Chaotic Good Dread Necromancer...

[Danin]

...could it work? As a DM would you allow it? As a player how would you justify it? I plan on asking my DM very politely to do something like this in his next campaign and was just interested to see what everyone over here though.

My arguments in favor of it so far are:

1: A means to an ends. A shaky concept at best but no less true. If a caster has to raise a few zombies to kill a few devils who are attacking the innocent near by village, can you really blame him?

2: "Well, other people use necromancy, why can't I?". Wizards use necromancy all the time, but are they considered evil? Sure, theres bound to be a few, but I know several mages who use Fear and Ray of enfeeblement. I even saw a Cleric of Pelor raize skeletons to fight an umberhulk last week, and he is hailed as a hero!

3: "I'm no more evil than a Druid or a Ranger". Rangers dont believe in waisting anything, so when they hunt they use what they can get out of it, but they dont make use of every little bone. Me? I do, so whats the problem?

4: "Negative energy? Pfft". Good clerics are exploting positive energy to help do their dirty work. I'm exploiting negative energy to do good. I'm getting back at the bad guy with their own element. Its effective AND ironic.

So, what about you? What rulings would you make for this? Could you argue for Chaotic good? Lawfull Good?

(And yes, this post was intended to be humourous, a quality I often lack)

[SpiderBrigade]

It depends on your setting. The "standard" D&D world does tend to follow the assumption that undead and the creation of such is inherently evil. You don't have to do it that way, though. So yeah, if you stipulate that creating undead is not an evil act, then sure, the DN could be almost any alignment.

This is going to end up similar to the interminable "why can't there be good assassins" debate, I fear

[the_tick_rules]

it could happen, take one heck of a story to pull it off.

[ZeroNumerous]

The class is non-good. It says so under the Alignment section of the class.

The problem is that in non-homebrew settings, the use of negative energy to make undead is evil, because evil is a tangible and real force in the form of negative energy. In a homebrew campaign.. If being followed around by undead is fine, the it'd be entirely possible to be a Chaotic/Lawful/True Neutral DN.

[Jayabalard]

1. The "ends justify the means" does not fit into the good alignment, not even for chaotic good. Your good ends might balance out your alignment little bit, but the evil that you do to get there is still evil. It fits much better with a neutral or even evil alignment. This is the path that leads to ultimate evil, the people who are so convinced in the righteousness of their purpose that they will commit any evil to attain it.

2. Necromancy spells are generally evil because that's how it's defined; it's manipulating negative energy which is pretty much evil in energy form. If your DM wants to house rule it redefine how necromancy works, go for it, but otherwise you're headed back to #1.

3. Druids and rangers can be evil in alignment, so this is really a bad argument...

4. It's effective, ironic, and evil; a purely evil person would use the same evil methods to take out the same evil people; they might have different motivation, but again, that goes back to #1.

[Danin]

It depends on your setting. The "standard" D&D world does tend to follow the assumption that undead and the creation of such is inherently evil. You don't have to do it that way, though. So yeah, if you stipulate that creating undead is not an evil act, then sure, the DN could be almost any alignment.

This is going to end up similar to the interminable "why can't there be good assassins" debate, I fear

*Note* - This is in a non-home brew world.

Although necromancy and, more specifically, the creation of undead is typically considered evil, is there a way to justify it? I mean, killing is typically regarded as an evil act but good characters do it all the time, how is this different?

I also intended this to be a rather light hearted, friendly debate, maybe crack some jokes to relieve some of the tension that seems to be floating around lately. I've knoticed a few arguments spring up on the boards and the last thing I want to do is start another one.

[Querzis]

You can but you should do a prestige class about it, like the malconvoker. The malconvoker are good guys who summons fiends but they dont do it the same way the bad guys does and can still remain good. The dread necromancer are supposed to be evil, I have no problem about someone good using necromancy but it should be a totally different class, a class that summon deathless instead of undead and that cant do it unless the people are willing to be raised.

[Felan]

hmmm....

perhaps, if you ask a bunch of villagers ahead of time to "donate their bodies to science/wizardry/whatever"... maybe even give them a few gold to help their starving family, whatever... then, when they die, you animate them to help fight the forces of evil. Maybe they'd like the idea of help to "fight the good fight" even after they pass on?

Of course, keeping a ledger of proplr who have signed over their bodies to you may be a little creepy, but this is a necromancer, eh? And at least you asked permission first.

[Dragonmuncher]

Unfortunately, this is one of those arguments that is never really resolved.


Maybe you could make it so you only raise those who agree to be raised? Then you can have a happy-go-lucky band of skeleton buddies running around with you...


But yeah, it always comes back to "is negative energy evil and positive energy good, or are they just two opposing neutral forces like fire and water."

One side says positive energy is the energy of life and happiness, while negative energy is the energy of pain and death. The other side says you can't have life without death, and besides, too much positive energy can kill one, also.

What's so evil about using poisons, instead of sticking them with swords? Sadi, from the Eddings books, is an excellent example of this.

Why can't an assassin be good? "Heros" kill people for money all the time- granted, the people are usually hideously ugly and/or cruel, but still.

It's just one of those things. I say go for it, it's your game. Just make sure they're HAPPY skeletons, all right?

[SpiderBrigade]

ZeroNumerous, this is exactly why the question reminded me of Assassins.

For some posters, the "Alignment: Any non-Good" entry requirement is sufficient to answer the question. It says you can't be good, so there are no good Dread Necromancers, Assassins, etc. It's the RAW.

Others aren't satisfied with that. They want to examine why the class has that entry requirement, and whether it could reasonably be changed/ignored. Some feel that alignment restrictions fall under flavor, and should be freely adjusted to fit a campaign world.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with houseruling things like this on a case-by-case basis. For instance create an identical class with a less evil-sounding flavor. Happy Face Necromancer

Or, go for the Eberron route, where most alignment issues are blurred already. Substitute the various undead features with Deathless features. This way is a little more work though.

Both of these options, however, are based on the assumption that a player is coming to the DM with a character concept pretty much fleshed out, and that becomes the justification for finding a way around the alignment thing.

[Tyger]

Well, if as you say, its a non-homebrew world, and the DM isn't making exceptions for the class requirements, then no, its not possible by RAW. As Zero pointed out, its a non-good class by definition.

Of course, if the DM plays with that a bit, you can certainly justify using undead and negative energy for good. Its called a rationalization, and its the way to a slow, sweet spiral into the Evil alignments. Its how most literary falls from grace happen. You are doing evil, "for the greater good" or using evil's tools against it. The problem is that it becomes too easy eventually, and then you find yourself sitting on your throne made of the bones of your vanquished enemies, staring at the living tapestry you made from their skins, wondering why this pesky group of mid-level adventurers has invaded your realm and are destroying your minions.

Seriously though, almost every adventurer rationalizes grotesque violence and obscene uses of magic every single day. How many stop to actually check alignments or even intention when they happen across a group of orcs attacking the pretty maiden? The fact that those orcs are simple farmers who are chasing down that foul, but beautiful, sorceress that killed all their children isn't something that most adventurers stop to think of. Nope, adventurers are joyfully committing mass murder, extortion, theft and destruction of private property every time they leave a tavern... but its against evil folks, so its ok, right??

[SpikeFightwicky]

The class is non-good. It says so under the Alignment section of the class.

The problem is that in non-homebrew settings, the use of negative energy to make undead is evil, because evil is a tangible and real force in the form of negative energy. In a homebrew campaign.. If being followed around by undead is fine, the it'd be entirely possible to be a Chaotic/Lawful/True Neutral DN.

Actually, negative energy is not evil, it's a neutral force. That's the reason why the 'Inflict' spells (among others that use negative energy) don't have the [Evil] descriptor, and can be cast by good clerics. Animate Dead is the exception (and could be considered WotC's stance that animating dead is an evil act, since there aren't many other [Evil] descriptor negative energy spells.

As for your arguments:

1. As has been said, the 'ends justify the means' is not in concert with a good alignment. It's like saying 'I could slaughter a village to save a city'. A good alignment character would go out of their way to find a better solution.

2. Necromancy spells are NOT generally evil. In fact, the only negative energy spells I could find that had the evil descriptor had to do with the Undead. As I've stated, good clerics can prepare the Inflict spells. Positive and Negative energies are a neutral force. Also note that in the 'Planes' section of the DMG, the negative energy plane is NOT listed as an alignment traited plane, but it's listed with the elemental trait planes.

Also, a Cleric of Pelor can't prepare Animate Dead.... Look at the cleric section in the PHB and you'll see that they can't cast spells with an alignment opposed to their own, or their deities. Evil is opposed to Pelor's good.

3. *See Jayabalard's argument above*

4. If you want to do that, use Inflict.... An evil cleric can use "Cure light wounds" to heal bad people, and a good cleric can use 'Inflict' to hurt bad people. Raising dead is specifically the realm of evil clerics, not good ones.

And the class itself has the alignment restriction.

Of course, in the end it's up to your DM.

What you could do is play a C/N character, get a bunch of hats of disguise and make your skeletons look like people so that no one knows any better. It'll work like a charm until someone in your party tries to turn undead

[Ramza00]

It can happen, but

most likely you would in reality play a chaotic neutral character with good tendacies (such as Captain Jack Sparrow, willing to sacrifice a 100 strangers to save his own skin, yet willing to do many things for his friends such as )

Spoiler

Show

Willing to give up immorality to save Will

[Querzis]

It can happen, but

most likely you would in reality play a chaotic neutral character with good tendacies (such as Captain Jack Sparrow, willing to sacrifice a 100 strangers to save his own skin, yet willing to do many things for his friends such as )

Spoiler

Show

Willing to give up immorality to save Will

Hum sorry but thats just pure chaotic neutral. I would even say he has evil tendencies. Jack as no good tendencies at all, neutral people usually do that for their friends. Even evil people usually do that for their friends. Its how you act with the people you dont know or the people you hate that determine your alignement, sacrificing your live for your best friend or your lover, anyone can do that: good, neutral or evil.

[Human Paragon 3]

Could be a Nuetral Necromancer who believes he is doing good. I dont use alignment in my campaigns, so I might be a bad point of reference, but I tend to let players do whatever they want as long as it's not game-breaking. I almost never shut players down when they have a character idea they love.

[Behold_the_Void]

The one as a means to an end really doesn't seem so bad. I see nothing wrong with raising some corpses to fend off the forces of evil. Societally maybe wrong, but I know I usually run campaigns and don't consider raising undead to be EVIL so much as societally frowned upon.

Basically, I would suggest you see if your DM is willing to do with the silly "raising undead is inherently evil" and instead have him make it a cosmically neutral (channeling negative energy) societally wrong approach. I've done that on any number of occasions myself, I've encountered no problem (aside from the Paladin not being able to smite undead, and you can always rule that the Paladin's smite channels enough positive divine energy to blast undead even though they aren't technically evil as they're mindless and merely negative energy constructs).

[Jayabalard]

*Note* - This is in a non-home brew world.

Although necromancy and, more specifically, the creation of undead is typically considered evil, is there a way to justify it? I mean, killing is typically regarded as an evil act but good characters do it all the time, how is this different.

it's not "typically considered" evil ... it's defined that way, though they leave the specifics a little nebulous.

You're forcing the spirits of the creatures that you animate into perpetual torment, speeding up the demise of the multiverse itself or something equally evil when you create undead.

Actually, negative energy is not evil, it's a neutral force. That's the reason why the 'Inflict' spells (among others that use negative energy) don't have the [Evil] descriptor, and can be cast by good clerics. Animate Dead is the exception (and could be considered WotC's stance that animating dead is an evil act, since there aren't many other [Evil] descriptor negative energy spells.

Nope, it's not a neutral force, it's evil; that's why evil clerics (and neutral cleics of evil dieties) can spontaneously use inflict (negative energy) spells, while good (and neutral cleics of good dieties) spontaneously use heal (positive energy) spells.

The fact that those orcs are simple farmers who are chasing down that foul, but beautiful, sorceress that killed all their children isn't something that most adventurers stop to think of. Nope, adventurers are joyfully committing mass murder, extortion, theft and destruction of private property every time they leave a tavern... but its against evil folks, so its ok, right??

that depends alot on the people playing... it doesn't take a whole lot to teach people to think before they go of killing people based on appearances.

[Attilargh]

What you could do is play a C/N character, get a bunch of hats of disguise and make your skeletons look like people so that no one knows any better.

"I, uh, picked Leadership when we leveled up. Yeah, Leadership, that's right..."

By the way, I recall seeing a lengthy thread concerning necromancy on the Wizards boards. Part of it discussed the inherent evilness of necromancy. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[silvermesh]

the problem isn't negative energy, it's disturbing the dead. in most major religions, especially older ones, disturbing the body after death messes with the souls afterlife, and if you treat it badly enough, the soul is cursed never to move on to an afterlife. in D&D it has always been the case that raising the dead is an evil act(don't know why people think that the D&D alignment system was created by WoTC). In D&D, gods, and souls are very real things, and not up for speculation, raising the dead screws with that soul in a major way.

volunteers? "oh, yeah I'd love to be trapped in an eternity of torture trapped between planes so that you can have a slow, weak low hit die minion thats gonna last five seconds in combat. sign me up today!"

The ends justifying the means is a relatively neutral attitude, you can have this character, he can believe that he is good, and he can try to do good, but he will be neutral on paper, and treated as neutral for spells and effects. I'm not sure why this should be a major problem, he plays the same, and neutral is less affected by spells and effects than good. you do good things, but you also do bad things, because youve decided they're not as evil as they really are. you're neutral. A truly good character can find a better way of doing things that doesn't involve damning perfect strangers(and even better, volunteer friends) to an eternity of hopelessness. The body and soul are connected. You screw one you screw both.

[TempusCCK]

Just go the Diablo 2 approach to it.

You're a mage who studies the balance of life and death, honoring the great circle of life, and through your studies you have learned to blur those lines, giving life back to the dead temporarily to be used as a means to an end.

You understand that evil people do not seek to allow life to naturally run it's course, instead using death and destruction for their own profit, and messing with the great order of things, which calls you to action against the forces of evil.

I just made a good Necromancer, thank you, and good night.

Oh, and about the eternally messing with the rest of the spirit thing, that, in my eyes, is totally optional. A zombie doesn't display much tendancies of it's former life, so what the hell does the spirit care about if it's old body is being control through arcane energies. That's just fluff that can be ture or not depending on the methods of ressurection. There's nothing in the rules of Animate Dead that say you're torturing the spirit of the dead by using the corpse.

[Jayabalard]

Just go the Diablo 2 approach to it.

You're a mage who studies the balance of life and death, honoring the great circle of life, and through your studies you have learned to blur those lines, giving life back to the dead temporarily to be used as a means to an end.

You understand that evil people do not seek to allow life to naturally run it's course, instead using death and destruction for their own profit, and messing with the great order of things, which calls you to action against the forces of evil.

I just made a goodneutral Necromancer, thank you, and good night.

Fixed that for you. Evil done in the name of good is still evil; people who follow the "ends justify the means" philosophy are neutral or evil, not good.

Oh, and about the eternally messing with the rest of the spirit thing, that, in my eyes, is totally optional. A zombie doesn't display much tendancies of it's former life, so what the hell does the spirit care about if it's old body is being control through arcane energies. That's just fluff that can be ture or not depending on the methods of ressurection. There's nothing in the rules of Animate Dead that say you're torturing the spirit of the dead by using the corpse.

That explanation of why necromancy is evil might be optional, but unless you start homebrewing or houseruling, the fact that necromancy itself is evil isn't optional; if that particular explanation isn't true, then it's something equally evil (by RAW).

Not that I'm saying that it's a bad thing to houserule world where animating undead isn't evil... but you do need to keep in mind that in doing so, you've moved away from standard D&D into the real of homebrew.

[Ben7el]

Zombies and other non intelligant undead don't disturb the Soul, I remember there was a thread about it on the Wizards Forum

I wish I knew how to search the forum though :(

[SpikeFightwicky]

Nope, it's not a neutral force, it's evil; that's why evil clerics (and neutral cleics of evil dieties) can spontaneously use inflict (negative energy) spells, while good (and neutral cleics of good dieties) spontaneously use heal (positive energy) spells.

So how come evil clerics can prepare positive energy spells, and good clerics can prepare negative energy spells? Good clerics are forbidden from preparing evil spells, but the inflict spells are NOT [Evil] (despite chanelling negative energy), and vice versa for evil clerics. The only evil negative energy spells create or affect undead.

Also, the positive and negative energy planes (where cure and inflict spells get their juice) are each just as dangerous to good creatures as they are to evil. They don't descriminate, and they also don't have an alignment trait, making them both neutral planes.

(And, IMO, I'm sure alot of evil clerics would rather sponta-cast cure spells rather than inflict, especially evil clerics of war)

[Jack Mann]

Necromancy is not evil in D&D. Specific spells in necromancy are evil, but the school as a whole is no more evil than conjuration or enchantment. There is nothing evil about ray of enfeeblement, or astral projection, or clone. They can be used by good characters with no penalty. A paladin/sorcerer who uses enervation on an enemy will not fall.

[Jayabalard]

So how come evil clerics can prepare positive energy spells, and good clerics can prepare negative energy spells? Good clerics are forbidden from preparing evil spells, but the inflict spells are NOT [Evil] (despite chanelling negative energy), and vice versa for evil clerics. The only evil negative energy spells create or affect undead.

Also, the positive and negative energy planes (where cure and inflict spells get their juice) are each just as dangerous to good creatures as they are to evil. They don't descriminate, and they also don't have an alignment trait, making them both neutral planes.

(And, IMO, I'm sure alot of evil clerics would rather sponta-cast cure spells rather than inflict, especially evil clerics of war)

They have to prepare themselves to cast a spell that is the opposite of thier nature, but doesn't totally violate their beliefs; they can do spontaneously what comes naturally to them. Channeling positive energy is natural to good clerics, channeling negative energy is natural to evil cleric. It's obviously not a neutral force.

It's not a matter of what they want to spontaneously cast, or what is most beneficial for them to be able spontaneously cast... it's what's closest to their nature.

[Ramza00]

Hum sorry but thats just pure chaotic neutral. I would even say he has evil tendencies. Jack as no good tendencies at all, neutral people usually do that for their friends. Even evil people usually do that for their friends. Its how you act with the people you dont know or the people you hate that determine your alignement, sacrificing your live for your best friend or your lover, anyone can do that: good, neutral or evil.

Disagree, Neutral and Evil people are usually nice to their friends, they are willing to do favors for them, they are willing to give up things for them. They aren't always willing to do really big sacrifices for them.

Spoiler

Show

The thing that Jack wants most of all is freedom, that is his one true goal (and the reason he stole the aztec gold, the reason he wanted the chest, and the reason he wants the fountain of youth. Death is the ultimate end of freedom, and he fears it like no other, his ultimate hell symbolized by the dead man's chest is an eternal desert, an opposite of his sea and if he dies he may return to this.

That is a very big loss, a very big sacrifice, for ones friends. Jack made his decision instinctually friends over his own want and needs, even though his lust for immortality is an unconscious fear based drive.

[TempusCCK]

Fixed that for you. Evil done in the name of good is still evil; people who follow the "ends justify the means" philosophy are neutral or evil, not good.

This all depends on how you view good and evil really, I would say the intent to do good is good, and I think we can all agree that non-sentient undead have absolutely no effect on the body's soul, meaning that merely using negative energy to make a corpse move around for a good intent is infact good.

But I do agree with you that my necromancer fluff would suit itself equally well to neutral as to good. Good if you follow the belief that good intent is good. And not messing with the balance of the life cycle is good for everyone.

[SpikeFightwicky]

They have to prepare themselves to cast a spell that is the opposite of thier nature, but doesn't totally violate their beliefs; they can do spontaneously what comes naturally to them. Channeling positive energy is natural to good clerics, channeling negative energy is natural to evil cleric. It's obviously not a neutral force.

It's not a matter of what they want to spontaneously cast, or what is most beneficial for them to be able spontaneously cast... it's what's closest to their nature.

But inflict X wounds spells are not evil spells, yet they involve channelling negative energy to harm foes. You're saying that a spell, that does not have the [Evil] descriptor, is a neutral spell, despite channelling 'evil' energy. And if (-) energy is evil, why would good deities tolerate its clerics using it? (vice versa for evil clerics and gods)

And how come the negative energy plane is NOT an evil plane? If (-) energy were evil, surely its source would be evil.

As for clerics sponta-casting, it could be interpereted that good clerics favor life (positive) energy, and evil ones favor death (negative) energy (or rather are forced to, since they don't have a choice). A neutral cleric can channel either energy of his choice, but doesn't become evil or good or doing so, he can't choose both because they're opposing forces.

[Danin]

I also havent found any evidence that the soul is disturbed when you animate a mindless undead. You are merly using what is available to accomplish a task. Besides, what if he only used animal bodies? Now I'm not hurting logical, thinking people, merly animals.

Also, although channeling Negative energy might come natural to an evil cleric, it doesnt change the fact that negative energy is not inherently evil itself, only it has a tendency to be used by evil people.

[Starsinger]

Creating Undead is evil because the writers wanted it that way, simply because they feel it should be evil. In Eberron, the Elves are really big on necromancy, although they use "positive energy undead" hogwash because "necromancy is evil". Necromancy being evil is one of those things I just don't agree with. It's a tool, like anything else you can do in D&D, the only spells that deserve the evil descriptor are spells like Protection From Good.

So, personally, I would allow a Good necromancer. Just like, I'd allow a Good assassin. "But they kill people!" That's what adventurers do, they kill people... except it's justified because they're green and we're not.