[3.5] White Necromancer?

[Salbazier]

I spend sometimes before thinking about some sort of necromancer that doesn't raise any undead. In fact, the character dislike, if not outright hate, such manipulation of bodies of the deceased.

So, what kind build possibly good for this concept? Especially spells selection. Debuffs like enervation is no brainer, so is anti-undead spells like undead to death, but what else?

(class not necessarily be a specialist wizard)

[hamishspence]

Complete Arcane discusses this- suggesting that most necromancers tend to be either this or undead-raisers- with intermediate guys who fight undead a lot, but raise them when needed as well, being rare.

Deathwatch might be justifiable- while it has the Evil tag- some "must be good" classes (the healer) or "Exalted Good" PRCs, get it as standard- implying that it having the Evil tag is an error.

[RndmNumGen]

Cleric with Repose domain? Repose has all the anti-undead spells in it.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm having a hard time picturing this. That's like an evoker who doesn't like fire or explosions, or a Michael Bay that doesn't like fire or explosions.

[hamishspence]

In earlier editions- the healing (and Raise Dead/Resurrection) spells were necromancy- it was "manipulate life" as well as "manipulate death".

[Yora]

Necromancy is both Pro-Undead and Anti-Undead. Evocation is just Pro-Damage.

Necromancy is usually the magic of life and death, or life-force in general. Too bad 3rd Ed. decided that Healing is no longer necromancy, probably because they wanted necromancy to be more evil.

[hamishspence]

In the process, Conjuration became one of the best schools (it was already pretty good).

The Dread Necromancer is at least "any nongood" rather than "any evil".

There's still necromancy spells without the Evil tag- but not as many.

[Gullintanni]

This concept isn't terribly difficult to envision. Some gods dabble in necromancy and also view the dead as sacred. There's more to necromancy than simple animation of the dead. Debuffing (Enervation, Ray of Exhaustion) and death magic (Slay Living) are both Necromancy spells.

On the side of preserving the dead, there are a number of spells specifically designed to prevent the raising of a corpse as undead. I'm AFB right now and I don't know the spells off the top of my head, but Complete Divine should have a few of them hanging around.

[Psyren]

"hates manipulating the bodies of the deceased":

How about their souls? Master of Shrouds is the poster-child of this form of necromancy. Supplement your insubstantial minions with plenty of necro blastiness (like Enervation and Avasculate) as well.

Alternatively, Necrocarnate could focus on this approach as well, leaning heavily on the melds. (Or Vivicarnate for a good-aligned alternative.)

Finally, a particularly offense-oriented Shadowcaster could be focused less on the illusory Mysteries and more on the directly damaging ones as a sort of "drainer."

[Shenanigans]

I'm having a hard time picturing this. That's like an evoker who doesn't like fire or explosions, or a Michael Bay that doesn't like fire or explosions.

Nice insight on Michael Bay...he really does have evoker levels, doesn't he? :)

I made a character like this once, although we only got to third level. My DM was pretty meh on the idea of a good-aligned necromancer, so we settled on lawful neutral. I was a necromancy specialist with the skeletal minion ACF from Unearthed Arcana, which we fluffed to be my character's ancestor who had agreed (from beyond the grave...ooooohhhh!) to be my protector, as was family tradition. Eventually, he'd be awakened and taken as a cohort. I eventually planned on taking Red Wizard (this is before Master Specialist was around and easier since it was Greyhawk...we treated Red Wizard like Magelord...research an ancient tradition and so forth)

The hitch was figuring out my attitude on using undead other than my minion...would my general despise of them allow me to use them in a limited fashion, like a Malconvoker, would I use them only with permission (like my ancestor, via speak with dead or the like), or would I just refuse to use them at all? We were edging towards one of the first two, but didn't really get that far.

[Gabe the Bard]

We used to have a Lawful Good Necromancer in our party who never raised any undead. He mostly pumped up his spell DCs to insane levels and used a lot of save-or-die and battlefield control spells. Spirit Wall was one of his favorites. He also frequently gave Bone Arrows to our archer.

[Maho-Tsukai]

While raising UNDEAD is an evil act due to the involvement of negative energy, I am pretty sure that the animation of DEATHLESS, which are animated by positive energy rather then negative energy, is not. Thus, if you want to make a "white necromancer" ask your DM if you can refluff the Animate Dead spell and create undead line to animate deathless rather then normal undead. Likewise, see if you can get your DM to allow turn undead to act as rebuke on deathless and allow the concecrate spell to act as desecrate except for "animate deathless" instead of animate dead. Then play a good aligened cleric and there you go, white necromancy.

[Salbazier]

Indeed, Necromancy itself means something like 'speaking/divining with/using the dead'. Not necessarily have negative connotation. Plus 'darkness that fight darkness' concept is cool

@Psyren

Souls are even worse, actually. It's like mindrape. At least bodies don't have a mind. On the other hand... Animating willing people can be fine, at least temporarily. Totally can see, the character bringing someone back to finish an unfinished business and... that's a very juicy plothook infact.


Shadowcasters, hmm... If going this way I take the effective build is some Noctumancer/MT variant then?

If sticking with Standard arcanist, then will it be the classic metamagicked enervation? (probably with Arcane disciple or a bit divine caster multiclass)

[Person_Man]

There's not that much to work with. Roughly a quarter of Necromancy spells have the Evil descriptor, so assuming that you're playing a Good character who takes alignment seriously, they're out. Another slice is basically controls or buffs undead, which would be similarly worthless to you. What's left is a jumble of various Save or Suck effects.

The keys to Save or Suck builds are diversity and teamwork.

Diversity is important because some enemies are going to be immune to your various status effects, and virtually every enemy is going to have at least 1 strong Save. So it's important to know a variety of different spells, and to apply them intelligently. Target big enemies Will Save, small enemies Fort Saves, casters Fort Save, status effect immune enemies with non-Necromancy magic, etc.

Teamwork is important because Necromancy lacks the Batman Wizard's most important abilities (battlefield control and buffs) and you will probably never directly kill anyone. Instead, you're just lower your enemy's defenses (especially the BBEG) and drive away mooks (especially with Fear). So your party will need a dedicated battlefield controller of some sort (so that you can stand behind them while casting your spells) and Sir Charge-a-lot or any other big time direct damage build (who will ultimately kill most of your weakened and frightened enemies).

[Kobold-Bard]

While raising UNDEAD is an evil act due to the involvement of negative energy, ...

Nope. Negative Energy is the same as Fire in D&D, just energy. Hence why Inflict X Wounds aren't evil & Cure X Wounds aren't good.

[Gullintanni]

Nope. Negative Energy is the same as Fire in D&D, just energy. Hence why Inflict X Wounds aren't evil & Cure X Wounds aren't good.

There is mixed evidence on this either way. Certain sources site Turning as a an act of good and Rebuking as an act of evil. Raising the dead is ALWAYS evil.

Given the lack of clarity on the subject, it's really up to DM interpretation.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Thats true if you stick to WOC materal, however, being a fan of necromancy I have collected quite a few 3rd party content related to Necromancy and some of these pdfs do in fact provide Necromancy with a bit of battlefield control. It's not at the same level as battlefield control from other schools but it's enough to make a necromancer a psudo-controler. If you want any sugjestions for necromancy-related supliments just ask and when I am on my own computer I can drop you a PM with some good ones to look for.

Also, while it may not be a direct AOE control spell, a horde of undead minions can tie up enemies very well and while an AOE spell may be better for your BSF undead minions can serve as a good means of "control" via tieing up mooks while your BSF hacks away at the 'boss" that you have just debuffed into being no more threatening then a commonor with no ranks in handle animal.

[Kobold-Bard]

There is mixed evidence on this either way. Certain sources site Turning as a an act of good and Rebuking as an act of evil. Raising the dead is ALWAYS evil.

Given the lack of clarity on the subject, it's really up to DM interpretation.

The ACT of Turning/Rebuking Undead (as well as raising undead) is good or evil, possibly the Divinity granting you this ability is good or evil, but Positive & Negative energy themselves aren't aligned in any way; they're just energy like fire or sonic.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'm having a hard time picturing this. That's like an evoker who doesn't like fire or explosions, or a Michael Bay that doesn't like fire or explosions.

I'm totally sigging this.

[Gullintanni]

The ACT of Turning/Rebuking Undead (as well as raising undead) is good or evil, possibly the Divinity granting you this ability is good or evil, but Positive & Negative energy themselves aren't aligned in any way; they're just energy like fire or sonic.

That's an argument of semantics. The ACT of Turning/Rebuking IS the ACT of channeling positive or negative energy.

"TURN OR REBUKE UNDEAD
Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel
positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead.
Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy,
which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead.
Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is “turning.”
When attempting to exercise their divine control over these creatures,
characters make turning checks." PHB. 159

I'm not really trying to case for positive and negative energy being aligned or not. I'm simply suggesting that WOTC jumps back and forth frequently on the subject. Turning is not the only example but it's the one most readily available. As is so often the case with 3.5, DMs should judge on a case by case basis.

[Grelna the Blue]

There isn't much in 3.5 to support a truly "white" arcane necromancer (there was actually considerably more in some of the 2nd Ed noncore books), but you can achieve "gray" just fine by concentrating on Fear effects, of which there are a plenitude in the necromantic school, curses, and SoDs. Some of the Fell feats out of Libris Mortis may also be handy. The scarily overpowered Magic Jar spell could also be played in a neutral fashion, although slipping over into darkness would be all too easy. The only problem with such an approach is that it is overpowered for some games. Debuffs and battlefield control spells like Fear are one of the strongest ways to play a mage. Incidentally, if you wanted to play a mage whose combat spells have the ability to bypass many of the traditional defenses of the undead, the Pathfinder feats Thanatopic Spell and Threnodic Spell (identical to the Dragon magazine feat "Song of the Dead") would be great, if you can convince your GM to allow them.

However, if you're not committed to arcane casting, you could be a good cleric with the appropriate domains and be an exceptionally effective necromancer.

[Elric VIII]

Check out Dragon 298, page 63. It has an article called "Shades of Death." It has justifications for every alignment of necromancer. To paraphrase the entry on Lawful Good necromancers: A LG necromancer dedicates himself to destroying Evil necromancers. He does not use hordes of undead, but a few elite undead troops. They are organized in a military-like fashion, with ranks adn discipline.

[Keinnicht]

That's an argument of semantics. The ACT of Turning/Rebuking IS the ACT of channeling positive or negative energy.

I disagree. It's the act of channeling positive/negative energy to do something relating to the undead. Creating undead is evil, therefore destroying them is good and making them stronger is evil.

However, I don't think the energies are inherently good or evil. As the poster above said, the Cure/Inflict spells are good evidence of this.

[Psyren]

On the other hand... Animating willing people can be fine, at least temporarily. Totally can see, the character bringing someone back to finish an unfinished business and... that's a very juicy plothook infact.

That's the fluff behind Vivicarnate, so if you want to be the "Redemption Reanimator" that's the way to go. It's not the easiest class to learn however.

Shadowcasters, hmm... If going this way I take the effective build is some Noctumancer/MT variant then?

Yes. You can be a Necromancer specialist and dump Enchantment along with either Evocation, Illusion or Abjuration, covering for your missing schools via Mysteries.

[hamishspence]

The energy planes themselves also have no alignment.

For a "Good Necromancer"- maybe pick up those spells in sources like BoED or Champions of Valor, that have both the Necromancy and Good tags?

[Gullintanni]

I disagree. It's the act of channeling positive/negative energy to do something relating to the undead. Creating undead is evil, therefore destroying them is good and making them stronger is evil.

However, I don't think the energies are inherently good or evil. As the poster above said, the Cure/Inflict spells are good evidence of this.

It's RAW.

Turning is THIS.

"...channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead."

What happens as a result of energy being channeled is not really up to the Cleric. They're just spitting energy, be it positive or negative, at a target that happens to react to it in a given fashion.

Now if the argument is that Rebuking is evil because it is used to Command Undead, then the spell of the same name would ALSO have the evil descriptor. It doesn't, ergo, commanding undead is not in and of itself evil.

It follows then that:

Commanding undead; Not Evil.
Channeling Negative Energy; Not Evil.

Therefore: Amalgamation of both into a single act called "Rebuking"; Not evil.

And yet, some WOTC sources claim that Rebuking IS evil. This is evidence of a veritable cornucopia of inconsistencies created within the 3.5 framework. The takeaway point is, as I said, DM discretion is required. Clarify on your own, and use your head. Rule 0 was made for situations exactly like this.

[hamishspence]

And yet, some WOTC sources claim that Rebuking IS evil.

The PHB, to be precise:

Page 160:

"Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is evil".

under "Neutral Clerics and Undead."

[Salbazier]

Nice suggestions so far thanks!

@Maho-Tsukai
I don't think I'm in position to get any 3rd party supplement. Still, why not?

@Hamishpence
I don't know there is Good necromancy spells.. I'll go check it.

@Psyren
That sounds interesting. My understanding about incarnum still limited to incarnate and its souldmelds and some feats. What's the problem with Vivicarnate (by the way I'll echo what a poster has said about it: It's a bad name. It brings to my mind the 'Omne vivum ex ovo' and thus invokes the image of stuff like eggs and bio labs instead of 'life force')

@Person_Man and Grelna

Great Advice. Thanks!

[Gullintanni]

The PHB, to be precise:

Page 160:

"Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is evil".

under "Neutral Clerics and Undead."

Fair enough, but then every spell that channels negative energy should also carry the [Evil] descriptor. A lot of them do, but a lot of them (enervation) don't. The logic doesn't reconcile. Which is fine I guess, it just doesn't make sense.

[hamishspence]

I've checked: Champions of Valor doesn't have any.

BoED does though- its are:
Last Judgement (attack spell, 8th level)
Righteous Glare (attack spell, 7th level)
Affliction (disease that only affects evil beings, 3rd/4th level)
Blood of the Martyr (sacrifice health to heal others, 4th level)
Healing Touch (sacrifice health to heal others- (Wiz/Sorc only) 3rd level)
Divine Sacrifice (sacrifice health to heal others, 1st level)

That's before you get into Sanctified spells.

Fair enough, but then every spell that channels negative energy should also carry the [Evil] descriptor.

the solution is, that "casting a negative energy spell" is not the same thing as "channelling negative energy".

Whatever's done to "channel negative energy" is fundamentally different from spellcasting- and that's why it can have different rules.