrete reasons.

[KillianHawkeye]

What I would expect to be the outcome of the trial:
The party is found guilty, but due to extenuating circumstances is issued a 'slap on the wrist' sentence which includes destroying any surviving undead. Maybe clearing out a nest of annoying monsters with low expected treasure.

It's not the party who is on trial here. :smallconfused:

[Paragon]

The good old "this is but a tool, it depends what you do with it" argument could work ; for instance the same sword in the hands of a Paladin and a BBEG does different things. The parallel could be drawn for Necromancy.

Were I DM here, I'd invent a "we only raised the people that purposefully didn't sign the DNR (Do Not Raise) as undead to defend the city. They fully agreed to the terms when they were alive that they should their first life expire, they should use their second to fight some more"

This could introduce a "Law" element that Paladins might respond to, especially if you try to put them in the same situation ; "Wouldn't you agree to be raised if the ideals you spent your entire life defending were threatened ?"

[SangoProduction]

As I say each time this is brought up:
The reason why it's a disagreeable thing, even disregarding any disease risk, is the fact that you turn the dead into a valuable resource. And when you are more valuable dead than alive, even just to particular people, then suddenly people have an incentive to turn you into that more valuable resource.
When something bad happens, try and find the incentives they were working with. It tends to be that what happened was more or less encouraged to happen (if unintentionally).

(For example, see British "grave robbers" who would often grab "corpses" before they really became corpses, if you get what I mean. Then sold them off to the medical professionals. It was an incredibly lucrative market.)

[redking]

Here are some suggestions on how to handle the situation:

Legal battle: Allow the players to gather evidence and present their case in court. This could involve investigating the motivations and actions of the paladins and the Duke, as well as the consequences of using necromancy. They could also call witnesses and experts to testify on their behalf. This approach emphasizes roleplaying, negotiation, and problem-solving.

Diplomacy and politics: The players could try to sway the judges and public opinion by engaging in diplomacy and political maneuvering. They could seek allies among the nobility, clergy, or other influential factions to support their cause. This approach highlights the players' social skills and their ability to navigate complex political situations.

Compromise and negotiation: Encourage the players to work with the Duke, the paladins, and other interested parties to find a mutually acceptable resolution. This might involve agreeing on restrictions or guidelines for using necromancy, or finding alternative ways to defend the empire without resorting to raising the dead. This approach promotes teamwork, creative thinking, and conflict resolution.

Secret investigation: The players could uncover a hidden plot or conspiracy behind the trial, such as a rival faction trying to discredit the Duke or a deeper corruption within the paladin order. This approach adds intrigue and suspense to the story, allowing the players to uncover the truth and potentially change the outcome of the trial.

As a DM, consider your players' interests and the overall tone of the campaign when choosing the best course of action. Encourage player agency and creativity to create a memorable and engaging experience for everyone involved.

[Jay R]

In your world, either defiling the dead bodies is inherently evil, or it's not. You need to decide which it is before you can even begin to consider this particular question.

[Aotrs Commander]

Ok in the campaign that I am running, I am willing to say that there is an argument that the school of Necromancy could be neutral as with all other magic it is in how it is used.

No here is a problem the players are trying to argue or interfere in a cohort chase of a count allowing necromancy to raise the battlefield dead to fight off a hoard of invaders Orcs and goblins. As the city was burning the wall was breached and after 90 days of siege the city backs were agent the wall.

If you were the DM how would you play it out and just let them argue the case or will more under-the-table methods be needed in this?

3.5 RAW, you could be a neutral Dread Necromancer and a neutral Pale Master. I played the latter in a Faerun campaign, on the basis of a bit of "undead yes, unpeople no" and my 6 Charisma necormancer generally stuck to raising monster skeletons, except for the one time we were attacking by Evil Humans from Thay and he felt it would not unset people too much because they were bad people being put to better use.

I did, admittedly, use the Portable Hole to store the skeletons in when I could in town, and used things like tarps and a sign which said "property of invagrion, please do not destroy" on the them (also, at one point, I put taprs on them and called them... Robe golems...) But Faerun is a bit notoriously anti-undead.



Personally, I don't see any particular problems with undead ESPECIALLY animated Undead, which don't have the soul in them and doublely so when no-one ever complains about golems, which are explictly animated by the UNWILLING binding of an intelligent creature (elemental) which is WAY more morally questionable than a Dead Thing whose soul has already naffed off.

Basically, it's just a culture thing, supported by the (REALLY TIRESOME) cliche of death gods either being evil or no-evil and anti-Undead (Pharasma and Urgathoa (former more than the latter, expecially), yes, I'm looking at you specifically. When Shelyn is right next to you, being Best Love Goddess Ever by tanking around with a whacking great glaive she stole off her Evil Hellraiser brother. You should feel bad.)

[Crake]

Personally, I don't see any particular problems with undead ESPECIALLY animated Undead, which don't have the soul in them and doublely so when no-one ever complains about golems, which are explictly animated by the UNWILLING binding of an intelligent creature (elemental) which is WAY more morally questionable than a Dead Thing whose soul has already naffed off.

This is why:


As I say each time this is brought up:
The reason why it's a disagreeable thing, even disregarding any disease risk, is the fact that you turn the dead into a valuable resource. And when you are more valuable dead than alive, even just to particular people, then suddenly people have an incentive to turn you into that more valuable resource.
When something bad happens, try and find the incentives they were working with. It tends to be that what happened was more or less encouraged to happen (if unintentionally).

(For example, see British "grave robbers" who would often grab "corpses" before they really became corpses, if you get what I mean. Then sold them off to the medical professionals. It was an incredibly lucrative market.)

[Mechalich]

In your world, either defiling the dead bodies is inherently evil, or it's not. You need to decide which it is before you can even begin to consider this particular question.

In this case, it seems like the GM already has, if only by accident.

The order of Paladins believes necromancy is evil. This is something they should know. Whether or not necromancy is inherently evil is question that can be asked, and answered, in-universe according to the D&D 3.5e rules.

As such 'it wasn't evil' isn't a defense and will be necessary to argue mitigating circumstances or something like that. Note that there probably should be a religious/legal framework that already exists defining what kind of mitigating circumstances would apply. Basically, any society that has some class of things defined as inherently evil - the most obvious case being killing another person - usually has a whole bunch of special circumstances delineating when this is not evil but in fact acceptable practice. Just as many faiths that broadly condemn warfare have concepts like 'just war' buried in their theology, in a fantasy circumstance it makes sense to speak of 'just necromancy' or 'just demon summoning' and so forth.

[Aotrs Commander]

This is why:

And if Rimworld has taught me anything it is that corpses are already valuable even if you don't animate them. (Actually, to be more serious than meme-y human leather and human meat... Just fertiliser.) This is doubly-true of any corpses that are Not From Your Own Bit (not to support humanity's endlessly tiresome ingrained factionalism...) that you have to dispose of ANYWAY. Again, it's only human cultural convention at work (which is, as has been pointed out many times, a little bit humanocentric anyway, since when it's animals It's Different...)

[SangoProduction]

And if Rimworld has taught me anything it is that corpses are already valuable even if you don't animate them. (Actually, to be more serious than meme-y human leather and human meat... Just fertiliser.) This is doubly-true of any corpses that are Not From Your Own Bit (not to support humanity's endlessly tiresome ingrained factionalism...) that you have to dispose of ANYWAY. Again, it's only human cultural convention at work (which is, as has been pointed out many times, a little bit humanocentric anyway, since when it's animals It's Different...)

Just because something is "-centric" doesn't mean it's incorrect. That's the same line of thinking as the naturalistic fallacy (ie that anything natural is good), and a few other related ones.
-

Of course, then you get into the vegetarian/veganism argument where it actually isn't fundamentally different (even though it is) to mess with animals rather than humans.
As for me, if the undead were strictly beasts, then there shouldn't be too much of a problem, assuming proper sanitation procedures were attended to. In the same way you wouldn't allow pets that were actively covered in viscera and dripping it all over the place into... anywhere. (But that's a bit off topic.)

-

Speaking on the Rimworld thing. There is a reason why cannibalism is so exceptionally rare across the globe, regardless of culture, that prion diseases, which propagate primarily via cannibalism is nearly world-wide news. (Prions are also very freaking durable, non-living proteins that can also magically transform...regardless, scary stuff... and can pollute the grounds in which they are buried. So, it's not strictly via cannibalism, but it is mostly such.).

And even that cannibalism isn't opportunistic (hey, they attacked us; it's just going to rot anyway), but a ceremonial procedure for honoring the close dead.

That reason is because of those incentives. If those incentives exist, then there will be a statistical increase in the likelihood that someone will act on those incentives, increasing rates of death among cultures that have those incentives. Thus, they become less numerous and powerful than competing cultures.
Basic evolution.

(Now... an important part of evolution is the chance of changes, and the chance of death. When either of those factors are restricted, so too is evolution. Just like how Pandas have not gone extinct, because humans desperately try and prevent their deaths.)

-

The most vile of incentive structures are those that actually don't directly result in the death of the abusers (or otherwise weakening the abusers' power), but instead just makes everyone but the incentive abusers miserable, because it never weeds itself out.

Indeed, there is an argument that a culture of accepting specifically elvish skeletons and dwarvish zombies might arise among a group of halflings, because the negative incentives don't actually impact the culture which is propagating the incentives - that being the halflings. Even if they, on the surface, say that they don't mind, or even like the other races.

But at the end of the day, a living elf... there's a chance he's going to help defend your country.... also a chance he will run, or join in attacking. A dead elf? He's defending you with fervor, 100% of the time.

That line of thinking may be rare - the people just being exceptionally stiffly resistant to corruption. But the nagging temptation is always there. That calculus making itself so obvious. Almost in the same, corrupting way that elemental evil personified (devils) work.

(Of course, the elves and dwarves who actively choose to defy those halflings will both not add to the power, and likely weaken that halfling community, by restricting trade or even outright attacking. And those elves/dwarves that do submit will suffer from those negative incentives until they either also defy the halflings, or they die out. And there will be abuses, even if the majority of cases are perfectly legitimate, or even actively beneficial.)

---

Oh, and don't feel like you have to respond to literally the entire response in one block, or even the entire thing. I know it kind of hit on several disparate points.

[redking]

I think the morality of animating dead is irrelevant to the situation at hand. The issue is that charges have been laid against an ally of the PCs. The good news is that the OP is the DM, and thus he has many options. I gave some advice up thread, but here is some specific advice to cut the Gordian Knot.

Let the trial play out. The verdict is guilty, because the accused does not deny animating the dead. If the players want to do so, they can try to negotiate his release or pardon. Let them succeed. Yet before they are able to deliver the news, the accused has already escaped. Later, he will become a villain, leading an undead horde against the ingrates of the land that turned against him.

[aglondier]

I think the key to this argument is going to centre around Oaths.

The dead who were animated to defend the city, were all raised from the honorable fallen on ancient battlefields, yes?

Then it could easily be said that the Count was merely calling upon them to once again fulfill their Oaths and defend their lands and people against the ravaging invaders. Likewise for any soldiers who fell in defence of the city, they could be called upon to continue their service in defence of the city.

Providing the Count allowed them to return to their rest once the crisis was over, he has done nothing wrong, and indeed has stood firm with his own Oaths to defend his people.

The Paladin Order may well be correct that Necromancy is corrupting and evil...but they cannot deny the right of loyal and honorable warriors to fulfill their own Oaths, even if those Oaths extend beyond a single lifetime...

[Jay R]

In your world, either defiling the dead bodies is inherently evil, or it's not. You need to decide which it is before you can even begin to consider this particular question.In this case, it seems like the GM already has, if only by accident.

Agreed. But doing it accidentally and unconsciously is what led to this dilemma. The OP wrote:

Ok in the campaign that I am running, I am willing to say that there is an argument that the school of Necromancy could be neutral as with all other magic it is in how it is used.

If "there is an argument to be made", then the DM hasn't decided a crucial fact about the world. And that fact is at the center of the controversy.

The DM needs to make this decision consciously, and apply it directly.

In a world in which Good and Evil are real, objective things which can be detected by spells, there needs to be a clear answer. The trial judge may not know it, and the PCs may not know it, and the players don't need to, but the DM must have an objective final answer.

If necromancy is an inherently Evil act, then the question is whether this evil was necessary to combat a different evil.

If it is not inherently an Evil act, then the question is whether there is something about this particular necromantic act that made it so.

Therefore the DM needs a definite answer to "Is raising the dead inherently Evil?" before they can even know what questions to ask.

In my world, necromantic spells aren't inherently evil, but creating undead is. To defend the action in my world, the necromancer would need to say something like "Yes, I had to desecrate those bodies to save the city. I wish that hadn't been necessary. But half of those bodies were the evil invaders, and I am willing to force them to defend the city from their own attack. Their own actions were Evil already. The other half were people who chose to defend the city to the death. I allowed them to complete their final mission. Now that the crisis is over, I will release their bodies and help them get a proper burial and a well-deserved rest." [The final sentence would be absolutely crucial.]

The question might be, "Is this an evil thing I did?"

It might be "Was the evil thing I did justified in this case, at least enough for me to earn forgiveness from the people whose lives I saved?"

Until you know which question you are answering, you cannot begin to answer it.

[vasilidor]

If someone values the Idea of "Good" over the lives and well being of the lives of others, are they actually "Good" themselves?

I myself do not think so.

Personally, If I was already dead, and someone could save another's life by doin something with my corpse whether animating it or using it as a weapon or a shield or some other resource, I say do it. I am already dead and have no use for the corpse anymore. It would not be a defilement.

I checked yes on being an organ donor.

[Vaern]

It's probably worth sitting down and deciding why Animate Dead is evil. In the last game I ran, I invented the idea that an undead creature uses the soul of the deceased being as a fuel source and that raising undead was essentially torture - but that is a house rule with no support in official rules or fluff.

Have a look at a few resurrection spells if you want some extra justification for this idea. Resurrection, and even True Resurrection, only function on creatures who have become undead once they've been destroyed. Zombies and skeletons created by Animate Dead are not intelligent and retain none of the thoughts, memory, or personality of the person whose body was used to create the undead minion in question. However, even True Resurrection which doesn't even require a trace its target's corpse will not work on someone whose body is currently animated as a zombie. That person's soul must be somehow tethered to its body by the spell that animated it.

So, while your suggestion that the soul is being torturously burned as fuel is not officially supported within the rules, it is perfectly reasonable explanation not only for Animate Dead's [evil] tag but also for the limitations on resurrection spells.

Also, Raise Dead can't affect a creature who was slain by a death effect or who has become undead after being killed; even if being reanimated doesn't further damage the body physically, the touch of necromancy desecrates the corpse such that this level of magic can no longer restore life to it.
Resurrection and True Resurrection fully restore the target's body so they don't particularly care about this apparent desecration, but for the purpose of most NPCs even having access to a cleric capable of providing a 5th-level spell and the gold to pay for it is pushing it. If one person from a particularly wealthy and influential family is killed by a death effect and that person's family pays half the family fortune to have a cleric cast Raise Dead only for the spell to fizzle because their body has been tainted with necromancy, that's all it's going to take for that city - or may even that entire kingdom - to outlaw necromancy as being wholly inherently evil.

[AnonJr]

If someone values the Idea of "Good" over the lives and well being of the lives of others, are they actually "Good" themselves?

I myself do not think so.

Personally, If I was already dead, and someone could save another's life by doin something with my corpse whether animating it or using it as a weapon or a shield or some other resource, I say do it. I am already dead and have no use for the corpse anymore. It would not be a defilement.

I checked yes on being an organ donor.

Should we have a "Corpse Donor" checkbox on your official ID? Some sort of consent to be raised for state purposes? :smalltongue:

[vasilidor]

Should we have a "Corpse Donor" checkbox on your official ID? Some sort of consent to be raised for state purposes? :smalltongue:

I felt it relevant to the conversation, The idea that a corpse can be used to save other lives is something that a lot of people do not consider when talking about necromancy and is not too different from having people as organ donors.
In a fantasy setting, you could have an ID that a person can use to mark themselves as OK to be animated after death for state purposes as you said. To do things to dangerous for living people that need done or to be used in defense of others. You could have an incentive to get people to do it in the form of a death tax credit (Yes, people are often taxed for dying or for giving inheritance).

[ShurikVch]

Have a look at a few resurrection spells if you want some extra justification for this idea. Resurrection, and even True Resurrection, only function on creatures who have become undead once they've been destroyed. Zombies and skeletons created by Animate Dead are not intelligent and retain none of the thoughts, memory, or personality of the person whose body was used to create the undead minion in question. However, even True Resurrection which doesn't even require a trace its target's corpse will not work on someone whose body is currently animated as a zombie. That person's soul must be somehow tethered to its body by the spell that animated it.
Let me quote the EN World forum post (https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-are-undead-inherently-evil.342006/page-5#post-6183788) about it:

What it is supposed to mean is that an undead creature or the corpse of an undead creature can be resurrected, but it can only be resurrected as the living creature it was and not the undead it became (if dead). The "and then destroyed" line doesn't mean that the undead has to be destroyed first, it simply means that an undead creature that was destroyed can be resurrected. According to the official D&D novels, you can resurrect someone even when their undead corpse is walking around somewhere, and one novel even revolved around a woman's previous corpse developing a mind of its own and trying to kill her because it believed she stole its soul. Being undead doesn't prevent resurrection or true resurrection.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think a random user's opinion on a different forum is any more authoritative than the opinions of people posting on this message board. :smallconfused:

[SangoProduction]

I don't think a random user's opinion on a different forum is any more authoritative than the opinions of people posting on this message board. :smallconfused:

I'd ay that he was simply echoing the opinion, rather than saying that it was more authoritative.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'd ay that he was simply echoing the opinion, rather than saying that it was more authoritative.

Maybe it was quoted for convenience, but I'm not sure how digging up an old post on a different website is actually more convenient than expressing your own opinion? :smallconfused:

[ShurikVch]

I don't think a random user's opinion on a different forum is any more authoritative than the opinions of people posting on this message board. :smallconfused:

Maybe it was quoted for convenience, but I'm not sure how digging up an old post on a different website is actually more convenient than expressing your own opinion? :smallconfused:
:smallsigh: Explanation: the "opinions of people posting on this message board" are divided in two groups -
-those who thinking creature which was animated as Undead can't be resurrected (until the Undead in question is destroyed, which is besides the point) - even if no soul was included in the creation of the Undead (heck, number of them are even thinking "there is always a soul!" - no matter what kind of Undead it is. I wonder how they explaining Undead of creatures whose souls were removed/destroyed, or those which don't have a soul even while alive);
-and those who're thinking it's nonsense - animation shouldn't be able to prevent resurrection (unless the soul was included in the "package"), because 2nd-4th level spell (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) shouldn't duplicate effect of 9th-level spell (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) (except 10-14 levels earlier and 975/HD gp cheaper)

I, personally, is in the group #2. Because:
Say somebody was killed during an adventure, their comrades wasn't able to return their corpse.
But they just paid for True Resurrection.
But TrueRes don't cause the "original" corpse to dissolve!
Thus, character and their corpse are existing at the same time.
So, if somebody would animate that corpse - does it mean it would, somehow, prevent the character in question to be TRed the next time?
(And what if they left several of their corpses behind? Should any single one of resulted Undeads to be destroyed - before the character would be legal for resurrection?)

It was discussed for some time, thus it's kinda difficult to add new arguments there
Still, I googled in hope to get at least something - and found it!
This post is notable, because:
a) It presents us in-universe example of how it really works;
b) Explains the stumbling point of the argument ("... and then destroyed" part)

[Silly Name]

Unless this empire has a law that states something to the effect of "Any and all Evil actions are criminal", whether using Animate Dead is cosmically balanced towards Evil or is, in itself, a Neutral act that may lean towards Evil depending on the means and ends of the casting, is irrelevant.

The count is being put on trial before a court. What matters is the law (lower-case L, too!) of the empire, not the Paladin's Code or the moral opposition of some individuals. Even if the paladins are sitting in the jury, their duty as jurors is to give a verdict of guilty or not guilty, and guilt is determined by the laws of the empire (since this is a court of law of the empire), not their personal opinions. As a Lawful Good organisation, not only would they know this, they also know that they should give their vote according to the laws and procedures of the court.

Is creating undead a crime within the empire, no matter what? Then the count is guilty, and should receive the appropriate punishment, as determined by the law. At best, he could argue for extenuating circumstances and receive a lighter sentence than your average necromancer.

Is creating undead not a crime? Then the count isn't guilty, because he didn't do anything illegal.

Is creating undead forbidden most of the time, but permitted under certain circumstances? Well, then the count has to prove that those permitted circumstances applied to him when he ordered the undead to be created.