Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phanto Frostblade 08-13-05, 01:35 AM	I have been asking questions like this for some time now, and although the answer have been good, I want some more input. Concerning the evil nature of creating undead. I am of the OPINION that these spells are classified as evil because they are seen as binding unwilling souls to the land of the living. I can understand this if the necromancer in question receives his power from divine sources. I feel that strickly arcane necromancers are not in the business of binding souls TO CORPSES (I know, I know, I remember the spell Trap the Soul). This is reserved for divine necromancers. Arcane necromancers know how to use arcane magic to manipulate the forces of life, death, and undeath. They use negavtive energy as a power supply to animate corpses. In the case of intelligent undead, their intelligence is the result of that energy powering the brain, not necessarily binding a soul. The undead have memories possessed by the body's former inhabitants; these memories belonged to someone else, not to the undead themselves. Ok. In light of this opinion, what do you think? Does creating undead have the same profane consequences on purely arcane necromancers as it does divine ones. Do you agree that a good-aligned (most likely CG) necromancers would not be opposed to animating undead in certain situations (i.e. creating guards to watch over him and his companions at night, rescuing trapped dwarfs from a collapsed and unstabled mining tunnel, using the animated undead to "fight fire with fire", etc.) Opinions? Comments? Non-sarcastic, tactful words of wisdom?
NeueRegel 08-13-05, 01:54 AM	I'm not real sure about the "undead". Fire w/Fire is all well and good, a zombie could rescue drowning miners without worry, fear, or oxygen. But consider a necromancer that binds "good" spirits to items? Or transfers the soul of a crippled child to the body of a toy? Or the mind of a great wise leader to an orb, creating an oracle? Or whatever. Manipulating life force. Where do all those intelligent weapons come from? What is Robocop? I am in the camp that cure spells should still be Necromantic school. Conjuration, my a$$. So society will be afraid of you, and your powers over the powers of darkness. You are outside the law, right? Batman is pretty scary, too. I say, play it. Let us know how it goes. NeueRegel
runestar 08-13-05, 07:44 AM	I flipped through an old copy of dragon and your example is more fitting of a NG necro. It suggests that a CG necro is most likely to treat any undead they raise as boon companions, even to the extent of creating a custom undead party to adventure with.
Rhadamanthus 08-13-05, 10:09 AM	While evil necromancers are mainly my thing, I feel that necromancy in itself is a tool. The manipulation of life-force is no less evil than the manipulation of force spells: it's all magic, it's all good (or evil or neutral or what have you). I've always had a problem with the evil subtype on the Animate Dead spell, but I don't want them to change it right now, as it helps my True Necromancer build. As to your arcane vs. divine query, I feel that necromancy is a force that pervades the barriers between not only moral spectrums, but also magical spectrums. I mean, arcane casters and divine casters receive their necromantic power from different sources, but they use it to the same effect. Life and death are concepts that break all mortal boundaries, which is why undead are so powerful in that they have elevated themselves beyond the petty concept of death. The removal of death is not a "good" act, nor is it an "evil" act. Like most life (or death) decisions, it is all dependent on who is using it and/or being affected.
Phanto Frostblade 08-13-05, 12:21 PM	I flipped through an old copy of dragon and your example is more fitting of a NG necro. Hey runestar, would you (or anyone else for that matter) mind telling me which issue of dragon you found this in. Thanks. :) I appreciate all comments posted thus far. Anyone else?
killbot 08-13-05, 01:15 PM	I have been having the same argument with my group for years. I reckon that enchantment is more evil than animating dead. I see animated dead being dead flesh powered by negative energy. Just like turning iron ore into a sword isn't evil, turning flesh into a walking tool isn't evil. I think enchantment and taking away a persons ability to control their own actions is far more evil. Isn't it just ultimate slavery because people don't even have a chance to want to complain. I know this is proabably unpopular, but I think necromancy is a tool and and it is only evil if used for evil, but robbing somebody of their ability to think for themselves is pretty much always evil. Just my opinion.
ronyon 08-13-05, 02:04 PM	I play my necromancers as godless cloistered cleric, often adding Shadow as my Third domain. The way I see it, in a universe where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are real, detectable forces, a man in search of dark knowlege must do what knowlege seekers have always done-be yourself, and let the world judge you if it must. This does not mean that you must be a crazzed mad man, with entrail hanging from your teeth! Instead, follow your own lights. Examples from my own characters: No animated dead from sentients, with the exception of the "irredeemable"(think Evil Outsiders) This simple rule has great implication. For example, a giant undead wasp is hardly any more upsetting to most people than a giant wasp is, and a pack of curiously well behaved dogs is hardly worth noting, in most game worlds. Always keep your undead clean, neat and unstinky-appearance counts. Even if you only limit yourself to animating your fallen foes, this will still make a huge impact on how you are percived. Undead goblins are aweful to behold, less so if you aint a goblin. Commeners/Npc, hate to think that they might suffer the same fate, so avoid using none evil humenoids. Finally, I never create inteligent evil undead. If the mindless undead are TNT, the inteligent ones are like Thermonuclear weapons. They can be hard to contain, and look at it this way: using an undead horse to carry you swiftly through the desert is simply practical, yet it is threatening to many. Now , why DO you want a vampire under your control? Hmm, Domainate perhaps? Yeah, now imagine a Night Shade- what is it realy good for, aside for Death, Death, Death(ok,ok, sundering)? When it comes to using undead to fight undead-many of their strongest attacks are ones they are themselfs immune to. And chances are , if you are facing undead,you might be facing another Necromancer, who will steal your undead away if he can. None of this should discourage you, being a Non-Evil Necro is great, my favorite role to play. Incidentally, the last time I played such a charcter, I directly killed only two creatures in 14 levels-thats better than some Saints! I stayed True Nuetral, while most of the party switched from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Nuetral-with Nuetral Evil looming ahead. Yeah, find where your priciples lay, and stick to them, and bugger the whole alignment thing.
smrtgmp 08-13-05, 09:15 PM	I think enchantment and taking away a persons ability to control their own actions is far more evil. Isn't it just ultimate slavery because people don't even have a chance to want to complain.In D&D terms, enchantment is more lawful than anything. Besides, just like necromacy, enchantment is a tool. Say you go after a wanted criminal, and once you have him cornered you can blast him to bits or dominate him and have him return with you to the proper authorities so that he can be put on trial. Is that latter more evil than the former? Furthermore, keep in mind that domination is a small part of enchanment. I dont see anything remotely evil about charms (though they could certainly be put to nefarious ends). All they do is make someone your friend for the duration of the spell. Most of the non-violent solution spells are in the enchantment school, making it ideal for pacifists and diplomats. On topic: I am of the opinion that necromancy gets a bad wrap in the current editions. Among other things, I've house ruled the alignment of mindless udead back to neutral, as it was in 2nd edition. I've also removed the [evil] descriptor from some of the spells which I think are more creepy than evil. I also make use of the 2nd edition Complete Book of Necromancy, which has some guidelines for white, grey, and black necromancy that I like.
runestar 08-13-05, 10:15 PM	Dragon298, the one with the 2 drow babes on the cover. The article basically has a paragraph or so on how a necromancer of each of the various alignments were likely to act. Worth a read, cause before that, the notion of a LG necro was completely alien to me.
TinManFan 08-13-05, 10:41 PM	Ok, it's spelled out in many places. Animating Undead = Bringing Neg Energy to make some bones or whatever stand up and grab a sword. Neg Energy = E~V~I~L. Ends do NOT justify the means. That being said, healing should be necromancy cause it playing with Positive Energy.
smrtgmp 08-13-05, 11:00 PM	Actually, negative energy does not equal evil. If it did, every spell that used it would have the evil descriptor, and most of them do not.
Phanto Frostblade 08-14-05, 03:11 AM	Ok, it's spelled out in many places. Animating Undead = Bringing Neg Energy to make some bones or whatever stand up and grab a sword. Neg Energy = E~V~I~L. Ends do NOT justify the means. Ok. First, negative energy does not necessarily = EVIL. If this were the case, then all necro. spells minus disrupt undead, undeath to death, and the like would have the evil decipher. Also, if you read my original post, I did NOT ASK if the ends justifed the means. I asked that even if animating undead is evil, arcane or divine, could this be consider "acceptable" roleplaying behavior for a good-aligned character if it is not done excessively.
Phanto Frostblade 08-14-05, 03:14 AM	By the way, thanks for the info, runestar. :D
Yanagita Kunio 08-14-05, 04:37 AM	Hm. My premise is the Positive Energy is the Generative Principle of Life, while Negative Energy is the Entropic Principle of Life: on a cosmic scale, the two need to remain in homeostasis...too much of the former depletes the material qualities of life--the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long--while too much of the latter suffocates life like a flame in a vacuum. Evil beings are more likely than good ones to apply negative energy because its nature is subtractive/destructive (whereas good entities tend to favor constructive methods). While Necromancy is not inherently evil, its use of Negative and Positive Energy as parts of the life force make it a discipline easily abused. Naturally-occuring negative energy is simply the breakdown of matter and organisms; channelled negative energy, though, can be applied to inflict harm, torture, cause suffering, etc. There are not many constructive ways to use negative energy. The trickiest issue is animating the dead. Pretty much all naturally-occurring undead are evil, but that has more to do with the residual drives that motivated them in life [see MM entries], or with the needs instilled by a parasitic/disease vector of undeath (vampirism, ghouls, etc.), than their energy source. It thus does not follow that undead animated by spells are evil: when one creates zombies or skeletons by a spell, they are driven only by commands, not by dark desires echoing from their living days. Thus such undead are not evil by their acts or will, for they have none of the latter and only the commands of their maker for the former. The hardest question is whether or not the use of a dead body is considered evil: given the setup of D&D cosmology, I'd say no, because the body has no spiritual significance after the exit of the animating force [which heads off to become a petitioner]. Thus to animate a skeleton or zombie is unto itself not a crime against the previous occupant of said form: the bodily remains are cast-offs. There remains an issue of cultural values and more general tastefulness--it is not nice to whisk away a body for an adventure leaving its bereaved family dumbstruck at an empty casket at the wake--but it is harder to strongly state this type of problem in terms of the rigid good/evil axis. Can one be a good-aligned necromancer? Certainly, if one is willing to exercise a little care, discretion, and respect relative to one's undead charges. A good necromancer realizes that a body was once a person [or thing], and that the opportunity to use one brings obligations as well as advantages: to treat the physical remains as walking meat is to insult its former life, and obliquely a mark of callousness towards the seriousness of life and death as a whole. Even non-sentients made into minions should be used with care, and not simply discarded and replaced. Necromancy absolutely gets a bad wrap in the current edition books: the introduction of the fluffy, positive-energy-powered Undying template just adds another layer to it [given that the Undying are identical to the Undead on virtually all stats/traits, yet somehow one is nasty and the other are tolerable, even nice]. IMO healing is the pervue of Necromancy rather than Transmutation [yet another cop-out of necromancy having no good side]. I try to play up the idea that Necromancy is about the life force, not just negative energy--in fact, I'm toying with creating some Positive Energy spells for the discipline.
NeueRegel 08-14-05, 08:56 AM	I have been having the same argument with my group for years. I reckon that enchantment is more evil than animating dead. I see animated dead being dead flesh powered by negative energy. Just like turning iron ore into a sword isn't evil, turning flesh into a walking tool isn't evil. I think enchantment and taking away a persons ability to control their own actions is far more evil. Isn't it just ultimate slavery because people don't even have a chance to want to complain. I know this is proabably unpopular, but I think necromancy is a tool and and it is only evil if used for evil, but robbing somebody of their ability to think for themselves is pretty much always evil. Just my opinion. Well said!!! I *always* give up enchantment for my wizards, (when specializing) for that exact line of reasoning. (I've yet to play an evil wizard). NeueRegel
Earndur 08-14-05, 09:43 AM	IMC, Animating the dead is an act of desecration. There might be a few desparate people who might make an monetary arrangement with a lawful necromancer that his corpse becomes the property of the necromancer upon his, or her, natural death. However, most people are reviled by the prospect of their remains becoming an undead servant. A good necromancer might refrain from animating anything but a corpse of a "monster", but still there is always that stigma of desecration and the worry that, if desperate, a good necromancer might turns to animating an human, elf, dwarf, etc, ... corpse. Overall, a necromancer is not required to be evil in my campaign but they find that they have few friends, and if the nature of their business is discovered he may find himself driven out of some towns for fear that he'll plunder the local cemetary for his fodder.
smrtgmp 08-14-05, 04:12 PM	Well said!!! I *always* give up enchantment for my wizards, (when specializing) for that exact line of reasoning. (I've yet to play an evil wizard). Enchantment ISNT EVIL! Only a few of the enchantment spells even enslave someones will (if going core, only dominate person/monster and the geas spells). If you continue to disagree with me I'll be forced to dominate the lot of you into compliance. :evillaugh
killbot 08-14-05, 04:22 PM	"Enchantment ISNT EVIL! Only a few of the enchantment spells even enslave someones will (if going core, only dominate person/monster and the geas spells)." But even the ones that don't totaly enslave someone still takes away the majority of their free will. Anything that could make me buy a beer for the man that raped my wife and killed my dog (hypothetically), like a simple charm person spell is almost completely taking away my ability to choose, which I think is worse than if I died someone turning my stinky remains into a zombie and made the zombie have a beer with him. I know that they have the ability to be used for good/pacifist means, but to me taking away somebodies ability to think for themselves is extremely wrong. Edit: So thats how you quote.
smrtgmp 08-14-05, 04:56 PM	You were warned, mortal! *dominate* Mwa ha ha. Now you are mine. Go forth and spread the word about how wonderful enchantment is. Honestly, though, look at the spells. Most of them dont rob you of your free will, they just affect your mind in one way or another. For isntance, sleep, cofusion, hold person, heroism, touch of idiocy, feeblemind, etc do nothing to your free will. Anything that could make me buy a beer for the man that raped my wife and killed my dog (hypothetically), like a simple charm person spell is almost completely taking away my ability to choose, which I think is worse than if I died someone turning my stinky remains into a zombie and made the zombie have a beer with him. Thats a bit of a stretch, dont you think? Charm makes them your friend. If my friend killed my wife and raped my dog (or whatever), I'd still kick his ass. Same goes for charm person. And just because charm has the potential to be used for evil doesnt make it evil. The person who charmed you could just as easily kill you, animate your corpse, and then have that rape your wife and kill your dog. Or use a fireball to torch an orpahage. Or use sommon spells to do something equally nasty. The point is magic is a tool. Its how you use it that counts.
killbot 08-14-05, 05:43 PM	I understand that magic is a tool, and I realise that not all enchantment is bad. To me it just seems some is a lot worse than the animate dead spells and Necro, but necro gets a pretty bad rap a lot of the time. Just my feelings about it. Like i said, its fairly unpopular and everyone else in my group thinks I'm on crack.
Phanto Frostblade 08-14-05, 06:06 PM	Overall, a necromancer is not required to be evil ....... but they find that they have few friends, and if the nature of their business is discovered he may find himself driven out of some towns for fear that he'll plunder the local cemetary for his fodder. Agreed. Part of my characters backstory is that he once animated the entire graveyard of a small village to even the odds against a force of orc raiders. Although his act save the live of the village warriors and the villagers themselves, the people were not happy having their graveyard plunder. The mayor asked my character to leave shortly afterwards. He did so after commanding the dead to return to their graves.
Nephlite 08-14-05, 06:15 PM	IMC, Animating the dead is an act of desecration. There might be a few desparate people who might make an monetary arrangement with a lawful necromancer that his corpse becomes the property of the necromancer upon his, or her, natural death. However, most people are reviled by the prospect of their remains becoming an undead servant. A good necromancer might refrain from animating anything but a corpse of a "monster", but still there is always that stigma of desecration and the worry that, if desperate, a good necromancer might turns to animating an human, elf, dwarf, etc, ... corpse. my Permanent: Animate Object (corpse) minions disagree that animating the dead is desacration. I mean it is positive Energy, so it must be good right? I mean bone gives hardness 5 (or was it ten in Stronghold's Builder guide). So they are stronger and better than zombies because they have no partial action only stuff like Zombies. A little more expensive than Animating with Negative Energy, but it gets the job done.
Phanto Frostblade 08-14-05, 06:23 PM	The trickiest issue is animating the dead. Pretty much all naturally-occurring undead are evil, but that has more to do with the residual drives that motivated them in life [see MM entries], or with the needs instilled by a parasitic/disease vector of undeath (vampirism, ghouls, etc.), than their energy source. It thus does not follow that undead animated by spells are evil: when one creates zombies or skeletons by a spell, they are driven only by commands, not by dark desires echoing from their living days. Thus such undead are not evil by their acts or will, for they have none of the latter and only the commands of their maker for the former. The hardest question is whether or not the use of a dead body is considered evil: given the setup of D&D cosmology, I'd say no, because the body has no spiritual significance after the exit of the animating force [which heads off to become a petitioner]. Thus to animate a skeleton or zombie is unto itself not a crime against the previous occupant of said form: the bodily remains are cast-offs. There remains an issue of cultural values and more general tastefulness--it is not nice to whisk away a body for an adventure leaving its bereaved family dumbstruck at an empty casket at the wake--but it is harder to strongly state this type of problem in terms of the rigid good/evil axis. Good, good. This is my take on the subject as well. Couldn't have said it better myself. If I could, I would have already posted it. :D Can one be a good-aligned necromancer? Certainly, if one is willing to exercise a little care, discretion, and respect relative to one's undead charges. A good necromancer realizes that a body was once a person [or thing], and that the opportunity to use one brings obligations as well as advantages: to treat the physical remains as walking meat is to insult its former life, and obliquely a mark of callousness towards the seriousness of life and death as a whole. Even non-sentients made into minions should be used with care, and not simply discarded and replaced. Again, very good point. A good-necro. understands that although he is controling a "shell", it is important to respect what that shell once stood for. Necromancy absolutely gets a bad wrap in the current edition books: the introduction of the fluffy, positive-energy-powered Undying template just adds another layer to it [given that the Undying are identical to the Undead on virtually all stats/traits, yet somehow one is nasty and the other are tolerable, even nice]. IMO healing is the pervue of Necromancy rather than Transmutation [yet another cop-out of necromancy having no good side]. I try to play up the idea that Necromancy is about the life force, not just negative energy--in fact, I'm toying with creating some Positive Energy spells for the discipline. (Sigh). If the core rules require that the only good "undead" are creatures with the undying template, I would at least appreciate it if there were if the rules allowed animate deathless or create deathless spells for ARCANE necromacers. :(
Earndur 08-15-05, 08:26 AM	my Permanent: Animate Object (corpse) minions disagree that animating the dead is desacration. I mean it is positive Energy, so it must be good right? I mean bone gives hardness 5 (or was it ten in Stronghold's Builder guide). So they are stronger and better than zombies because they have no partial action only stuff like Zombies. A little more expensive than Animating with Negative Energy, but it gets the job done. This depends on if you ask the mother of the son whose corpse you just animated with your positive energy spell if your actions are desecration, or not. My guess is that she's going to be horrified that her dead son is shambling around regardless of how you went about animating him. A mindless undead animated minion isn't going to agree or disagree with your actions. However, polite society might have a different viewpoint on your callous desecration of the dead.