PDA

View Full Version : Good necromancer?



Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 06:11 PM
Is such a thing possible? By using the bodies of the fallen to perform acts of good, can a necromancer themself be good? And if you don't use them, they certainly aren't, so why not put them to use? Yeah, it's messing with the natural order of things, but when is magic not?

kpenguin
2007-12-21, 06:15 PM
The elves of Aerenal seem to pull it off.

Serenity
2007-12-21, 06:15 PM
By RAW, unfortunately, not really. For reasons unknown, Animate Dead and such spells have the Evil descriptor, and all undead are evil, even, stupidly, totally mindless skeletons and zombies. I say it should be a possibility, but you'd ahve to throw some house rules at it.

AmberVael
2007-12-21, 06:17 PM
If you'll take a few moments to look over the necromancy spell selection, you'll notice that only a few of them have the evil descriptor. The rest are fair game.
In fact, a good aligned necromancer could easily be destroying undead, considering that a large number of necromancy spells are very effective against undead.

As for raising undead and being good? Probably not, unless you make a homebrew version of the spell, or have the DM remove the evil descriptor. Essentially, by raising undead you're committing murder.

kpenguin
2007-12-21, 06:19 PM
Raising undead and being a necromancer (a wizard specialized in necromancy) does not mean you can't be good. Alignment descriptors matter only for clerics. Good wizards and sorcerers can cast Raise Dead.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 06:20 PM
Essentially, by raising undead you're committing murder.

How so? Preventing them from being resurrected? How many evil guys are going to be resurrecting the grunts most usually used for such things?

Roderick_BR
2007-12-21, 06:23 PM
There's a necromancer from an official compaign setting from a magazine here in Brazil that is lawful neutral, and good friends with a paladin.
Nothing keeps you from being a good aligned necromancer, as long as you don't need to cast the [evil] spells. Unfortunately, create undead are marked as evil.
Not that it matters much. Arcane spellcasting sucks to create undead.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 06:43 PM
So grossly disrespecting the remains of a fallen foe is not evil how?
You are commanding their corpses, preventing resurrection, and creating a grim mockery of life.
You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.
You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals
You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.
You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.
You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.
You are denying the natural course of decomposition.
You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

And this is not evil how? (you refers to the necromancer)

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 06:55 PM
You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.

Yet negative energy evocation spells are not [evil]... nor are many negative energy necromancy spells... strange...


You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals
You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.
You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

Evil != squicky.


You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.

A thing is not good or evil because a good-aligned organization says it is. If they have good reason for saying so, the reason should stand on its own.


You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.

Oh, that's real nice. Yeah, "sane" cultures, way to set the tone.

Anyway, that's not Evil, it's Chaotic.


You are denying the natural course of decomposition.

Yet Gentle Repose isn't [Evil]... ah, who cares? Let the druids worry about this one.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 06:59 PM
So grossly disrespecting the remains of a fallen foe is not evil how?
You are commanding their corpses, preventing resurrection, and creating a grim mockery of life.
You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.
You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals
You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.
You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.
You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.
You are denying the natural course of decomposition.
You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

And this is not evil how? (you refers to the necromancer)

It's not grossly disrespecting the remains. In a huge slaughter, you don't see good characters tiptoeing around the corpses of foes. It's the same as taking up an opponent's sword and using that.
Why is it negative energy? If it takes negative energy to bring faint life to something that isn't alive, wouldn't golem creation be evil, too?
They prey on the nightmares of mortals because they're commanded to do so by evil clerics and wizards.
It's almost as clean as it was in life, or it is if it's fresh. Wouldn't picking up a gore-splattered blade be the same thing?
Not all sane cultures do so. Some cultures refuse to deal with the dead, as it is, such a Goliaths, who send their old away to survive on their own once they can no longer aid the tribe. Besides, if I released it after I was finished, there could still be a funeral and all that.
Natural decomposition still occurs while the being is magically animated. That's why you always hear necromancers complain of the smell. Bacteria and fungi don't care if it's moving, they just chow down.
Sick pervert can be applied to any action unpopular to the mainstream, from eating meat on a Sunday to any kind of sex outside the missionary position. Because something's unpopular doesn't mean it's evil.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 07:06 PM
So grossly disrespecting the remains of a fallen foe is not evil how?
You are commanding their corpses, preventing resurrection, and creating a grim mockery of life.

Dominate Person does the first part and isn't evil. Decapitation does the second part and isn't evil. Simulacrum does the last part and isn't evil.


You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.

True. But only rebuking/bolstering undead and creating undead are uses of negative energy that are officially evil. Level drain and Inflict spells, while not the stuff of paladins and bunnies, are not evil by RAW. This suggests that using negative energy is not in and of itself evil, but causing negative energy to stick around on the Prime for a long time (e.g., in the bodies of undead creatures) is evil - the evil act is bringing self-sustaining negative energy into the world, not using negative energy per se.


You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals

Owlbears are the same. You're a wizard, creating creatures that prey on people's worst nightmares is what you do. :smallyuk:


You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.

If corpses are so foul, why do we give them such nice tombs to dwell in? :smalltongue: Though I see your point.


You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.

But, notably, not all neutral churches, and not all churches that have paladins. See: Wee Jas, Jergal.


You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.

What if there's already been a funeral and you're just recycling the corpse? What if it's an orc or goblin or something else that wouldn't be honorably sent off?


You are denying the natural course of decomposition.

That's a crime against True Neutral, not against good.


You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

Only if you take the Lichloved feat. Which tends to come up in these discussions quite a bit, I've noticed.


And this is not evil how? (you refers to the necromancer)

Depends how you use it. As discussions on these topics inevitably mention, you could command "Go, my undead minions! Go save the children!" You could command them to harvest crops. You could command them to work in a factory. Undead can be used for good.

However, I agree that, by RAW, undead are evil and keeping them in existence is evil. A good necromancer who controls undead would be like the Malconvoker class, a usually-good wizard who tricks/binds demons to make them do good. And, by RAW, raising undead is inherently evil.

Therefore, by RAW the safest way to be a good-aligned necromancer would be to focus on combat. Enervation, Vampiric Touch and suchlike don't have alignment descriptors. You fight against living evil beings with the raw power of death.

BRC
2007-12-21, 07:06 PM
So grossly disrespecting the remains of a fallen foe is not evil how?
You are commanding their corpses, preventing resurrection, and creating a grim mockery of life.
You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.
You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals
You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.
You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.
You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.
You are denying the natural course of decomposition.
You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

And this is not evil how? (you refers to the necromancer)

I'm going to give you an example of good necromacy.
An isolated village is attacked by bandits, the town millitia manages to kill the bandits, but in the process many of them die or are greviously injured. The Town Millitia consists of most of the able-bodied villagers, which means most of the farmers are unable to work. For some reason a villager learns how to do some basic necromacy, so he animates some of the corpses of the bandits to work in the fields so the harvest dosn't spoil, therefore saving the village, as well as to bolster the now-depleated ranks of the millita in order to discourage further attack.
So by using necromacy he just saved and protected his village, is that an evil act? Or if he was good would he have been forced to let his go hungry and be undefended.

InfiniteMiller
2007-12-21, 07:30 PM
I've recently come across a problem like this myself. For a cleric serving Wee Jas, is the Death Domain inherently evil? I'm recently started DMing a lawful neutral cleric with this domain and I don't know how to allow the death touch granted ability, or the animate dead and create undead domain spells without gradually moving the character towards lawful evil. Not that lawful evil is a problem, it's actually probably my favourite alignment.

What are your thoughts on this?

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-21, 07:51 PM
In the Book of Vile Darkness, creating undead is stated to be an evil act. Also while making undead is certainly not good (its stated in the Book of Vile Darkness that no matter what you use the undead for, be it saving kittens or helping to farm, creating undead is evil. period.) I don't really see neutral characters caring too (some might but by the very nature of being neutral they aren't really "good" or "Evil" so they won't have the "ZOMG UNDEADS=BAD KILL ALL UNDEADS AND NECROMANZERZ, DIEZ DIEZ DIEZ" attitude you might expect out of like a paladin or a goodly priest) much because while making undead is evil, neutral characters because of their lack of the moral convictions of goodly characters (which isnt to say neutral characters don't have morals, they just usually aren't so very adamant or strict, probably more lenient) As long as they aren't using undead to say, raid a village or kill innocents or you know, BE EVIL, they're probably ok (unless you know they continually raise dozens of corpses at a time and desecrate the corpses of the fallen over and over by making undead out of them) The Book of Vile Darkness also says that making undead actually makes the universe evil, albeit to a very small extent, so if you make undead you are effectively evilizing the world a little.

Mr.Bookworm
2007-12-21, 08:01 PM
The elves of Aerenal seem to pull it off.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but still:

Er, the elves of Aerenal have nothing to do with undead. If I can remember correctly, they hate undead and destroy them at every opportunity, seeing them as twisted mockeries of life.

The elves of Aerenal do the deathless thing. Deathless are basically undead powered by positive energy, as opposed to negative-energy undead.

Anyway.

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 08:13 PM
In the Book of Vile Darkness, creating undead is stated to be an evil act... its stated in the Book of Vile Darkness that no matter what you use the undead for, be it saving kittens or helping to farm, creating undead is evil. period. ...The Book of Vile Darkness also says that making undead actually makes the universe evil, albeit to a very small extent, so if you make undead you are effectively evilizing the world a little.

The Book of Vile Darkness says a lot of things about the nature of Evil, just like the Book of Exalted Deeds says a lot of things about the nature of Good. Neither is a particularly well-thought-out or sensible reference.

Captain van der Decken
2007-12-21, 08:15 PM
If Deathless are good because they use positive energy, doesn't that make every argument for undead being evil (apart from the negative energy thing) void?



Depends how you use it. As discussions on these topics inevitably mention, you could command "Go, my undead minions! Go save the children!" You could command them to harvest crops. You could command them to work in a factory. Undead can be used for good.

Well.. I wouldn't say commanding your undead to work in factories is good. Y'know, what with all the now jobless workers.

assassin8
2007-12-21, 08:16 PM
Necromancy is about manipulation of life forces. Not all necromancers raise the dead so yes you can still be good

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 08:16 PM
I've recently come across a problem like this myself. For a cleric serving Wee Jas, is the Death Domain inherently evil? I'm recently started DMing a lawful neutral cleric with this domain and I don't know how to allow the death touch granted ability, or the animate dead and create undead domain spells without gradually moving the character towards lawful evil. Not that lawful evil is a problem, it's actually probably my favourite alignment.

What are your thoughts on this?

The death touch isn't evil - Repose domain clerics get it too, and the Repose domain was designed as a specifically non-evil version of the Death domain. However, Animate Dead and Create Undead are evil. If his use of undead he creates is outweighed by good deeds - for example, if he animates zombies to fight an evil being and then destroys them afterwards - then it's perfectly fine.

AmberVael
2007-12-21, 08:17 PM
How so? Preventing them from being resurrected? How many evil guys are going to be resurrecting the grunts most usually used for such things?
Because the spell has the evil descriptor. Don't ask me why- that's for your DM to decide. You could houserule it to be good, of course, and I wouldn't raise a fuss (because there ARE many good reasons for raising undead), but again, as it is, raising undead is an evil act.

puppyavenger
2007-12-21, 08:22 PM
A somewhat rerlated question, how exactly does the primal force of entropy and decay animate trhings? also technicly casting a spell with the (evil) descriptor isn't evil.



So grossly disrespecting the remains of a fallen foe is not evil how?
You are commanding their corpses, preventing resurrection, and creating a grim mockery of life.
You are bringing negative energy into the world, an evil act.
You are creating creatures that prey on the worst nightmares of mortals
You are taking the truly foul and disgusting, the corpse of a formerly living creature, and bending it to your will.
You are making an abomination condemned by all good churches.
You are disrespecting all sane cultures that bury or burn or otherwise honourably send off their dead by preventing a funeral.
You are denying the natural course of decomposition.
You are, essentially, being a sick pervert.

And this is not evil how? (you refers to the necromancer)

golems create a grim mockery of life, people who die of old age can't be ressurected so just only raise them. the entire enchantment school is about controling people's mins and bodies.
Negative energy is unaligned check the planes section of the Dmg.
any outsider, aberation, construct, ooze, majical beast, elemental, Fey, mosterous humonoid, humonoid or animal has to be the worst nightmare of some mortal.
so corpses are foul and disgusting? hmm, also animate objects can do the same thing.
churches do not define right and wrong.
sane is a relative term. also honour is lawful.
gentel repose, ressurection, cremation, timeless planes and nature isn't good its unalgined.
entirely subjective.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-21, 08:23 PM
The Book of Vile Darkness says a lot of things about the nature of Evil, just like the Book of Exalted Deeds says a lot of things about the nature of Good. Neither is a particularly well-thought-out or sensible reference.

I never got that impression from it, it seemed pretty sensible to me, I've always thought of creating Undead as evil, and alot of things in it make sense. And you know alot of D&D books say things some people might not think is "sensible" but if we just start disregarding canon (i.e. official rules) well that could get ugly. Now of course in your own universe or campaign you can just say "for the sake of this raising the undead isnt evil" and noone will really care (or they might but Wizards of the Coast arent gunna sue you or anything) but the "General" rules for D&D because of the Book of Vile Darkness pretty much say making undead is evil, which is backed up by the fact that no paladin or blackguard or goodly or evil cleric would honestly disagree with this assessment kinda backs that.

Ganurath
2007-12-21, 08:50 PM
A somewhat rerlated question, how exactly does the primal force of entropy and decay animate trhings?Well, this is pure speculation, but negative energy is essentially a force of destruction. Positive energy, in contrast, is a force of creation. Living beings are animated by nourishment, growth, and positive energy. Undead beings are animated by negative energy, which calls for violence and the subject's decay to animate. This is why undead have such an overwhelming tendency toward destroying those they interact with: It's as natural for them as a living person's desire to eat or breathe. It may not be as neccesary, mind you, but the instinct is there.

As for the original question: You ask if a necromancer who creates minions, using an evil spell, can be good. I believe that they can, if only because wizards don't have alignment restrictions to spellcasting like wizards. Keep in mind to use your minions responsibly, and perhaps have them carry icons of a good deity so Paladins don't attack on sight.

Iralith
2007-12-21, 08:52 PM
I think this question's gotta be decided on a setting-by-setting basis. What the rules say about necromancy's evil-ness is secondary to--and hopefully based on--some set of metaphysical principles. Hopefully, a game setting has enough detail on those principles to base a decision on.

I mean, necromancy kind of revolves around a fundamental metaphysical question: what exactly is a person's soul? In what precise ways is it immortal? How is it connected to the person's body? To what extent is it the same thing as the person's mind? In a lot of fantasy, there's also the question of how necromantic stuff is accomplished--what you have to do to interact with the dead in that way.

Most fantasy settings that I've seen do cover stuff like that, if a little obliquely. In a really straight-ahead high-fantasy setting, for example, I could imagine a set of "rules" about death being something like this.

Everybody's mortal, and everybody's got a single immortal soul. This soul includes that person's mind, in any relevant sense--when a person dies, he or she remembers everything from life. In fact it just generally transcends mortal limits.

When a person dies, his or her soul passes through the Harrowing Nasty Zone and then reaches the Hangout of the Supreme Personage, there to bask.

To commune with the spirit of a dead person, a necromancer has to invoke the power of the Hated Adversary, a lesser divinity who styles himself the master of all evil. Such an invocation is in itself a fundamentally evil act (it empowers the Adversary), and what's more it's always accomplished through something really nasty like sacrificing puppies.

Furthermore, when you talk to the dead, you're essentially dragging some poor person's transcendent soul away from the Supreme Personage's presence, through the Harrowing Nasty Zone and into our own lower reality. Any soul thus yanked back into this world is wicked miserable.

And raising the dead . . . I mean, hoo boy. At that point you're doing everything in points 3 and 4, plus you're doing it long-term. Puppy-killer.


Actually, in some flavors of high fantasy, or in a fairly narrativist game, I could see even details like the above not capturing the deepest reasons why necromancy is bad:


The passage of life into death is part of the natural order.

What's natural is fundamentally good or at least necessary (e.g., because the Supreme Personage set it up that way).

Doing something as deeply unnatural as necromancy is therefore a profound violation of the Way Things Should Be, and as a GM or a player you need to make sure the game reflects that.


Buuuuuuuuuuuut, on the other hand, I could see a much more "low-fantasy" set of principles per which it's perfectly OK to necromantize all you want to! Maybe the bodies of the dead are totally empty vessels, to which no moral laws apply. Maybe there are no immortal souls, or maybe immortal souls don't mind being poked at, or maybe they do mind but their discomfort has to be weighed against the greater good.

Or maybe there's some middle ground, like you see in the Morrowind computer RPG--there are certain kinds of necromancy that are perfectly OK and are categorized as ancestor-veneration, but there are other kinds that are deeeeeply reviled. I play in a boffer LARP in which my character's people believe in the reincarnation of immortal souls, and hold that anything to do with undeath or necromancy is a hideous perversion of the way of things; in the same setting, there are a bunch of shamans who commune with their ancestors' spirits on a daily basis. When my character heard about that for the first time, all he could imagine was some depraved limbo, in which the dead are penned up waiting to be pressed into service instead of being allowed to be reborn the way they should . . .

. . . well, blah blah blah. This is a long, long post, and a long, long way of saying "It's up to whoever's making decisions about the campaign setting, as long as s/he actually gives it some thought."

Edit: Uh, whoa. Since I started typing this, there have been a whole bunch of posts--sorry if any of the above is redundant or off-topic.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 08:52 PM
Yet negative energy evocation spells are not [evil]... nor are many negative energy necromancy spells... strange...



undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

So yes, spells that create negative energy are evil, even if they do not have the evil descriptor, a neutral spell cast for an evil purpose is still evil.



Evil != squicky.

Evil creatures often enjoy spreading pain and misery to others.
The only Undead I know of that can be non-evil are good liches (monsters of faerun), undying councillors (Eberron campaign setting) and ghosts (Monster Manual)

Whether it’s sacrificing a victim on an evil god’s altar to gain a boon, or simply stealing from a friend, using others for one’s own purposes is a hallmark of villainy.
I'm pretty sure that using their bodies' counts too.

So evil is squicky apparently.




A thing is not good or evil because a good-aligned organization says it is. If they have good reason for saying so, the reason should stand on its own.

I concede this point, but I still think it stands alone.


Oh, that's real nice. Yeah, "sane" cultures, way to set the tone.

Name one culture that makes a mockery of life through the dead which wouldn't be evil, and zombieism in voodoo doesn't count as that was invented by missionaries.


Anyway, that's not Evil, it's Chaotic.
Most people in a D&D setting don't know the precise mechanics of what happens to the soul, for example, the Greeks believed that one had to be buried with a coin to pay Chaeron, and Hindus believe in cremating the body, the soul being unable to escape until the skull cracks. Therefore messing around with a person's body after death may well be stopping that character's soul going to the afterlife, and
harming their souls is always evil. so really it isn't chaotic, it's evil.


Yet Gentle Repose isn't [Evil]... ah, who cares? Let the druids worry about this one.

Yeah that one was a bit of a stretch, but I was trying to look at it from a NG druid's point of view.

___________________________________________


It's not grossly disrespecting the remains. In a huge slaughter, you don't see good characters tiptoeing around the corpses of foes. It's the same as taking up an opponent's sword and using that.

The sword of an opponent is a manufactured weapon, the opponent himself is (or was) a living being with feelings (no matter how evil), hopes and aspirations.

Mercy means giving quarter to enemies
who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion
and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of
respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and
honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies
who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely
tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact
revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap.

A dead person has essentially given up, otherwise they would still be fighting.
You are showing no mercy, no compassion or kindness (being an animated shell is the last thing anybody barring a cultist of Orcus or similar would want), no respect for life, or for that matter death. As stated in the above extract, you must not treat evil foes as they would treat their victims, you must remember that creating the undead is an abhorrent evil act.


Why is it negative energy? If it takes negative energy to bring faint life to something that isn't alive, wouldn't golem creation be evil, too?

Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
Pretty convincing proof that it is both negative energy and evil.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental
Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling
spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the
golem’s creator.
So no, a golem does not involve the use of negative energy, merely an earth elemental spirit. Which is evil too because... it is
USING OTHERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN Although that is slightly out of context and a digression from the subject of the undead.


They prey on the nightmares of mortals because they're commanded to do so by evil clerics and wizards.
Yes, and it is evil to create them so only those you mentioned would create them therefore they will prey on the nightmares of mortals. So creating them is evil because the process is evil and because the end result itself is evil.


It's almost as clean as it was in life, or it is if it's fresh. Wouldn't picking up a gore-splattered blade be the same thing?

Zombies are not pleasant to look upon.
Drawn from their graves, half decayed and
partially consumed by worms, they wear
the tattered remains of their burial
clothes. A rank odor of death hangs heavy
in the air around them.
That is the description of a zombie, and as you say yourself, that is why necromancers complain about the smell. A gore splattered blade is a manufactured weapon which can be quickly cleaned, a corpse is itself unclean and cleansing it usually involves destroying it with fire.


Not all sane cultures do so. Some cultures refuse to deal with the dead, as it is, such a Goliaths, who send their old away to survive on their own once they can no longer aid the tribe. Besides, if I released it after I was finished, there could still be a funeral and all that.

Ah, but Goliaths then don't go and find the dead elders, and cast spells on them to make them into shambling mockeries of life. And as to your point about subsequent release, you are still defiling the corpse and preventing its funeral while you use it, it is still evil, it is just being evil for a shorter time.


Natural decomposition still occurs while the being is magically animated. That's why you always hear necromancers complain of the smell. Bacteria and fungi don't care if it's moving, they just chow down.


And there was you saying that it was as clean as it was in life. That wasn't my real beef with it anyway, just filler really.


Sick pervert can be applied to any action unpopular to the mainstream, from eating meat on a Sunday to any kind of sex outside the missionary position. Because something's unpopular doesn't mean it's evil.

I'm aware of that, but as I have already said, find me a non-evil, sane culture which animates its dead and I will concede this point.

____________________________


Dominate Person does the first part and isn't evil. Decapitation does the second part and isn't evil. Simulacrum does the last part and isn't evil.

You can heal the corpse back to a fit state, or use true resurrection. Simulacrum is defined in alignment terms by its use, which can be good or evil. Dominate person depends on what you do it for, and in my opinion at least, denying somebody free-will is not a good act (although I can see how it isn't always evil). But still

USING OTHERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN
Is evil


True. But only rebuking/bolstering undead and creating undead are uses of negative energy that are officially evil. Level drain and Inflict spells, while not the stuff of paladins and bunnies, are not evil by RAW. This suggests that using negative energy is not in and of itself evil, but causing negative energy to stick around on the Prime for a long time (e.g., in the bodies of undead creatures) is evil - the evil act is bringing self-sustaining negative energy into the world, not using negative energy per se.

Which is precisely what I am trying to say. An inflict spell isn't evil, I don't think I could state that they were as a general statement of belief or fact, and as I said, creation of undead and the controlling of undead is evil, fact.


Owlbears are the same. You're a wizard, creating creatures that prey on people's worst nightmares is what you do. :smallyuk: Yes, but the creation of an owlbear is a moot point. The creation of undead or evil creatures on the other hand is evil.

CREATING EVIL CREATURES

Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.


If corpses are so foul, why do we give them such nice tombs to dwell in? :smalltongue: Though I see your point.

Because they are so foul we need to keep them out of the way of the living people, or if the living people visit to pray, then we burn them or keep them in a closed tomb or buried. That and as any postal worker can tell you, a human corpse is a horrible thing to see, as is any corpse really.


But, notably, not all neutral churches, and not all churches that have paladins. See: Wee Jas, Jergal.
But neutral churches commit acts of good and evil. And as far as paladins go, I've always thought that odd certainly, and would bet that they don't endorse undeath.


What if there's already been a funeral and you're just recycling the corpse? What if it's an orc or goblin or something else that wouldn't be honorably sent off?

Recycling? You're not letting it lie, and as you can see from the fact that if you disturb the grave of a ghost, you disturb the ghost itself, you should see that you are still having an effect on the soul. As for orcs and goblins, have you never heard of a viking burial? I don't know about you but it seems appropriate enough for a warrior culture. Additionally:


In a world full of enemies
who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely
tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact
revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap.

Just because the evil goblins and orcs won't show mercy and compassion to a fallen orc or goblin, doesn't make it any less evil for you to do the same.


That's a crime against True Neutral, not against good.

Yeah as I said, that was filler, most likely compost.


Only if you take the Lichloved feat. Which tends to come up in these discussions quite a bit, I've noticed.

The sick pervert part is a summary, and many necromancers tend to get lonely in those towers, having a low charisma and so being unable to attract women with the scent of death... so easy to get a little carried away and take something too far...


Depends how you use it. As discussions on these topics inevitably mention, you could command "Go, my undead minions! Go save the children!" You could command them to harvest crops. You could command them to work in a factory. Undead can be used for good.

Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

So it would still be evil.


However, I agree that, by RAW, undead are evil and keeping them in existence is evil. A good necromancer who controls undead would be like the Malconvoker class, a usually-good wizard who tricks/binds demons to make them do good. And, by RAW, raising undead is inherently evil.

Agreed, but it is probably more good of the Malconvoker to make demons do good than to just kill them, making them respawn and come back for more blood. However, killing undead tends to be more good than controlling them for good as they still need feeding, and killed undead (apart from liches, vampire lords and other plot essential BBEG's) don't tend to come back once destroyed as you cannot reanimate a corpse (at least not without high level magic most likely found in Savage Species)


Therefore, by RAW the safest way to be a good-aligned necromancer would be to focus on combat. Enervation, Vampiric Touch and suchlike don't have alignment descriptors. You fight against living evil beings with the raw power of death.

Agreed again, but the OP wanted to be a necromancer in the traditional sense of raising the undead and controlling them, which I believe we both agree on as being evil.

__________________________________________________ ____



I'm going to give you an example of good necromacy.
An isolated village is attacked by bandits, the town millitia manages to kill the bandits, but in the process many of them die or are greviously injured. The Town Millitia consists of most of the able-bodied villagers, which means most of the farmers are unable to work. For some reason a villager learns how to do some basic necromacy, so he animates some of the corpses of the bandits to work in the fields so the harvest dosn't spoil, therefore saving the village, as well as to bolster the now-depleated ranks of the millita in order to discourage further attack.
So by using necromacy he just saved and protected his village, is that an evil act? Or if he was good would he have been forced to let his go hungry and be undefended.


Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no

Yes it is evil, even if it serves a greater cause. The RAW say so.


EDIT: Due to the time I took writing this (I started after BLC's post) it appears I have been ninjad by about half the thread.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 08:58 PM
As for the original question: You ask if a necromancer who creates minions, using an evil spell, can be good. I believe that they can, if only because wizards don't have alignment restrictions to spellcasting like wizards. Keep in mind to use your minions responsibly, and perhaps have them carry icons of a good deity so Paladins don't attack on sight.

Wait... wouldn't said paladin think them revived dead from that church? That would be a very bad mix-up to have. Though it would be a good idea to give them some sort of identification to keep them from being killed by my guys.

Ganurath
2007-12-21, 09:01 PM
Wait... wouldn't said paladin think them revived dead from that church? That would be a very bad mix-up to have. Though it would be a good idea to give them some sort of identification to keep them from being killed by my guys.Arcane Mark on the forehead of the skeleton? Yes, skeleton, because the only useful zombies are hydras and big zombies with wings for you to ride so you can save the spell slot you would have blow flight on for something else.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:05 PM
A somewhat rerlated question, how exactly does the primal force of entropy and decay animate trhings? also technicly casting a spell with the (evil) descriptor isn't evil.


CASTING EVIL SPELLS
Listed as an evil act so you are completely wrong there. As regards your question about negative energy, if you go to the positive energy plane than the energy of life can kill you.





golems create a grim mockery of life
As I said, that comes under manipulating others for personal gain so technically is evil.


people who die of old age can't be ressurected so just only raise them. Where do good people do that? Tell me, I honestly don't know.


the entire enchantment school is about controling people's mins and bodies.
As the BoVD says, manipulating and controlling others for personal gain is evil, so doing so with enchantment spells is no exception.


Negative energy is unaligned check the planes section of the Dmg.

Yes, but...


undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

So it makes the world darker and more evil.


any outsider, aberation, construct, ooze, majical beast, elemental, Fey, mosterous humonoid, humonoid or animal has to be the worst nightmare of some mortal. Yes, but there is a reason why most horror films today are about the walking dead.


so corpses are foul and disgusting? hmm, also animate objects can do the same thing.

Yes corpses are foul and disgusting, that's why you don't keep your dead ancestors' bodies lying on the couch. As far as animated objects go, they are never living objects and are non-sentient and they never were anything sentient, so you aren't manipulating a sentient being, nor are you using negative energy to create undead.


churches do not define right and wrong.

They do for their believers, and I am saying that their condemnation of an evil act as being evil merely adds more weight to the view that people as a whole consider it evil.


sane is a relative term. also honour is lawful.

Yes, but when using words such as sane, I measure it by a standard of normality equal to 'not sectionable under the mental health act as insane'.

As far as honour goes, honour is lawful good, as the BoVD states, Lying, cheating and stealing are all evil.



gentel repose, ressurection, cremation, timeless planes and nature isn't good its unalgined.
entirely subjective.

As I said, filler, but try taking that up with a Marut.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:11 PM
Necromancy is about manipulation of life forces. Not all necromancers raise the dead so yes you can still be good

READ THE DAMN OP!!! HE'S TALKING ABOUT ANIMATING THE DEAD, NOT NECROMANCY IN GENERAL!!!!!!!!!!


Is such a thing possible? By using the bodies of the fallen to perform acts of good, can a necromancer themself be good? And if you don't use them, they certainly aren't, so why not put them to use? Yeah, it's messing with the natural order of things, but when is magic not?

HAVE YOU NO EYES?

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-21, 09:12 PM
I don't see why not, but D&D gets all gooey over Kantian morality, so it probably cannot exist as the rules are written.

Ganurath
2007-12-21, 09:22 PM
Laurellien, I have a proposal. I am willing to conceed that casting evil spells is an Evil act. Are you willing to concede that having undead under your command perform Good acts on a regular basis as well as doing Good yourself would make up for animating 4 HD of undead per level? In closing:
Sacred necromancy is righteous, but practical necromancy is an abomination. It's hypocrasy, I say.Even if the magic is branded as evil, it does not mean that it cannot be used to do good.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 09:23 PM
Why does someone else have to do it first in your book? You keep saying 'where do good people do this'. Why can't this be the first? Why can't someone do something else nobody though or had the stomach to do?

Okay, look at a freshly dead person. What is so disgusting about that? Maybe a bit pale, but otherwise a perfectly normal-looking dude. If someone falls in battle and is raised as a zombie, they'd be pretty much the same as when they died. They don't spontaneously rot.

If there are good undead, why can't mine be good?

Why can't it be a modified 'animate objects' to get the same effect, rather than an evil spell? That actually says it uses positive energy.

What about sentient weapons? An evil sentient weapon can be used for good purposes, but swinging it doesn't make you evil.

How do we know the undead bodies use the same soul they were dealt? Couldn't an undead be theoretically manned by raw arcane energy? Magic missiles know how to find their target. Couldn't similar magics control a sword-arm or shambling legs?

Besides, that's the book of vile darkness. Almost nobody uses that for anything.

Felius
2007-12-21, 09:26 PM
Well, I would say it depends on the link dead body-soul in the setting. If when it''s animated, the soul is dragged into it, and made suffer until the body is deanimated, I'd say evil. If after death the soul goes wherever it goes, and the body remains just as a hollow shell, well it's just squicky.

That said, I heard that in second edition it wasn't evil, but I guess Wizards changed it so the game get less of the "oh my god, the player can raise the dead to do his bidding. It's the devil's game. LET'S BURN THE BOOKS!" reaction.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 09:26 PM
Rule as written, animating the dead as undead is 'irrecoverably evil' deed (refer to HoH, DN alignment, or MoI Necrocarnate, or BoVD). However, there are some examples such as Deathless of Aerenal as some people have mentioned, or Good-lich from MoF (I think? I didn't read the text thoroughly). Therefore, if you can convince your DM that your Animate Dead spell is, in fact, channeling positive energy to create good-aligned undead (Deathless even?) rather than typical evil-aligned undead, I guess it could be considered an act of good.

Of course, being 'Good' may entail certain limits such as having the duration of the animation set (rather than being instantaneous), so you'll have to 'free' the body sometime. Well, that would be you and your DM to sort out, won't it?:smallwink:

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:31 PM
Laurellien, I have a proposal. I am willing to conceed that casting evil spells is an Evil act. Are you willing to concede that having undead under your command perform Good acts on a regular basis as well as doing Good yourself would make up for animating 4 HD of undead per level? In closing:Even if the magic is branded as evil, it does not mean that it cannot be used to do good.

Of course it can be used to do good, I accept that point readily, I can't deny a fact.

HOWEVER, as I have already stated with the most authoratative sources on the matter behind me

Creation and control of undead is evil (BOVD Page 8)
Good characters cannot use the argument that just ends justify foul means (BOED Page 9)
Therefore utilising the undead is essentially evil.

As far as I see it, this would not cause you to become an evil character, but it would cause you to fall as a paladin, and would likely cause a cleric of a good deity to lose his powers, despite there being no alignment change. Remember, a single evil act doesn't make you evil, it just makes a paladin fall.

puppyavenger
2007-12-21, 09:33 PM
Listed as an evil act so you are completely wrong there. As regards your question about negative energy, if you go to the positive energy plane than the energy of life can kill you.

Fill a container with more than it can hold and it will burst, empty a container of more than it holds and you are doing nothing. also sorry about the evil spell part, don't have BOVD



As I said, that comes under manipulating others for personal gain so technically is evil.

Where do good people do that? Tell me, I honestly don't know.

They don't I'm just pointing out that you can't ressurect people who die of old age.

As the BoVD says, manipulating and controlling others for personal gain is evil, so doing so with enchantment spells is no exception.

kay then

Yes, but...


So it makes the world darker and more evil.

so bringing an unaligned and entirely natuaral force of entropy into the world makes it darker and eviler?


Yes, but there is a reason why most horror films today are about the walking dead.
lots of horror books are about reality warping horrors from beyond, yet theres an entire good pretige class to binding fiends and the Far realm is unaligned.


Yes corpses are foul and disgusting, that's why you don't keep your dead ancestors' bodies lying on the couch. As far as animated objects go, they are never living objects and are non-sentient and they never were anything sentient, so you aren't manipulating a sentient being, nor are you using negative energy to create undead.

you can animate a corpse and disgusting does not mean evil

They do for their believers, and I am saying that their condemnation of an evil act as being evil merely adds more weight to the view that people as a whole consider it evil.

whether people consider something evil or not has no effect on whether it is evil

Yes, but when using words such as sane, I measure it by a standard of normality equal to 'not sectionable under the mental health act as insane'.

just to point out that most adventurers must have something extremly worong witht their self preservation instinct
As far as honour goes, honour is lawful good, as the BoVD states, Lying, cheating and stealing are all evil.

yet the phb stats that honest is lwful trait not a good one/


As I said, filler, but try taking that up with a Marut.

who are LN constructs.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 09:36 PM
Well, since I suggested replacing Deathless type with Undead, I compared the two:

Comparison of Deathless type and Undead type

Same HD
Same BAB
Both have good Will saves
Same skill point per HD (provided that the Deathless/Undead is not mindless. Of course, I never heard of a mindless Deathless, but that can be house-ruled)
Immunities: Unlike undead, Deathless are subject to energy drain.
Negative energy harms Deathless, heals Undead
Positive energy heals Deathless, harms Undead

It seems deathless are slightly inferior to undead in that they are still subject to energy drain, but clever players can make use of that weakness, IMO.



If I were the DM, I think I'll allow deathless zombies/skeletons to be animated by the use of Animate Dead spell.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 09:38 PM
Laurellien, perhaps you'd convince more people if you didn't bring quotes from skewed material, which contradicts the game on a basic point? Basically, Core says no Good alignment is definetely "Better", in that all do equal good, though it states, however, that NG is "gooder" because it doesn't have any prejudice from Ethics (which is true). However, in the BoVD and BoED, LG and CE are marked as the ultimate Good and Bad. Basically, if you bring BoVD or BoED to the debate, everyone's going to call shenanigans and bull on you.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:47 PM
Why does someone else have to do it first in your book? You keep saying 'where do good people do this'. Why can't this be the first? Why can't someone do something else nobody though or had the stomach to do?

Because if it wasn't evil, even if it wasn't done, people would accept that it wasn't evil, but they don't so subjectively it is. Additionally, I'm going off the Rules as Written and quite clearly intended, raising the undead is objectively, irrevocably EVIL.


Okay, look at a freshly dead person. I'd rather not.


What is so disgusting about that? Maybe a bit pale, but otherwise a perfectly normal-looking dude. It's more than that though. You would have to be an emotionless zombie not to feel some measure of grief, horror or even nausea at the sight of a corpse. Additionally, I'd rather not look at a corpse, they ain't nice.


If someone falls in battle and is raised as a zombie, they'd be pretty much the same as when they died.

Apart from a massive gaping wound, or half their head missing, or the shambling, or the lifeless, unblinking eyes, or the dark, hideous moaning, or the arms outstretched seeking to strangle and maim, weapons cast aside.


They don't spontaneously rot.
But you can still tell that they are undead. Or you could make skeletons which sorta do.


If there are good undead, why can't mine be good?
Because without exception, the only nonevil undead choose to become undead themselves, be it a good lich making a phylactery, or a ghost rising to continue what it started. So if you can convince a good undead to work with you, without creating or controlling it, then dandy-fine for you, you've done well.


Why can't it be a modified 'animate objects' to get the same effect, rather than an evil spell? That actually says it uses positive energy.

That doesn't animate corpses though, and I'm going off Rules as written, in which Animate dead = negative energy and necromancy and evil, Animate objects = positive energy and transmutation and nonevil


What about sentient weapons? An evil sentient weapon can be used for good purposes, but swinging it doesn't make you evil.

Unless it controls you due to the negative levels you just picked up. the Book of Exalted Deeds has rules for redeeming evil items, so to leave it evil is essentially nongood.


How do we know the undead bodies use the same soul they were dealt? Couldn't an undead be theoretically manned by raw arcane energy? Magic missiles know how to find their target. Couldn't similar magics control a sword-arm or shambling legs?

Yes, but it is still negative energy doing that. If you use positive energy, you create a deathless and invariably need the souls permission.


Besides, that's the book of vile darkness. Almost nobody uses that for anything.

Apart from the fact that it is RAW.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:50 PM
who are LN constructs.

What do you not understand by the word filler? And please, at least shorten the quote rather than quoting me word-for-word.


Laurellien, perhaps you'd convince more people if you didn't bring quotes from skewed material, which contradicts the game on a basic point? Basically, Core says no Good alignment is definetely "Better", in that all do equal good, though it states, however, that NG is "gooder" because it doesn't have any prejudice from Ethics (which is true). However, in the BoVD and BoED, LG and CE are marked as the ultimate Good and Bad. Basically, if you bring BoVD or BoED to the debate, everyone's going to call shenanigans and bull on you.

I'm quoting RAW in a RAW debate over whether one can be good and control/animate the undead. I wouldn't have to quote sources beyond the PHB if people didn't just stop trying when they see [Evil] next to the spell name.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 09:51 PM
See post above. BoVD contradicts basic facts of core and implications that stem from it, so it's as reliable as using a Healer or Artificer to measure average class power.

Belteshazzar
2007-12-21, 09:52 PM
Yes, my current necromancer summons the souls of his ancestors as skeletons, not zombies, in order not reveal the shame of rotting flesh and puss. Only most vile enemies are brought back in shame of decay. However, it is an honor to join his ivory guard as eternal warriors.

Of course he is a Neanderthal who is trying to resurrect his ancient tribal kingdom by taking Sand Shaper levels after Ten levels of Dread Necromancer.

MCerberus
2007-12-21, 09:53 PM
I had a good necromancer once. Stat drain, fear, and weakening spells with the right team behind you makes you a good addition to the team. The lack of animate dead did kind of hurt a couple of times, but you'll be fine as long as you don't want an overpowered batman.

edit - I didn't even have *that one spell*.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 09:55 PM
See post above. BoVD contradicts basic facts of core and implications that stem from it, so it's as reliable as using a Healer or Artificer to measure average class power.

But I'm not trying such divination as class balance, I am going off RAW in a debate about whether somebody can animate/control undead and be good by RAW. The D&D alignment system, even in core, is quite clearly biased in favour of LG and CE as THE extremes, and so we have to bear that in mind. Personally, I think of CG as the ultimate good and LE as the ultimate evil, and make my games fit around that.

puppyavenger
2007-12-21, 09:57 PM
Let me repeat this
Nothin in the animate objects decription says it can't animate corpses!

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 10:02 PM
Actually, D&D core is slightly biased to "true" alignments (Why else are Hades and Elysium in existance if not, there's already TWO other NG and NE planes).

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:02 PM
Yes? And? It's transmutation, not necromancy, and that does not change the fact that


ANIMATING THE DEAD

is listed as an evil act.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 10:03 PM
Good characters cannot use the argument that just ends justify foul means (BOED Page 9)

Unfortunately, now we've got some internal contradiction on our hands. Just off the top off my head, two PrCs, theGray Guard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070320) and the Shadowbane Inquisitor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20050107a), contradict that.


It's more than that though. You would have to be an emotionless zombie not to feel some measure of grief, horror or even nausea at the sight of a corpse. Additionally, I'd rather not look at a corpse, they ain't nice.

I expect experienced fighters tend to get used to it. By 5th level, the average DnD character will have made a lot of corpses.

However, one thing I noticed is that you said that controlling undead is evil. By RAW, Control Undead is not an evil spell. In theory, you could control a bunch of undead created by an evil guy and use them as your minions without being evil - though, given that we've established that keeping undead around is probably evil, that would be skirting the edge.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 10:04 PM
Because if it wasn't evil, even if it wasn't done, people would accept that it wasn't evil, but they don't so subjectively it is. Additionally, I'm going off the Rules as Written and quite clearly intended, raising the undead is objectively, irrevocably EVIL.
Okay, like Azerian Kelimon said, you're reading from a skewed sourse. You can't just pat the bible and expect people to listen to you. If it is an evil act to create them, couldn't that be canceled out by doing good with them?


I'd rather not.
Thankfully, most of us have more of a stomach than that.



It's more than that though. You would have to be an emotionless zombie not to feel some measure of grief, horror or even nausea at the sight of a corpse. Additionally, I'd rather not look at a corpse, they ain't nice.
Not really. A corpse stops being a 'person' so much as a 'chunk of meat' at that point. Both my parents are doctors, so that has something to do with it.



Apart from a massive gaping wound, or half their head missing, or the shambling, or the lifeless, unblinking eyes, or the dark, hideous moaning, or the arms outstretched seeking to strangle and maim, weapons cast aside.
If you're in complete control of it, couldn't you make it dress up like a gentleman and fight like a normal fellow?



But you can still tell that they are undead. Or you could make skeletons which sorta do.
Skeletons are completely sterile. Nothing grows in a bone. Mold can grow ON bones, but that's only if they spend a lot of time sitting still.



Because without exception, the only nonevil undead choose to become undead themselves, be it a good lich making a phylactery, or a ghost rising to continue what it started. So if you can convince a good undead to work with you, without creating or controlling it, then dandy-fine for you, you've done well.
Why is it not evil to control animated objects? Because they have no minds. Why is it evil to control an animated object made of meat and shaped like a person? It's well-established that it has no mind anymore, it's dead. Just because it happens to be once alive is no reason to be hatin'.



That doesn't animate corpses though, and I'm going off Rules as written, in which Animate dead = negative energy and necromancy and evil, Animate objects = positive energy and transmutation and nonevil
Why couldn't animate objects do dead people? they are objects, after all. They have substance and exist on the material plane.



Unless it controls you due to the negative levels you just picked up. the Book of Exalted Deeds has rules for redeeming evil items, so to leave it evil is essentially nongood.
How so? Lack of action like that is laziness, not evil. So it'd be neutral.



Yes, but it is still negative energy doing that. If you use positive energy, you create a deathless and invariably need the souls permission.
Or an animated object...



Apart from the fact that it is RAW.
according to Azerian Kelimon, it's RAW that is skewed.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:04 PM
Actually, D&D core is slightly biased to "true" alignments (Why else are Hades and Elysium in existance if not, there's already TWO other NG and NE planes).

If so then Paladins would be NG not LG as the ultimate champions of good. Additionally, the aligned planes are 2 by 2 anyway (Abyss/Pandemonium, Hell/Acheron(or is it Gehenna?)/Carceri)

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 10:07 PM
Indeed, Paladins SHOULD be NG. However, that'd screw with the perception of Lawful, so they took the lesser evil and made 'em LG. It isn't a surprise.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:12 PM
Unfortunately, now we've got some internal contradiction on our hands. Just off the top off my head, two PrCs, theGray Guard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070320) and the Shadowbane Inquisitor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20050107a), contradict that.

Well in that case they are exceptions to the rule rather than the blanket rule itself.


I expect experienced fighters tend to get used to it. By 5th level, the average DnD character will have made a lot of corpses.

Yes but when they get up and start walking about, the uninitiated will get to see them. Undead don't merely affect the user, they affect all that they come into contact with.


However, one thing I noticed is that you said that controlling undead is evil. By RAW, Control Undead is not an evil spell. In theory, you could control a bunch of undead created by an evil guy and use them as your minions without being evil - though, given that we've established that keeping undead around is probably evil, that would be skirting the edge.

Actually: Only nongood clerics can command or bolster undead. But yes it is the keeping undead around which is the main problem.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 10:23 PM
Well in that case they are exceptions to the rule rather than the blanket rule itself.

My objections:
1. The BoED is one book. The PrCs I mentioned are from two different books. That suggests that there is more material saying that good can be done through evil acts than that any bit of evil is terrible.
2. I'd say that if a blanket rule of how Good and Evil in the universe work - the most ironclad type of rule possible - has to have exceptions, it's not really a rule.


Yes but when they get up and start walking about, the uninitiated will get to see them. Undead don't merely affect the user, they affect all that they come into contact with.

So we're back to "Undead are evil because people don't like how they look?" Dwarves have a Charisma penalty and they aren't evil.


Actually: Only nongood clerics can command or bolster undead. But yes it is the keeping undead around which is the main problem.

Yes. I meant the spell Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm)

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:27 PM
Okay, like Azerian Kelimon said, you're reading from a skewed sourse. You can't just pat the bible and expect people to listen to you. If it is an evil act to create them, couldn't that be canceled out by doing good with them?

I'm reading from RAW, just because a book has stuff that doesn't mesh well with other sources (see Serpent Kingdoms and the Complete Series) doesn't stop it from being RAW.



Thankfully, most of us have more of a stomach than that. You would look at corpses for pleasure? I would look at a corpse if I felt that it would do me good, but barring that I see little need and I would rather not. Also, take your veiled insults to another board.



Not really. A corpse stops being a 'person' so much as a 'chunk of meat' at that point. Both my parents are doctors, so that has something to do with it.

Precisely, mental training comes into it. Most young doctors, the first time they are at med school, find it gross when they see their first cadavre. And although your 7th level dread necromancer may have experience of being around corpses, that level 1 commoner his zombies are trying to help out hasn't, you can't look at it in terms of doing things to high powered, experienced warriors or specialists, you need to think what it will do to the ordinary folk.



If you're in complete control of it, couldn't you make it dress up like a gentleman and fight like a normal fellow?

Yes, but in the middle of a battle? You haven't had time to clean it up or dress it up.



Skeletons are completely sterile. Nothing grows in a bone. Mold can grow ON bones, but that's only if they spend a lot of time sitting still.

Yes, I know that, my point is that you were saying the effect of horror is not created as the corpse doesn't rot instantaneously when it is turned undead, I was pointing out that in the case of skeletons, it goes one step beyond that and creates the ultimate symbol of death and fear in the human language (see also the sign for poison, the Jolly Rodger, etc.)



Why is it not evil to control animated objects? Because they have no minds. Why is it evil to control an animated object made of meat and shaped like a person? It's well-established that it has no mind anymore, it's dead. Just because it happens to be once alive is no reason to be hatin'.

Which is where D&D morality disagrees with you. You are taking one of the two most important possessions of a person and using it without their permission or input.



Why couldn't animate objects do dead people? they are objects, after all. They have substance and exist on the material plane.

I don't see how the spell used makes any difference to the fundamental act. Taking somebody's body without his permission and using it without his input.



How so? Lack of action like that is laziness, not evil. So it'd be neutral.

Notice how I avoided the word evil there. Remember here, your character is commiting many evil acts already, he needs good acts to balance this.



Or an animated object...
Which is essentially doing the same bad work as negative energy, taking somebody's body without permission after they have died, denying them a proper funeral, and utilising their corpse without their input. By all means create deathless, there is no problem with that, just be aware that non-sentience is the mark of evil animating magic if done on a body.


according to Azerian Kelimon, it's RAW that is skewed.

But it is still RAW.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 10:28 PM
So we're back to "Undead are evil because people don't like how they look?" Dwarves have a Charisma penalty and they aren't evil.

Umm, not trying to get involved in yet another argument, but some undeads actually gain bonus to their Charisma. Funny, huh?:smallconfused:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 10:29 PM
Of course it is RAW. RAW, far as I know, however, donnae beat Word Of Godded RAI.

MCerberus
2007-12-21, 10:29 PM
But it is still RAW.

Well I just got in my head the best argument I think I can make here because of that. Rule 0. If you talk to whoever you're playing under, and they say "It's still evil" or "I see your point go ahead" then that deals with the controversy very well.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:32 PM
My objections:
1. The BoED is one book. The PrCs I mentioned are from two different books. That suggests that there is more material saying that good can be done through evil acts than that any bit of evil is terrible.

But the BoED is a whole book dedicated to the subject, not just a few pages. Additionally, the Paladin class provides a counterexample to one of your PrC's, as does the Holy Liberator IIRC


2. I'd say that if a blanket rule of how Good and Evil in the universe work - the most ironclad type of rule possible - has to have exceptions, it's not really a rule.

All rules in D&D have exceptions, even so they are still rules.




So we're back to "Undead are evil because people don't like how they look?" Dwarves have a Charisma penalty and they aren't evil.

No we are back to Undead are evil because they are cruel mockeries of life designed as weapons of terror as much as weapons of war.

Laurellien
2007-12-21, 10:34 PM
Well I just got in my head the best argument I think I can make here because of that. Rule 0. If you talk to whoever you're playing under, and they say "It's still evil" or "I see your point go ahead" then that deals with the controversy very well.

Yes it does, but if that was the case then the OP should have asked his DM for a campaign specific answer rather than the GitP boards for a blanket answer.


Anyway, it is 3:30 in the morning where I am, and I have christmas shopping to do. So I'm off to bed now and I'll see you all in about 18-20 hours, and keep the thread warm as this probably isn't over.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 10:35 PM
2. I'd say that if a blanket rule of how Good and Evil in the universe work - the most ironclad type of rule possible - has to have exceptions, it's not really a rule.


All rules in D&D have exceptions, even so they are still rules.


If that's the case, none of us can do any debating, because you've got to fix the gigantic, sucking, magnetically positively charged black hole of alignment in core 'n stuff first.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 10:35 PM
Umm, not trying to get involved in yet another argument, but some undeads actually gain bonus to their Charisma. Funny, huh?:smallconfused:

Yes, I know. Vampires and such. What I meant was that Charisma is in part attractiveness, and it seems to me that a large part of Laurellien's argument is that undead are evil because people are scared of them/ think they are hideous.

EDIT:

But the BoED is a whole book dedicated to the subject, not just a few pages. Additionally, the Paladin class provides a counterexample to one of your PrC's, as does the Holy Liberator IIRC.

...
The Gray Guard and Shadowbane Inquistor are required to start as Lawful Good. They are designed for Paladins. If these examples are paladins, then the paladin class is not a counterexample to them.


No we are back to Undead are evil because they are cruel mockeries of life designed as weapons of terror as much as weapons of war.

Fine, then paint them in pastel colors so that they aren't scary-looking. Encase them in head-to-toe armor so they look like golems. Then they'll just be weapons of war, not terrifying because they are decorated merrily and not mockeries of life because no one can tell that they used to be alive.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-21, 10:36 PM
Good characters cannot use the argument that just ends justify foul means (BOED Page 9)

Foul, like, killing? Well, guess everyone in D&D is evil.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-21, 10:41 PM
Foul, like, killing? Well, guess everyone in D&D is evil.
KILLING isnt evil in D&D, MURDERING people is. Murder is when you kill someone who is innocent or for an evil reason. A paladin killing a demon isnt evil because its a defender of good killing the ultimate incarnation of evil, and is actually a good act (ridding the world of Evil) but if that same paladin randomly stabbed some peasant, that would be very evil.

As for why animate object doesn't work on corpses and isnt evil. Corpses used to be people, and people had souls, to reanimate a corpse it must have a soul, which is why you can't (unless you're pretty much a god, and the rules of the multiverse will bend over backwards for you if you say so) raise Demons or Devils or other such soulless beings. Inanimate objects, as a wrote of being INANIMATE OBJECTS from the beginning have no souls, none, nadda, which is why it isn't evil to make them animate, it isnt intelligent, it has no soul, its just a hunk of metal, whereas a corpse has a corresponding soul, and if you raise that corpse without a souls express permission you are defiling it and that is evil and yadda yadda. in a nutshell (a big nutshell but a nutshell nonetheless)

Edit: If someone already went through this, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the 2nd page and skipped ahead >.>

Eldritch_Ent
2007-12-21, 10:51 PM
I'm going to just gloss over what Laurellian and other people said (too long, didn't read), and just throw out my own points.


1- Controlling undead isn't an evil act. Creating undead, not neccisarily either. I suppose it's how you go about it...

2- The DnD alignment system is inherently flawed. Raising undead is always evil, aka objective alignment, is just one of its many flaws. Thus, I never use alignment by RAW, I use a 3d cube. G/E, L/C, and Light/Dark alignments. The third simply applies to instinct- One can still be a good black dragon or vampire, your alignment just reads G/N/Dark.

3- A lot of people go "Eww undead, unnatural! Banz0red! Burn the witch!" as a kneejerk reaction. Sadly, a lot of people can't get over their gut instinct and think about it rationally (even on forums like these), and this applies equally to peasents, who might label something "Evil" even if it's not neccisarily so.

4- Just because something is labeled "Evil" doesn't mean it's neccisarily so in all cultures. In some cultures, for example, it's considered evil to associate, speak with, or even see a woman on her period. In others, it's inherently evil to let dairy and meat products touch. In some, it's evil to wear Zippers. And in some, it's illegal to use dead people for anything but immediate burial. Even for things like medical science. Autopsies? A sin against god, go to hell immediately.

5- RAW Schmaw. Rule 0 is more important, and if people think it makes for a more interesting story to make undead not neccisarily evil, Then you have no right to tell me "I'm doing it wrong".

6- Not entirely related, but was anyone else here reminded of scenes in movies and books where it wasn't evil to create or control undead? Like that one LOTR scene where they summoned up the army of heroes long since dead to help save the world... are those Inherently evil acts?

7- Angels and other such things, as a person who died, went to heaven, and returned, are technically undead, but still good.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 10:57 PM
Okay, how about I just use speak with dead on whoever was using the body before, and ask permission to animate them as a zombie/skeleton? There must be a way to animate a dead body without ripping the original soul back from the dead, and so It could be created so.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-12-21, 10:58 PM
There must be a way to animate a dead body without ripping the original soul back from the dead.

Sorry for postuing again so soon, but... Flesh Golem? It's both a construct AND undead. I wonder how those fit in with this discussion?

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 11:01 PM
Now, let's not turn this debate into a religious one, hey? "Where the soul goes when a person dies" is one of the many things that this board is not meant for, IMO. :smallfrown:

Cuddly
2007-12-21, 11:04 PM
Use Animate Objects.

Cuddly
2007-12-21, 11:05 PM
Now, let's not turn this debate into a religious one, hey? "Where the soul goes when a person dies" is one of the many things that this board is not meant for, IMO. :smallfrown:

I thought everyone knew where souls go after the body dies- depends on the campaign setting.

:smallbiggrin:

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 11:09 PM
I thought everyone knew where souls go after the body dies- depends on the campaign setting.

:smallbiggrin:


:smallamused:

Felius
2007-12-21, 11:11 PM
Which is essentially doing the same bad work as negative energy, taking somebody's body without permission after they have died, denying them a proper funeral, and utilising their corpse without their input. By all means create deathless, there is no problem with that, just be aware that non-sentience is the mark of evil animating magic if done on a body.

You're being contradictorial. According to RAW this WOULDN'T be evil. If you call creating then evil because RAW says so, you cannot call THIS evil, as by RAW it isn't. You may feel Raw is wrong, but hey, using your own words


But it is still RAW.


By the way, sorry if this posts sounds a little agressive, it wasn't my meaning, but the contradiction of your argument got me too much to be ignored.

tyckspoon
2007-12-21, 11:14 PM
Sorry for postuing again so soon, but... Flesh Golem? It's both a construct AND undead. I wonder how those fit in with this discussion?

It's a construct that just happens to look like an undead creature. In game terms, if it were really also undead, it would have the Undead type and be affected by Turn Undead, which it doesn't and isn't. I'm not really sure why Animate Dead is one of the creation spells for it; Animate Object would be more appropriate for the end result of a golem. There's nothing evil about the flesh golem unless you're convinced that doing anything at all with a corpse is inherently evil.

TheOOB
2007-12-21, 11:16 PM
I'm going to post the same link I post up every time there is an argument for the alignment of necromancy.

Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562)

It really depends on how your DM interpenetrates necromancy (or raising undead) to determine whether a good necromancer makes sense. If negative energy and undead are inherently evil, then so is necromancy, if they are not, then necromancy is not evil, though most good people probably wouldn't like it anyways.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-21, 11:16 PM
Now, let's not turn this debate into a religious one, hey? "Where the soul goes when a person dies" is one of the many things that this board is not meant for, IMO. :smallfrown:

In D&D(general, notwithstanding individual campaign settings or rules) the soul goes to the realm of the Deity to which they worshiped or, in the case of Faithless they go to (I believe Kelemvors Wall?) but regardless, its not really a discussion of RL religions because it falls under the direct purview of D&D rule-sets.

TheOOB
2007-12-21, 11:22 PM
In D&D(general, notwithstanding individual campaign settings or rules) the soul goes to the realm of the Deity to which they worshiped or, in the case of Faithless they go to (I believe Kelemvors Wall?) but regardless, its not really a discussion of RL religions because it falls under the direct purview of D&D rule-sets.

In official D&D(aka greyhawk) those who don't follow a god go to a plane based on their alignment. Really even using D&D religion is pointless, because every setting does things differently.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-21, 11:22 PM
KILLING isnt evil in D&D, MURDERING people is. Murder is when you kill someone who is innocent or for an evil reason.
You mean like the monsters who just happen to live in that dungeon, and thus whose home you are now invading? Or some Orcs who are forced, essentially, to rob "civilized" people to live because they have been pushed out of hunting grounds by civilization and into mountains that aren't even fit for sedentary agriculture? Maybe some guy who elimates the exploitation of the impoverished by getting mindless corpses, who would've just been sitting around rotting without him, to do the silly, manual labour, allowing an immensely successful society with no lower class, because he believes something different than you do?
"Evil" sure takes on some funny forms.


A paladin killing a demon isnt evil because its a defender of good killing the ultimate incarnation of evil, and is actually a good act (ridding the world of Evil) but if that same paladin randomly stabbed some peasant, that would be very evil.
So, doing something that's normally evil for a good purpose, like killing to rid the world of evil, makes it good? Similarly, something that's normally evil, like raising the dead, for a good purpose, is evil? Wait, that doesn't make sense.
Also, what about raising the corpses of "evil" creatures? If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to use the bodies?

On the note of corpse defiling: Dragonscale armour. How is that not defiling the corpse of a sentient creature, and thus also evil?

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-21, 11:23 PM
In D&D(general, notwithstanding individual campaign settings or rules) the soul goes to the realm of the Deity to which they worshiped or, in the case of Faithless they go to (I believe Kelemvors Wall?) but regardless, its not really a discussion of RL religions because it falls under the direct purview of D&D rule-sets.

Well, just a question of interest then: does animating a corpse also trap the soul within the body, as Admiral Squish suggested?

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-21, 11:25 PM
In official D&D(aka greyhawk) those who don't follow a god go to a plane based on their alignment. Really even using D&D religion is pointless, because every setting does things differently.

I never though of Greyhawk as "official D&D" probably because my first D&D experience was BGII, and then I got the rule books and stuff, So I just associated "official D&D" with non-campaign specific D&D, and I think we can all agree that the point can easily be summed up by "In D&D people have souls" what happens after you die isnt as important (to my point at least) as the fact that in D&D things have souls.


Well, just a question of interest then: does animating a corpse also trap the soul within the body, as Admiral Squish suggested?

I don't think so, I always remember undead as being specifically soulless, but I'm tired and I don't have any real sources to confirm either way.

tyckspoon
2007-12-21, 11:28 PM
Well, just a question of interest then: does animating a corpse also trap the soul within the body, as Admiral Squish suggested?

You can't raise or resurrect something whose body is currently undead, which strongly implies that the animation process is doing something to the soul. It's never explicitly stated what, and it's almost certainly not the entire soul since if the whole thing was there you probably wouldn't have a mindless undead.

Benejeseret
2007-12-21, 11:29 PM
Hellbred

The answer to all dark-hero get-out-of-evil-free woes.

They specifically have a Evil Exemption Trait that allows them to use evil item and cast evil spells with no problems (so long as they do not use them for evil).

So, you where a big bad evil necro....who died.

The gods grant you a second chance to right your wrongs but you can do it the only way you know how, by making evildoes choke on hordes of the walking dead.

You even get a badarse appearance.

==>Hellbred
==>Profit

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-22, 12:00 AM
You can't raise or resurrect something whose body is currently undead, which strongly implies that the animation process is doing something to the soul. It's never explicitly stated what, and it's almost certainly not the entire soul since if the whole thing was there you probably wouldn't have a mindless undead.

No, it's because their body is in use; it's no longer tied to their soul, as if it had been disintegrated. You can, however, True Resurrect them, as that is powerful enough to find the body. Or so I always figured. The body having the soul trapped in it, but the soul having no control over the body whatsoever makes no sense, at all, to me. It also makes non-mindless undead make absolutely no sense, since the soul being present in mindless undead makes them no different from those who can think, which makes there no reasonable explanation for the difference.

tyckspoon
2007-12-22, 12:07 AM
No, it's because their body is in use; it's no longer tied to their soul, as if it had been disintegrated. You can, however, True Resurrect them, as that is powerful enough to find the body.

That would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it? If only it were true.



You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures.

True Res removes a lot of the restrictions on Raise Dead, but it still can't fix undead. Even if you use it to create an entirely new body for whatever you're ressing. The only reasonable explanation I can think of for that is that the soul is somehow entangled with the undead body, even for mindless undead (it makes some sense for intelligent undead, that can be said to have the dead person's mind and part of his soul powering them.)

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-22, 12:10 AM
That's definitely not true. True Resurrection returns liches, at least, to living beings. I'm not sure about other kinds of undead, but I'd assume it is tru for all of them.

EDIT: Tru was not a typo, I used that word to signify how gangsta undead are. Really. It was intentional.

tyckspoon
2007-12-22, 12:21 AM
That's definitely not true. True Resurrection returns liches, at least, to living beings. I'm not sure about other kinds of undead, but I'd assume it is tru for all of them.

EDIT: Tru was not a typo, I used that word to signify how gangsta undead are. Really. It was intentional.

mm. The Undead Type traits says "Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead." Resurrection and True Resurrection themselves, on the other hand, are pretty clear about it; they can't raise an undead creature directly. You can destroy the undead (render it re-dead) and then res it, which the text of Raise Dead doesn't seem to allow- it doesn't have the line about raising somebody who was 'turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.' It's shoddy writing, but my guess would be the intent of the line in the undead traits is to refer to that difference between Raise and Resurrect.

dyslexicfaser
2007-12-22, 12:35 AM
One thing: a neutral cleric can command and bolster undead. A neutral cleric chooses to either Turn or Command undead at the start of their career, but this does not make them evil. This says, to me, that rebuking undead is not evil.

Clerics of Wee Jas, for example, raise the dead, and are neutral. The only caveat is that they cannot procure the body by unlawful means.

horseboy
2007-12-22, 12:35 AM
If you believe that magic is unnatural and that any state that cannot be achieved without resort to the arcane arts is somehow sinister and terrifying, you are likely to fear the undead. But this makes you a benighted idiot, for magic is the best representation of what is natural. It suffuses the world and permeates all of us. It is as much a part of us as the air we breathe. No magic, even the magic we Nethermancers use, even that which exists on the threshold between life and death, is inherently evil. Nor, for that matter, is it inherently good. Magic has no mind, no morality-those who wield it make the choices for good or evil. I can use the spells that disturb you so much and yet protect you and your kin from the Horrors. If you are alive and well because of my efforts, how can you call the mere tools I used evil? Is a sword evil in and of itself? A vial can be used to hold healing potions or poison-if it is filled with poison, is it the vial or the poisoner who does wrong?

I have created undead beings myself. Does this shock you? No doubt it does. But wait, do you know what I did with my undead servants? I sent them to fight the Horror called Shezkseti, and saved more than a dozen villagers it had penned up for future torture. My creations were victims it had already slain, relatives and loved ones of those I rescued. They fought against that Horror with passion and fury. Though they were torn to bloody shreds by the Horror's claws, I am confident that they suffered their second, more infinitely painful deaths with equanimity. For they knew that their sacrifice fulfilled a vital goal. And their sacrifice gave meaning to their lives. Yes, I used the same tactic favored by the Horrors themselves. I threw that tactic in their faces, cut them with their own blades. If you call me a monster because of this, I can only laugh at your contemptible stupidity.Yeah you can, but you're still not an all happy care bear.

Neek
2007-12-22, 02:21 AM
A lot of words being thrown out. Let's consider a few things. Not using any supplements, whatsoever. 100% pure core.

D&D is high fantasy; it is designed with objective morality: Evil is a force, as is Good, both are opposed; yes, there is a middle ground. We'll get to that in a second. An evil act bolsters the forces of evil while good acts bolsters the forces of good. So, the means have everything to do with the ends.

The village is under attack by a pack of Gnolls (who are usually Chaotic Evil). The LG Wizard casts "Raise Dead" and draws skeletons from the local graveyard. He uses his skeleton army to kill the Gnolls to save the village.

Raise Dead is an evil spell.
Casting Evil spells is an evil act.
Evil acts bolster the forces of Evil.
Therefore, no good came out of the encounter.

It was accomplished, sure. How do the villagers feel, seeing the corpses of their kinsmen and family members exhumed and raised into shambling hordes?

Let's take another example; a real world example. Zoroastrian is a dualistic religion that believes in the forces of good and evil are in a cosmic struggle. There are certain substances that brood demons and bring darkness into the world. This is called nasa, and consists of various substances, specifically the flesh of the dead. Dead cannot sully the soil with their evil-making substances, nor can it traditionally sully fire, which is holy. So bodies are placed far from settlements atop high columns, where birds and natural decomposition destroys remove the nasa; after a while, the body is placed in a building where dead are stored.

Raising dead in this community is considered obviously evil. Not only are you spoiling the ground with the presence of nasa, you are allowing it to roam and come into contact with a person's home. You allow your skeleton army to save them against other evil beings? So what. The ground they just saved is as horrifying as the very concept. You do something more benign, and allow them to farm the fields? Hell, you can't even take food from a dead guy's hand. It's a mortal sin and you will die (not as a religious concept; the holy texts state that someone who does this is put to death).

So, let's take that little story into context. What is nasa, this demon-brooding substance? It's really any matter that spreads diseases, creates and bolsters plagues. So, in a world without moral objectivity, where there are greys and you can argue, "The means are evil (not puppy-killing evil, just slightly evil, but killing these gnolls are more important," then go right ahead. If the community does not like the thought of their dead being raised, then you earned their animosity. Or, worse yet, you could gain their trust, and end up spreading diseases that kills their people. That is if the general consensus that raising dead is somehow bad, if not [Evil]--and there are other ways of going about proving it without being over-handedly moralistic.

So, let's go back a bit: to the main topic. Negative energy is the energy that breaks forces down. While things are created in positive energy, they are destroyed in the face of pure negative energy. So positive creates, negative destroys. Creating something with negative energy is a bastardization of the natural order of things. Using negative energy to further destruction, while in a black and white terms, is evil, in greyer terms, it's simply a furthering of a natural function (Animating corpses is not natural, however).

Making a Good necromancer is nearly impossible because of the constraints imposed by the existing spells in your standard, black and white morality D&D game unless you start homebrewing spells like mad. In a more murkier morality, it's easier. It's all about play style and what your DM has in mind when he came up with the cosmology and the battle of forces in his game.

Laurellien
2007-12-22, 05:26 AM
If that's the case, none of us can do any debating, because you've got to fix the gigantic, sucking, magnetically positively charged black hole of alignment in core 'n stuff first.

That is true, I agree whole-heartedly. But it still stands that every rule has an exception.

Felius
2007-12-22, 10:16 AM
Raise Dead is an evil spell.
Casting Evil spells is an evil act.
Evil acts bolster the forces of Evil.
Therefore, no good came out of the encounter.

It was accomplished, sure. How do the villagers feel, seeing the corpses of their kinsmen and family members exhumed and raised into shambling hordes?


And saving their lives is a good thing.
And your last argument is equalizing evil with squicky which is simply not true. It's not because the villagers find undead disgusting that it's evil. If he used the animate objects on the bodies, it would be a fully good act by RAW, and the villagers would still be on the "irk" factor.

Don't bring real life religions into this please. What may be held true by it's believers, may not be also true into the campaign setting. Also, you can always animate skeletons, which can be pretty much sterile.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-22, 11:45 AM
You mean like the monsters who just happen to live in that dungeon, and thus whose home you are now invading? Or some Orcs who are forced, essentially, to rob "civilized" people to live because they have been pushed out of hunting grounds by civilization and into mountains that aren't even fit for sedentary agriculture? Maybe some guy who elimates the exploitation of the impoverished by getting mindless corpses, who would've just been sitting around rotting without him, to do the silly, manual labour, allowing an immensely successful society with no lower class, because he believes something different than you do?
"Evil" sure takes on some funny forms.

Well if he was NEUTRAL he could sure as hell do that and no one but the self-rightous goodies would complain, because while he's doing something "evil" he's doing it for a "Good" reason, this is a neutral act because no amount of do-gooding can justify evil actions enough to be "good", only make them non-evil


So, doing something that's normally evil for a good purpose, like killing to rid the world of evil, makes it good? Similarly, something that's normally evil, like raising the dead, for a good purpose, is evil? Wait, that doesn't make sense.
Also, what about raising the corpses of "evil" creatures? If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to use the bodies?

No, killing in of itself is not evil, the act of "killing" something isnt evil, its the context that makes it evil, "murder" is evil because its killing an innocent or killing for an evil reason, killing randomly is an evil thing to do, killing "evil" creatures isnt (ordinarily) good, just neutral, and therefore isnt enough to make a paladin fall, especially when he's killing distinctly evil creatures for the cause of good. Killing demons and devils and such could definately be percieved as a "good" act under pretty much any circumstances because demons are evil-incarnate, pure evil given form, destroying them betters the world at large and can therefore be a "good" act


On the note of corpse defiling: Dragonscale armour. How is that not defiling the corpse of a sentient creature, and thus also evil?

Yes, and no, its neutral, the reason raising the undead is evil is because you are forcefully bringing the corpse back to life without the souls permission, making dragon-scale armor isnt a "good" thing to do because you're right its "Defiling" the corpse of a sentient creature, but its not "evil" because you aren't forcing it back to life against its will and you aren't doing it for evil reasons, you're just doing it to make armor, so its neutral. atleast IMO (I don't have canon totally backing me up, I.E. I don't have quotes or evidence, just how I see it)

alot of things you can do aren't "good" but they aren't "evil" they're just neutral, not really anything either way.

MorkaisChosen
2007-12-22, 12:12 PM
How would you react if someone made armour out of human-skin leather?

That kinda highlights the problems with the dragonscale argument. D&D is weird and contradictory.

I think the best way to do it is with Animate Object. There's no reqason why you couldn't- you can Animate wooden things, they used to be alive; a corps is just a conglomeration of matter once the soul's departed.

I am considering a Good-aligned necromancer character, but more the "Eat Chill Touch!" style than raising the dead.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-22, 03:33 PM
I find it odd nobody decided to comment on my earlier question about making a diplomacy check in conjunction with 'speak to the dead' to determine if I could gain a spirit's permission to use it's old body for undeadification.

Wooter
2007-12-22, 04:04 PM
Ah, but Speak with dead does not communicate with spirits, just the stored memories in the body.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-22, 04:08 PM
What'd let me talk with the spirit, then?

The Pink Ninja
2007-12-22, 04:13 PM
House rule in that you're using the same spells but that they are "Deathless" from The Book of Exalted Deeds that use postive rather than negative energy.

Problem solved 8D

Yami
2007-12-22, 04:47 PM
Yes, but deathless is a cop-out.

While I personally house rule it, we really should look at this from the rules point of view. Which means we must first understand the alignment system.

Sometime ago, ages back a high priest of Heironious, or some other stuck up god, lookat the the other less cultured tribes in the world and thought, "They are different." It was decided then that all things and worldviews that did not mesh with his were 'evil'. This concept spread like wildfire amongst the peasantry, who as a whole fear that which was different. Granted, some leeway had to be made lest all the worshippers be lost, so they allowed for a nuetral alignment. Huzzah! Fear and shun the outsiders!

So, by RAW, if you save a village by unorthadox methods, such as the cleaned up and well presented undead force, you are still freaky and shunned. They give thier thanks, back off a bit, and inform the nearest paladin that some abomination has it's eye on thier village.

And you wonder why I've started to just let them burn, an inherantly neutral act you must admit.

The way I'd do it, if forced to use the icky RAW is thusly;

Raise your undead, moving you a bit closer to evil,
Then perform good acts, returning you to your path.

You'll have to be as horribly good as a bloody paladin to pull it off, which is something I can't do, but even the most hard-nosed DM would have to allow that.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-22, 05:03 PM
What'd let me talk with the spirit, then?

Admiral, this whole issue has been rehashed so many times on so many boards and the only thing that has ever been decided is that the creation/existance of undead being evil is plain ol' DM preference. So the only important factor in your situation is--are you a player or the DM? If you're the DM you can rule however you wish; if you're a player than anything that we say here is a moot point because you should be asking your DM. If this is just a theoretical 'is it possible' question, again, it depends on the specific game and DM.

TS

Dausuul
2007-12-22, 05:19 PM
Ugh, not this again. Come on, people. This is an open question in 3E and neither side has anything like proof for its position. RAW implies that raising undead is not a morally neutral act (the [Evil] descriptor on undead-making spells, skeletons and zombies being evil even though they're mindless); however, nowhere does it say why this should be, and it is never explicitly stated that it's evil to raise undead. It's up to the DM to decide.

One school of thought says that creating undead is inherently evil. This can be explained in various ways. Maybe the subject's soul is trapped in a decaying shell, tormented by the negative energy flowing through it. Maybe negative energy pours out of the undead creature continuously, draining the life from the world. Maybe creating undead requires invoking powers of such malevolence that the necromancer cannot escape having his mind and spirit twisted toward evil by them.

The other school of thought says that creating undead is neither good nor evil; it's just hanging magical puppet strings on a handy corpse. Good and evil lie in the use to which the puppet is put. This is a simpler explanation, but it has some major implications for the campaign world. The advantages of using skeletons and zombies for grunt labor (don't need food, don't complain or rebel, work 24/7) are so huge that, absent some inherent downside like the ones I suggested above, there is no feasible explanation for why everybody doesn't use them. Those nations that refused to do so out of squeamishness would quickly be overrun by the nations that swallowed their distaste and started training necromancers.

In my campaigns, creating undead is a horrifically evil act involving tortured souls and the corrupting power of the Abyss, but it can just as easily go the other way.

GryffonDurime
2007-12-22, 09:58 PM
I am, perhaps, completely off base, but with regards to ressurection I'd read the meaning of the Rules-As-Written to be that you can indeed use Ressurection or the like to transform an undead back into the person it was. When it says it can not ressurect undead, it means you can't use Ressurection/True Ressurection to revive something into a state of undeath...I can use True Ressurection to turn Bobby the Skeletal Bone Dragon back into Bobby the Gold Dragon, but I can't use it to revive Skeletal Bobby if he's dropped whilst undead. Likewise, I can't True Ressurect a Wraith or the like, because to ressurect an undead, it is no longer the undead.

Laurellien
2007-12-23, 05:40 AM
Ugh, not this again. Come on, people. This is an open question in 3E and neither side has anything like proof for its position. RAW implies that raising undead is not a morally neutral act (the [Evil] descriptor on undead-making spells, skeletons and zombies being evil even though they're mindless); however, nowhere does it say why this should be, and it is never explicitly stated that it's evil to raise undead. It's up to the DM to decide.

I'm starting to get sick of quoting the Book of Vile Darkness Page 8.
Creating undead is evil because it brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker, more evil place.

shadow_archmagi
2007-12-23, 07:27 AM
Ugh. I'm sure someone can find a splatbook where necromancy isn't evil.

Personally, I feel it isn't evil.


My points.
1. Resurrection is barred
If the individual really needed to do something before they died, then they'll come back as a ghost or revenant. If not, then why bother them, up in their awesome magical afterlife?

2. Corpse disrespect
As is established in D&D, there is an afterlife. So using a person's corpse is no more evil than say, using their house. Its just a worthless shell they don't need any more and will never need again, because they have no reason to come back.

3. Negative Energy
The way I see it, it is an inherently Good act if you spawn a bunch of skeletons with negative energy and command them to work for good, because thats a double win. Take away 50 skeletons worth of PURE EVIL, while adding 50 warriors worth of GOOD DEEDS. Its like turning vampires into paladins.

Ecalsneerg
2007-12-23, 09:19 AM
I'm starting to get sick of quoting the Book of Vile Darkness Page 8.

I got sick reading some of the stuff in it. And not just because of depavity, because of stupidity. A lot of that book is really quite dumb. But, yeah, I'll grant you the negative energy thing. Negative energy is peceived as evil in most D&D settings.

So, your answer? This has been said myriad times, but don't do it in your setting. By 3.5e RAW, it is indeed the only way to do this. Neutal necromancers are possible RAW (I think the Dread Necromancer entry mentions something about using these [Evil] spells for good acts.) Anyway, one campaign setting I've seen rules alignment of spells not by casting the spell itself by intent. Raising a corpse to be your slave is definitely evil, no doubt about that. But raising a corpse to help fight and kill the ogres who sacked and slaughteed its village is a neutral act, or even a good act if your campaign system works by intent. Of course, you do release their corpses once they've helped you out.

Dausuul
2007-12-23, 09:52 AM
I'm starting to get sick of quoting the Book of Vile Darkness Page 8.
Creating undead is evil because it brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker, more evil place.

The BoVD is a) a Third Edition book that was never updated to 3.5, and b) a complete crock.

Still, I suppose it's the closest thing we've got to an official ruling on the subject. Point taken.

Serenity
2007-12-23, 11:38 AM
I'm starting to get sick of quoting the Book of Vile Darkness Page 8.
Creating undead is evil because it brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker, more evil place.

Which is stupid, because if negative energy is evil and positive energy is good, then a good cleric should not be able to cast Inflict spells, and an evil one shouldn't be able to cast Cure spells. The BoVD and the BoED are widely acknowledged to be full of dumb.

I perfectly understand that the RAW disallows good characters from animating the dead. I think the RAW, on this point, is ridiculous. Skeletons and Zombies are utterly mindless, so they are only a danger to those you would be attacking anyway. The soul has long since departed from the corpse; animating it as a skeleton or zombie is nothing more than controlling an ambulatory husk.

Dausuul
2007-12-23, 12:06 PM
Which is stupid, because if negative energy is evil and positive energy is good, then a good cleric should not be able to cast Inflict spells, and an evil one shouldn't be able to cast Cure spells. The BoVD and the BoED are widely acknowledged to be full of dumb.

While I quite agree on the BoVD being full of dumb (never read the BoED, so I can't speak to that one), one could argue that an inflict spell is a single short burst of negative energy that is wholly absorbed by the victim's life force. Animating undead, however, creates a standing connection to the Negative Energy Plane, resulting in a steady flow of negative energy into the world.

I'm not real fond of this explanation, but then I dislike the concepts of negative/positive energy to begin with. I prefer to go with "the soul of the dead person cannot rest as long as her body is walking around, plus casting the spell means surrendering a bit of your own soul to Orcus, who will use that influence to twist you toward evil."


The soul has long since departed from the corpse; animating it as a skeleton or zombie is nothing more than controlling an ambulatory husk.

It's more than that. True resurrection can work on someone whose body has been totally destroyed, but it does not work on people whose bodies are currently undead. The fact that you have to destroy the undead body before you can resurrect the person means there is still some kind of connection between body and soul. Now, that connection could be as tenuous as "You have to get rid of the old body before you can make a new one," or it could be as direct as "If you're turned into an undead, your soul is ripped out of the afterlife and bound into your own decaying corpse." We don't know.

shadow_archmagi
2007-12-23, 12:31 PM
I suppose, simply because its well written and I havn't noticed anyone else link it, I should provide everyone with this homebrew guide to necromancy.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562

Speak your opinions.

Zenos
2007-12-23, 12:48 PM
If I wanted to make Necromancy Evil, I would do something like you "bind" the spirit of a demon or devil or some other evil outsider to the corpse, so animating a skeleton or zombie uses mindless lemures, whilst more powerful and intelligent udnead would be powerful, sentient demons. So by animating the bodies you are bringing evil creatures into the world, if only giving them control of a weak frame of flesh and bone.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-23, 12:51 PM
Hmm...I wonder, what's the result if you animate something using controlled waves of negative AND positive energy? Any ideas on that?

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-23, 12:56 PM
It would probably A. cancel each other out. or B. blow up the corpse.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-23, 12:58 PM
If one of the energies leaves before the other enters? I don't htink something like that would happen.

Ne0
2007-12-23, 05:03 PM
I don't like the whole 'good necromancer' idea. Seriously, if you want to create skeletons, just ask the DM for an evil campaign. If you play reasonably during that campaign, he might do it again for you. But seriously, forcing dead bodies to move? That's pretty twisted, and I think the only way you could be good then is by being a bit Miko-ish. "The goal justifies the means." What? Hey, those are bodies of evil-doers. They deserve to no 'eternal rest'. I'm just a servant of GOD!"

shadow_archmagi
2007-12-23, 06:21 PM
You are deluding yourself with the concept that necromancy has any effect on their souls. When I pass, I will have no further use or need for this meatbag, and if someone put it to use I could care less.


How about this Golem business then? Shackling some poor free spirit, cramming it into some sort of man-made mockery of life, and making it do your bidding? Now THAT is evil. Necromancy does not involve any spirits or souls, just power and the will to command.

SpiderKoopa
2007-12-23, 07:15 PM
I take the animating mindless undead == grey route. I don't know, it's just always made sense to me.:smallsmile:

Belteshazzar
2007-12-23, 07:34 PM
How about this Golem business then? Shackling some poor free spirit, cramming it into some sort of man-made mockery of life, and making it do your bidding? Now THAT is evil. Necromancy does not involve any spirits or souls, just power and the will to command.

Hear Hear, I have always wondered about how many 'good' characters would be perfectly willing to have an army of Golems when it is core knowledge that these things torture elementals (most commonly earth but some others) into lugging around a massive war machine or even worse, being locked away in a closed room doing a repetitive task or standing guard forever and anon. Ever wonder why the rules state that many of them have a percentage chance to go absolutely off the frikken wall in combat?

Think of the poor elementals for once. Shall we continue to condemn countless elementals to slavery or shall we use the unfairly darkened necromancy to a less squeamish yet more upright way?

Serenity
2007-12-23, 07:39 PM
It's more than that. True resurrection can work on someone whose body has been totally destroyed, but it does not work on people whose bodies are currently undead. The fact that you have to destroy the undead body before you can resurrect the person means there is still some kind of connection between body and soul. Now, that connection could be as tenuous as "You have to get rid of the old body before you can make a new one," or it could be as direct as "If you're turned into an undead, your soul is ripped out of the afterlife and bound into your own decaying corpse." We don't know.

No, we don't know. But the idea that True Ressurection fails because the body still exists, but is 'occupied' by the Negative Energy you're manipulating makes just as much sense as any other explanation, and clearly isn't evil

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-23, 07:41 PM
This reminds me of one adventure, entirely centered around stealing/diplomatically obtaining the basis of creating Inevitables. In the end, every character had a special Marutlike cohort bent on serving.

graymachine
2007-12-23, 08:03 PM
Hmm. I'd wonder about how far you go animating different things before it stops being evil. I say this because I'm currently playing a cleric in a game that has Vow of Peace. Vow of Peace states that you cannot do lethal damage to creatures with the humanoid or monstrous humanoid type. This means that you can wail on other types all day long. Although I ignore this and play a pascifist to the hilt, I do have the option. This seems to imply to me that there is a certain point at which something has become so alien from you that good and evil don't entire into the situation. I know that the BoVD says that animating undead is always evil, but since BoVD and BoED are two sides of the same coin it seems to me that there is some room for interpretation. So, is animating a pseudonatural creature actually evil? It seems that there is enough wiggle room in the respective books that this is a DM call and the Golden Rule of DMing should be followed.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-23, 08:05 PM
Oh, man. Talk about being deeply sick and full of ****. BoED is racist/speciesist/whatevertheheckcuzidontcare!

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-23, 08:16 PM
I like the idea of a Good Necromancer like I like the idea of a friendly Demon, it just doesn't happen, or if it does, its exceedingly rare.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-12-23, 08:18 PM
I'm starting to get sick of quoting the Book of Vile Darkness Page 8.
Creating undead is evil because it brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker, more evil place.

Then stop! Nobody's making you do so. Besides, if your quoting has no effect, maybe you should rethink quoting it? There's no point in repeating useless/ineffectual information, after all. Try a different tactic!


Besides, The existence of Negative Energy isn't a bad thing. If you got rid of the Negative energy plane, you know what'd happen? The Material plane would be destroyed. It wouldn't sink into nonexistance, it'd burst into brilliant light because of the destructive forces of the Positive Energy Plane.

Remember, Positive energy can kill a man as surely as negative energy can!


However, I really do wonder about the whole elementals thing. Why is it alright to imprison and command an elemental, who also have intelligence scores like anyone else, (even if they're as low as 4- But since when was it okay to torture someone just because they weren't intelligent?), but it's icky and evil to animate an unthinking, inert corpse?

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-23, 08:18 PM
it brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker, more evil place.

I have a large number of NG and CG Doomguards who would like to disagree with you on this point.


You mean like the monsters who just happen to live in that dungeon, and thus whose home you are now invading? Or some Orcs who are forced, essentially, to rob "civilized" people to live because they have been pushed out of hunting grounds by civilization and into mountains that aren't even fit for sedentary agriculture? Maybe some guy who elimates the exploitation of the impoverished by getting mindless corpses, who would've just been sitting around rotting without him, to do the silly, manual labour, allowing an immensely successful society with no lower class, because he believes something different than you do?
"Evil" sure takes on some funny forms.


So, doing something that's normally evil for a good purpose, like killing to rid the world of evil, makes it good? Similarly, something that's normally evil, like raising the dead, for a good purpose, is evil? Wait, that doesn't make sense.
Also, what about raising the corpses of "evil" creatures? If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to use the bodies?

On the note of corpse defiling: Dragonscale armour. How is that not defiling the corpse of a sentient creature, and thus also evil?

A fellow Apostle of Peace, I see.:smallamused:


I find it odd nobody decided to comment on my earlier question about making a diplomacy check in conjunction with 'speak to the dead' to determine if I could gain a spirit's permission to use it's old body for undeadification.

It gets better. What about organ donors? But, in the hypothetical town of the LG Dread Necromancer, their donation cards also have another option - entire corpse fit for reanimation. Suddenly, you've got consensually reanimated zombies.


Oh, man. Talk about being deeply sick and full of ****. BoED is racist/speciesist/whatevertheheckcuzidontcare!

Eh, there are good bits to it, but its definition of 'good' is problematic on like, a thousand levels.

Also - Laurellian - you can quote the BoVD (venereal disease?) as much as you want, but remember, the prime message of alignment is that doing good things is right, and doing bad things is wrong.

graymachine
2007-12-23, 08:22 PM
I like the idea of a Good Necromancer like I like the idea of a friendly Demon, it just doesn't happen, or if it does, its exceedingly rare.

Yes, I'd agree. Part of the thing about being a PC is that you are an exception to the rule, so it seems perfectly reasonable for the DM to work with you on making a good Necromancer. It seems to me that a society that used necromancy extensively could be a completely leisure society; you don't have to work, you always have food and shelter, no one suffers under hardship, etc, all build on the back of the tireless undead. What everyone pays in exchange for such a good life is their bodies become the property of the state at death. Doesn't seem like anyone would object too much since their done with them at that point anyway. Obviously, the creation of intelligent undead would be outlawed or, at least, heavily regulated.

hamishspence
2007-12-28, 06:02 PM
Diablo II: to Hell and Back: a D20 early 3rd ed source, that has necromancers as being heavily devoted to "the Balance" Undead you encounter are evil, but you can create your own and still not be evil.

However, this is a long way from the normal D&D setting, and I only have the book, not its predecessor: Diablo II: Diablerie, which has rules for the new classes to make them fit closer to the computer game.

so yes, in some campaign settings, you can have Animaters of Undead that are not evil.

But in main rules, it is evil.

What exactly do you not like about the BOVD+BOED pair/ They have certainly had a influence right up to the present: Vile Feats are present and with increasing frequency: Exemplars of Evil, Elder Evils, Fiendish Codex I, FC II, and more.

Exalted extolls the virtues of tolerance. in Exalted Deeds, only the most evil creatures, specified as outsiders with evil subtype, and chromatic dragons, are treated as effectively irredeeemable. A few who have redeemed themselves exist in various sources, but you are expected to assume you have no hope of changing them (and the "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, which a lot of people hate the implications of, does not work on Evil subtype creatures)

But, it says: Treat all encounters with orcs, goblins and even the thoroughly evil drow with the assumption that these are redeemable. Which does not mean instantly switching to non-lethal, but does mean if they surrender or you manage to take them alive, you are expected to treat them fairly, in a Geneva Convention-ish way.

It also says that even placing fireballs to take out both combatants and non-combatants is evil, since the non-combatants are no threat.

In general, Exalted seems more ANTI-racist, very strong on forgiveness, mercy, redemption, etc.

Vile has is own issues, defining many things as somewhat evil (stealing, cheating, lying in any but a VERY good cause) Many people agree with this stance, though I would say minor dishonorable acts will not change your alignment IF acts are not corrupt ones, IF reason is unselfish and serves others.

Fiendish Codex II introduces corrupt acts: Poison use is considered evil in BOVD and BOED, probably cos it is the mentioned corrupt act in FC II: Causing serious unnecessary suffering. Stealing is dubious, Stealing from the needy is Corrupt, Betrayal is dubious, Betrayal for personal gain is corrupt, etc. Corrupt acts with no atonement or repentance can sent guys to the Nine Hells WHATEVER their alignment, if numerous enough. Severity of acts varies.

Hellbred race is for the genuinely repentant who have not atoned, a second chance, being reincarnated. You still have to do something BIG to get soul redeemed.

so, what is so bad about those 3 sources? Vile even gives nuances: pure accident, negligence, intentionally endangering others. 3 ways of describing same act, with different circumstances (person climbing scree slope to escape baddies, village at bottom of slope, risk of rockslide.)

That is of course my opinion, there may be more dubious ideas in these two sources.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-28, 06:30 PM
An excerpt from HoH


Alignment ...No dread necromancer can have a good alignment. Performing evil acts is a base feature (boh: DN's only base feaure would be creating undead and becoming an undead herself) of the class, but some dread necromancers manage to balance evil acts with good intentions, remaining solidly neutral...

Hmm, debatable? :smallannoyed:



edit: some underlining.

hamishspence
2007-12-28, 09:32 PM
Ways around the Fiendish Codex 2 issue, assuming you actually use it and are not the type who automatically dismisses supplements that do not agree with you:

1: keep acts to bare minimum. 1 Desecrate, 1 Animate Dead = 2 pts of corrupt acts, 9+ needed to drop you in Nine Hells. Pick superpowerful animated beastie (Draconomicon zombie dragons are good candidate) Focus totally on doing good acts and never commiting any more evil acts. Your alignment will be considered solidly Neutral according to Heroes of Horror, your corrupt acts are not numerous enough to be a problem.

2: Go Chaotic. Avoid any Obesiant acts. Do lots of Chaotic things which smell of Good, jeopodizing your own safety to save others from tyrants. Your corrupt acts do not matter for your destiny in afterlife, if you are of non-Lawful alignment. Nevertheless, you really should keep corrupt acts as low as possible if you want your DM to cut you a break on the alignment issue.

Hard part is finding deities who fit you and are not strongly Lawful (Wee Jas, Kelemvor, Jergal are all Lawful) Velsharoon allows clerics 2 steps away (LN, CN, he is NE)

While this is less an issue in Greyhawk, where you need not follow a deity, in Faerun you get treated as False if you differ too much from chosen Deity. you do not want this to happen.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-28, 09:39 PM
An excerpt from HoH



Hmm, debatable? :smallannoyed:



edit: some underlining.

debatable how? if you consistently do evil things like say, raise the dead, but do good things to balance it, are BALANCED, meaning NEUTRAL, you can't do evil things consistently and be good, you just can't, like you can't consistently do good things and stay evil, thats why theres a middle ground, neutrality.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-28, 11:24 PM
debatable how? if you consistently do evil things like say, raise the dead, but do good things to balance it, are BALANCED, meaning NEUTRAL, you can't do evil things consistently and be good, you just can't, like you can't consistently do good things and stay evil, thats why theres a middle ground, neutrality.

That precisely is my point, good sir :smallwink: .

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-28, 11:26 PM
I thought you were saying that neutrality being the inevitable end of such a thing was debatable.

TheOOB
2007-12-28, 11:49 PM
Whether or not raising undead is inherently evil depends if undead are inherently evil. In your campaign world, are skeletons and zombies malevolent beings who seek any opportunity to slaughter the living, kept in check only by the casters magical control? Then raising undead is evil, as you are releasing an evil being into the world through your magic.

But if skeletons and zombies are little more then constructs made from the corpses of the deceased, who do nothing but what their creator tells them, then raising undead is not evil(though people still wouldn't like it).

Given, the higher level animating spells should always be evil, as vampires and wraiths and what not are always evil beings, whether or not other unintelligent undead are evil.

It's up to the DM to decide if negative energy is evil, but if it is, then all inflict spells are also evil, and all cure spells are good.

EvilElitest
2007-12-29, 12:18 AM
I'm going to give you an example of good necromacy.
An isolated village is attacked by bandits, the town millitia manages to kill the bandits, but in the process many of them die or are greviously injured. The Town Millitia consists of most of the able-bodied villagers, which means most of the farmers are unable to work. For some reason a villager learns how to do some basic necromacy, so he animates some of the corpses of the bandits to work in the fields so the harvest dosn't spoil, therefore saving the village, as well as to bolster the now-depleated ranks of the millita in order to discourage further attack.
So by using necromacy he just saved and protected his village, is that an evil act? Or if he was good would he have been forced to let his go hungry and be undefended.

seeing my dead friends and their killers wakling around all day? I hate to live there


The Book of Vile Darkness says a lot of things about the nature of Evil, just like the Book of Exalted Deeds says a lot of things about the nature of Good. Neither is a particularly well-thought-out or sensible reference.
i think they are possible the best books that WOTC has made on the subject, the moral code they set up is a very good one actually

from,
EE

Thrythlind
2007-12-29, 12:27 AM
Necromancy as a force of evil is a largely fictional thing. Most real world belief systems that involve dealing with the dead are largely much less malevolent.

Between the ancestor worship inherent in some parts of Chinese and Japanese mythos, to the Loa of voodoo and the Catholic saints, and the honored ancestors of the Celtics, most interactions with the dead are benevolent.

There are malevolent ghosts, and it's possible to insult an ancestor and acquire a lot of curses or bad luck, but largely this is not a problem.

Some variations of Catholicism have very intricate and complicated systems of prayer in reverence to the saints in order to produce various effects.

The Norse have Valhalla and the eternal heroes.

In general, however, much of Fantasy necromancy is based on the odd ghost story and the more threatening parts of the underworlds of various myths.

The general population of Hades is more fearsome than a lot of versions of the afterlife, and Elysium is rarely visited by Heroes. Yomi and the nine-hells are likewise nasty.

In any case, yes, a Good-aligned Necromancer should be the next best thing to a divine caster in keeping a party healthy and protected from undead. Some vampiric touch versions of healing should be possible, for instance.

And then there's the Deathless template, which are basically positively-powered dead. So every create undead spell should be matched with a Create Deathless spell.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-29, 12:54 AM
And then there's the Deathless template, which are basically positively-powered dead. So every create undead spell should be matched with a Create Deathless spell.

I don't think that would really work thematically. Deathless are more like the souls of mortals who have opted to remain in this world for whatever reason, while Undead are forced to remain here, generally by a necromancer or a curse. A "Create Deathless" spell would force Deathless to remain in this world, thus defeating the point.

Incidentally, that's the real reason I think the creation of undead is Evil: It binds souls to this world unwillingly, preventing them from reaching their final resting place, and potentially even causing them torment and madness as they are forced to obey the necromancer's whims.

Felius
2007-12-29, 12:57 AM
seeing my dead friends and their killers wakling around all day? I hate to live there

But the key is that you will live there. Considering that the option is being dead, I'd much prefer to have my friends and their killers walking around as zombies and skeletons, at least until they are not needed anymore.


Incidentally, that's the real reason I think the creation of undead is Evil: It binds souls to this world unwillingly, preventing them from reaching their final resting place, and potentially even causing them torment and madness as they are forced to obey the necromancer's whims.
Mewthartio, this is only if creating undead brings back the soul. While one might argue that this is the case for the sentient undead, it is not very clear on the mindless ones, mainly the zombies and the skeletons.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-29, 01:10 AM
Why can't we agree that necromancy is evil, for whatever freaking reason its evil, ITS EVIL (at least raising dead is)! you cant be a "Good" necromancer unless you avoid raising the dead because its an evil thing to do, I don't care if the only reason its evil is because you're making a corpse get up and walk again and theres nothing else wrong with it even though there is (unless it differs in a particular campaign)

Mewtarthio
2007-12-29, 01:12 AM
Mewthartio, this is only if creating undead brings back the soul. While one might argue that this is the case for the sentient undead, it is not very clear on the mindless ones, mainly the zombies and the skeletons.

For mindless undead, I'm kind of working backwards from the rules. Any form of undeath prevents resurrection, and the spell animate dead is [Evil], so there must be a reason for both. The idea that even a zombie is controlled by the soul that once inhabited its body is the simplest explanation I can think of.

Felius
2007-12-29, 01:14 AM
Why can't we agree that necromancy is evil, for whatever freaking reason its evil, ITS EVIL (at least raising dead is)! you cant be a "Good" necromancer unless you avoid raising the dead because its an evil thing to do, I don't care if the only reason its evil is because you're making a corpse get up and walk again and theres nothing else wrong with it even though there is (unless it differs in a particular campaign)

Because not everyone accepts the idea of being evil because it is, and wants some real reasons?


For mindless undead, I'm kind of working backwards from the rules. Any form of undeath prevents resurrection, and the spell animate dead is [Evil], so there must be a reason for both. The idea that even a zombie is controlled by the soul that once inhabited its body is the simplest explanation I can think of.
If this is true, I'd be the first to denounce it as evil. But as it have been said, this is not said in RAW, depending entirely on the DM's Ruling. While I will agree that it's a reasonable way to interpret it, it can be interpreted differently without much headache.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-29, 01:23 AM
Because not everyone accepts the idea of being evil because it is, and wants some real reasons?


If this is true, I'd be the first to denounce it as evil. But as it have been said, this is not said in RAW, depending entirely on the DM's Ruling. While I will agree that it's a reasonable way to interpret it, it can be interpreted differently without much headache.

you know what HAS been said in RAW, its been said, plain as day, that raising the dead is EVIL, no ifs, no ands, and no freaking buts. (assuming your using RAW in the sense of official canon)

Mewtarthio
2007-12-29, 01:24 AM
Why can't we agree that necromancy is evil, for whatever freaking reason its evil, ITS EVIL (at least raising dead is)! you cant be a "Good" necromancer unless you avoid raising the dead because its an evil thing to do, I don't care if the only reason its evil is because you're making a corpse get up and walk again and theres nothing else wrong with it even though there is (unless it differs in a particular campaign)

That gets us nowhere. The idea that Necromancy is Evil "because I said so" makes for a very boring campaign setting. Good and Evil have to be defined if you're going to use them, and that means you must explain why necromancy is evil. Now, the idea that Necromancy is Evil "because the Gods of Good say so" is perfectly valid: Maybe there's a reason for their ban that's beyond the scope of mortals, or maybe they're all just pretentious and petty bastards who won't let you into heaven if you've ever made a zombie because the Goddess of Necromancy stole the Goddess of Healing's boyfriend, but for whatever reason, the animation of dead makes the gods curse you with an Evil aura and deny you entrance to the Upper Planes. Note that this explanation also provides you with other moral questions (eg If a force can arbitrarily declare an act to be irredeemably Evil, can it not also arbitrarilty declare an act to be Good? Could a Paladin slaughter an entire town without falling if he had the permission of his deity?), but that's how you make a consistent setting.

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-29, 01:34 AM
Several people have in fact stated canon reasons for why doing what necromancers regularly do (raise dead) is evil, people just don't accept it "because they dont like the explanation" well yea thats tons better than "its evil cause we said so" And I even admitted that if they didn't raise dead a Necromancer could totally be good.

tyckspoon
2007-12-29, 01:44 AM
Several people have in fact stated canon reasons for why doing what necromancers regularly do (raise dead) is evil, people just don't accept it "because they dont like the explanation" well yea thats tons better than "its evil cause we said so" And I even admitted that if they didn't raise dead a Necromancer could totally be good.

They have stated possible reasons for it. The 'canon', such as it is, doesn't actually make a direct statement on it beyond undead having evil alignments and some negative energy spells being Evil (Animate Dead, Deathwatch for no readily understandable reason) and others not (Inflict, for gods sake, is negative energy applied directly to hurting people. It's not Evil.)

Lord_Asmodeus
2007-12-29, 01:49 AM
They have stated possible reasons for it. The 'canon', such as it is, doesn't actually make a direct statement on it beyond undead having evil alignments and some negative energy spells being Evil (Animate Dead, Deathwatch for no readily understandable reason) and others not (Inflict, for gods sake, is negative energy applied directly to hurting people. It's not Evil.)

yea.. thats pretty much just "I don't like that answer" which is kind of a cop-out, CANONICALLY RAISING DEAD IS EVIL, because it makes the world "A darker and more evil place" maybe its just the way raising dead works differently than inflict spells, but the fact is raising dead is evil. If you don't like that answer fine, in your own campaign you can change that, but canonically and in general, raising dead is evil, crappy answer or no (I think it makes sense personally)

Mewtarthio
2007-12-29, 01:50 AM
Several people have in fact stated canon reasons for why doing what necromancers regularly do (raise dead) is evil, people just don't accept it "because they dont like the explanation" well yea thats tons better than "its evil cause we said so" And I even admitted that if they didn't raise dead a Necromancer could totally be good.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument here. I was simply stating that claiming animate dead is Evil "because it's Evil" makes for a sloppy-looking campaign setting. Unfortunately, WotC did just that, but that doesn't mean individual DMs should follow suit. It's perfectly valid to say that animate dead is Evil because the people holding the keys to heaven arbitrarily say it's Evil, just as it is to say animate dead is Evil because the original soul is imprisoned and tormented, or each undead in existence destabilizes the world slightly, or the black onyx consumed in the spell is actually a sacrifice that empowers a malevolent force, or even to just houserule that the spell no longer has the [Evil] descriptor. What's important is that an explanation exists.

Felius
2007-12-29, 01:52 AM
Please Asmodeus, the part about what said in raw in my post was just for the trapping the soul, where just said it could be, but could also not be.

While I will agree that by RAW Creating Undead is evil (or else I would be illiterate), I will still say that if there is no soul trapping, and if negative energy isn't naturally evil, what by RAW it isn't (although it's a "bit" contradictory about this point), it shouldn't be evil.

It's like saying casting an animate object a corpse would be evil. Unless you explicitly say that disrespecting the dead is evil, it will feel forced. And if you say disrespecting the dead is evil, well, welcome for a campaign where the good PCs should not loot the bodies of their fallen foes. Oh, and about that dragon scale armor you were thinking of making? Getting the scales is evil. And so goes on.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-29, 01:52 AM
I thought you were saying that neutrality being the inevitable end of such a thing was debatable.

Oh, no. I was being sacastic about people saying 'it is a good act to raise undeads if you are going to do good things with it'. :smallannoyed:

Thrythlind
2007-12-29, 02:15 AM
actually, my campaign had necromancers that were socially respected where they appeared.

The basic tenant was that a respectable necromancer would ask permission of the connected spirits before using their bodies for whatever reason, or, if creating a self-aware undead, strike a deal instead of bind them.

It was sort of the difference between a Planar Ally and a Planar Binding spell.

I even specifically said that it wouldn't be unusual to find a mummy guarding a cemetary in a chat with a lost child until someone came to find him.

barring the individual Stats, the campaign referred to undead as either Ancestors or Ghouls. Ghouls being twisted and malevolent undead. The difference being that Ancestors did not need or desire to drain the life of the living or inflict them with diseases, and only used such powers in the persistance of whatever goal or deal has them remaining on the physical plane.

Of course, one of the two initial creators, the Goddess of the Dawn and Judgment, was also the Goddess of the Dead, so that might have something to do with that.

horseboy
2007-12-29, 02:22 AM
actually, my campaign had necromancers that were socially respected where they appeared.

The basic tenant was that a respectable necromancer would ask permission of the connected spirits before using their bodies for whatever reason, or, if creating a self-aware undead, strike a deal instead of bind them.

It was sort of the difference between a Planar Ally and a Planar Binding spell.

I even specifically said that it wouldn't be unusual to find a mummy guarding a cemetary in a chat with a lost child until someone came to find him.

barring the individual Stats, the campaign referred to undead as either Ancestors or Ghouls. Ghouls being twisted and malevolent undead. The difference being that Ancestors did not need or desire to drain the life of the living or inflict them with diseases, and only used such powers in the persistance of whatever goal or deal has them remaining on the physical plane.

Of course, one of the two initial creators, the Goddess of the Dawn and Judgment, was also the Goddess of the Dead, so that might have something to do with that.

I bet Dia De Los Muertos is a lot of fun there.

hamishspence
2007-12-29, 07:20 AM
A direct quote from RPGA: Living Greyhawk clarifications on WOTC D&D website:
(sorry for length, but whole quote is needed for context):

Q: Is casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor an evil act? If so, can I cast these spells?

A: The Players Handbook is unclear on this issue, and it has led to much debate. Fortunately, the Book of Vile Darkness, the authoritative source on evil deeds, provides insight into this topic. Page 8 of this source lists casting evil spells as an evil act while page 77 indicates that spells with the evil descriptor are evil spells. While the Book of Vile Darkness is not an a player resource in the Living Greyhawk campaign, these statements provide a fairly definitive statement that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act.

That said, the Book of Vile Darkness goes on to say “[s]ometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.” Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC.

This IMO clears up Living Greyhawks attitude to Vile Darkness: no it should not be a player resource, but it is the authoritive source on evil deeds.

that is pretty unambiguous, even to those who insists Living Greyhawk is the only official rules (which I disagree with given the number of things it disallows)

so YES, Vile Darkness IS the Authority on the subject.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 07:41 AM
Asmodeus:


Why can't we agree that necromancy is evil, for whatever freaking reason its evil, ITS EVIL (at least raising dead is)! you cant be a "Good" necromancer unless you avoid raising the dead because its an evil thing to do, I don't care if the only reason its evil is because you're making a corpse get up and walk again and theres nothing else wrong with it even though there is (unless it differs in a particular campaign)

you know what HAS been said in RAW, its been said, plain as day, that raising the dead is EVIL, no ifs, no ands, and no freaking buts. (assuming your using RAW in the sense of official canon)

yea.. thats pretty much just "I don't like that answer" which is kind of a cop-out, CANONICALLY RAISING DEAD IS EVIL, because it makes the world "A darker and more evil place" maybe its just the way raising dead works differently than inflict spells, but the fact is raising dead is evil. If you don't like that answer fine, in your own campaign you can change that, but canonically and in general, raising dead is evil, crappy answer or no (I think it makes sense personally)

The problem with this line o'thinking is that it's putting the cart before the horse; by saying that certain things are evil 'no ifs, no ands, and no freaking buts' because the RAW says so, you're diminishing the utility of saying things are 'good' or 'bad' in the first place. You might as well call them 'red' and 'blue', for all it matters. Let's continue your line of thinking - if the DMG said that, say, slavery was a really good thing, and the paragon of goodness, would that mean that it was a good act? No, of course it wouldn't because we can point to reasons that slavery is an evil act.

Evil-necromancy-people are having trouble coming up with arguments absolutely demonstrating this without resorting to that [Evil] descriptor.

hamishspence
2007-12-29, 08:01 AM
Yes, there is an element of Its Evil cos book says so in the argument. But is that not the main definition of evil anyway?

Exalted and Vile give reasons why evil acts for good reasons are still evil: they are cosmic forces, not just personality traits. A single act of evil shifts the Balance fundementally in the direction of Evil.

as for necromancy, undead have a strong association with Evil.

Libris Mortis, + Complete divine, are good insights into souls + undead.

Mindless undead have a mote of evil spirit from the evil planes driving them. A free zombie is not stationary, it wanders the world killing things.

Spawning undead "trap the soul of the victim in a body controlled by a malign intelligence"
The examples given include vampires, and the evil spirit "can access the memories of the deceased" Some cannot (shadows)

The most major example of where the original soul of the victim is in full command with no evil spirit to contend with, is the Lich.

Vile Darkness clarifies that soul trapping or soul damaging is incredibly evil. hence, undead which are based around this are the same.

Skeletons and Zombies are always NE because of the spark of malignant energy that animates them.

In Moonshae novels by Douglas Niles, undead actually kill plants they walk on, even hardy ones. D&D 3.5 does not use this (too powerful) but it is something to keep in mind: undead are very antithetical to life, and this is associated with Evil.

Ne0
2007-12-29, 08:02 AM
Let's continue your line of thinking - if the DMG said that, say, slavery was a really good thing, and the paragon of goodness, would that mean that it was a good act?

But it doesn't, which rather makes the point moot, no?

I believe that it's possible for necromancers to be good, but only in specific settings, where it's noted that they are good.

But otherwise, creating one is generally frowned upon, with a good reason. Trust me, I've been there.
The problem is, that if your DM says no, it's no. Some people have a hard time understanding that.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 08:05 AM
But it doesn't, which rather makes the point moot, no?


But that's not the point. If it did, then Asmodeus would have to conceed that it was a good act, since that's what the RAW said. I'm continuing his line of thought that 'because the RAW says necromancy is automatically evil, it must be'.

Ne0
2007-12-29, 08:22 AM
But that's not the point. If it did, then Asmodeus would have to conceed that it was a good act, since that's what the RAW said.

Indeed. But it doesn't. Yay for bureaucratic stupidity! :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, if you don't follow RAW, you're homebrewing. So in that case, you might just as well change the fluff. As hHamishspence said, the BoVD has a chapter on that. You're using negative energy, tipping the balance to evil, etc. True, we're following RAW again, but that's the basic D&D setting. In another setting, it might not be like that, and that might be fun too. But in general, we can conclude that necromancy is an evil act, and except for a whole lot of dramatic roleplaying - which usually ruins the fun for the other players, as I said, I've been there -, that makes necromancers evil.

Any character that says: "Yeah, everyone of my kind is evil, but I'm just misundeerstood. I'm Chaotic good!" is branded a Drizz't clone. And you don't want that either. :smallannoyed:

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 11:27 AM
Indeed. But it doesn't. Yay for bureaucratic stupidity! :smallbiggrin:

:smallannoyed:

Asmodeus is using a particular worldview to justify an argument. Said world-view should be a universal one, no?

In other words, his viewpoint is that whatever RAW says, is true. If the DMG were rewritten to include the aforementioned slavery clause (and you can't get out of this like the last two times by saying that it isn't because Asmodeus' view has to be a universal one), then he would have to accept it as true. However, this produces a result that is obviously not compatible with the notion of what a good act is. One statement is wrong, then. Since the notion that good does not involve slavery ('concern for the dignity of sentient beings') is one that we know to be more accurate, then we ignore the (RAW) statement that slavery is good.

Let's transfer that over to necromancy.

The RAW says that necromancy is inherently evil.

It is conceivable that it could, however, lead to good results - what about raising dead colleagues (let's say they've given their consent, too) to defend a building full of orphans and puppies?

That would be 'protecting innocent life' (durh, they're orphans and puppies, they're effectively avatars of innocent :smalltongue:), 'respecting it' (I can see where this might be objected to, but protecting life from being mashed into the ground by demons is a good way of showing respect for it), and 'a concern for the dignity of sentient beings' (if they've made the request 'if the puppies are at risk, raise me as a skeleton to protect them', it's hardly impinging their dignity).


Anyway, if you don't follow RAW, you're homebrewing. So in that case, you might just as well change the fluff. As hHamishspence said, the BoVD has a chapter on that. You're using negative energy, tipping the balance to evil, etc. True, we're following RAW again, but that's the basic D&D setting. In another setting, it might not be like that, and that might be fun too. But in general, we can conclude that necromancy is an evil act, and except for a whole lot of dramatic roleplaying - which usually ruins the fun for the other players, as I said, I've been there -, that makes necromancers evil.

As I said before, I'm not changing the background - I'm going with the definition of what good is, as provided by the DMG.

Also, heralds of negative energy (i.e. doomguards) are good as well as neutral and evil. How's that?


Any character that says: "Yeah, everyone of my kind is evil, but I'm just misundeerstood. I'm Chaotic good!" is branded a Drizz't clone. And you don't want that either. :smallannoyed:

When did I say that?

EvilElitest
2007-12-29, 12:45 PM
But the key is that you will live there. Considering that the option is being dead, I'd much prefer to have my friends and their killers walking around as zombies and skeletons, at least until they are not needed anymore.

imagine if your parents and siblings died, wouldn't it suck to see their shuffling corpses walking around all day side by side with their killers?
from,
EE

Fawsto
2007-12-29, 01:06 PM
Roderick made me remember my campaing... Lol...

I am a Pally (oohhh seriously?!) and one of my teammates will become a full fledged necromancer... I was thinking on it as how it would be very, very hard to have a Paladin, a Black Guard (the other Paladin who will become one) and a Necromancer in the same party... I will have to work out on my excuses to continuously work with them... I am planing something like "I am with them to assure they won't do evil stuff and to try to redeem their souls" or whatever seems right during the moment.

But, anyway. I guess you ca be a Good necromancer, the problem is that you will never be Exalted. 4example: This necro to be I am talking about, due to his history and origins as a character, believes that the best way he can ressurect an old friend killed in battle is with necromancy (again, the character thinks that, not the player). Utterly his reason for being a necromancer is for a good pourpose. Well, he will also destroy any undead he creates after a fight, due to respect for the deceased, but mostly for the sentient creatures. That's his point.

I believe that this is right above the straight line that divides the Good and Neutral. But due to his objective, he is, at least 50,1% good. IMO.

horseboy
2007-12-29, 01:23 PM
imagine if your parents and siblings died, wouldn't it suck to see their shuffling corpses walking around all day side by side with their killers?
from,
EE

Think of all the good-byes you'd be able to get in. Wouldn't it not suck?

Felius
2007-12-29, 03:04 PM
imagine if your parents and siblings died, wouldn't it suck to see their shuffling corpses walking around all day side by side with their killers?
from,
EE
Yes it would. But it would suck more to not be able to see them because you're dead. I'm not arguing that the villagers should just love the undead, but that if the alternative is death, I'd argue that most persons would prefer the undead.

And you're just arguing about the "irk" factor, not the evil one. One thing is not evil because they're disgusting.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-29, 03:56 PM
Yes it would. But it would suck more to not be able to see them because you're dead. I'm not arguing that the villagers should just love the undead, but that if the alternative is death, I'd argue that most persons would prefer the undead.

And you're just arguing about the "irk" factor, not the evil one. One thing is not evil because they're disgusting.

I give blood, I've got a donor card should I get knocked down tomorrow, if my PC regards fleshy remains can help others after I'm done with it I'm fine. Personally I see mindless undead that the community uses to make life better in exactly the same vein.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 04:41 PM
I give blood, I've got a donor card should I get knocked down tomorrow, if my PC regards fleshy remains can help others after I'm done with it I'm fine. Personally I see mindless undead that the community uses to make life better in exactly the same vein.

Exactly; I said a similar thing earlier in the thread. Why not have a card system in LG Necromancer-land?

Ne0
2007-12-29, 04:45 PM
When did I say that?

In that post, actually. So necromancy is inherently evil? Alright, and YOUR necromancer is doing good. So that's it, right?


Asmodeus is using a particular worldview to justify an argument. Said world-view should be a universal one, no?

In other words, his viewpoint is that whatever RAW says, is true. If the DMG were rewritten to include the aforementioned slavery clause (and you can't get out of this like the last two times by saying that it isn't because Asmodeus' view has to be a universal one), then he would have to accept it as true. However, this produces a result that is obviously not compatible with the notion of what a good act is. One statement is wrong, then. Since the notion that good does not involve slavery ('concern for the dignity of sentient beings') is one that we know to be more accurate, then we ignore the (RAW) statement that slavery is good.

Once more, it doesn't. I find it hard to understand that you speak with 'if's, and then transfer that to actual facts. It's just non-sensical to me, but that might be me. There doesn't seem to be real argument in this.


The RAW says that necromancy is inherently evil.

It is conceivable that it could, however, lead to good results - what about raising dead colleagues (let's say they've given their consent, too) to defend a building full of orphans and puppies?

That would be 'protecting innocent life' (durh, they're orphans and puppies, they're effectively avatars of innocent :smalltongue:), 'respecting it' (I can see where this might be objected to, but protecting life from being mashed into the ground by demons is a good way of showing respect for it), and 'a concern for the dignity of sentient beings' (if they've made the request 'if the puppies are at risk, raise me as a skeleton to protect them', it's hardly impinging their dignity).

Well, as has been noted before, you're tipping the balance to evil with necromancy. So you might save the puppies, but are feeding some kind of 'greater evil' - that's my interpretation, at least. And who makes such a request on their death bed? :smalltongue:
This is also pretty much what I meant with my 'Drizz't clone' argument.

But aside from that, that's pretty much the exception on what I meant. It tends to cause a lot of trouble for both your DM and your fellow players - bookkeeping, heroic drama from the necromancer to keep his good alignement, etc.
The balance issue still stands, though. I never thought about that part, but it's there, apparently.


Also, heralds of negative energy (i.e. doomguards) are good as well as neutral and evil. How's that?

True, and while I'd call that a small error - those guys are even more evil, they want the UNIVERSE to be destroyed... -, I guess that would make my own argument moot. But it isn't really relevant to necromancers, is it? By RAW, through which you are now arguing, at least.



P.S: Sorry, for pulling your post apart in quotes. I tend not to do that - I hate it when people do it to my posts -, but your post was just too long. :smallbiggrin:

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 05:04 PM
In that post, actually. So necromancy is inherently evil? Alright, and YOUR necromancer is doing good. So that's it, right?


No, I'm saying that necromancy isn't inherently evil, but rather it's usually teleologically evil - but not always.



Once more, it doesn't. I find it hard to understand that you speak with 'if's, and then transfer that to actual facts. It's just non-sensical to me, but that might be me. There doesn't seem to be real argument in this.

What it boils down to is that Asmodeus (and you, it seems) are arguing that the fact that the undeath spells have an evil descriptor means that they are always evil. I'm countering that with another RAW complaint - that if a deed is a good one, as described by the rules for what good is and by our knowledge of what good is, it's not evil.


Well, as has been noted before, you're tipping the balance to evil with necromancy. So you might save the puppies, but are feeding some kind of 'greater evil' - that's my interpretation, at least.

But which greater evil? I also notice that you're using utilitarian language and systems - under which the legitimacy of an 'always evil' tag is doubtful.


And who makes such a request on their death bed? :smalltongue:

Community minded citizens? We have card-carrying organ donors today, so it's not unprecedented.


This is also pretty much what I meant with my 'Drizz't clone' argument.

See above.


But aside from that, that's pretty much the exception on what I meant. It tends to cause a lot of trouble for both your DM and your fellow players - bookkeeping, heroic drama from the necromancer to keep his good alignement, etc.

Not necessarily - it's no more bookkeeping than an evil necromancer, and if he isn't going to be casting [Evil] spells all the time, then we don't have the problem of alignment more than anyone else.


The balance issue still stands, though. I never thought about that part, but it's there, apparently.

Unless they go into stuff like incorporeal undead, shadows and that (who are demonstrably evil in their actions), then it's not that broken. It's actually one of the weaker areas for a caster to focus on. Also, play balance shouldn't really determine ethical quandaries.


True, and while I'd call that a small error - those guys are even more evil, they want the UNIVERSE to be destroyed... -, I guess that would make my own argument moot. But it isn't really relevant to necromancers, is it? By RAW, through which you are now arguing, at least.

Negative energy was the connection. Also, the Doomguard want to bring an end to all the other bad things, as well. But yeah, I suppose it is moot.


P.S: Sorry, for pulling your post apart in quotes. I tend not to do that - I hate it when people do it to my posts -, but your post was just too long. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry then, because I just love going point-to-point in this style. :smalltongue:

mostlyharmful
2007-12-29, 05:21 PM
Well, as has been noted before, you're tipping the balance to evil with necromancy. So you might save the puppies, but are feeding some kind of 'greater evil' - that's my interpretation, at least. And who makes such a request on their death bed? :smalltongue:
This is also pretty much what I meant with my 'Drizz't clone' argument.

Me. In fact I'd be annoyed in the hereafter if my loved ones actually spent any time debating this instead of taking my permision as foregone. I'd certainly prefer for my unused shell to be used rather than put my relatives and friends at risk in a warzone and inflict the trauma of combat on them needlessly.

Yami
2007-12-29, 05:45 PM
imagine if your parents and siblings died, wouldn't it suck to see their shuffling corpses walking around all day side by side with their killers?
from,
EE

First off, sucking is not inherently Evil, or I've been playing my Monk's all wrong.

Now I understand a few of the arguements here, but I have to ask one thing. Are we trying to argue that necromancy isn't evil or that necromancers are? Raw states that raising the dead is EVIL capitol E, period. Fine I got that.

But that doesn't just follow that the Necromancer has to be evil as well. Wait, wait don't lynch me yet. Allow me to explain.

The Paladin, paragon of Goodness and Righteousness, strictest rule outside of the Exalted rules can commit and evil act and still be considered good. They may even regain thier paladin status. There is a section on atonement.

This proves that good and evil are on a greyscale spectrum, not a black and white good or damned worldview. That a few acts of Evil do not condemn one to eternal damnation and the evil alignment. They don't nessisarily even push one into nuetral as long as the character focuses on doing good works.

By RAW, with my viciously goody two-shoes friend as a dm I have proven that suffieciently good actions can redeem a few uses of an Evil spell. If you can refute this please do, but please point out the rules and the RAW that states a few acts of raising the dead condemn me to an unhappy afterlife.

Don't just state that raise dead is evil. I get this, you don't run with the same worlds I do, thats fine. I can play by your rules.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-30, 07:28 AM
Casting and evil spell is a minor evil, saving a town is a major good. That surely means that its a good act, possibly neutral.

A good town would probably separate murderers from their victims.

RagnaroksChosen
2007-12-30, 12:19 PM
I thought I would add my two cp.
1. Generaly when i GM its Homebrew, However with this diccusion in mind i will Go by Raw standerds.
2. Using raw We can only go into core in my opinion becuase you can find suppliments that can do almost any thing.
3. I don't have access to my PHB here at work(where im posting from) but i do have access to http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html
Which is pritty much the same...

So:

Casting Animate Dead as PEr the core rule books is not Evil The evil discripter Realy meens nothing besides flavor.

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

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

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

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

A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher." (this is the page i copyed that from
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicOverview.html
)


Now i know you guys are gonna jump on be about the "with alignment" part however if we look under Aligment (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/description.html)
IT reads :
"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

No where does it say in the core rules that cast a spell of evil discription makes you more evil.

Now if we take into account supliments yes that will change. As i too Own a BoVD and currupt and evil spells are evil... however i belive(don't have it here infront of me) that it states that they are Suplimental Rules. Which meens that they are optional.

Any way sorry about grammer issues. my spelling isn't the greatest...

on other thing... as far as alignment goes you can be something and being doing good in the grand scheme of things. However one society may frown on it. Such as the village of people they may be grateful for you help finding off gnolls/ogre/orcs what have you. or they could hate you for using the dead to do it. Realy depends. but as far as i see it RAW's Standing is that its not Alignment changing.

SpiderKoopa
2007-12-30, 01:19 PM
imagine if your parents and siblings died, wouldn't it suck to see their shuffling corpses walking around all day side by side with their killers?
from,
EE

No, I believe I'd find that... how do you say? Awesome.

Ok, I've played my fair share of eeeeevil necromancers, but I partake of the grey side of things. Animating has always seemed neutral to me, and zombies and skellies should be TN (or lacking an alignment, if you will). I'd like to think that there are good liches and other sentient undead. And I've never seen where it said definitively that animating something took its soul and shoved it back inside its own meat suitcase. Are the gods really so weak that a 4th level spell could override their will and take the soul from its designated plane of rest?

I think WotC just saw too many zombie horror movies before they wrote their animate dead rules.:smallannoyed:

FlyMolo
2007-12-30, 01:35 PM
The solution to this necromancy good/bad thing is that RAW, animate dead= bad. This is kinda dumb. If you want to be a good necromancer by RAW and can't be bothered/don't want to homebrew away the silly alignment rules, just use animate objects. Problem solved.

Foeofthelance
2007-12-30, 02:39 PM
Anyway, if you don't follow RAW, you're homebrewing.

I think that line sort of sums up the point of this debate. Every time this comes up, we generally get three point of views:

1) RAW says necromancy is evil, so therefore it is evil. This point of view I can generally accept. If I'm in someone's game and they want to play it RAW, fine, that's up to them. When I GM, I'll put my own spin on things. If they argue then, that's when we get problems.

2) There is black, white and shades of grey. These are the folks who argue that necromancy isn't inherently evil, it just normally gets used that way. This I admit is where I tend to fall in line. If this was the case there'd really be no need to roleplay in D&D. We'd just go, "Yay, you won/lost combat, and good/evil won the day!" with a little bit of witty banter thrown in by the character actors. The fact that what is and isn't good and evil can be debated is what gives us pause as we consider exactly what actions our characters should take.

3) The third group likes to argue "Necromancy is evil because the undead are eeevvviiilll! EE is a good example of this. He claims that undead are evil simply because they absolutely must inspire fear, disgust, and unhappiness in those who encounter them. This sort of view I generally dismiss out of hand. To me, that line of phrasing could be used to just about describe anything if anyone tried hard enough.

So which one is right? Well, none of them really. I once created not just a lone good necromancer, but an entire society based upon it. Necromancy was a vital part of their survival, as they lived in a mountain chain surrounded by desert. The little farmland that was available needed to be worked almost constantly, the few mines in the area where extremely hazardous, and traveling long distances was perilous. So they turned to the undead to help out. Skeletons don't get dehydrated, don't care if poison gases start to fill the mine, and don't need any sleep. The entire nation was run by a council of necromancers, had a university dedicated to creating necromancers as well as teaching people how to work around them, and the entire operation was in fact run by a Paladin/Necromancer Lich. (Long story short: he was a Paladin in life, accidentally got Lichified, spent a century or two hunting down undead, then retired with his god's blessing. Unfortunately, people showed up, and he felt obliged to take care of them.)

There are of course rules that must be followed by the necromancers. No sentient undead can be created. No zombies can be created. Mummies are alright, but only for special circumstances and under certain guidelines. Lichdom is granted by the council, not sought after. No use of Inflict or Harm spells on living creatures. No use of Slay Living or Finger of Death. Symbol of Death is allowed, but only for the use of safeguarding tombs, treasuries, etc.

Now, folks from the first group might be able to accept this. If they couldn't, I'd either move the campaign or drop them from the group. That would depend on how much I liked them, and how much of a problem they posed for me. I enjoy challenges, and coming up with new puzzles for players. I don't like being told constantly that I'm wrong, this is what the rules say!

Folks from the second group would get along fine. Some might even choose to attend the university and learn something.

Folks from the third group would most likely do everything they could to bring this society to its knees, all in the name of "good". They'd quickly find that trying to take on a city of undead blessed by the Good gods causes problems. Happened once in the city's history. Paladin from a neighboring country got it into his head that the society was an abomination that needed to be wiped out. Found out that the dead don't need to eat or sleep, can march all day and all night, and don't need to pause for a break in the middle of battle. The Palalich sent his armor and sword back to king with a note advising them not to try again. That's the warning that would be given to the third group of people.

So, for those who wish to play good necromancers, check with your GM first. If they ok it, go right ahead. It might provide some interesting RP with the other players. You might be able to change their minds.