Good alligned god for a Necromancer?

[Hail Tempus]

It'll probably be tough to follow their teachings while remaining more than one step away from their alignment or doing things they find deplorable though. Saying "Kelemvor is my patron!" and routinely animating undead is unlikely to work out well for that individual in the long-term.

I have this image of a necromancer going to Sunday services for Kelemvor with a couple of zombies in tow. Hilarity ensues.

I don't have an issue with evil characters as a DM, but they need to fit the campaign and the party. Necromancers especially are going to raise issues with their good-aligned party members. Moreso than a lot of other characters who happen to be evil, but don't have such obvious evidence of their moral depravity. A Neutral Evil rogue as a party member wouldn't necessarily be an issue for a paladin, so long as he didn't commit evil acts in front of the paladin. But, it's tough to ignore the skeletons hanging around the campfire.

It sounds like the campaign OP is talking about wouldn't be a great fit for a necromancer.

[Witty Username]

For a weird flex, Selune.

Selune and Shar have a few plot points that they have a, "well, you don't want it, therefore dibs" and this applies to worshipers.

Selune is not hyped for necromancy, but Shar is to a decent amount. A Necromancer that made the shift to Selune, maybe says a quick prayer of forgiveness when they bring up a zombie for some purpose. There is potential.

[JellyPooga]

It's been said or insinuated already, but unless you're a Cleric (Class), nothing says your necromancer has to worship a god of anything to do with death, the dead, burial or anything related to their craft. I'm a chef, but that doesn't mean I have to worship Gordon Ramsay a god of cooking.

Worshipping a god of justice (undeath is a punishment) might be one way to go, or a god of travel (undeath is just another path) might be another. Gods of communication, longevity, memory/lore or even love could easily be associated with undeath, but not even those are by any means neccessary connections.

The question "Is your character more than their class?" should be the one you aak yourself. The answer to that will guide you to an appropriate deity. Do they consider themselves a traditionalist of their race? A scholar? A healer? An outcaste? Do they venerate the moon or sun? Do they have an affinity or antipathy with nature, darkness, luck or pain? Your choice of deity goes beyond your mere Class and helps define your character.

[Schwann145]

Was chatting with a friend about a game they are participating in where each character has to worship a good aligned god of their choice. But this particular player wants to play as a Necromancer.

Are there any good aligned gods of death that would be accepting of "benevolent necromancy"? This is in the Forgotten Realms setting and the deity in question can come from any edition of the FR lore.

In the Realms, there is only one "good" god associated with Necromancy, and that is Mystra.
The other gods would be:
Azuth (Lawful Neutral)
Velsharoon (Neutral Evil)
Myrkul (Neutral Evil)
Kelemvor (Lawful Neutral)
Jergal (Lawful Neutral)

Other deities may have some poetic connections to death that you could argue, but the above are the only ones with an actual connection to Necromancy as a magic.

Why you must worship a good deity is between you and your DM, but if you must all the same, then (for the Realms specifically) Mystra is really your only choice.
(Though, as mentioned already, only devout clergy actively put one god above others in their "worship." The gods in Faerun are a known quantity, and as such everyone "worships" [ie: pays lip service] to multiple gods actively. A farmer will spend most of their life praying to Chauntea as the goddess of agriculture, but also Waukeen for money issues, Tymora for luck, Shaundakul if they need to do any extensive traveling, Umberlee if they need to take a boat anywhere, etc and on and so fourth.)

[Blatant Beast]

I have this image of a necromancer going to Sunday services for Kelemvor with a couple of zombies in tow. Hilarity ensues.

The concept of an Exorcist, someone that might take actions that could be perceived as somewhat heretical for normal adherents of a faith, but is permitted due to the needs of the faithful, could apply.

Gods exist on the Outer Planes. Outer Planes are extreme places; there might be no actualization of "lesser evil", or Morton's Fork type dilemmas in the higher planes. The same is not true, clearly, for the Material Planes, were sometimes there are no good options, just less bad options.

Clearly, a God that assumes you should live your Prime Material Plane Existence, solely by Higher/Lower Plane rules is forgetting that the Prime Material is an admixture of Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic...not singular or absolutist expressions of these concepts. (in other words a dumbass).

Historically, early Christianity eschewed violence, (the early vow of poverty, did not mean rejecting cash, {which there was not much of}, it meant rejecting power, which in the time of Charlamagne meant a rejection of violence/martial forces). Eventually, however, religious martial orders formed.

It does not seem beyond the Pale to me, that a God like Kelvemor, might Condone, or at the very least chose not to direct the faithful to oppress, an order of Necromancer Exorcists that fight the undead, using their powers.

A FR game could also just use the 1987 Gray Box edition, and leave the whole Time of Troubles plot in the bin, where it belongs.

[Unoriginal]

The concept of an Exorcist, someone that might take actions that could be perceived as somewhat heretical for normal adherents of a faith, but is permitted due to the needs of the faithful, could apply.

Gods exist on the Outer Planes. Outer Planes are extreme places; there might be no actualization of "lesser evil", or Morton's Fork type dilemmas in the higher planes. The same is not true, clearly, for the Material Planes, were sometimes there are no good options, just less bad options.

Clearly, a God that assumes you should live your Prime Material Plane Existence, solely by Higher/Lower Plane rules is forgetting that the Prime Material is an admixture of Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic...not singular or absolutist expressions of these concepts. (in other words a dumbass).

[...]

It does not seem beyond the Pale to me, that a God like Kelvemor, might Condone, or at the very least chose not to direct the faithful to oppress, an order of Necromancer Exorcists that fight the undead, using their powers.

1) That's not what "exorcist" means, I think you're thinking of Inquisitors.

2) While your argument would make sense in some instances, creating Undead isn't the case.

If you create Undead to fight Undead, you're almost certainly ending up with more Undead than you began with. Because the very existence of an Undead can cause more corpses to spontaneously become Undead.

Kevelmor wouldn't oppose someone with the Wizard subclass Necromancer, who can control already existing Undead and get them to destroy themselves. He likely wouldn't condemn too harshly someone who has the choice between creating a bunch of Undead once or just let raiders massacre a village, provided said someone disposed of them with the utmost care afterward. But he would absolutely condemn someone who uses Undead as a regular method with issues, and have his clergy condemn them openly.

[Zevox]

It does not seem beyond the Pale to me, that a God like Kelvemor, might Condone, or at the very least chose not to direct the faithful to oppress, an order of Necromancer Exorcists that fight the undead, using their powers.

If they weren't raising any undead with their powers, that's not impossible - but a Necromancer who doesn't raise any undead won't have any issues with picking a patron from among basically any good-aligned deities.

But if they were, no, he definitely wouldn't condone it. His stance is clear and uncompromising on that point:

"Kelemvor views all undead as abominations, ordering his servants to destroy them at every turn." (Faiths & Pantheons page 33, Kelemvor, paragraph 3.)

"Clerics of Kelemvor consider all undead abominations, and do whatever they can to put them to eternal rest. They contend that those who create undead are fit only for swift and utter destruction (an important difference between the Kelemvorite clergy and that of Jergal, who hold that certain undead have their uses)." (Faiths & Pantheons page 33, Clergy and Temples section under Kelemvor's entry.)

Edit: To put it another way that may make it clearer: Kelemvor's objection to the undead is not that they are a threat to people that needs to be stopped. While he and his followers would agree that's also true, it's secondary to them. It's their very existence that he condemns, because it's outside the natural order of life and death. To create more undead, even with the intention of fighting undead, would be a cardinal sin to his faith.

[Blatant Beast]

You are quoting Faith and Pantheons, an outdated book, which gives the absolutist take on doctrine.

In reality, most religious adherents do not live their lives by all the precepts or various rules ascribed to their faith. In reality, most religions do not have a singular, monolithic expression; there are different opinions, which leads to the creation of different branches and sects.

Then we also have the issue that Dungeons and Dragons, is a game.
It strikes me as a waste to tell the player in this situation that no they cannot play a Necromancer, and still venerate Special K, all because of what was written in 20+ year old books.

Change the lore to fit the game, don’t force the game to fit the lore and waste what sounds like a good RP setup. Feel free, to feel differently, this is just my opinion.

[Mastikator]

You are quoting Faith and Pantheons, an outdated book, which gives the absolutist take on doctrine.

In reality, most religious adherents do not live their lives by all the precepts or various rules ascribed to their faith. In reality, most religions do not have a singular, monolithic expression; there are different opinions, which leads to the creation of different branches and sects.

Then we also have the issue that Dungeons and Dragons, is a game.
It strikes me as a waste to tell the player in this situation that no they cannot play a Necromancer, and still venerate Special K, all because of what was written in 20+ year old books.

Change the lore to fit the game, don’t force the game to fit the lore and waste what sounds like a good RP setup. Feel free, to feel differently, this is just my opinion.

This criticism holds true only if you define a necromancer as somebody who casts the spell animate dead or create undead. Is a cleric who casts animate dead a necromancer? Is an oathbreaker who casts animate dead a necromancer? Is a warlock who casts these spells a necromancer?

On the flipside. If you have a wizard with the subclass necromancy but that wizard never casts animate dead (but still has every other necromancy spell in their book), is that a necromancer?

-

Edit, I just remembered why real religions have virtually zero overlap with how faiths work in faerun. In faerun Kelemvor can literally tell you not to create undead. He can revoke your ability to cast spells as a cleric if you create undead. There's no room for schisms and sects when the god is a person you can talk to. Sure, a low tier cleric isn't going to get any message from their god, but the high priest might, and two high priests who are geographically far apart won't have different doctrines unless Kelemvor gives them different directives. Trying to be a follower of a deity and going against their basic precepts is like trying to build an airplane and ignoring gravity, it just won't fly.

[Zevox]

You are quoting Faith and Pantheons, an outdated book, which gives the absolutist take on doctrine.

In reality, most religious adherents do not live their lives by all the precepts or various rules ascribed to their faith. In reality, most religions do not have a singular, monolithic expression; there are different opinions, which leads to the creation of different branches and sects.

Then we also have the issue that Dungeons and Dragons, is a game.
It strikes me as a waste to tell the player in this situation that no they cannot play a Necromancer, and still venerate Special K, all because of what was written in 20+ year old books.

Change the lore to fit the game, don’t force the game to fit the lore and waste what sounds like a good RP setup. Feel free, to feel differently, this is just my opinion.

I'm quoting a book that gives a detailed description of the god we're supposedly discussing. If you're only interested in making something up yourself whole cloth, feel free within your own games of course, but what does that contribute to the discussion at hand here?

If you want to make a Necromancer who venerates a non-evil Death God in a homebrew setting, that works. If you and your DM want to homebrew the Realms so that Kelemvor wouldn't oppose a Necromancer creating the Undead, you're of course free to do so within your own game. But if we're in a topic on a forum about who in the Forgotten Realms would be a good patron deity for someone looking to play a Necromancer and you suggest Kelemvor, you should be entirely unsurprised if people point out that he's actually one of the worst choices, because he's one of the deities (possibly the single deity) in the Realms most opposed to the creation of the Undead.

[Blatant Beast]

It is a game. A player wants to play a Necromancer Wizard, and even though the O.P. was asking for general advice on Patreon deity , let us continue with the notion that they are seeking to have Special K as their patron.

From a thematic standpoint, a Player makes choices for his character, that sets up a meaningful conflict/disagreement with more Orthodox Elements of Special K’s clergy…..as a DM, I am not going to preemptively veto this PC…there is a vast amount of potential RP fodder…I am not going to waste that.

If this issue is Special K does not like Undead, that is a an issue that will not practically rear its head until 5th level, when Animate Dead becomes available.
Even then, Summon Undead is an option, that produces temporary undead, and perhaps only produces temporary admonishment.

All of these questions will be up to the DM and their gaming group to answer. To my mind, these are interesting questions, so an unorthodox pairing is not something I am going to preemptively deny. Feel free, to feel differently.

[Theodoxus]

You are quoting Faith and Pantheons, an outdated book, which gives the absolutist take on doctrine.

In reality, most religious adherents do not live their lives by all the precepts or various rules ascribed to their faith. In reality, most religions do not have a singular, monolithic expression; there are different opinions, which leads to the creation of different branches and sects.

Then we also have the issue that Dungeons and Dragons, is a game.
It strikes me as a waste to tell the player in this situation that no they cannot play a Necromancer, and still venerate Special K, all because of what was written in 20+ year old books.

Change the lore to fit the game, don’t force the game to fit the lore and waste what sounds like a good RP setup. Feel free, to feel differently, this is just my opinion.

I mean, sure? Then again, the gods of faerun are far more impactful on their faithful. If Special K, as you say, doesn't want undead to be created by his followers, he can just not grant any undead creating spells to function for said followers.

That said, the DM is running the gods. They have final say on what lore they use (or even recognize). Heck, it's possible the DM just sees "Kelemvor, god of the dead" and doesn't dig into it and is cool with Special K allowing undead. Though I guess outside of additional DM changes, it's pretty moot given Ks LN alignment, as has been discussed.

It'd be nice if the OP clarified the threads open questions though...

[Zevox]

It is a game. A player wants to play a Necromancer Wizard, and even though the O.P. was asking for general advice on Patreon deity , let us continue with the notion that they are seeking to have Special K as their patron.

You're continuing to just ignore the actual discussion here, as your very first sentence here shows, since no one other than you has ever suggested this. And for that matter the actual subject specifically asks about good-aligned deities, which Kelemvor is not.

I genuinely don't understand what point you think you're making. Again, if you want to just homebrew things to be whatever you want, that's of course something you can always do. Rule 0 and all. But if someone here asks about a specific setting's elements, unless they say otherwise, you should really expect they're asking about the actual lore of the setting, not looking to make up their own. They'd be asking different questions (or not asking any at all), if that were the case.

[Unoriginal]

You are quoting Faith and Pantheons, an outdated book, which gives the absolutist take on doctrine.

In reality, most religious adherents do not live their lives by all the precepts or various rules ascribed to their faith. In reality, most religions do not have a singular, monolithic expression; there are different opinions, which leads to the creation of different branches and sects.

Then we also have the issue that Dungeons and Dragons, is a game.
It strikes me as a waste to tell the player in this situation that no they cannot play a Necromancer, and still venerate Special K, all because of what was written in 20+ year old books.

Change the lore to fit the game, don’t force the game to fit the lore and waste what sounds like a good RP setup. Feel free, to feel differently, this is just my opinion.

This is like saying that if a Superhero campaign is set in the DC Comics universe and one of the players want their PC to be part of the Bat Family despite said PC's powers only working if they kill someone, the DM should change the lore to make Batman approve of killing people.

Wanting to destroy all undead and undead creators is a core part of Kevelmor. If you change that, then he's a different person, and a different god. There is no reason to go "I want X god but with Y" when Y would make the god no longer X.

[Bohandas]

Osiris and/or Isis

[thorr-kan]

Was chatting with a friend about a game they are participating in where each character has to worship a good aligned god of their choice. But this particular player wants to play as a Necromancer.

Are there any good aligned gods of death that would be accepting of "benevolent necromancy"? This is in the Forgotten Realms setting and the deity in question can come from any edition of the FR lore.

I was going to suggest the halfling god, Urogalan, who's portfolio in 2E was earth, earthen craftsmanship, death, protection of the dead. But he's lawful neutral.

Said player is describing what's labeled "white necromancy" in 2E. The Forgotten Realms wiki has a good summary of it here, in the Practitioners section. Interestingly, *Chauntea* is called out as a patron of white necromancers. The 2E Complete Necromancer's Handbook goes into a more in-depth philosophical discussion.

But generally, if you're refraining from raising or using undead, and from wantonly using necromancy to cause pain and suffering, any good-aligned god should at least give you the benefit of the doubt. You'll get a lot of side eye, though.

[Unoriginal]

But generally, if you're refraining from raising or using undead, and from wantonly using necromancy to cause pain and suffering, any good-aligned god should at least give you the benefit of the doubt. You'll get a lot of side eye, though.

If you're not raising or using Undead, you might get a tiny bit of surprise (like the god going "oh, a necromancer worshiping me, that's rare" when it starts happening), but there is no reason for side eye or even needing to benefit from a doubt.

[thorr-kan]

If you're not raising or using Undead, you might get a tiny bit of surprise (like the god going "oh, a necromancer worshiping me, that's rare" when it starts happening), but there is no reason for side eye or even needing to benefit from a doubt.

No, the manipulation of life force by a mortal, even with the best of intentions, will always be suspect. The Art is just too easy to pervert for people's peace of mind.

[Unoriginal]

No, the manipulation of life force by a mortal, even with the best of intentions, will always be suspect. The Art is just too easy to pervert for people's peace of mind.

This affirmation is not supported by anything in the 5e lore, which explicitly singles out undead creation as the thing causing problems.

I am not saying there can't be a setting where that happens, of course, but the decisions of 5e writers have not gone that way.

Also there is a big difference between "people's peace of mind" and "the god you worship's peace of mind", since those are very different relationships.

[Schwann145]

The lore is shaky at best regardless.

The only "firm" lore I can think back to is that undead are animated by negative energy pulled from that plane.
If that's the case (which, far as I can tell hasn't been retconned at all), then the assertion that undead are always evil doesn't really make any narrative sense. It falls into "because I said so," territory on the part of the devs.

[Unoriginal]

The lore is shaky at best regardless.

The only "firm" lore I can think back to is that undead are animated by negative energy pulled from that plane.
If that's the case (which, far as I can tell hasn't been retconned at all), then the assertion that undead are always evil doesn't really make any narrative sense. It falls into "because I said so," territory on the part of the devs.

Zombies and Skeletons are explicitly animated by having an evil spirit who desires killing anything that is alive enter a corpse and make it move, sometime pantomiming the person the corpse was a bit.

[Rafaelfras]

I would suggest Mystra as well. The goddess of magic she is usually worshiped by all kinds of wizards, evil necromancers tend to go to Velsharoon. Also as she favors the advance of all things related to magic, ask your DM for an custom animate dead that let you control feral undead instead of creating them. Your character would sure would win her favor by creating a new spell and you would avoid becoming evil as you use your magic to control undead instead of creating them, they would be destroyed in battle eventually while you force them to do good, plus letting you benefit from all your subclass abilities. I did this for a good necromancer NPC at my table and I think is a goo mechanical solution.

[Blatant Beast]

Zombies and Skeletons are explicitly animated by having an evil spirit who desires killing anything that is alive enter a corpse and make it move, sometime pantomiming the person the corpse was a bit.

The Monster Manual on page 7 states the following regarding creature Alignments and motivations:
"The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is
the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a
monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.
If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm
giant, there's nothing stopping you."

Many real life cultures have beliefs that include friendly undead spirits of loved one's that return to Earth to visit. There is no reason why a fantasy culture may not have similar beliefs. Perhaps a good aligned necromancer has researched a version of animate dead, that does not imbue skeletons and zombies with evil spirits.

TSR was not a particularly inclusive environment. Most of the designers were White Men of European descent, and that shows in the lore. There is much more, under heaven and earth, then what was dreamt of in their philosophy.....GAZ10 The Orcs of Thar, is all the proof one needs, that some old lore needs to be denounced and discarded.

Also a Zombie, has a 3 intelligence, and a 5 Charisma....a zombie is not impersonating anyone.

[Unoriginal]

Perhaps a good aligned necromancer has researched a version of animate dead, that does not imbue skeletons and zombies with evil spirits.

And such an amazing, world-changing accomplishment should prompt good-aligned gods to want to shake their hand and express their genuine admiration in many other ways.

TSR was not a particularly inclusive environment.

What TSR was is not a factor here. WotC doesn't particularly care about following the TSR lore, and even the WotC-era editions don't follow the same lore.

In fact, in 3.X, a good-aligned Necromancer could field whole armies of Skeletons and Zombies without any alignment question (how they acquired the corpses could be in question, but not the part of animating them), because 3.X Skeletons and Zombies were just spooky automatons.

5e changed that deliberately, even with the idea of neutral-to-benevolent Undead and Undead uses being much more common/well-known nowadays that 20+ years ago.

Also a Zombie, has a 3 intelligence, and a 5 Charisma....a zombie is not impersonating anyone.

No one said anything about impersonating. Pantomiming isn't impersonating, and I was talking about that part of the Skeleton entry:

Habitual Behaviors. Independent skeletons temporarily or permanently free of a master's control sometimes pantomime actions from their past lives, their bones echoing the rote behaviors of their former living selves. The skeleton of a miner might lift a pick and start chipping away at stone walls. The skeleton of a guard might strike up a post at a random doorway. The skeleton of a dragon might lie down on a pile of treasure, while the skeleton of a horse crops grass it can't eat. Left alone in a ballroom, the skeletons of nobles might continue an eternally unfinished dance.

[Theodoxus]

It's been a really long time and my memory for specifics times and places has never been great - was it 2nd or 3rd edition where animate dead was an expressly evil act. Like, can make your alignment drift towards evil type of act, and depending on the campaign and DM, turn your animating cleric or wizard into an NPC...

5E doesn't have that stipulation in any shape or form.

[Rukelnikov]

It's been a really long time and my memory for specifics times and places has never been great - was it 2nd or 3rd edition where animate dead was an expressly evil act. Like, can make your alignment drift towards evil type of act, and depending on the campaign and DM, turn your animating cleric or wizard into an NPC...

5E doesn't have that stipulation in any shape or form.

3e, it had the Evil tag

[Unoriginal]

5E doesn't have that stipulation in any shape or form.

Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

5e PHB p. 204.

3e, it had the Evil tag

I thought it meant the spell detected as Evil when using magic to identify it.

If I'm mistaken, I apologize for it.

[Hail Tempus]

The lore is shaky at best regardless.

The only "firm" lore I can think back to is that undead are animated by negative energy pulled from that plane.
If that's the case (which, far as I can tell hasn't been retconned at all), then the assertion that undead are always evil doesn't really make any narrative sense. It falls into "because I said so," territory on the part of the devs.

Not all undead are always evil, that's true. Ghosts and revenants, for example, aren't explicitly evil.

But, the undead your average necromancer can create through their spells are explicitly evil (with the only exception I'm aware of being the Summon Undead spell). By simply creating them, even if they do nothing evil, they've added to evil in the world. It's tough to see how someone would be fine with doing that, on the one hand, while worshipping a good god (or even a neutral one like Kelemvor), on the other.

[JLandan]

It all depends on the cosmology of the setting. Some settings have an evil incarnate, others have evil is as evil does. Personally, I've never liked inanimate objects having the "evil" property, nor particular spells. The evil resides in the intent of the user. The mores may be setting wide or even just regional. What some consider evil, others may not.

[RedMage125]

Despite their thematic ties to death, I don't think Segojan and Sehanine would actually go as far as to sponsor necromancers. You might be able to argue something with Osiris though.

I second all of this, with the caveat that I think Osiris is a great choice*.

*Provided, of course, that the necromancer isn't violating any properly-buried corpses for this. The body of a bandit your party just killed is fair game, but exhuming a corpse would be a no-no.