Necromancy [good]?

[Skjaldbakka]

Are there any necromancy spells with the [good] descriptor?

[JeenLeen]

It might be Conjuration, but I believe the Deathless-related spells from either Faerun or Eberron are Necromancy [Good]. Deathless are like undead, but healed/bolstered by positive energy and hurt/rebuked by negative energy.

I think I recall a couple others, but can't recall the specifics. A spell granting a gaze attack, from Spell Compedium?

[Talic]

From BoED:

Sicken Evil
Phoenix Fire
Sanctify the Wicked

[Cyclocone]

I think I recall a couple others, but can't recall the specifics. A spell granting a gaze attack, from Spell Compedium?

Hmm, sounds like Opalescent Glare, from Planar Handbook (although i think it's in SpC as well, yes).

BoED has quite a few of them as well, notably Sanctify the Wicked -the [Good] Mind Rape.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

OP you can also search here http://www.imarvintpa.com/DnDLive/FindSpell.php. For ex a search for necromancy and good descriptors finds all the spells mentioned here.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet?

[AstralFire]

Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet?

It's okay because Phoenix Fire is awesome.

[The Neoclassic]

Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet?

Heh, you have good points. All the more reason to write our own necromancy [good] spells, I suppose. The only reasonable rationale I can think of for most necromancy being [evil] is that it tampers with someone else's life force, which could be considered an inherently evil act.

[Riffington]

notably Sanctify the Wicked -the [Good] Mind Rape.

I've been thinking more on that spell. I wonder if the following makes sense.

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act. A similar spell of one level lower would be Evil. However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell. Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good, and (I assume, though am not sure) eliminate the possibility that casting it would turn the caster Evil.

[Talic]

I've been thinking more on that spell. I wonder if the following makes sense.

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act. A similar spell of one level lower would be Evil. However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell. Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good, and (I assume, though am not sure) eliminate the possibility that casting it would turn the caster Evil.

Along the same lines as, "Poison is evil. It causes undue suffering, and so is wrong, even when used on the badnastyevils in the world."

"Hey kids, try these, they're ravages! They inflict excruciating agony on badnastyevils, in the exact same manner as poison, but they're good."

But wait... Wasn't the whole reason that poisons were evil that "undue suffering part? And ravages also inflict undue suffering?

Ah forget it. A cleric did it.

[AstralFire]

Sanctify the Wicked is good because you read the description:

Trapped in the gem, the evil soul undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire. After one year, the trapped creature’s soul adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good). Once the soul’s penitence is complete, shattering the diamond reforms the creature’s original body, returns the creature’s soul to it, and transforms the whole into a sanctified creature.

The issue is that its mechanics pretty much look like a brain reprogram, but you will note that it has absolutely nothing to do with mind-affecting ability mechanics; Mind Rape does.

What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?

He adopts your viewpoint because you're the one who cast it - your magic focuses on the things you find most heinous. And he reflects upon it. This is not "the caster can erase or add memories as she sees fit and alter emotions, opinions, and even alignment." (BoVD.) This is a Diplomacy Check of +Yes done every day for a year. Are you performing an evil act if you are a Diplomancer turning everyone you fight into a Good-aligned being by talking to them? I mean, you know that they're going to listen to you because you're just that good.

[Fixer]

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act.

Not this again.

Belief that all creatures should be given free will is a chaotic belief, not a good one. Good creatures CAN and sometimes DO take away 'free will' if they believe the entity in question is abusing their choices or is making exceptionally stupid decisions.

CG is not pure good, LG is not pure good, they both have extremes in them that some do not agree with. A CG character wouldn't use Sanctify the Wicked because of alignment problems, but a LG character wouldn't have an issue.

{/end alignment discussion}

[Hyozo]

{/end alignment discussion}

In a topic like this? Not likely, unfortunately. I do, however, agree with the rest of your post, especially the first line.

[Fixer]

I was indicating my alignment discussion was over, not everyone else's.

By all means, argue alignments to your hearts' content. I will just sit back and watch.

While you are at it, feel free to jump into that morass that is "For the Greater Good" means 'Good' and not 'Lawful'. That one is my favorite alignment discussion.

[Killer Angel]

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act.

...which is more chaotic than evil, but...
If I rememer correctly, the spell gives a will ST to avoid the alignment change.
If so, you can look at the spell's text: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness", and read it in this way: the soul reflects, and this is an act of free will: if she makes the ST, she don't see the evil of her life, and don't change...

[ZeroNumerous]

...which is more chaotic than evil, but...

Other way around. Chaos is freedom, lawful is obedience.

[The Mentalist]

What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?

Someone hasn't read A Clockwork Orange. I really think that's where they got the inspiration for that spell.

[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

[AstralFire]

Someone hasn't read A Clockwork Orange. I really think that's where they got the inspiration for that spell.

[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

Cure's conjuration IIRC. Though if you ask me, all healing/harming should be either necromancy or evocation.

I'm familiar with A Clockwork Orange, yes. I don't necessarily subscribe to its views, and I think its remiss to assume that kind of methodology in a Sanctified spell with the [Good] descriptor.

[ZeroNumerous]

[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Heh, you have good points. All the more reason to write our own necromancy [good] spells, I suppose. The only reasonable rationale I can think of for most necromancy being [evil] is that it tampers with someone else's life force, which could be considered an inherently evil act.

It manipulates life force, which may or may not imply tampering--"Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." Healing spells manipulate your life force by shunting tons of extra positive energy into it; that should fall under the umbrella of necromancy. Reincarnation brings your soul back in another body; that falls under necromancy much more than transmutation. Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

Putting trap the soul in Conjuration because it moves your life force to a gem and reincarnate in Transmutation because it creates a new body is pretty much the opposite of what should happen, anyway--if both were in Necromancy, it would both make more sense and get rid of this "necromancy is EEEVIL!" thing.

[The Mentalist]

Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

GAHH!! Sorry, I'm still mentally deficient when it comes to remembering that sort of thing.

[AstralFire]

It manipulates life force, which may or may not imply tampering--"Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." Healing spells manipulate your life force by shunting tons of extra positive energy into it; that should fall under the umbrella of necromancy. Reincarnation brings your soul back in another body; that falls under necromancy much more than transmutation. Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

Putting trap the soul in Conjuration because it moves your life force to a gem and reincarnate in Transmutation because it creates a new body is pretty much the opposite of what should happen, anyway--if both were in Necromancy, it would both make more sense and get rid of this "necromancy is EEEVIL!" thing.

Eh, the schools are just messed up and have various areas of conceivable overlap. Abjuration in particular bugs me.

I personally like Psychoportation, Clairsentience, Psychokinesis, Psychometabolism, Telepathy, and Metacreation much better as discipline splits.

[ZeroNumerous]

Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

I disagree. Cure/Inflict X Wounds should be Evocation. Because they draw energy from the PEP/NEP and channel it into you. That's what evocation does.

Plus, it's not even relevant since the only classes that can cast these spells don't care about what school they exist in.

[AstralFire]

Well. It's relevant for Spell Focus, but yeah. Pretty much.

Psion specializations > Wizard specializations.

[DragoonWraith]

I agree about the Disciplines, but it's worth noting that the names of the Disciplines of Psychoportation and Psychokinesis mean almost exactly the same thing. The "psycho-" bit means that this is having to do with the mind, and "-port" implies carrying while "-kinesis" means moving. So "carrying with your mind" versus "moving with your mind" - not a lot of difference there.

Of course, Psychoportation is meant to be "teleportation with your mind", though that's not implied by the name other than by the shared root. The "tele-" part is the more important bit of "teleport", though. Of course, "telekinesis" (movement + distance) and "teleport" (carry + distance) share the same problem; they only mean what we know them to mean because of historical use, rather than etymological. Which is probably true of all such words, really; you combine a few Latin or Greek words, and define it as some combination of those ideas, but your definition is generally more specific than the combined words would necessarily be.

Wow, I ramble.

Anyway, I concur with all Healing, Resurrecting, Soul-trapping type spells getting put back in Necromancy. The Necromancy is ebul stuff is really lame.

[John Campbell]

Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

They are now. They were Necromancy as late as AD&D 2E.

Plus, it's not even relevant since the only classes that can cast these spells don't care about what school they exist in.

Anyone can take Spell Focus.

[ZeroNumerous]

They are now. They were Necromancy as late as AD&D 2E.

No bearing on what we're talking about.

Anyone can take Spell Focus.

Spell Focus(Conjuration). You don't take that because you like +1 to the DCs of your heal/inflict spells.

[John Campbell]

Spell Focus(Conjuration). You don't take that because you like +1 to the DCs of your heal/inflict spells.

Well, no, because the inflict spells still are Necromancy. Despite being exactly like cure, except with negative energy instead of positive.

Similarly, heal: Conjuration (Healing); harm: Necromancy.

But it can't just be the energy type, because disrupt undead, which fires a ray of positive energy, is Necromancy.

[ZeroNumerous]

Stuff

None of this has any relevance on my point that you don't take Spell Focus because you like using Cure/Inflicts. The classes that use Cure/Inflicts don't actually care what school they're in.

[Riffington]

What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?

There are key differences between brainwashing and rehabilitation programs. The first (and most important) is that rehabilitation programs are optional. You can choose to participate or to refrain. It is true that sometimes rehabilitation programs are offered as an alternative to prison - but if you increase the prison sentence in order to make the rehabilitation more coercive, this is considered evil in Western countries.
The second is that rehabilitation is honest. You tell people what you want to help them to become, and help them become it. The effort comes from them. In contrast, brainwashing involves manipulation.
The third is that rehabilitation builds a person up and makes them stronger. Brainwashing relies on tearing a person down. You must deprive them of sleep, individuality, etc in order to make them vulnerable. If they later return to unfiltered access to information/freedom, the brainwashing wears off. In order to maintain brainwashing you must keep them away from certain types of information/social situations, or you will lose control of them.
Thus, rehabilitation and brainwashing may have certain superficial similarities, but rehabilitation involves a person choosing to work hard to help themself reform (with your active assistance) whereas brainwashing involves manipulating, coercing, and controlling a person, as well as tearing away their inner self, in order to change their political/religious beliefs.

TL;DR: your analogy would be accurate if the spell only worked on a voluntary target.