Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TalonofTiamat 02-14-06, 01:44 PM	I'm going to be in a campaign soon where I'm going to be playing a Necromancer. I want to use the Death Master class from Dragon #76 (or the Compendium for those who have it), but I also want to be good. Any advice on how to roleplay a character such as this?
v2099 02-14-06, 01:48 PM	there are good necomencers, and their strong, but most of are guardians of tombs, for gods and as such
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 01:57 PM	Using the knowledge of the "enemy" against itself or for a greater understanding is likewise a good thing. Be different. Dress in bright, happy colors and smile a lot. Bath often and don't have undead familiars. Be "anti-goth".
Borne Of Hate 02-14-06, 03:14 PM	look at it from a scientific standpoint. obsession w/ mortality as opposed to obsession with death think of your character as the charon waiting for the souls of evil to take them to the afterlife...or something like that
Hariman 02-14-06, 03:25 PM	Compare "Azuth" to "Velsharoon" (Faerun deities, you can do this by borrowing "Deities of Faerun" or reading it in a gaming shop.) Azuth is about making sure the dead get to their rightful place in the afterlife. Velsharoon is about creating Undead, which violate the cycle of death. The two biggest things to do is be lawful and obey the laws of the good kingdoms. (Ignore evil laws as unjust.) And NEVER cast a spell with the "Evil" descriptor. That means you might be able to Command Undead, but making them is out of the question. Focus on the non-evil attack necromancy spells and you'll be set.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 04:09 PM	Ugh, I have house rules it that tools are neither evil nor good. Animating skeletons and corpses (Zombies) is not an inherently evil act. It's not good to be sure but neither is it evil. I have allowed a NG cleric to raise and control a bunch of zombies and skeletons to help protect a small village. Yes, I know I can hear it noew, "That's negative energy! Negative Energy is Evil!". Not in my world. Even in the most perfect worls, life feeds upon the death of othre living things. To eat we must kill our food. Yes, that is an extreme position but it is how I rule it. Of course, abuse of it is evil, just like abusing one's abilities with a sword. Q: What's the difference between the 20,000lb bunker busting bomb and a rock? A: The rock takes much, much longer. The problem is in the abuse of the things you can do. That is why not all of my Liches nor Mummies are evil, but many are.
Ogmug 02-14-06, 04:16 PM	Negative energy or its use is not evil by the three core books, (phb, dmg, or mm).This includes the casting of evil spells. The evil descriptor is there to prevent good clerics, etc from casting the spell, but the act or use of evil spells does not make one evil or even shift one towards that alignment, if you are staying within the Core books. However if you add in the BoVD, and the BoED, those specifically state that casting a spell with evil descriptor, creating undead, etc. are evil act. Since they are optional, you are welcome to ignore any portion of them you wish.
TalonofTiamat 02-14-06, 04:38 PM	I wanted to focus on creating undead more than commanding undead, which is the reason I picked the Death Master class (they get the spells earliest) and an undead minion is one of the things it gets as a class ability. I like the "greater knowlege of the enemy" thing as we are going to be fighting alot of undead. I also like the wearing bright colors thing. I need a suggestion for a deity, as the death master is a sort of champion for their deity.
Freedom 02-14-06, 05:18 PM	If you are going to do this, my advice is to not take the cop out that LCD2YOU suggests and just shrug off the creation of undead as "not evil". Rather, use it as a character development hook. Creating undead is most definitely a perverse and profane act, so if your character is good-aligned - make it bother him! Perhaps he is wise enough to see a greater good in it, but that doesn't mean he has to enjoy it. Being good doesn't mean you have to wear bright colors and be cheerful. In fact, if somebody with true goodness in their soul took up the mantle of necromancy they would most likely end up very angst-ridden and tortured. Perhaps the character sees his calling as a great burden, but is willing to martyr his spiritual health for a greater cause. You could very easily be put in situations that cast a whole new perspective on playing good characters, and perhaps even fight the temptation of abandoning your morals from time to time. To me, these sound like better roleplaying opportunities than a happy-go-lucky mage that happens to create undead.
Borne Of Hate 02-14-06, 05:25 PM	^^^^^^^^ good stuff
Hariman 02-14-06, 05:39 PM	Weejas is one option. She is a neutral god of the dead/magic. Azuth for Faerunian adventures. He is the "Death is a part of life"/"Magic Items are fun" neutral (Good?) god. Also ranks above Velsharoon, the evil undead creating god of death. They are the best options. I can't think of many others who would be good for the character type. I'd use a set of guidelines for what can be turned into undead without being an evil act. I'd say that killing enemies in battle would be a "good" source. Evil/Neutral Monsters are another source. But the catch would have to be that you can't just go on a killing spree among the various creatures out there to find corpses to animate. You'll also have to limit yourself to what you can control. Creating Undead will still be an unsavory act, even if it isn't evil. Not to mention that many undead will try to kill innocents if they aren't controlled. You'll likely end up with various monster skeletons rather than any humanoid skeletons. Barring demons and drow and other evil humanoids.
moriarty13 02-14-06, 05:46 PM	Treat raising the dead more like requesting help from those who are resting. Wake for a moment and help me do good! Why would raising the dead be inherently evil? Play an ancestor-worshiper or someone from that sort of culture and treat all undead-creation spells as gifts given to the dead. Hey, they get a chance to come back! Sure, they may need to eat brains once they are back, but eat evil brains and then rest again when their task is complete. Seems like a cool idea to me.
Ogmug 02-14-06, 05:51 PM	Creating undead is most definitely a perverse and profane act, so if your character is good-aligned - make it bother him! Perhaps he is wise enough to see a greater good in it, but that doesn't mean he has to enjoy it. Show me, in the core raw, where this is true. It is valid if you add BoVD, BoED, but in the core rules, the raising of undead, the casting of evil descriptor spells has no moral implications. I agree to a point, that if you add the above two books into your campaign, then the rules support calling the use/creation of undead as evil.
Hariman 02-14-06, 06:12 PM	Show me, in the core raw, where this is true. It is valid if you add BoVD, BoED, but in the core rules, the raising of undead, the casting of evil descriptor spells has no moral implications. I agree to a point, that if you add the above two books into your campaign, then the rules support calling the use/creation of undead as evil. There's no specific rule within the PHB and the DMG that I can find. But a cleric can't cast a spell with an alignment opposed to his own. (Good Clerics can't Animate Dead, Evil Clerics can't use Hallow) This rule could be extended to other classes. (And often is.) Plus, Deathmasters are required to be nongood. That's in the rules for the class. A lawful neutral deathmaster who follows the laws of a good kingdom isn't good, but he'll do good because it's the law. It might also be his god's will that he do good. The character could be played as someone who uses undead as tools to do good deeds, placing him on the borderline of good and evil. But again, he couldn't just kill anyone to make his undead. He'd have to use enemies and neutral monsters that struck first. Killing just to make undead is at least borderline evil. Even if you are just killing animals. He wouldn't be liked, but he'd still do good for his own reasons.
DeadKeepWalking 02-14-06, 06:19 PM	He doesn't need a diety. Clerics don't have to have a diety. There, the arguement is pretty much solved. Death Masters have to be non-good. Now, within the rules, he could use Animate Dead, and all those other Evil spells because he is no longer Good.
Ogmug 02-14-06, 06:19 PM	There's no specific rule within the PHB and the DMG that I can find. But a cleric can't cast a spell with an alignment opposed to his own. (Good Clerics can't Animate Dead, Evil Clerics can't use Hallow) This rule could be extended to other classes. (And often is.) I haven't seen extended to other classes regarding spell casting except for the paladin. Additionally, a nuetral cleric may cast any spell, and a LN cleric may cast any spell except those with the chaos (and vice-a-versa for CN). Casting of a either good or evil spells by these clerics has no bearing upon thier alignment, if you only work with Core. Plus, Deathmasters are required to be nongood. That's in the rules for the class. A lawful neutral deathmaster who follows the laws of a good kingdom isn't good, but he'll do good because it's the law. It might also be his god's will that he do good. Nongood does not equal evil. The character could be played as someone who uses undead as tools to do good deeds, placing him on the borderline of good and evil. But again, he couldn't just kill anyone to make his undead. He'd have to use enemies and neutral monsters that struck first. Killing just to make undead is at least borderline evil. Even if you are just killing animals. He wouldn't be liked, but he'd still do good for his own reasons. Agreed. intentions are part of the equation when determining if an act is evil.
JulesCARV 02-14-06, 06:24 PM	I don't favor just removing alignment restrictions altogether. I do think, though, that a DM probably should waive the "evil" part of many necromancy skills if there is a reasonable in-character reason why this necromancer is an exception to the evil rule. For example, being a member of the Dustmen faction from Planescape should provide reasonable grounds for removing the "evil" description from necromancy spells. If the PC is a cleric who follows a homebrew religion that supports necromancy and is good (and the PC must flesh out how it is good, and why it isn't an evil religion), and the DM allows homebrew religions, then the DM might allow it. A necromantic wizard or sorceror might take a similar approach, but IMHO, it should require a semi-detailed explanation of the reason this necromancer is a good one (beyond, "he uses zombies to kill orcs and other zombies."). I.e., a good necromancer requires more explaination than a good conjurer or good transmuter, but is possible.
Hariman 02-14-06, 06:37 PM	Nongood does not equal evil. Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. So, arguably, by the core rules, a good Necromancer could Animate Dead without penalty, as long as he didn't break any laws/codes of conduct while finding the corpse to raise. Thus he'd have to find the bodies of already dead creatures or kill evil enemies for others reasons than just to raise them. (At least in my campaigns) and deal with the Roleplaying Reprocussions of raising the dead. My great big burning question is for Talon of Tiamat: Has this debate and the advice helped? And have you decided on a god for your character to worship? Right now the thread is becoming a running alignment debate/argument. It'll probably keep going for a while with people on both sides.
^Graff_EpsilonIX 02-14-06, 06:43 PM	You could always go for a person who does not believe undead are evil, but uses them to accomplish their means. If you further the cause of good, by creating, animating and pushing the limits of undeath, you can help, as I said before, further the cause of good. Undead are just fodder, if you always use evil souls, as an animating force, it will be a further torture to the evil soul.
Archangel62 02-14-06, 07:17 PM	You could also do the tried and true redeemed-villian schtick. That was done in one of my games. A guy was a former warlord who used massive amounts of undead to gain power, then one day he actually saw the devastation he committed. For one moment he understood the pain he caused others and called off his forces. He surrendered and was interred, he sought to reshape necromantic magic to focus on positive energy, to help strengthen the living naturally, to undo the evil he had committed. Just a thought.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 08:54 PM	Well, I never suggested that a "good" necromancer merely shrug off any ethical considerations of using animation spells. My example was a LG cleric raising skeletons and zombies to defend a village. That was an extreme stuation and while it was her first choice, it was that or death (or worse) at the hands of some really bad human raiders. Also, the "bright colors" was partly in jest. Sotty I didn't put smiley faces on it. As for BoVD and BoED, um, there are contradictory info in them. Like good always grants mercy while giving us a few champions of heaven that swing really wicked weapons to smash evil's brains out. Like almost everything else, magic is a tool. It is the considreation behind it that matters most. True, some people will "take the easy way" and as a DM we need to catch that as it is the true intentions behind the PCs. I like to think of the player as the ID. Also, I think most of us can see when our players are really wracking their brains and not just taking the quick way. So, if you play a "good necromancer" talk with your DM. Let them know what you're planning on doing. It is their world and if they state that raise undead is evil (to me creating intelligent undead that feed upon the living is an evil act but not mindless automations) in any forms, see if there is a compromise. If they still say "evil is Evil", then maybe come up with another character concept. The same one, but make them LN, with definite evil tendencies.
Hariman 02-14-06, 09:16 PM	with definite evil tendencies. Nah, does good deeds with evil methods. (Same difference?) But yeah, if the DM vetoes the undead minion creation then the focus of the character will change. If worst comes to worst, Talon will end up making a Neutral Good Wizard/Necromancer. They can be any alignment and the Unearthed Arcana variant can have a skeleton as a familiar. ("Daddy promised he'd always protect me, even from beyond the grave if he had to!") Lawful Neutral is the best alignment. Azuth and Weejas are the best deity choices. (I'd still like to hear Talon's responce to all of this.)
BeyondFated 02-14-06, 10:25 PM	Velsharoon is about creating Undead, which violate the cycle of death. Ressurection and other such spells violate that same cycle, in a much worse way too.
TalonofTiamat 02-14-06, 10:48 PM	I was joking about the bright colors thing too. I already checked with my DM about the alignment thing, and says it's fine if I'm not evil (he actually insisted). I still intend on using the Death Master because the create undead spells are lower for them. I also like playing characters that are devoted to something. I think I'll use Wee Jas as my deity of choice. She seems the best at the moment. I realize I'll be limited in my choices of what I can turn into a zombie, especially since we're going to be fighting undead mostly. I never intended to go on a killing spree to gather undead minions for 4 very good reasons: 1. I've never played a character like that and never will. I don't like killing for the sake of killing. It's wrong on many different levels. 2. My DM would kill me for doing such a thing and I'd lose respect from at least one guy in the group. 3. It's a waste of time. If I'm short on zombies, I can wait for an enconter and raise the enemies after we smite them. 4. It's expensive. 50gp per HD of corpse x town of peasants = lots of $$$. I think I may go with the redemed villian angle. It's a cliche for a reason aside from lack of creativity.
Hariman 02-14-06, 11:16 PM	Ressurection and other such spells violate that same cycle, in a much worse way too. But if they die again, they go back to their eternal reward. Or maybe to a new reward. I can't see bringing back a paladin who fought all his life for good and died in battle as a bad thing. And evil deities will like that they cen just put their servant's soul back on the material plane and have him train his replacement. However, making a zombie (or any other undead) bars the soul of the person from their eternal reward and prevents resurrection. There's a big difference there. Inevitables don't go after the 10th level wizard who used resurrection to revive an ally, they go for the lich who won't die naturally. Resurrection is more neutral while Animate Dead is decidedly more "Evil", for lack of a better term. (Or perhaps the presence of the best term. It's debateable.) EDIT: This post was delayed by "Board Maintenance". You've got a smart DM Talon. It seems like you're set. Just two little things: 1) Don't forget that skeletons can be just as effective as zombies. Perhaps moreso because they don't cost as much against your limit of HD of undead controlled. 2) It's only 25gp of onyx per HD. But most peasants aren't worth having as skeletons or zombies. A pack of wolves or an owlbear or two is a much better choice. Hydra and Dragons are often optimum choices for animating. Reformed villain is a good angle. The backstory is entirely up to you. (Animating the body of an old friend is a good one.) Other than that, have fun!
Feor 02-14-06, 11:21 PM	Make them good undead. Talk it over with your DM and ask if he'll let you make use of Positive energy to animate the undead using the Deathless type (or a variant thereof) from the Eberron books.
BeyondFated 02-15-06, 02:51 PM	However, making a zombie (or any other undead) bars the soul of the person from their eternal reward and prevents resurrection. Animate Dead It does prevent ressurection, it does not prevent the soul from going anywhere. Saying so is a houserule. There's a big difference there. Inevitables don't go after the 10th level wizard who used resurrection to revive an ally, Wizards can't use ressurection. ;) they go for the lich who won't die naturally. There's a whole world of difference between sentient and mindless undead. Resurrection is more neutral while Animate Dead is decidedly more "Evil", for lack of a better term. (Or perhaps the presence of the best term. It's debateable.) When you die, you stay dead. Your soul goes to party it up with your god of choice, and your body is no longer your concern, congradulations. That is the natural order of life and death. And while your having the time of your life with your god, your body rots, and feeds the soil with nutrients. Those nutrients help grow plants, which herbavores eat, ect. ect. However, Resurrection kicks this cycle in the teeth, and laughs as it bleeds on the ground (not really, but it sounded good in my head). Animate Dead simply makes the corpse more mobile. It's till rotting, only now it can do it where it darn well pleases. Neither spell is really all that evil (though Animate Dead does have the [Evil] tag, that means little), both could be considered perverse though.
Hariman 02-15-06, 03:21 PM	Animate Dead It does prevent ressurection, it does not prevent the soul from going anywhere. Saying so is a houserule. Wizards can't use ressurection. ;) There's a whole world of difference between sentient and mindless undead. When you die, you stay dead. Your soul goes to party it up with your god of choice, and your body is no longer your concern, congradulations. That is the natural order of life and death. And while your having the time of your life with your god, your body rots, and feeds the soil with nutrients. Those nutrients help grow plants, which herbavores eat, ect. ect. However, Resurrection kicks this cycle in the teeth, and laughs as it bleeds on the ground (not really, but it sounded good in my head). Animate Dead simply makes the corpse more mobile. It's till rotting, only now it can do it where it darn well pleases. Neither spell is really all that evil (though Animate Dead does have the [Evil] tag, that means little), both could be considered perverse though. Oops, I meant Cleric. Or Limited Wish/Wish/Revivify. Many DMs have adopted that houserule, while many others haven't. That's now a moot point in the argument. If you are resurrected, you will still die of natural causes at some point down the road. Undead are arguably NOT still rotting, because if they kept rotting, a lich would eventually turn to dust and zombies/mummies would have a "Shelf Life". There is nothing in the rules to suggest that zombies actually "Rot" beyond the rot stench they give off. If they do rot, then they are sustained by the negative energy that animated them. Making them violate the rules of death. The dead walking isn't something that occurs under normal circumstances, it's an aberration of the natural order. Most undead are the result of some kind of trauma, psychosis or other kind of extreme stress. (The October 2005 Dragon had a great article about the origin of the myriad types of undead.) There are even certain types of undead that NEVER occur naturally. (Carrion Hound, among others) Those types of undead have to be made, typically from dead bodies or sacrifices. Undead a violation of the normal cycle of life and death, standing outside the circle that living creatures normally follow. Ressurection is the restoration of life where it was taken away before life would end naturally. There is a huge difference between the two.
TalonofTiamat 02-15-06, 04:24 PM	1) Don't forget that skeletons can be just as effective as zombies. Perhaps moreso because they don't cost as much against your limit of HD of undead controlled. I know, I just say "zombie" because "undead" is more difficult for me to type. 2) It's only 25gp of onyx per HD. But most peasants aren't worth having as skeletons or zombies. A pack of wolves or an owlbear or two is a much better choice. Hydra and Dragons are often optimum choices for animating. Really, I thought it was 50. As I said, I don't intend to animate peasants. Although I've always wanted my very own skeletal dragon minion :D Reformed villain is a good angle. The backstory is entirely up to you. (Animating the body of an old friend is a good one.) Other than that, have fun! I will and thanks.
Hariman 02-15-06, 05:00 PM	I know, I just say "zombie" because "undead" is more difficult for me to type. Really, I thought it was 50. As I said, I don't intend to animate peasants. Although I've always wanted my very own skeletal dragon minion :D I will and thanks. You're Welcome! :D
Jerrythehun 02-15-06, 10:57 PM	I can't believe you guys think Animate Dead is not inherently evil. Let's set the mechanics aside for a moment. Imagine your wife/child/father/loved one dies. Now imagine somebody digging up their worm-ridden, putrefying corpse to fight/build/hand out ice cream. Is this an image you feel comfortable with? The body of your dead grandmother shambling about moaning, stinking, and growling? If Animate Dead is not evil, what is? That is my challenge to you posters: how can you call anything good or evil if zombie creation is not evil? Torture? Well, it's just punishment, or it's needed for the greater good, or the gods/karma/the universe will make sure only "bad" people get tortured. Murder? All the people we are torturing probably pray and beg for a quick death, so all the people I stab or poison are the lucky ones. Hey, I know, let's kill everyone who is starving or ill! That's not just nonevil, it's good! Rape? Kidnapping? Pretty small potatoes at this point. The core of the arguments I have seen on this thread is: the ends justify the means. This is actually the best working definition of evil I can come up with. Evil seeks the same ends good does. The Nazis believed "lesser" races were the source of pain, war, strife, and disease in the world. So, all they were trying to do is bring peace and health to the world, right? Just because they were using a technique with the evil descriptor, that shouldn't matter. ????? Let's turn that argument around: The means define the ends. That's sounds like a good rough definition of good to me. A good person is someone who is honest, kind, compassionate and forgiving. A janitor, a nurse, a security guard - it does not matter what their job is, but rather HOW they do their jobs that makes them good or evil. Back to the game: If a cleric of a good god does something evil (including cast spells with the evil descriptor, which is an evil act, per RAW) there should be consequences. Anyone who commits an act contrary to their character's alignment should see an alignment change, regardless.
Andrew_980 02-16-06, 12:13 AM	Imagine your wife/child/father/loved one dies. Now imagine somebody digging up their worm-ridden, putrefying corpse to fight/build/hand out ice cream. Is this an image you feel comfortable with? The body of your dead grandmother shambling about moaning, stinking, and growling? Zombies are messy, skelitons are much more sanitary. And yes i would rather her skeliton be risked than a live person. The core of the arguments I have seen on this thread is: the ends justify the means. This is actually the best working definition of evil I can come up with. Evil seeks the same ends good does. The Nazis believed "lesser" races were the source of pain, war, strife, and disease in the world. So, all they were trying to do is bring peace and health to the world, right? Just because they were using a technique with the evil descriptor, that shouldn't matter. ????? Yep but ends and means also saved lives in WW2 japan, resulted in treatments for disease by sacrificing animals, look at both sides. also look at the cost of ignoring the ends-means equasion, look at the suffering one mans "moral stance" can lead to. Let's turn that argument around: The means define the ends. That's sounds like a good rough definition of good to me. A good person is someone who is honest, kind, compassionate and forgiving. A janitor, a nurse, a security guard - it does not matter what their job is, but rather HOW they do their jobs that makes them good or evil. janitors use toxic chemicals, nurses can prolong the suffering of patients that wish to die and security guards chase bums away from heat sourses in the dead of winter because that is thier job. they are just people and can be flawed. Let me ask you this, if you could save a village without killing a single peasant would you? If you had to make a golem (and had the means to easily do so)? If all you had to do was send in the zombies? You can preach about the morality because you don't live it or look at it as a person would. What proof does a peasant have that there is anything beyond death? fighting, getting cut/burned/blungeoned HURTS and if you look at it from a "hp not pain inflicted" veiwpiont instead of how a person veiws being damaged you are not getting into the role. IF the gods are against undead let them save the peasants, if they won't MY minions will.
Sigurd van Norhusen 02-16-06, 12:49 AM	I can't believe you guys think Animate Dead is not inherently evil. Let's set the mechanics aside for a moment. Imagine your wife/child/father/loved one dies. Now imagine somebody digging up their worm-ridden, putrefying corpse to fight/build/hand out ice cream. Is this an image you feel comfortable with? The body of your dead grandmother shambling about moaning, stinking, and growling? This has nothing to do with DnD alignments, which are rudimentary and absolute. What you are trying to do here is shoehorn your cultural values into the alignment system (about as much as the insufferable BoxDs do). If Animate Dead is not evil, what is? That is my challenge to you posters: how can you call anything good or evil if zombie creation is not evil? UTRS (Use the RAW, stupid! No, this is not an insult, merely a wordplay on KISS.) As for zombie creation, it may be repugnant, creepy, or morally not accepted in our society. Evil? Only if you buy into the "icky is evil" camp. Torture? Well, it's just punishment, or it's needed for the greater good, or the gods/karma/the universe will make sure only "bad" people get tortured. Murder? All the people we are torturing probably pray and beg for a quick death, so all the people I stab or poison are the lucky ones. Hey, I know, let's kill everyone who is starving or ill! That's not just nonevil, it's good! Rape? Kidnapping? Pretty small potatoes at this point. That is actually all in the RAW under "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Pretty much hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Only it does not deal with cultural values and cannot do so, because it is supposed to be a universal system. Back to the game: If a cleric of a good god does something evil (including cast spells with the evil descriptor, which is an evil act, per RAW) there should be consequences. Anyone who commits an act contrary to their character's alignment should see an alignment change, regardless. Show me the core RAW that says that. The best people can come up with is semi-quoting two books which are basically campaign settings, not supplements, and should have no place in a "normal" DnD campaign.
Ogmug 02-16-06, 01:12 AM	I can't believe you guys think Animate Dead is not inherently evil. Let's set the mechanics aside for a moment. Imagine your wife/child/father/loved one dies. Now imagine somebody digging up their worm-ridden, putrefying corpse to fight/build/hand out ice cream. Is this an image you feel comfortable with? The body of your dead grandmother shambling about moaning, stinking, and growling? As noted above you are assigning your moral values onto an alignment. Do you think the mayans thought they were evil? How about the sacrifices that some african tribes make. Do you think canibals think they are evil? In reality, their society was considered "good" by them, and the evil was that of the oppressive outsiders that destroyed their civilization. D&D does not try to impose moral values, if it is possible. They try to give what the authors felt were "universal" values, if that. If Animate Dead is not evil, what is? That is my challenge to you posters: how can you call anything good or evil if zombie creation is not evil? Torture? Well, it's just punishment, or it's needed for the greater good, or the gods/karma/the universe will make sure only "bad" people get tortured. Torture is listed in the rules as written. The debate here is that playing by core rules, spells with evil descriptors are not evil acts of themselves. They are there to dictate how the spell interact with things of alignment, but not affect the actual alignment. Murder? All the people we are torturing probably pray and beg for a quick death, so all the people I stab or poison are the lucky ones. Hey, I know, let's kill everyone who is starving or ill! That's not just nonevil, it's good! Does the orc think you are murdering his compatriots? How about that kobold mother that won't see her young son anymore since your "vituous" fighter cut him down. Murder is subjective in D&D.What you call killing a kobold is murder in thier society. Rape? Kidnapping? Pretty small potatoes at this point. The core of the arguments I have seen on this thread is: the ends justify the means. This is actually the best working definition of evil I can come up with. Evil seeks the same ends good does. The Nazis believed "lesser" races were the source of pain, war, strife, and disease in the world. So, all they were trying to do is bring peace and health to the world, right? Just because they were using a technique with the evil descriptor, that shouldn't matter. ????? Thread over. Someone invoked Godwin's law. Let's turn that argument around: The means define the ends. That's sounds like a good rough definition of good to me. A good person is someone who is honest, kind, compassionate and forgiving. A janitor, a nurse, a security guard - it does not matter what their job is, but rather HOW they do their jobs that makes them good or evil. Back to the game: If a cleric of a good god does something evil (including cast spells with the evil descriptor, which is an evil act, per RAW) there should be consequences. Anyone who commits an act contrary to their character's alignment should see an alignment change, regardless. The cleric cannot cast the evil spell at all, so your logic is spurious at best. And a single act usually does not dictate a change. Sorry but by RAW casting a spell with an evil descriptor is not evil. I challenge you, without using the only two books that state it which are purely optional and not CORE, show us where the casting of spells with an evil descriptor is an evil act. If you use the BoXD, then I agree wholeheartedly that it is evil. It even states it in those two books in black and white. But as far as I can recall, nowhere in DMG, the PHB, or the MM 1 does it say it.
Sigurd van Norhusen 02-16-06, 05:56 AM	Thread over. Someone invoked Godwin's law. Sorry, common misconception about Godwin's law. It only states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. More info. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
Templetroll 02-16-06, 06:56 AM	Think Gil Grissom from "CSI" Be weird, but in a good way, a magical forensic detective. THere might be another character on "Bones" but I don't watch that often enough to know the name. Be a gnome Carl Kolchak; necromancy just happens to be what your training is in. re: undead = evil. You need to houserule it because despite having very definite alignments and much of the game bieng a fight between Good and Evil there is no specific rule to say undead are evil, even though the alignment of the monsters stats says evil. Since it is only there, that makes it a guideline, not a strict RAW. It is very easy to determine what is Good to do, and that is why so many paladins lose their 'hood. It is incredibly difficult to state with certainty that any action is actually Evil. There will always be someone to defend the 'evil' action as being culturally significant and supported by some real life reference that at worst would allow it to be considered icky, but neutral. Also, skeletons and zombies cannot deal out ice cream or do any other 'work' per RAW. Those undead can only obey orders to attack, follow the person controlling them or defend an area based on limited orders. There is some PrC that can change this but I don't have the book so I don't recall the name of it. It is up to the DM whether non-controlled undead do anything; it is usually dependent on story requirements.
TalonofTiamat 02-16-06, 04:40 PM	Oh Thor, I was hoping this wouldn't happen. :nonono: Look, I'm being a necromancer regardless of what anyone says (except the DM, but I already checked with him). This could go on forever about what one person considers evil and what another thinks isn't. This thread was about helping me get a good idea of the character I want to play. I've gotten the help I need and am interested in any suggestions. But please, can we discuss whether creating undead is evil elsewhere? This way I can look for tips without having to look at all these posts about morality. If I wanted that, I would have decided to be a paladin.
Templetroll 02-16-06, 08:05 PM	....This way I can look for tips without having to look at all these posts about morality. If I wanted that, I would have decided to be a paladin. You think a Good Necromancer isn't going to have to address these issues? :confused: I'd expect your DM to have NPCs make the same assumptions - Necro = Evil - so that some good folks will have to be convinced you aren't a murderous madman and evil people will keep thinking you are their kind of degenerate graverobber. Take advantage of the thread, bring up what you plan on as a background, reputation and appearance. We'll be glad to give you feedback and get some ideas for cool NPCs for our campaigns. ;)
Hariman 02-17-06, 05:45 AM	Oh Thor, I was hoping this wouldn't happen. :nonono: Look, I'm being a necromancer regardless of what anyone says (except the DM, but I already checked with him). This could go on forever about what one person considers evil and what another thinks isn't. This thread was about helping me get a good idea of the character I want to play. I've gotten the help I need and am interested in any suggestions. But please, can we discuss whether creating undead is evil elsewhere? This way I can look for tips without having to look at all these posts about morality. If I wanted that, I would have decided to be a paladin. Yeah, morality, psionics and the sorcerer v wizard debates are always the endless debates on these forums. Heck, there's been upwards of 25 to 50 sorc v wiz debates alone. Thread over. Oh great Moderator of the Wizards message boards, could you please lock the thread to end a pointless debate?
Kerri_Evanwood 02-17-06, 06:02 AM	Almost anything can be done if played properly. This coming from a DM who has seen an exalted necromancer played beautifully. As for animating dead, how about this: you're fighting 15 enemy soldiers. One dies. You raise him as a skeleton. I don't personally see a problem with that.
Morotis 02-17-06, 07:06 AM	What everyone needs to remeber is that alignment varies slightly from group to group, and person to person. That makes alignment a houserule, supplement, sidebar, varient, behind the curtain, and rule 0.
Derren S. 02-17-06, 07:17 AM	Playing a good necromancer isn't a problem, playing a good necromancer who creates undead is. Animate dead is a evil spell and the undead you create with this spell are evil, so casting it is an evil act. The "best" you can with this behaviour is neutral. Of course some people will come and argue that it doesn't say anywere in the core books that casting evil spells is a evil act but that argument is about as logical as arguing that it doesn't say anywhere that beeing dead prevents you from taking actions.
Rhomphaia 02-17-06, 07:34 AM	Playing a good necromancer isn't a problem, playing a good necromancer who creates undead is. Animate dead is a evil spell and the undead you create with this spell are evil, so casting it is an evil act. The "best" you can with this behaviour is neutral. Of course some people will come and argue that it doesn't say anywere in the core books that casting evil spells is a evil act but that argument is about as logical as arguing that it doesn't say anywhere that beeing dead prevents you from taking actions. I agree whole-heartedly here. It is implied again and again in core RAW, but frustratingly never defined. It needs to be, one way or the other, just to put an end to these silly arguments. Anyway, TalonofTiamat. I hope you have learned one thing here. If you wish to avoid arguments at the game table...Avoid spells with the evil descriptor if you are playing a good-aligned caster.
Wargamer 02-17-06, 07:44 AM	I'm going to be in a campaign soon where I'm going to be playing a Necromancer. I want to use the Death Master class from Dragon #76 (or the Compendium for those who have it), but I also want to be good. Any advice on how to roleplay a character such as this? Interestingly, I do have a campaign world with "Good" necromancers. The Cult of Mordyn is a group of Evadians who study the arts of Death. They are very secretive, and few know of their true nature. Most people see them as a little odd; people who claim they can predict the future by patterns of death. This claim is, in fact, true. Mordyns fight a secretive war against the Dark Powers. Many a mighty lich, or ferocious vampire has met their legions and faltered. They use undead armies, raised from two main sources; those who died with dishonour, and those who volunteered to remain bound to this plane. The Repentent are bound by Oaths of Honour. By fighting beside the Cult, their souls are saved from hell, and sent to the afterlife of the Honoured Dead. This alone is enough to make raising them a "good" act. The volunteers, or Chosen, are much more powerful Undead. They are raised willingly, having allowed their souls to be bound to their dead flesh so they can continue to protect their lands and people. They are smarter, stronger, and much deadlier than normal Undead, and the oldest and most powerful can easily defeat a Vampire in single combat! Unlike many Necromancers, the Cultist of Mordyn do not seek to prolong their own life. Indeed, such things are abhorrant to them; they know the importance of death, and that all things must end in due course. Occasionally, a powerful member of the Cult may become a Lich, but only if the living Necromancers are clearly too weak to continue their duties. Such a creature would endure only so long as they are needed; allowing their phylacetary to be destroyed, and their body deanimated once the living Cultists are strong enough to fight the Dark Forces without their unliving champion. Now, with regards to casting "Evil" spells... Despite obvious points to the contrary, Good and Evil cannot be solid, undesputed things. I prefer to think not in terms of what the action/spell/whatever is, but what its motives and results are. For example, Raise Dead is supposedly evil... but using my example above, how can it be evil to raise a dead warrior who wants, with all his soul, to fight against the invading Orcs and save his family? Is it Evil to let him help an entire community of Good people? Surely the Evil act would be not to raise him, and thus willingly let dozens, if not hundreds of people be killed and/or enslaved? Or how about my Repentant concept? A dozen souls are going to burn forever in the Seven Hells unless you give them a chance to prove they are honourable warriors. In order to do that, they need to fight, and the only way they can fight is if you cast an Evil spell. Hmm, an "Evil" spell just allowed a dozen men into valhalla, and on the way they butchered a raiding party of Drow sent to assassinate a local Paladin. Yes, that Necromancer should surely be hanged at dawn! :rolleyes: Hopefully, this will give some ideas on how to play "Good Undead", and how to think outside the box with regards to how Campaigns are played/run. Have fun, and may your death be one of courage and honour...
Callista 02-17-06, 10:34 AM	If anything, you need to run it by your DM. Find out what, when involved with undead, is good and what's evil--what his definitions are. Don't get too attached to an alignment, anyway; if you have your concept of your character and your DM says he's neutral, fine, say he's neutral; that doesn't change who the character is.
Freedom 02-17-06, 11:26 AM	For example, Raise Dead is supposedly evil... but using my example above, how can it be evil to raise a dead warrior who wants, with all his soul, to fight against the invading Orcs and save his family? Raise Dead isn't evil in any way. Animate Dead is the spell in question, and if that was the spell you meant, you have it wrong on many counts. Let's look at what happens when you use Animate Dead. Negative energy is tapped to animate a corpse The creature created is near-mindless and unquestionably evil The person will very likely not be eligible for ressurection afterwards The actual soul of the corpse is not used, and the energy that *is* used is the element that is tied to destruction, decay, and death. These are the means employed to create undead regardless of the ends intended, and for a character with true goodness in them it would be unacceptable. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but there would be a very clear moral conflict in the act. Anybody who hides behind a technicality in the RAW to ignore these aspects of undead creation are simply looking for a cop-out to have their cake and eat it too. The point of being good is that the ends *never* justify certain means. You do everything in your power to do things the right way, and when you fail you have two choices: to martyr yourself for your cause or forsake your values to succeed. Good doesn't mean "nice" or "polite" or even "good intentioned", as characters that are good OR evil can posses those character traits. What it means is that you act in accordance with Good in every significant endeavor. In D&D that is a very tangible thing - not like the real world. Manipulating the tools of evil comprimises this alignment, and anybody who considers themselves a skilled roleplayer should not ignore this fact. Does this mean that it's impossible to have a good necromaner who creates undead? No. In fact, I think such a character has some great story potential. However, if I were the DM I would not accept this character believing that his actions are noble. Like I said before, I would expect to see somebody who is tortured by his actions and actively seeks to attone for the things he does. I would expect to see his peers distrust him and even his family and country to only grudgingly accept him. These sound like drawbacks but in the right hands rich story elements are never detrimental.
Boris 02-17-06, 12:17 PM	Well I use the Dread Necromancer, from Heros of Horror, as my base class for my necromancer. Since you want to be good I don't think it will help you since you have to be evil I belive. To me its way better than that other class in some ways. Maybe your DM will let you tweak it for "good" use.
Millennium 02-17-06, 01:28 PM	I'm going to be in a campaign soon where I'm going to be playing a Necromancer. I want to use the Death Master class from Dragon #76 (or the Compendium for those who have it), but I also want to be good. Any advice on how to roleplay a character such as this? Playing a class that doesn't draw its abilities from violating the bodies and souls of the dead in order to enslave them?
Andrew_980 02-17-06, 01:56 PM	Just don't confuse good alignment with being a good person. A good alighned indevidual will sit on his thumbs and let the innocent person suffer and die to not violate his standards, the good person takes care of the situation and helps without worrying about getting dirty. Hell, play LE and be a bigger hero than the supposedly good by worrying about the people not the situation. Playing a class that doesn't draw its abilities from violating the bodies and souls of the dead in order to enslave them? Not touching souls and violation is a relitive term. The creature created is near-mindless and unquestionably evil Wich by all other versions of the game makes no sense The person will very likely not be eligible for ressurection afterwards Raise not resurection is blocked, and how many orcs get raised? Anybody who hides behind a technicality in the RAW to ignore these aspects of undead creation are simply looking for a cop-out to have their cake and eat it too. The point of being good is that the ends *never* justify certain means. You do everything in your power to do things the right way, and when you fail you have two choices: to martyr yourself for your cause or forsake your values to succeed. Thats right your "holiness" is more important than the suffering and dying people in battle that could be replaced by undead. Good is heartless. Don't get too attached to an alignment, anyway; if you have your concept of your character and your DM says he's neutral, fine, say he's neutral; that doesn't change who the character is. Exactly, paladins are too attached to codes to worry about people. Be whatever label they give you, and still be the hero.
Derren S. 02-17-06, 02:05 PM	J Wich by all other versions of the game makes no sense It does make sense its only that some people don't want to accept that. Thats right your "holiness" is more important than the suffering and dying people in battle that could be replaced by undead. Good is heartless. Oh, what a great example. Here is another one. When besigeing a fortress don't attack it but poison its water supply and spread diseases inside its walls. Even when everyone in the fortress dies including the noncombatants it will still be less then when the armies clash at the wall of the fortress so it was a good action, right?
Templetroll 02-17-06, 02:13 PM	Raise not resurection is blocked, and how many orcs get raised? . Resurrection IS blocked unless the undead is destroyed. There is something about animate dead that interferes with the use of Raise, Resurrect and Reincarnate spells. Obviously, it isn't that there is anything Eeevil about animating the dead, it just must be a technical issue having to do with Negative Energy, which also isn't Eeeevil just misunderstood.
Andrew_980 02-17-06, 02:13 PM	You want to try explaining that a little clearer
Freedom 02-17-06, 02:33 PM	Wich by all other versions of the game makes no sense I'm not sure what you just said made all that much sense. What other versions of the game? 3.0? AD&D? Or do you mean different settings? If you look in the Monster Manual, you will see that zombies and skeletons are always neutral evil. So I'm not sure what doesn't make sense here. Raise not resurection is blocked, and how many orcs get raised? Ressurection is blocked if the creature is destroyed while undead, which is why I said he "very likely will not" be raised. The question of how many orcs get raised is not relevant. Thats right your "holiness" is more important than the suffering and dying people in battle that could be replaced by undead. Good is heartless. I'm not sure how you made that up, but since you were quoting me when you said it I have to assume you were trying to make a point. To a person that is truly good, their holiness means nothing to them next to the suffering of others - which is why (just like I said in the part of my post you quoted) they will choose to martyr themselves or forsake their values in such a situation.
BeyondFated 02-17-06, 03:31 PM	Obviously, it isn't that there is anything Eeevil about animating the dead, it just must be a technical issue having to do with Negative Energy, which also isn't Eeeevil just misunderstood. You used the wrong tags, but I changed it for ya. :D
Feor 02-17-06, 04:39 PM	Depending on how you fluff it creating regular undead is at best neutral. If you're pulling the person's spirit back from whatever eternal rest they've gone off to and forcibly locking them into their own corpse and making them do your bidding, that's evil. (for obvious reasons) If their eternal spirit remains undisturbed and you're just making use of their leftover body, that'd be closer to neutral (or neutral) since all your really doing that "evil" is offending the sensibilities of those around you. Now if you did like I suggested and create a type of good undead based on the Eberron Deathless, then you'd enter into a pact with someone's spirit. They would agree to serve you for whatever reason. They're not likely to demand actual payment (can't take it with you, and all) but they might agree to join your cause on principal (a loyal servant of the same diety in life) or perhaps for something like your word that you'll also serve those who come after you in death.
TalonofTiamat 02-17-06, 09:40 PM	If anything, you need to run it by your DM. Find out what, when involved with undead, is good and what's evil--what his definitions are. As I said, I've already discussed it with my DM, and he has no problem with a good person using undead for a just cause, so long as I don't do anything evil to get them undead. He does not consider Animate Dead to be evil, because he believes that undead (well, lesser undead) are tools and therefore no more evil than any other tool, such as a hammer or a sandwich (although I have met some pretty evil sandwiches in my time).
LCD2YOU 02-17-06, 09:47 PM	Depending on how you fluff it creating regular undead is at best neutral. If you're pulling the person's spirit back from whatever eternal rest they've gone off to and forcibly locking them into their own corpse and making them do your bidding, that's evil. (for obvious reasons) If their eternal spirit remains undisturbed and you're just making use of their leftover body, that'd be closer to neutral (or neutral) since all your really doing that "evil" is offending the sensibilities of those around you. Check again. i am more than certain that the original spirit is not called back and the animating force is "Negative Energy". Now if you did like I suggested and create a type of good undead based on the Eberron Deathless, then you'd enter into a pact with someone's spirit. They would agree to serve you for whatever reason. They're not likely to demand actual payment (can't take it with you, and all) but they might agree to join your cause on principal (a loyal servant of the same diety in life) or perhaps for something like your word that you'll also serve those who come after you in death. That leads to this idea. Have a Necromancer that channels positive energy. The animating force is positive energy, not negative. As Andrew_980 stated, yeah, its RAW that undead is somehow evil. But unless I'm going to DM a game in a tourny somewhoere where only RAW is allowed (despite many issues with the RAW and therefore so many houserules of which some make sense) animated corpses are not evil. disgusting, creepy, unsanitary? Yes. But not evil. They are a tool.
Archangel62 02-18-06, 01:56 AM	Interestingly, I do have a campaign world with "Good" necromancers. The Cult of Mordyn is a group of Evadians who study the arts of Death. They are very secretive, and few know of their true nature. Most people see them as a little odd; people who claim they can predict the future by patterns of death. This claim is, in fact, true. Mordyns fight a secretive war against the Dark Powers. Many a mighty lich, or ferocious vampire has met their legions and faltered. They use undead armies, raised from two main sources; those who died with dishonour, and those who volunteered to remain bound to this plane. The Repentent are bound by Oaths of Honour. By fighting beside the Cult, their souls are saved from hell, and sent to the afterlife of the Honoured Dead. This alone is enough to make raising them a "good" act. The volunteers, or Chosen, are much more powerful Undead. They are raised willingly, having allowed their souls to be bound to their dead flesh so they can continue to protect their lands and people. They are smarter, stronger, and much deadlier than normal Undead, and the oldest and most powerful can easily defeat a Vampire in single combat! Unlike many Necromancers, the Cultist of Mordyn do not seek to prolong their own life. Indeed, such things are abhorrant to them; they know the importance of death, and that all things must end in due course. Occasionally, a powerful member of the Cult may become a Lich, but only if the living Necromancers are clearly too weak to continue their duties. Such a creature would endure only so long as they are needed; allowing their phylacetary to be destroyed, and their body deanimated once the living Cultists are strong enough to fight the Dark Forces without their unliving champion. Sounds sorta like Karrnath in Eberron, anyhow I never really believed that animating a dead corpse called their soul back. I figure that the negative energy served more like a simple marionette rig, it made muscles move, ligamets stretch yadda yadda, but there needed to be command words to make the thing do something other than stand. Most of the undead are effectively really really big muscle memories, at least the unintelligent ones. Intelligent undead are people who bound their souls to flesh who became like their flesh, temporary and fallible. They feared death, considered this new form to be a salvation without gods or any needed faith. But it mocks them, they are weak to what once gave them life, despite all their powers and might they must protectively guard little trinkets and sites simply to avoid total destruction. Spells like Awaken undead do make things complicated, I sorta figured that it dug into subconscious in the brain, before you comment on that we should probably avoid the idea of metaphysics. I do admit that one of the biggest problems with this argument stems from arguments in regards to absolute morality versus moral relativism. I'm not sure how to argue the question of if it is universally good or evil, I have some objections to the D&D alignment rules myself in regards to certain things. But, I think that the biggest problem that this comes down to is how the undead process works.
Andrew_980 02-18-06, 05:30 AM	I'm not sure how to argue the question of if it is universally good or evil Just remember folks if it is uneversally and unquestionably evil to create undead under any circumstance than it is equally always good to cast Holy Smite. even on innocent (yet nuetral) peasants, because it has the good tag.
Templetroll 02-18-06, 06:41 AM	The reason the soul keeps getting mentioned is that Animate Dead does interfere with the working of Raise Dead, Resurrection and Reincarnate. It prevents Raise Dead and the other spells require the undead to be destroyed before they can work and call the soul to a body. The comments about 'previous versions' means that this version finally made a statement on how the designers view undead - undead are evil. Exceptions occur based on setting or to provide a storyline or different encounter.